Science embraces the unknown, but wants evidence of it

I'm a huge fan of the comments "Appreciative Reader" leaves on my blog posts. Which means, I agree with almost everything this person says.

I only wish that I could express myself as clearly and reasonably as Appreciative Reader does. He writes so expertly, I enjoy sharing his top performing comments in a blog post.

That's what I've done here. 

I don't mean to disparage the views expressed by other commenters. No doubt some other people would find their arguments more impressive than Appreciative Reader's -- because they resonate more with the mystical/religious worldview of some of the other commenters.

I just find Appreciative Reader's description below of how science looks upon the unknown to be right-on. Scientists absolutely love the unknown.

That's what powers science: a passion to find new knowledge by expanding the borders of the known.

But here's the thing. As Appreciative Reader argues, it isn't possible to specify what lies in unknown territory. If that could be done, some of the unknown would have become known. 

We can speculate and hypothesize about what lies in the darkness beyond the light of knowledge.

However, until that light illuminates a previously unknown entity, which enables people to assess the evidence for that thing and possibly admit it into the realm of the known, it makes no sense to speak of what's unknown as if it were demonstrably real.

Sure, God could exist. Sure, consciousness could exist apart from the brain. Sure, life after death could be true. These and many other "could's" are speculations that can't be accepted as fact until there's good reason to do so.

That doesn't stop individuals from claiming to have an experience of something unknown. It just prevents science-minded people from accepting those claims as being anything other than a personal experience. People claim all sorts of things that are highly unlikely, like alien abductions.

Saying so doesn't make it so. Evidence makes it so. Here's Appreciative Reader's comment.

Hello, Spence.

In your last two comments you quoted these words of mine, ""Until such time, as we do know such exists substantially, we'll treat is as not existing. Be it consciousness, or be it fairies."

And you started out your comments with these words, developing this theme further in the rest of your two comments addressed to me :

Quoting you this time: "That system of belief would put an end to all science. Science is based on exactly the opposite. That the unknown exist, and that to understand reality we must investigate and learn. Many things do exist that are unknown. Your statement is tantamount to claiming the unknown doesn't exist."
-------
This is exactly the kind of apparent ignorance about the nature and the implications of the scientific method that I'd spoken of on the other thread, that one sometimes comes across from people one would certainly expect to know better.

Not only that, this entirely misrepresents my own words, part of which you'd yourself quoted, to attempt to argue against a blatantly strawman version of my comments. The whys and the wherefores of this I'd rather not get into, but the 'what' of it is incontrovertible.
-------
The latter portion of what I've just now said, first, as that is so much easier to establish.

Here's what I'd said in my own comment, that you've quoted from (and I quote these extracts verbatim):

"This isn't in any way to shut oneself off from the possibility of what might be. Nor is it to shut oneself into unreasonable closed-minded certainty that nothing beyond what is known might ever be known. All the possibilities of Mystery, with a capital M, are acknowledged, and indeed honored. But not accepted, until one has reason to."

"Nor does it stop one from performing one's own researches. Into science, or into technology. Into fairies, on into mystic realities. Into whatever appears promising to one, into whatever appeals to one."

"I don't see we can do any more than accept things as they are. Which does not stop us from striving to find out more, in such ways as we are able and willing."

It is astonishing that you should apparently parse the above so as to conclude, as you do here, that "That system of belief would put an end to all science. ... Science is based on exactly the opposite. That the unknown exist, and that to understand reality we must investigate and learn. ... Many things do exist that are unknown. Your statement is tantamount to claiming the unknown doesn't exist." (etc)

You've read exactly the opposite of what I'd very clearly said in my post. I wonder why that is?
-------
Moving beyond these I-said-you-said inconsequentialities, let us turn to the more consequential part of your comment, that betrays a confusion about the implications of the scientific method, that is surprising coming from you.

Cue, at this time, Carl Sagan: “It pays to keep an open mind, but not so open your brains fall out.” Because what you're advocating here is clearly the equivalent of having one's brains fall right out.

There are many things we don't know. The domain of what we don't know is far more vast, infinitely more vast, than what we do know. Further, what little we do know is tentative, and always subject to correction in future. But what are the implications of this?

It is reasonable to accept and treat as known what we do know thus far, no far how little and no far how tentative. The rest it is reasonable to reject.

And to reject something is neither to claim that it shall forever remain rejected, nor to turn away from exploration of it; to reject some hypothesis is no more than to not accept such at this time, and such rejection is always tentative and always subject to correction in future.

Like I'd said in the other thread, it is surprising that this obvious thing should need to be spelt out in this manner to those whom one would have expected would know better.

Let's take an actual example to make this clear.

There's this real-life hypothesis that our universe is a simulation. We don't know enough to incontrovertibly reject the hypothesis. Indeed there are actual physicists who are researching this very issue. But as far as actually accepting this claim, what is the reasonable stance?

The reasonable thing to do is to not accept this hypothesis, for now, to clearly reject this hypothesis, for now. Such rejection is not to say that one will not research this subject, nor to claim that one has shut oneself off from ever accepting this hypothesis; it is only to state that one does not have justification, at this time, to rationally accept this hypothesis.

For all practical everyday purposes, one rejects this hypothesis. (To emphasize again, that does not preclude people who are interested in the subject from exploring and researching it further.)

Thus with consciousness and mystical realities and the God question, which is clearly what this discussion is all about at bottom. Until the day we have reasonable rational grounds to accept such, we will not accept such. That is a perfectly sound position.

That does not stop us from speculating. Nor does that stop us from actually exploring and researching the issue. That also does not stop us from realizing the essentially tentative nature of our rejection --- which tentativeness is an intrinsic part of the scientific worldview --- and it does not stop us from promptly changing our mind in future should circumstances so warrant.

To see in this clearly stated position the antithesis of science, as you do, is to completely misunderstand one's clearly written words, as well as to profoundly misunderstand the nature of a scientific worldview.

Comments

[Appreciative Reader]

“I'm a huge fan of the comments "Appreciative Reader" leaves on my blog posts.”

…….My goodness, thank you, Brian! Absolute privilege, that you should think that, and say that.

