Do you believe in God and why

[Sunmaster]

30 minutes ago, VincentRJ said:

This is why we need to precisely define the words we use. How would you define reality? Any state of consciousness, whether an hallucination, a belief in fairies, or a belief in any type of God or fanciful and mystical experience? ????

I would define reality as any state of consciousness you find yourself in at any point in time. 

If you're dreaming, then that's your reality at that time.
If you're awake, your reality is what we're all used to and spend most of the time in.

If you're depressed or see the world as out to get you, that will be reality for you.
If you have a mystical experience and experience everything as one, then that's reality.

Why should the reality you're used to experience be the only reality, or the only one worth exploring? 

Can you explain what a "fanciful" experience is?

[mauGR1]

11 minutes ago, VincentRJ said:

are a type of hallucination. Didn't you know that? ????

 

I'll edit this with a link, just so you know I'm not making this up. ????

 

"Dreams and drug-induced hallucinations have several phenomenological similarities, especially with respect to their visual and emotive components. This similarity is hypothesized to be due to a neurochemical mechanism which is common to both states: the inactivation of the brain serotonin system."

 

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/0149763478900076#:~:text=Dreams and drug-induced hallucinations,of the brain serotonin system.

Well, it states quite clearly that it's an hypothesis,  and quite inconsistent as well, or should I believe everything which is branded as "science " ?

[VincentRJ]

26 minutes ago, Sunmaster said:

I would define reality as any state of consciousness you find yourself in at any point in time. 

That a very dangerous concept, Sunmaster. There are examples of people who have taken LSD and hallucinate that they can fly like a bird, and then jump off a tall building to their death. ????

 

"If you're dreaming, then that's your reality at that time.
If you're awake, your reality is what we're all used to and spend most of the time in.
If you're depressed or see the world as out to get you, that will be reality for you.
If you have a mystical experience and experience everything as one, then that's reality.
Why should the reality you're used to experience be the only reality, or the only one worth exploring? "

 

Have you come across the term 'unreality'? You seem to be implying that everything anyone can think of, or imagine, is real, by definition, and therefore nothing can be unreal. That sounds very strange.

 

"Can you explain what a "fanciful" experience is?"

 

I can give you an example. Dreaming you are a butterfly. ????

[VincentRJ]

23 minutes ago, mauGR1 said:

Well, it states quite clearly that it's an hypothesis,  and quite inconsistent as well, or should I believe everything which is branded as "science " ?

 The article also states: "This is supported by electrophysiological data indicating that the activity of serotonin-containing neurons is depressed during both dreaming (in REM and non-REM sleep) and in response to hallucinogenic drugs. Further support for the hypothesis derives from neuropharmacological data demonstrating that decreases in synaptic serotonin are associated with increased hallucinatory-like behavior or hallucinatory experience during waking, and increased duration of REM periods during sleep."

 

As I've mentioned before, science does not yet fully understand the purposes and processes of dreaming, which is why they use the word 'hypothesis', but they do have some understanding, and probably more than you. ????

[Sunmaster]

21 minutes ago, VincentRJ said:

That a very dangerous concept, Sunmaster. There are examples of people who have taken LSD and hallucinate that they can fly like a bird, and then jump off a tall building to their death. ????

That sounds more like American "war on drugs" propaganda than anything else. 

There are many more examples of people who have taken alcohol and thought they are invincible and immortal, then drive a car and get themselves killed, or worse, kill others.

 

21 minutes ago, VincentRJ said:

Have you come across the term 'unreality'? You seem to be implying that everything anyone can think of, or imagine, is real, by definition, and therefore nothing can be unreal. That sounds very strange.

No, I haven't. Maybe you can explain it.

 

What I'm saying is...this reality [or state of consciousness] you believe to be the supreme reality, is just the one where most of us agree to be in. It's a consensus of shared experiences.

Imagine if the majority of people would live in a different state of consciousness, let's say a state where you can love strangers the same way you would love a family member. Then that would become the new shared experience...a new consensus...a new reality.

 

Has anything external changed? No. The only thing that has changed is the point of your perception and the percentage of the population that share that same perception. 

 

Now, which reality is more real?

Edited January 31, 2021 by Sunmaster

[Fat is a type of crazy]

1 hour ago, Sunmaster said:

I would define reality as any state of consciousness you find yourself in at any point in time. 

If you're dreaming, then that's your reality at that time.
If you're awake, your reality is what we're all used to and spend most of the time in.

If you're depressed or see the world as out to get you, that will be reality for you.
If you have a mystical experience and experience everything as one, then that's reality.