Not just because it feels good to be thought well of, although I’m by no means impervious to that little vanity. But the fact is that in the last few years, my search for meaning, if I may use that grand phrase, has led me through both experiential practice, as well as a sussing out of my worldview. And, as far as the latter, your blog posts, and the discussions we’ve had, they’ve contributed a great deal to my current POV. That is, while my views are my own, and there have been times in the past when I’ve disagreed with you on some specifics, nevertheless your words have been a great source of guidance for me, especially in the early days of my “search”, and of course later on as well.

Which is why I appreciate your kind words more than I express.

-------

“We can speculate and hypothesize about what lies in the darkness beyond the light of knowledge.
However, until that light illuminates a previously unknown entity, which enables people to assess the evidence for that thing and possibly admit it into the realm of the known, it makes no sense to speak of what's unknown as if it were demonstrably real.”

…….This is such a wholly straightforward POV, that I wonder why people who’ve taken the time to think over this don’t immediately see this, always.

To be fair, though, nor did I, originally. I remember my own past views around agnosticism that I’d corresponded with you about, and also posted as comment on your blog. While the essence of those views have not changed, but I read Huxley’s own words after that, and came to realize that what he was referring to by “agnosticism” is no different than what we today refer to as soft atheism. And some more general reading, as well as general cogitation around this, led me to see the essential simplicity of this wholly straightforward perspective.

And my correspondence with you, as well as your blog posts, and also the comments I’ve exchanged with other commenters here, were invaluable in my finding my way to my present worldview.

Again, my thanks. Both for that ongoing conversation, via your blog as well as through direct correspondence, and for your kind words now.

[Appreciative Reader]

Spence, I think I may have an easy resolution to our disagreement in that other thread.

I was re-reading my comment, that Brian has so kindly re-posted here, and as I happened to read these words, that easy resolution kind of clicked into place. The fact is we do need one additional nuance to clearly suss out what would be our reasonable worldview.

These were those words of mine:

“Let's take an actual example to make this clear.
There's this real-life hypothesis that our universe is a simulation. We don't know enough to incontrovertibly reject the hypothesis. Indeed there are actual physicists who are researching this very issue. But as far as actually accepting this claim, what is the reasonable stance?
The reasonable thing to do is to not accept this hypothesis, for now, to clearly reject this hypothesis, for now.”

-------

Thing is, there are two separate POVs here, that are, in fact, wholly different from each other. And yet, each POV is, in its own place, exactly and wholly apt.

On one hand we have the POV of the particular physicist, or team of physicists, that is actually in the process of researching this issue. And on the other hand we have the POV of all of the rest of us.

Now clearly for the physicist who is actually in the midst of his research, and in the limited context of their actual research into this specific subject, the matter is wide open. By definition the hypothesis is wide open, because that is precisely what they are investigating. Naturally there can be no question of rejecting the hypothesis --- and nor, for that matter, for accepting it --- while the research is still underway.

But for all of the rest of us, other than those specific physicists and in that specific context --- and even for those very scientists, in all other everyday contexts other than when they’re actually in the act of actually researching that particular hypothesis --- the matter is pretty much closed, and the hypothesis rejected, until we are presented with good reason to revise our opinion. That is the position that is sound in terms of actual rationality and specifically in terms of abiding by a scientific outlook; and that is also the position that is dictated to by necessity, given the literally millions of issues that confront us. We’d be reduced to raving lunatics, in effect, and perhaps in fact as well, if we were to keep our mind open on every single issue that isn’t fully settled yet. Indeed, not only is such a stance impractical, it is in fact impossible, because no issue is ever closed forever to science, every closed issue is always open for potential reexamination, and to that extent always open.

-------

Absolutely, when we’re working out which POV is reasonable, it is necessary to incorporate this nuance into our thinking.

Given this added nuance, perhaps we are in agreement now?

[Spence Tepper]

This is, unfortunately, the same error compounded.

Science does not dismiss the unknown. Science never says the unknown doesn't exist. Science never says we shouldn't investigate or consider something seriously as worthy of investigation because it hasn't studied it yet (that would be illogical).

Science investigates it. All discoveries come from that investigation.

Therfore drawing conclusions at all about the unknown is unfounded.

To claim God exists or God doesn't exist is fine as a personal opinion, but it is unscientific to claim that either conclusion is based on western scientific findings.

To say science has or hasn't proved something, when science hasn't actually studied it, is a false argument.

If controlled experiments yeild zero results you may make a claim. Not until then.

Those subjects remain unknown.

But for those experiences and reports of things outside of what science has found is exactly the basis for further investigation. It's how subatomic physics was founded.
. On findings that science could not yet explain.

In fact those observations form the beginnings of all scientific investigation... Anecdotal results that can't be explained by currently established facts.

So to claim science hasn't proved God exists and therefore God doesn't exist is a false statement.

To claim Science hasn't actually studied that, therefore if it exists or does so currently in the the unknown is scientifically correct.

The two statements are worlds apart.

The first statement actually invalidates study of the unknown and that works against scientific discovery.

To support science means emphasizing the study of the unknown because that is what science is. That's where all the new findings come from. The unknown.

From the post

"For all practical everyday purposes, one rejects this hypothesis. (To emphasize again, that does not preclude people who are interested in the subject from exploring and researching it further.)"

No that's not right. The hypothesis is not rejected. It hasn't been tested yet.

Huge difference.

[Spence Tepper]

Rejecting an untested hypothesis is a personal choice, not a scientific conclusion.

[Appreciative Reader]

"Rejecting an untested hypothesis is a personal choice, not a scientific conclusion."

.......Obviously, Spence. What we were discussing is a scientific worldview.

If we must spell out what that means in full detail, then this is what that detail would probably read as: A scientific worldview amounts to the personal worldview that it is reasonable and rational for an individual to hold, given one accepts the essential ...veracity, the essential effectiveness, of the scientific method.

I mean, what on earth else might one's worldview amount to?

Given this, and given the nuance I wrote of in my previous comment, are we now, at long last, in full agreement?

[Spence Tepper]

Hi Appreciative:
You wrote:
.......Obviously, Spence. What we were discussing is a scientific worldview.

That's not exactly so. A personal view, personal rational thinking is not the same as hard scientific evidence. What seems logical to you, based on your personal experience and thinking is not the same as a scientific perspective.

I think we should be careful labelling our opinions about God and soul as scientific.