Why should the reality you're used to experience be the only reality, or the only one worth exploring? 

Can you explain what a "fanciful" experience is?

 

Reality isn't defined as state of consciousness.

It may be impossible to be fully objective but by following science we can become as objective as possible about what reality is. If you dream, or have a certain perception that everything is one, or think the world is out to get you, scientific analysis can step in to show you that, based on scientific knowledge at this time,  your experience is less likely to be reality than what science can tell you it is. 

Science is the best guide to reality.

[mauGR1]

35 minutes ago, VincentRJ said:

 The article also states: "This is supported by electrophysiological data indicating that the activity of serotonin-containing neurons is depressed during both dreaming (in REM and non-REM sleep) and in response to hallucinogenic drugs. Further support for the hypothesis derives from neuropharmacological data demonstrating that decreases in synaptic serotonin are associated with increased hallucinatory-like behavior or hallucinatory experience during waking, and increased duration of REM periods during sleep."

 

As I've mentioned before, science does not yet fully understand the purposes and processes of dreaming, which is why they use the word 'hypothesis', but they do have some understanding, and probably more than you. ????

What you say can be very true in the physical reality, but we are here trying to understand  some mind processes which have very tenuous links with the physical objects.

You seem to have a low opinion of 'imagination ', but don't forget that without imagination,  there would not be art, or any development whatsoever, not even science.

[Sunmaster]

And I'd like to add...

From where I'm standing, the reality you (Vincent et al) consider the only real one is the dangerous one.

It's a collective hallucination where everyone walks around thinking they are separate from everything else, that their flesh coat is all they are, that we live in a world of scarcity, that death is something mysterious and to be feared, and that any state of consciousness other than the one they are used to is either dangerous, non existent or irrelevant. This is the hallucination that creates all sorts of problems in our society, not those who believe in this or that god.

Edited January 31, 2021 by Sunmaster

[Sunmaster]

1 hour ago, Fat is a type of crazy said:

 

Reality isn't defined as state of consciousness.

It may be impossible to be fully objective but by following science we can become as objective as possible about what reality is. If you dream, or have a certain perception that everything is one, or think the world is out to get you, scientific analysis can step in to show you that, based on scientific knowledge at this time,  your experience is less likely to be reality than what science can tell you it is. 

Science is the best guide to reality.

The definition of reality is "The quality or state of being actual or true."
Dreams, states of consciousness...all of them are not material, yet they exist, can be and are studied by science. For all purposes they are real and therefore part of reality. 

 

If you can't observe subatomic particles without influencing them, doesn't that make any attempt at being completely objective futile?

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/1998/02/980227055013.htm#:~:text=When a quantum "observer" is,can also behave as waves.&text=In other words%2C when under,observation affects the experimental findings.

 

I think that our consciousness and reality are interdependent entities. One can influence the other and vice versa.
Watching a beautiful sunset can make you happy und change your brain chemistry. On the other hand, changing your state of consciousness (for example by gaining a higher state through meditation) can change the reality you live in, by finding peace and love where you couldn't see it before.

 

As for science being the best guide to reality...well...

It may be useful in the material reality, but severely lacking in a lot of other departments. 

 

 

Edited January 31, 2021 by Sunmaster

[Fat is a type of crazy]

44 minutes ago, Sunmaster said:

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/1998/02/980227055013.htm#:~:text=When a quantum "observer" is,can also behave as waves.&text=In other words%2C when under,observation affects the experimental findings.

 

If you can't observe subatomic particles without influencing them, doesn't that make any attempt at being completely objective futile?

 

As for science being the best guide to reality...well...

It may be useful in the material reality, but severely lacking in a lot of other departments. 

To be honest when I first heard about that  I wondered why it wasn't the headline story. It is one of those things that it is truly fascinating. That phenomenon is a discovery from science.

Whatever causes it, even if it is some sort of god, then that mechanism becomes part of science once it is known what is happening. 

I know it's obvious but in the past, when scientific knowledge was weak, people took things that didn't make sense and put it down to gods. People couldn't wait for science to catch up and explained the stars, and volcanoes etc, with reference to a god. Comforting.

Not saying there is no god. Just that science showed that belief in a  god based reality for these reasons did not stand up.  

Discoveries in the future will  further alter our concept of reality but the scientific knowledge we have today is clearly the best guide to reality.  

I won't pick up a hot coal, and I wont believe that thoughts, feelings or dreams in my head are reality,  however real they may seem, if empirical evidence shows this not the best course of action.