When RSSB labelled itself "science of the soul" several folks objected that it wasn't science. It was personal testing, personal science. But not rigorous scientific testing. This is one reason why other Satsangis encouraged me to further my interest in Science, and specifically meditation research on physiological indicators of meditation practice. And that's what my Thesis was about: Five experiments in stress and meditation. The science didn't exist yet, still is in its infancy.

And so claiming God doesn't exist is currently on personal grounds, not on scientific grounds. Those grounds don't exist yet.

The danger is confusing the logic you or I use that relies upon our experiences every day with the label "Science", and inadvertently invalidate someone else's different experience claiming we are being objective and they are not. They may be just as "scientific" as you or I.

So long as you or I do not fully understand what is in the unknown we cannot make claims about God or Soul that are anything other than our best judgement. That isn't science.

Can we agree that personal choices, personal logic may be our best effort to be scientific, but do not actually constitute actual objective science?

[Appreciative Reader]

"Can we agree that personal choices, personal logic may be our best effort to be scientific, but do not actually constitute actual objective science?"

.......Sure, Spence. But with the qualification that that personal choice isn't a free-for-all, but follows the broad guidelines of what I'd referred to as a scientific worldview.

That is, to describe that worldview as an agglomeration of essentially personal choices is to add precision to what I'd earlier on termed "scientific worldview", but is not to actually change what that actually amounts to.

In other words, to state that this is a personal worldview, is not to let open the floodgates to accepting whatever some individual person happens to find likely or reasonable, not unless they can rationally defend it with reference to the scientific method and per the terms we've already discussed.

With those qualifications, sure, absolutely, agreed to that much.

-------

But I was hoping for broader agreement than just that much. Let me have one more go at trying to arrive at it.

Following on what I'd just said, in my comment above, Spence, let me quote, and comment on, what you'd said in your previous post:

"... to claim science hasn't proved God exists and therefore God doesn't exist is a false statement."

.................To recognize that science hasn't proved God exists, and therefore, for all practical purposes, to hold that God doesn't exist, is the rational worldview that is in keeping with a scientific outlook.

Happy now, with that rephrasing? And taken in conjunction with my last two comments addressed to you, do you, finally, agree with my larger point?

--------------

For perspective, let me introduce you to Shadowfax.

-----------------

There is, beyond my front garden, a spare garage that now is a store (a dump, more like) for sundry gardening equipment and supplies. I claim that that garage houses a unicorn. A real unicorn. His name is Shadowfax. Except he is invisible, and impervious to detection by all means, all technology, that are thus far known to man. Might some means be invented to detect Shadowfax in future? One day, maybe, why not? But not so far.

So what are you to make of this unicorn? Your science has no means to return a clear resounding “No” when asked if this unicorn exists. And of course, a “Yes” answer is out of the question too. So then will you spend your days honestly believing that perhaps in Appreciative Reader’s garden there lives a unicorn, maybe yes, maybe no, with more or less equal probability of either?

That’s patently ridiculous, that approach. If in the years to come science does come up with some means to show you that that unicorn is in fact real, then you will certainly start believing in it. But until then, it makes sense to simply reject the claim of the existence of that unicorn.

That, in brief, is what soft atheism is all about. That is the sane approach to arriving at a scientific worldview.

Otherwise you’ll spend your days half-sure and half-unsure about the existence of Olympus and the gaggle of gods and half-gods of ancient Greece, and of Shangri-La and Tibetan mystics with what are effectively superpowers, and of the literal rendering of all the tall tales in the Bible, and of the Hindu pantheon, and the (Vajrayana) Buddhist deities, and the Yeti and the bigfoot, and the Loch Ness monster, the world as simulation, the world as projection of a brain in a vat, in fact any and every fanciful concoction of man’s fertile brain that hasn’t explicitly and directly been ruled out by science so far (and indeed even such things as science has actually rejected, because after all such rejection is tentative and may yet, in future, be reversed, given adequate evidence).

---------

Shh, quiet now. Yes, Shadowfax? Oh, ok, I'll ask him.

Spence, Shadowfax instructs me to ask you if his refulgent being has impressed you with the splendor and the simplicity that is the scientific worldview. (Which is the short form for "the personal worldview that is appropriate for the individual, arrived at basis regard for the scientific method as *the* most efficacious means devised thus far for arriving at the truth".) What should I tell him?

[Appreciative Reader]

"And that's what my Thesis was about: Five experiments in stress and meditation."

.......On an entirely different note: You've actually carried out actual research on meditation, is it, Spence?

Of course, I know that meditation as a de-stressing tool is objectively evidenced, ergo that there should have been research on this is not news. But that you should personally have been involved in such, is entirely fascinating. I'd love to know more about that.

But of course, let's not mix subjects. Let's first either arrive at agreement on what we were discussing, or else if we simply can't then let's agree to disagree, and finish with that subject for now. And then, after we're done with that subject for now, then, and always provided you wouldn't mind talking about it, I'd like to know a bit more about this research of yours.

[Spence Tepper]

Hi Appreciative
You wrote
"To recognize that science hasn't proved God exists, and therefore, for all practical purposes, to hold that God doesn't exist, is the rational worldview that is in keeping with a scientific outlook."

Sorry, Appreciative, but this isn't logical nor scientific.

Let me try again.

If science hasn't actually investigated a subject one cannot say that subject is non - existent on scientific grounds. It is unknown, not non - existent.

To claim what hasn't been tested doesn't exist is a dangerous attitude. Why? Because it becomes the justification for never testing it.

Consider a slave owner in 1750 who claims " I've seen no evidence in my whole life of any black man with a college education. They simply are not capable of it...."

A man in 1850 who claims "Women don't have the vote because they are not intelligent or responsible enough. They are too emotional. It's not their fault. But I've never met a woman who ran a business, lead soldiers into battle, or helped the south and the north reach agreement. They can write stories, but just don't have the aptitude to function in a man's world. "

The answer would be the same. These things have never been given a proper testing to see if they could work, under controlled conditions established to maximize the likelihood of seeing such events.

And science has proven since that things unknown are real. We didn't know that at the time. Now we do.

And yet, there were people who treated blacks and women as equals even then. As souls equal in God's eyes.

Some were called the Friends, the Quakers.

The false claims of history were, at the time, also made on a platform of rational thinking and science.

It's scientism, not science.