Edited January 31, 2021 by Fat is a type of crazy

[Sunmaster]

5 minutes ago, Fat is a type of crazy said:

That phenomenon is a discovery from science.

Are you sure?

https://upliftconnect.com/quantum-physics-vedas/

The convergence of Spirituality and Science

Quantum physics explains the nature and behaviour of matter and energy on the atomic and subatomic level, and began with a number of different scientific discoveries from the the 1838 discovery of cathode rays, to the quantum hypothesis and photoelectric effect. The term quantum mechanics was coined in the early 1920’s by a group of physicists at the University of Gottingen.

In the 1920’s quantum mechanics was created by the three great minds: Werner Heisenberg, Niels Bohr and Erwin Schrödinger, who all read from and greatly respected the Vedas, the ancient Indian sanskrit texts on spirituality. They elaborated upon these ancient books of wisdom in their own language and with modern mathematical formulas in order to try to understand the ideas that are to be found throughout the Vedas, referred to in the ancient Sanskrit as “Brahman,” “Paramatma,” “Akasha” and “Atman.” As Schrödinger said, “some blood transfusion from the East to the West to save Western science from spiritual anaemia.”
[...]
While he (Heisenberg) was working on quantum theory he went to India to lecture and was a guest of Tagore (Rabindranath Tagore was a Bengali poet, writer, composer, philosopher and painter). He talked a lot with Tagore about Indian philosophy. Heisenberg told me that these talks had helped him a lot with his work in physics, because they showed him that all these new ideas in quantum physics were in fact not all that crazy. He realized there was, in fact, a whole culture that subscribed to very similar ideas. Heisenberg said that this was a great help for him. Niels Bohr had a similar experience when he went to China.”

“This life of yours which you are living is not merely a piece of this entire existence, but in a certain sense the whole; only this whole is not so constituted that it can be surveyed in one single glance. This, as we know, is what the Brahmins [wise men or priests in the Vedic tradition] express in that sacred, mystic formula which is yet really so simple and so clear; tat tvam asi, this is you. Or, again, in such words as “I am in the east and the west, I am above and below, I am this entire world.” – Schrödinger
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Anyway, the article is a lot longer but extremely interesting. A lot of food for thought...

 

 

[Fat is a type of crazy]

22 minutes ago, Sunmaster said:

Are you sure?

https://upliftconnect.com/quantum-physics-vedas/

The convergence of Spirituality and Science

Quantum physics explains the nature and behaviour of matter and energy on the atomic and subatomic level, and began with a number of different scientific discoveries from the the 1838 discovery of cathode rays, to the quantum hypothesis and photoelectric effect. The term quantum mechanics was coined in the early 1920’s by a group of physicists at the University of Gottingen.

In the 1920’s quantum mechanics was created by the three great minds: Werner Heisenberg, Niels Bohr and Erwin Schrödinger, who all read from and greatly respected the Vedas, the ancient Indian sanskrit texts on spirituality. They elaborated upon these ancient books of wisdom in their own language and with modern mathematical formulas in order to try to understand the ideas that are to be found throughout the Vedas, referred to in the ancient Sanskrit as “Brahman,” “Paramatma,” “Akasha” and “Atman.” As Schrödinger said, “some blood transfusion from the East to the West to save Western science from spiritual anaemia.”
[...]
While he (Heisenberg) was working on quantum theory he went to India to lecture and was a guest of Tagore (Rabindranath Tagore was a Bengali poet, writer, composer, philosopher and painter). He talked a lot with Tagore about Indian philosophy. Heisenberg told me that these talks had helped him a lot with his work in physics, because they showed him that all these new ideas in quantum physics were in fact not all that crazy. He realized there was, in fact, a whole culture that subscribed to very similar ideas. Heisenberg said that this was a great help for him. Niels Bohr had a similar experience when he went to China.”

“This life of yours which you are living is not merely a piece of this entire existence, but in a certain sense the whole; only this whole is not so constituted that it can be surveyed in one single glance. This, as we know, is what the Brahmins [wise men or priests in the Vedic tradition] express in that sacred, mystic formula which is yet really so simple and so clear; tat tvam asi, this is you. Or, again, in such words as “I am in the east and the west, I am above and below, I am this entire world.” – Schrödinger
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Anyway, the article is a lot longer but extremely interesting. A lot of food for thought...

 

 

Thanks. It is interesting.

If some ancient really smart indians had some ideas that were way ahead of their time, like an Einstein sitting in the Patent's office, then they are scientists, attempting and possibly succeeding in adding to what is known about reality. 