What you can say is that such things are not in your experience and have not been tested scientifically. That is a correct statement. They are unknown. That is the scientific statement. Not "there is no God," but "I have no knowledge of God." If you choose to believe therefore that no God exists, then that is your personal choice.

But a science based Atheist would conclude nothing about the unknown.

To claim these unknown things of history don't exist is to undermine the likelihood that they will ever be properly tested, which is actually anti-scientific.

To base your thinking on science you would be conducting science.. Testing things unknown under seriously controlled conditions to learn more about them. And sharing your results and findings, even anecdotally.

Hence Church of the Churchless. It isn't here to denigrate or reject anyone or anything, but like justice, to weigh the evidence. And for those things that haven't been weighted in the scales of science, to simply acknowledge, "It is unknown".

[Spence Tepper]

To claim "I reject this on scientific grounds" can be done, if you have the scientific evidence of the controlled studies, made repeatedly by independent scientists, to the objective standards of science.

To pretend this is the same as zero scientific studies, zero testing under controlled conditions, zero scientific work by the scientific community to elicit the hypothesized variables, is not rationale.

Or worse, to take studies of brain cells designed to help uncover the mechanics of the brain and claim this is really a test of God and Soul isn't science.

I hope you can see the difference. To label all three as "science" when only one of them is science is misleading.

[Tendzin]

" it makes no sense to speak of what's unknown as if it were demonstrably real." By that's precisely what atheist scientists are doing when they say that the universe came into existence on its own.

For far too long, evangelists of materialistic naturalism (or scientific materialism) such as Sagan, Tyson, Dawkins and others, have told us what science has to conclude, what it has to find. This isn't science, this is fundamentalism. On the one hand they promote the wonders and power of science, only to put science in chains, putting limits on discovery. For decades they prop up the failed model of neo-Darwinism, claiming it is fact, even as biologists scramble to find a replacement. As evidence mounts for fine-tuning of physics that defies chance (which I've mentioned twice here already, and which apparently is being studiously ignored), we get unscientific claims of multiverses that only hide the failures of scientific materialism, not vindicate it.

There is an intersection between science and religion — it's a false narrative that the two are at war or need to be separate realms. Much of the atheist cosmology from scientists is philosophies passed off as science, as they twist science to support themselves. Darwinian models don't come close to explaining the origins of life, the origin of the universe, and the fine-tuning of physics.

I suggest that the writer take a break from posting yet another essay celebrating the "proof" of a Godless universe until he takes the time to investigate the issues I raise here.

[Spence Tepper]

Here is another example to illustrate.
When Thomas Edison, after his major success with the light bulb, was investigating circuits he noted correctly an odd event. Closing and opening a circuit in one part of the lab caused a reaction in another entirely separate circuit with no connection between the two. He decided it had to be some unimportant anomaly. Merely electromagnetic induction. Something that could be dismissed. As if it never happened. At best it was a problem that would negatively affect electric current stability, and requiring greater shielding to avoid.

He wasn't alone in thinking this wasn't important, or worse, just a problem. Even those who discovered that this was electromagnetic radiation, Hertz first, then Maxwell, then Chandra
Bose and Lodge dismissed this as unimportant and of no consequence.

But that turned out to be the electromagnetic field the surrounds every electric current. That field radiates out far more than the measurement of local magnetism. What he dismissed became radio. And eventually Broadcast Television. And someone else's discovery. Marconi and Fessenden developed this into wireless radio, understanding that this wireless transmission could be broadcast over huge distances with minimum power.

Dismissing anecdotal accounts that were made with all sincerity, as of no value in further, deeper study, is the dysfunctional side of the history of science, and one of science's greatest impediments.

What is interesting to watch is how the imagination that creates good theory and discovery, under the wrong circumstances creates false explanations and excuses.

[umami]

Basic to RS is that God can't be found in the physical universe with the physical senses, so how is a scientist at fault for reaching the same conclusion?

[Dungeness]

@ AR : Otherwise you’ll spend your days half-sure and half-unsure about the existence of Olympus and the gaggle of gods and half-gods of ancient Greece, and of Shangri-La and Tibetan mystics with what are effectively superpowers, and of the literal rendering of all the tall tales in the Bible, and of the Hindu pantheon, and the (Vajrayana) Buddhist deities, and the Yeti and the bigfoot, and the Loch Ness monster... "

I agree you must be selective of how much brain matter will be lost
going down rabbit holes. But a creditable mystic asserts gods and
deities, superpowers, even unicorns in garden sheds, can be verified
inside (or not) with an appropriate discipline and intense devotional
practice. The mystic reports only what he has experienced personally
using a mystic methodology and toolbox. His experience is repeatable
and its imagery dovetails with other mystics' accounts.

The mystic only suggests an experiment for those curious though.
It's a long, difficult road for most. It's a scientific experiment. One
you can't cheat at. One that jettisons blind faith. Only that.

Anything else gets swept down another rabbit hole.

P. S. Apologies if this veered off-topic down one of my own.

[777. - LOVE ❤]

To claim God exists or God doesn't exist is fine as a personal opinion,

Each of the n_hundred times I read this
I think :
Wow , How great a hider SHE is, . . . WIOW,

Imagine everybody would clearly see, . . . ; . ; and abuse, . . . . as always

Yes this is exactly what I think

777

[Spence Tepper]

Hi 777
To state a belief as a personal opinion is actually a strong case. You have the freedom to live in that world of your experience and thoughts as you wish. This is also fundamental to science. To honor that as a legitimate part and necessity of science. The ability to hold and share different views of the unknown. It is that rich diversity from which theory and testable hypotheses emerge, free of conventional thinking and conventional biases.

Sawan Singh once wrote that one day science will uncover the physical connections to Shabd.

My daily experience confirms for me that this will be so. What you or I experience must be testable. It's too reliable and specific. Too powerful and expansive. We don't need to know what is behind it. We might be unable to do more than witness it and enjoy it. Science will help us there.

But the anecdotal report of mystics through the ages has its basis and science has the opportunity to explore it and in so doing expand our understanding in scientific terms, which are transferable as information to anyone. Meditation research has already begun doing that. Deep meditators have healthier cortexes, younger than their peers, and their DNA strands are healed by meditation. Meditation improves cognitive functioning. So there are great truths which science is bringing to light on such practices that find their origins in internal worship of divinity.

All things in this creation are connected.

Divinity may be understood, one day, as the very force of life. I'm excited to learn from science more about that.

[albert]

There is what is known...there is more which is unknown. Is the desire to "know" the driving force of evolution? It certainly is the driving force of empirical science. Curiosity and interest are the distinguishing characteristics of the human mind, in contrast to all other life forms/species that are in our midst. A cat may be interested in the scent on your shoes but that level of interest cannot produce a literary work or symphony. The human being is really a "top of the line" product because of intense and innate curiosity, coupled with reason and a keen intellect.

So what. What is the real reason for having the human form? Have you ever thought of your life in this way? We are not trees, cats, dogs, frogs, plant, bacteria or god. We are humans, endowed with a voracious capacity and hunger for sensation and knowledge.

Science attempts to "know"...to provide answers which temporarily feeds the hungry mind and helping to remove ignorance. I humbly seek the Knowledge that puts an end to the seeking of knowledge. I seek the Love that surpasses and supplants all worldly love and sentimentality, putting a permanent stop to the desperate quest for outer love. My belief is that this ultimate Knowledge and Love exist within my own cerebrum, covered over by umpteen frivolous ambitions, desires and worldly attachments that keep me so busy that I completely forget to "turn within".

Still unsatisfied...I continue.

[Appreciative Reader]

“If science hasn't actually investigated a subject one cannot say that subject is non - existent on scientific grounds. It is unknown, not non - existent.
To claim what hasn't been tested doesn't exist is a dangerous attitude. Why? Because it becomes the justification for never testing it.”

.................Spence, I’ve said this in practically every comment in this thread, including the one Brian’s posted up, that rejection of some claim does not preclude investigating it further. I wonder why you keep ignoring that glaringly obvious observation, and on what you base your assertion that the one must lead to the other.

For the last time, let me clearly spell this out.

There’s this claim. Say the claim that our universe is a simulation.

Generally speaking, there’s two things you can do with this claim, from a rational and scientific POV. Either accept it, or not accept it. Not accepting it can take two forms: either outright debunking the claim (equivalent, in this respect, to hard atheism), or else setting the claim aside for want of evidence (equivalence with soft atheism). Both of those two means lead you to not accepting the claim, or to reject the claim.

Not knowing is a subset of not accepting. Is the universe a simulation? We don’t know, is the honest answer. Did Jesus actually turn water into wine? We don’t know, is the honest answer. Did the seas actually part for Moses? We don’t know, is the honest answer. And that not knowing is, like I said, a subset of not accepting some claim.

And that part, where you say, as you’ve so often said before, “Because it becomes the justification for never testing it”: THAT MOST DECIDEDLY DOES NOT FOLLOW, AT ALL. And to the extent that it does not follow --- it doesn’t --- to that extent your representation of my position is a strawman, and to that extent your objection to it spurious.

Whether or not you will research some issue is a whole different matter, that is dependent on a number of factors. What on earth do you base your claim on, that you must necessarily first accept a claim in order to research it further, or that to recognize that we have no grounds to accept some particular claim at this time is to necessarily lead to that claim never being researched in future? The one has nothing to do with the other, at all. (Did you read the comment I’d written upthread, about the two POVs? The POV of the physicist researching the-universe-as-simulation, and the POV of the rest of us? I think it clearly resolves this objection of yours.)

And let me, at this point, refer you back to that example I’d presented, of the magic unicorn that lives in my garden. The example itself, as well as what follows from it, as detailed within that section of my earlier comment. That will add further perspective and depth to the actual implications of the position you are advocating, and why it fails first in terms of practicality, and also, when you think it through, in terms of actual validity.

-----------------

"Consider a slave owner in 1750 who claims " I've seen no evidence in my whole life of any black man with a college education. They simply are not capable of it...."
"...A man in 1850 who claims "Women don't have the vote because they are not intelligent or responsible enough. They are too emotional. It's not their fault. But I've never met a woman who ran a business, lead soldiers into battle, or helped the south and the north reach agreement. They can write stories, but just don't have the aptitude to function in a man's world. "

.................I’m sorry, blatant strawmen, once more, if you mean to impute these abominations to a scientific worldview (and, to be clear, the kind of worldview from which, given what we know so far, atheism clearly follows) --- as, in point of fact, you do. Here’s why:

(1) To begin with, those abominations are, at bottom, political choices. Should the slave owner claim that his perception of the intellectual capacities of colored peoples justifies his practice of slavery, then is he prepared to enslave the less than intellectually stalwart amongst people of his own color and “race”? (I’ve put “race” within quotes to emphasize that that would be your hypothetical slave owner’s terminology, not mine.) Would he be prepared to have his own son, who has never even finished schooling, and cannot dream of ever being accepted into university, to be sold into slavery? Men who try to justify denying women the vote basis their perception of women’s lack of intelligence and “responsibility”, would they be prepared to similarly withhold the vote from men who are less than intellectually capable and responsible? Would they similarly deny the vote to their own son who, while otherwise of sound mind, is neither very intellectually capable nor particularly responsible? Would those of them that are not exactly crackling with intellectual vigor or with “responsibility” acquiesce to have the vote taken away from them? If not, then these are simply political decisions, and these arguments are merely attempted justifications. It is easy to see the subterfuge for what it is. And it is an easy thing, intellectually at any rate, to turn this subterfuge back on those racists and male chauvinists attempting to use these spurious arguments.

(2) The scientific method is simply a tool. It is not a magic genie that will automatically reveal to you all the secrets of the world when you blow on a lamp. It is a tool that will help illuminate in the direction where you move it. And where you move it depends squarely on you. If you’re a scientist, you can choose which subjects within your broad domain to focus your research on; if you’re a student, you can choose which areas you will study and research on in future; if you’re a capitalist, you can choose which areas of research to fund; if you’re a politician, you can choose which kinds of research you’d like to support with state resources; and if you’re a citizen, you can make your vote a function of what kinds of research you’d like to see furthered. Provided you’re the kind that thinks about this sort of thing. That’s simply common sense. I don’t see in any of this any argument for not rejecting unevidenced claims.

(3) One more time now, and for the third time in this thread, I direct you to Shadowfax.

-----------------

“What you can say is that such things are not in your experience and have not been tested scientifically. That is a correct statement. They are unknown. That is the scientific statement. Not "there is no God," but "I have no knowledge of God."