It could be, like Newton spending so much time attempting to turn lead into gold, that Bohr and others took a tenuous path to making the discoveries they made and focused too much, and read too much into,  those ancient texts.

It may be obvious but  it just comes down to the implications of words used no matter the topic. If someone says ' I have a theory that I'd love to scientifically test to say that someone's dream is their reality ' that is one thing. But to say 'I believe that dreams are actual reality for that person' is a different kettle of fish. You have then jumped away from science and into hope and faith.

 

[Sunmaster]

1 hour ago, Fat is a type of crazy said:

If some ancient really smart indians had some ideas that were way ahead of their time, like an Einstein sitting in the Patent's office, then they are scientists, attempting and possibly succeeding in adding to what is known about reality. 

The Vedas are ancient spiritual texts and their oral origins are likely to be a lot older, long before modern science. I would call them scientists too, but maybe not the way you define the term. For me they are the highest incarnation of scientific inquiry, because they researched and explored both the inner and the outer world, without prejudice and with one clear goal: finding the truth. "Spiritual scientist" would probably be a more appropriate term.
Nowadays, science is mostly preoccupied with the outer world and if something doesn't fit in that paradigm, it is usually called pseudo science and conveniently ignored. There are some brave souls that defy this paradigm and are researching more controversial topics, but they are few and poorly funded. 

Let's hope there'll be a return to the ancient principles of truth finding. Heisenberg, Schrödinger, Einstein, Capra and many others should be taken as examples and their attitude should be the blueprint for the science of the future.

Edited January 31, 2021 by Sunmaster

[thaibeachlovers]

On 1/29/2021 at 7:14 PM, Tagged said:

Many creatures have been dominant on this planet that never made it. However som few reptiles and creatures still here almost unchanged who lived with dinosours. Thats what we call perfection.

 

Oh, and human kind is 300 000 years give and take. I would guess it gave been good years to evolve us to be dominant. But how long have we really been dominant?

 

Thats the question

Our "dominance" has been exposed as a sham when a virus can stop human endeavour in its tracks. Seems the real master of the world can't even be seen with the human eye.

Some of us always knew that human's opinion of themselves as supreme was vastly over rated.

[thaibeachlovers]

12 hours ago, Fat is a type of crazy said:

 

Reality isn't defined as state of consciousness.

It may be impossible to be fully objective but by following science we can become as objective as possible about what reality is. If you dream, or have a certain perception that everything is one, or think the world is out to get you, scientific analysis can step in to show you that, based on scientific knowledge at this time,  your experience is less likely to be reality than what science can tell you it is. 

Science is the best guide to reality.

LOL.

While "science" is scrabbling around in the dirt trying to explain how dirt works, they have IMO missed completely the magnificence of heaven that is all around if only one looks for it.

There are none so blind as those that will not see.

[thaibeachlovers]

12 hours ago, VincentRJ said:

As I've mentioned before, science does not yet fully understand the purposes and processes of dreaming, which is why they use the word 'hypothesis', but they do have some understanding, and probably more than you. 

LOL.

Guessing is guessing regardless as whom is doing the guessing.

[sirineou]

1 minute ago, thaibeachlovers said:

LOL.

While "science" is scrabbling around in the dirt trying to explain how dirt works, they have IMO missed completely the magnificence of heaven that is all around if only one looks for it.

There are none so blind as those that will not see.

You are absolutely tight, Science  should stop concentrating on dirt, and explore the Universe also, I don't understand why they left the exploration of the universe to religion. 

[Fat is a type of crazy]

8 hours ago, Sunmaster said:

The Vedas are ancient spiritual texts and their oral origins are likely to be a lot older, long before modern science. I would call them scientists too, but maybe not the way you define the term. For me they are the highest incarnation of scientific inquiry, because they researched and explored both the inner and the outer world, without prejudice and with one clear goal: finding the truth. "Spiritual scientist" would probably be a more appropriate term.
Nowadays, science is mostly preoccupied with the outer world and if something doesn't fit in that paradigm, it is usually called pseudo science and conveniently ignored. There are some brave souls that defy this paradigm and are researching more controversial topics, but they are few and poorly funded. 

Let's hope there'll be a return to the ancient principles of truth finding. Heisenberg, Schrödinger, Einstein, Capra and many others should be taken as examples and their attitude should be the blueprint for the science of the future.

My only issue I have with what you are saying is that science does by definition cover everything - inner and outer. If it is - it is covered by science.