……………..Agreed. And that takes us back to hard atheism vs soft atheism. There are times when it is warranted to clearly say, “That particular God idea is bull shit, and here is clear evidence why.” That opens the route to hard atheism. Other times this route is not open, but one can still say, “We do not have evidence of your particular God idea, therefore we are constrained to reject it”. The difference between hard atheism and soft atheism is one of methodology, but the end result is the same, it is a rejection of the unevidenced God-claim.

Think about it. If, as you say, you have “no knowledge of God”, that you can support with clear evidentiary argument, then what rational grounds might you have for accepting such a claim?

One accepts a claim for which there is evidentiary support. For whatever reason, if such evidentiary support is not forthcoming, one rejects such claim. Anything else is simply going into contortions to somehow slip your pet woo in. ----------And note, yet again, that in none of this is there anything at all to stop you, or to stop me, from ourselves researching, or from supporting others’ research into, such hitherto unexplored and untested areas as we ourselves believe are promising.

-----------------

“Hence Church of the Churchless. It isn't here to denigrate or reject anyone or anything, but like justice, to weigh the evidence. And for those things that haven't been weighted in the scales of science, to simply acknowledge, "It is unknown".

……………..Absolutely, there are lots of things that are unknown. And there is no earthly reason why one should accept what one does not know, is there? AND TO NOT ACCEPT SOMETHING IS FUNCTIONALLY IDENTICAL TO REJECTING IT (albeit there is a difference between the two in terms of methodology, as detailed briefly in the discussion on soft atheism vis-à-vis hard atheism, but functionally they are identical).

In fact, as far as soft atheism and hard atheism, I’d like to direct you to Osho Robbins’s excellent analogy, as he’s presented in that thread, a year or two ago, that all three of us were part of, about “Not guilty” vs “Innocent” when it comes to legal judgments. The difference between the two is real, but it is a methodological difference; in terms of functionality the two positions are in fact identical.

And what I’ve detailed is a perfectly simple and entirely reasonable POV, and you only need to remove your theistic blinkers to see that clear POV for what it is. For the fourth time in this thread, I will draw your attention to Shadowfax to help remove those blinkers from your eyes.

-----------------

“Here is another example to illustrate. … When Thomas Edison,… “

It is to specifically account for exactly this line of argument that I’d introduced the two-POVs observation. While I’d detailed the observation using the example of the universe-as-simulation hypothesis, do you not see how that fits your particular example down to the smallest detail?

When Edison is out researching his ideas, obviously he will take his particular hypothesis as neither accepted nor rejected, because addressing that uncertainty is the whole point of what he’s doing. (And as for how long he will carry on with some particular line of research, that is his call entirely. Differences of opinion among individual scientists over some area of research is only to be expected, and does not in any way stand out.) While it is reasonable for Edison to keep an open mind on his research subject for the duration of his research, but for anyone and everyone else, that is not directly involved with his research in some capacity, it makes sense to not accept his claims (which is functionally the same as to reject his claims) until such time as he is able to provide evidence. And changing one’s mind and accepting his claim after he’s produced the evidence isn’t an indictment of the scientific worldview, it is actually how this works. Feature not bug, as they say in software-speak.

Or do you propose that for every single research idea that is currently under study, we suspend judgment over whether they’re true or not, as far as our own worldview? For that matter, even after some research has been completed, and some idea rejected, that does not necessarily mean that rejection is for ever and ever more. In future ways might be found to prove a hypothesis that does not at this time work out. Should we, who are not directly involved ourselves in such research, then keep an open mind on any and every thing that has ever been the subject of scientific research, or that might conceivably one day be the subject of scientific research? Need I invoke Shadowfax one more time --- as well as his friends the Loch Ness monster, and the yeti, and the bigfoot, and the Gods of Olympus, and sons of God running distilleries where manufacturing is based on simply touching water and nothing else, and prophets running transportation agencies by parting the seas instead of running fleets of ships --- to illustrate my point?

[Appreciative Reader]

Hello, Dungeness. I agree with your POV, broadly that is, when you say,

“… a creditable mystic asserts gods and
deities, superpowers, even unicorns in garden sheds, can be verified
inside (or not) with an appropriate discipline and intense devotional
practice. The mystic reports only what he has experienced personally
using a mystic methodology and toolbox. His experience is repeatable
and its imagery dovetails with other mystics' accounts.
The mystic only suggests an experiment for those curious though.
It's a long, difficult road for most. It's a scientific experiment. One
you can't cheat at. One that jettisons blind faith. Only that.”

……………..

Should the mystic be interested in some particular line of experimentation himself --- using the word “experimentation” very loosely, that is --- he is perfectly justified, as far as a rational and scientific worldview, to conduct those experiments himself. That can take the form of particular kinds of meditational practices, and/or ingesting particular substances, and/or any other form his particular discipline/practice might take, sure, why not?

Should he find actual results in his “experiments”, then reporting such clearly is perfectly fine too.

Where he should be careful is in drawing broad conclusions and constructing full-blown worldviews basis his visions. That is, those visions are valid enough observations, loosely speaking, but having had visions does not give him carte blanche to concoct extravagant explanations that others must unquestioningly acquiesce to, or for that even necessarily take seriously. As long as he takes care to subject his attempts at explanation to the test of rationality and, broadly speaking, the scientific method, then he’s as much at liberty as anyone else to propose his own answers and to back them up as best he can.

I can’t speak for others, but as far as I am concerned, your POV, in as much as you describe it here, seems entirely reasonable.

[um]

@ Albert
>>So what. What is the real reason for having the human form?>Have you ever thought of your life in this way? We are not trees, cats, dogs, frogs, plant, bacteria or god. We are humans, endowed with a voracious capacity and hunger for sensation and knowledge.<<

That is its man made cultural use.

The natural use of the mind is to make humans able to re-created their original habitat, wherever they deem fit to go and stay alive.

Questions of origin do not arise in a natural world not even in a human brain.

Religion etc can be seen as an mis-use, a use for ever more abstract pleasure.

[um]

@ AR

>> Where he should be careful is in drawing broad conclusions and constructing full-blown worldviews basis his visions. That is, those visions are valid enough observations, loosely speaking, but having had visions does not give him carte blanche to concoct extravagant explanations that others must unquestioningly acquiesce to, or for that even necessarily take seriously. <<

If a mystic wants to share his experiences with those who do not have them, he HAS to construct such an worldview, in order to make it understandable.

He has NO obligation to anybody!.

One can call it a "service to humanity" in the form of an "invitation" to have a "look inside".

Those who have no experiences and come to hear of them and their tale they are embedded in, are free to take notice.

[Appreciative Reader]

"If a mystic wants to share his experiences with those who do not have them, he HAS to construct such an worldview, in order to make it understandable.

He has NO obligation to anybody!."

-------

Hello, um.

Agreed, he has no obligation. Agreed, nor is his audience obligated to, as you put it in a past comment, lend him their ears. And further agreed, the mystic is actually performing a public service, the same as any other person presenting to the world the fruits of his research, in clearly sharing his experiences with such as might be interested.

But why do you say that "he HAS to construct" a worldview? Let me suss that out a bit, because it could be I'm misunderstanding you.

The RSSB mystic goes "within", and sees constellations and hears celestial music. He shares his experiences with others. Fair enough.

Does he really need, at that point, to go claiming that the constellations he's seen within are actually a reflection within the microcosm of the actual macrocosmic reality (here I quote Julian Johnson from imperfect memory)? I don't see that, at all.

If the mystic's simply putting forward that worldview as speculation, or even as one possible explanation, that is to say a hypothesis, to be further tested going forward, that's fine too. But where he goes off and claims that that is the nature of reality, where he goes off and "teaches" that worldview to such as will believe him, that is most definitely not rational, nor reasonable.

Did I misunderstand you there, is that what you were suggesting?

[um]

@ AR

Yes he "has to" and yes, he is not free or better said, able as to present it as an speculation.

That is how I have come to understand the use of words, concepts, language and culture.

Whatever one presents is presented with a background that explains the meaning of what is put in the for ground.

If I had the intellectual, and educational capacities you and others have, I would certainly come up with a more "scientific" explanation.

So... I even cannot verify what I write.

If you drink coffee AR and say something about its taste, how do you describe it to others ... it could be bitter but maybe it is sour, or if you say it to be sweet, tou could be right aswell

[Appreciative Reader]

I'm pretty sure I'm misunderstanding you here, um.

If you wouldn't mind, I'd like try to tease that apart just one more time.

To take you example: I drink coffee, and, as well as enjoying the taste, I suddenly find a perceptible increase in my energy level and my mental acuity. And I go ahead and proclaim this to the world. So far so good.

But if I should then go ahead and claim that there resides a spirit within the coffee beans, and that the spirit of the coffee beans has entered me via the coffee and has energized me with its own spirit force, or something like that? Clearly nonsensical, but, more to the point, clearly not necessary, to resort to that kind of extravagant worldview, right?

Similarly, if I should ... well, my own personal "experiences" pale in comparison with the others' here, but such little of it as I've had, do I really need to claim that some spirit has entered my body, or that my spirit has risen to higher "regions", in order to "explain" that claim?

.

Sorry, not to beat to death what was probably a casual comment on your part, and I won't pursue this any further, beyond this comment. I only wanted to clearly understand the POV that you were sharing here.

[Spence Tepper]

Hi AR
You wrote
"Spence, I’ve said this in practically every comment in this thread, including the one Brian’s posted up, that rejection of some claim does not preclude investigating it further. I wonder why you keep ignoring that glaringly obvious observation, and on what you base your assertion that the one must lead to the other."

This still contains the same error.

In particular,

" rejection of some claim does not preclude investigating it further"

You are free to reject any claim you wish using the experience, knowledge and rational thinking at your command. And in like fashion to accept any claim you like.

What you are not free to do is to claim you are doing so on the authority of science, when there is no scientific investigation to back your assertion.

It's not scientific to be an Atheist or a Believer because there isn't any hard science behind it.

But if you choose to reject a claim that you personally have no compelling witness of, either your own or someone else whom you believe to be objective, that is your right. You may claim you are trying to be rational and objective. You cannot claim science supports you. That is an appeal the authority that does not exist.

And actually it isn't necessary to conclude all things. Much of this world is going to be beyond our understanding. We don't need to render judgments about them.

But those things you personally need to understand, because they are part of your life, then yes, try to be both objective and scientific. Do some investigation.

Those things you have no need or interest in investigating, and for which there is no hard science, are unknown.

Most of reality falls into that category, and it is of no personal concern. Of you really must know something to a scientific level, you will need to conduct science.

I see that we are making the same points repeatedly, so I accept you want to justify your vote on scientific grounds.

I accept this as your personal view.

I reject your claim that your conclusion is based on any science at all.

We can leave it at that.

The scientific position is that those things science has investigated under controlled experimental conditions can be understood objectively.

Those things that have not been investigated under controlled experimental conditions cannot be understood in the basis of science.

This is the problem of scientism, using the label without real, rigorous research.

Your personal view is good enough for me.

But it isn't good enough to judge others.

[um]

@ AR

It was just a simple way to write that whatever you experience, you will put before others as an "fact" not as a possibility .... having heard what you say .. others are free to disagree, etc.

What is there so difficult to understand?

Several times I have stated here what the linguistic and cultural possibilities are for indigenous people from remote area's on the globe to explain to their tribes people the facts they have witnessed visiting the "civilize" world.

The have no words for radio, Tv, computer and what is transmitted with it, yet they use the words, the concepts born from an culture , say in the rain forest, to tell what they saw.

It is about ... How does one explain a thing to others that is outside their normal fiels of experience and for which the culture has no words and concepts....?

The inner experiences are even more complicated to transfer.

I cannot come up with a better thing

[um]

And ...AR

The "tales" that have been formulated in the past by [spiritual] thinkers to explain the facts of life may seem outdated these days but a better one has not yet been found.

From a theory you want that the MOST data, in the most SIMPLE way are explained.

The theory as developed mostly in the east, in terms of karma and re-incarnation, is in its essence both simple and beautiful and all encompassing.

[Spence Tepper]

Now as to Shadowfax..

You are bringing up a hypothetical example you yourself have invented. A priori it is false.

Then you ask why I wouldn't reject it out of hand.

Again, this is the problem.

If it was necessary to draw a conclusion (most things in life do not require that)..
.
In order to draw a conclusion I would investigate first. I would try to gather additional evidence, independent corroboration.

If I couldn't gather evidence with scientific precision, scientific control, then I could not conclude on the basis of science what is going on.

I might have an opinion based on my own anecdotal review of your report. But that isn't science based. I would never make such a claim.

I would avoid pretending to be scientific on a topic I was not conducting hard research on or unwilling to do so.

What I might do is share what I've experienced and what I've found in the works of others. That's not hard science, but it is an effort towards objectivity.

I would never presume to being objective, only towards making the effort. And anyone who isn't making the effort to investigate but claims to be objective, really, I think the lack of effort speaks volumes about the integrity of such a claim.

Therfore I cannot render judgment of others so long as my own history, experience and education have conditioned me to think as I do. I must except my limitations. And my own effort towards objectivity tells me it is highly probable that you also must operate under similar constraints.

Science offers a means, mechanically, statistically, to overcome those limitations.

One day science will tell us more about Shabd and the experience of the inner regions as well as the experience of the Master, and any other symbols, forms of life and other intelligences we may encounter through internal focus practices.

Meditation research has already uncovered substantial improvements to health and cognitive functioning through meditation practices of mental focus, such as prayer, worship and mindfulness.

I don't discount those things that are part of a person's experience as non - existent in part because they are real to that person. And for me in my own practice, they are both reliable and intensely detailed.

Compared to that wakeful inner experience this outer life is vague and fuzzy, with attention gaps moment by moment. Just as a dream is even more indistinct and disjointed.

When I want to see things in full HD clarity and understanding, I go there. That has never failed to provide me and better information I didn't have before, that turned out to be true. Though back here occasionally I didn't understand what had happened. So then I return there and gain not only understanding, but peace in that understanding.

I don't have that same clarity yet here, and clearly you don't either.

So that is why conclusions cannot be drawn on scientific grounds yet. The research is just beginning.

Reality is bigger than what you or I understand. Reality isn't constrained to our tiny brains ' ability to reason with its crayon box of "facts".

And there is a lot of social science research on how fallible judgment is... Including research demonstrating that people over estimate their ability to be objective by a wide margin.

[Dungeness]

@ AR : "Where he should be careful is in drawing broad conclusions and constructing full-blown worldviews basis his visions. That is, those visions are valid enough observations, loosely speaking, but having had visions does not give him carte blanche to concoct extravagant explanations that others must unquestioningly acquiesce to, or for that even necessarily take seriously."

I agree. In fact, in my opinion, I don't think creditable mystics insist
fanatically on their own particular explanations for what's seen within.
Certainly not unquestioning acceptance of some "official" view. What
a scary notion that is.

That said, a mystic may offer an explanation and note that one's free
to accept it or not. Or suggest deferring conclusions till more evidence
is available. The key touchstone is, after all, having your own inner
experience of something rather than accepting blindly someone else's
theory or explanation of it.

[-Insights-]

The inner experiences are even more complicated to transfer.

I cannot come up with a better thing
Posted by: um | July 21, 2021 at 07:56 AM

like show a video to an African tribe
they will ask you where you find the food
to feed all these people

Bt we need no tribe
This blog react in the similarly or not at all, after shocking Serendipities

The following link is easier to understand
https://www.unz.com/freed/watching-china-anatomy-of-a-suicide/

7

[Sonia]

First of all, show of hands—who on this blog is an ACTUAL scientist. LOL

Secondly, the inner reflections aren’t “reflections”. It’s astral travel and what one sees is what’s really out there in the macrocosm (long story, but RSers often think there’s a distinction).

Thirdly, Science IS magic. We’re all made up of vibrations—every cell, every atom. That’s Biology 101.

I feel like there are a lot of armchair scientists on here making bold claims based on outdated scientific models.

I absolutely love science because it’s as wondrous as the idea of life after death. What’s the difference between infinity and eternity? If the belief in finite materialism helps you sleep better at night because it gives you some sense of control over the chaos in your world then so be it. But materialism is as much a fantasy as fairy tales.

I’d love to sit in on a debate between Newton and Einstein.

[Weareallscientists]

"We are all scientists"..... Huxley

http://drnissani.net/mnissani/a&s/Allsci.htm

[Sonia]

@ Weareallscientists

I don’t know which I find more impressive, the fact that I actually read that entire essay you linked or the way Huxley so elaborately describes the most basic aspects of the Scientific Method (or as I like to call it “thinking”).

BTW, animals use inductive and deductive reasoning as well. I bet they have formed all sorts of hypotheses about humans over the eons.

The mind is like gravity. It might actually BE gravity. 🧐 It holds the body together. All that space inside the body (we’re composed of like 99% space) is held together by gravity.

Endlessly fascinating. 🙂

[Sonia]

This is fun 🤩 (space romance).

Why doesn't the moon fall into the Earth?

https://www.wired.com/2012/11/why-doesnt-the-moon-crash-into-the-earth/

[Appreciative Reader]

“"We are all scientists"..... Huxley
http://drnissani.net/mnissani/a&s/Allsci.htm”

…….Lovely essay. Thanks for posting!

I’ve read Huxley, but hadn’t come across that piece before.

Huxley’s detailed essays about his religious/philosophical position make for fascinating reading. In his day, the sense in which the word ‘atheism’ was used was what will correspond with today’s ‘hard atheism’. Which is clearly not a rationally defensible position in many specific instances, and indeed inapplicable to the terms in which the primary God-idea he was exposed to (which would be the Christian God) was being defined at that time (subtled down, so to say, from the garish depictions of past ages, and made increasingly more physically inconspicuous/un-detectable, and therefore safe from the reach of science, that had then started making larger and larger strides). Finding no term that would directly correspond with what we today would term ‘soft atheism’, and indeed no such clearly defined philosophical position at all, Huxley coined the term ‘Agnosticism’. Anyone interested in the broad ideas of theism and atheism and agnosticism --- which I guess would be most people who frequent Brian’s blog ---- would benefit from reading him in the original.

(Disclaimer: The equivalence with his agnosticism with soft atheism, that I speak of here, is my personal view, not Huxley's. Huxley didn't have the latter term at all to compare his own position with, is the whole point. That is, I don't want to misrepresent Huxley as having himself championed soft atheism in his writing and in so many words; that conclusion is mine, basis what I've read of him.)