The problem might be that at this stage, science can not accept many spiritual beliefs because they are not at this stage provable, either because:

a the theories are still beyond current scientific method to prove, or  

b because they are aren't real but just imagination, hope or faith.

 

Scientific funding over history is likely to go where results can make a dollar and or benefit people. It's not a dislike or bias against spiritual theories but just a facing of reality as to a and b above.

It doesn't help that a lot of spiritual theories, especially from the 60's onwards,  had been debunked.

I am not sure how those ancient principles differ from scientific method - maybe they take a spiritual path, rather than using test tubes, to find the ideas and theories, but whatever is discovered should still be provable and consistent and become science.

People who have theories that can't be proven, but may in fact be correct, have to cop it and just continue to say ''I have a theory''.

The alternative is they can call it a religion and say, ''science is not up to proving my theory so have faith people, and follow my teachings''. They have crossed a line into hope and faith and imagination and dreams whether they like it or not. 

It may be that such theories are better for peoples lives even if science can't prove them at this time. I haven't seen such a theory that ticks my boxes and is worth making that leap of faith. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

  

Edited January 31, 2021 by Fat is a type of crazy

[thaibeachlovers]

On 1/31/2021 at 3:11 AM, VincentRJ said:

 Of course! How could one even address or discuss a point before seeing it, never mind demolishing it? The value of a personal opinion, or point that is made, is dependent on the quality of the evidence provided.

IMO the value of a personal opinion is entirely up to the person with the opinion. Other people may disagree but that is only their opinion. Of course if the facts intrude it is no longer an opinion, but seems to me that many can't determine the difference between facts and opinion, as they like to portray their opinion as facts and other's facts as opinions.

[thaibeachlovers]

3 minutes ago, sirineou said:

You are absolutely tight, Science  should stop concentrating on dirt, and explore the Universe also, I don't understand why they left the exploration of the universe to religion. 

Sadly I'm no longer tight. It is many years since I had a six pack worth the name ????

 

However to answer your query, I assume it's because they don't have a clue and apparently what they come up with is at best an educated guess.

I'd like scientists to be exploring spirituality, but I suppose there is no money to be made in that.

[sirineou]

12 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

Sadly I'm no longer tight. It is many years since I had a six pack worth the name ????

 

However to answer your query, I assume it's because they don't have a clue and apparently what they come up with is at best an educated guess.

I'd like scientists to be exploring spirituality, but I suppose there is no money to be made in that.

There is no money to be made in religion? You got to be kidding. By the way I think Galileo got at least one thing right that religion had not.  

[thaibeachlovers]

23 minutes ago, sirineou said:

There is no money to be made in religion? You got to be kidding. By the way I think Galileo got at least one thing right that religion had not.  

How on earth did you make the jump from scientists not making money to no money in religion?

Spirituality has little, IMO, to do with religion, though religion uses it to make money. Have you read so little of what I've written to think I believe spirituality and religion are the same thing?

[sirineou]

Just now, thaibeachlovers said:

How on earth did you make the jump from scientists not making money to no money in religion?

Spirituality has little, IMO, to do with religion, though religion uses it to make money. Have you read so little of what I've written to think I believe spirituality and religion are the same thing?

Notice how you conveniently manage to ignore the Galileo comment . 

There is plenty on money for a scientist to make in religion, I think the one who scientifically proves the existence of God will do pretty well for him/her self don't you think?  

Science looks in to religious claims all the time, so far nothing ?

Science dates religious artifacts. When it comes to the  age of the shroud of Turin they used scientific methods, not faith. when religion claims miraculous cures, they are scientifically investigated.  etc. .  

[Elad]

12 hours ago, Sunmaster said:

The definition of reality is "The quality or state of being actual or true."
Dreams, states of consciousness...all of them are not material, yet they exist, can be and are studied by science. For all purposes they are real and therefore part of reality. 

 

If you can't observe subatomic particles without influencing them, doesn't that make any attempt at being completely objective futile?

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/1998/02/980227055013.htm#:~:text=When a quantum "observer" is,can also behave as waves.&text=In other words%2C when under,observation affects the experimental findings.

 

I think that our consciousness and reality are interdependent entities. One can influence the other and vice versa.
Watching a beautiful sunset can make you happy und change your brain chemistry. On the other hand, changing your state of consciousness (for example by gaining a higher state through meditation) can change the reality you live in, by finding peace and love where you couldn't see it before.

 

As for science being the best guide to reality...well...

It may be useful in the material reality, but severely lacking in a lot of other departments. 

 

 

From the article you posted:

 

To demonstrate this, Weizmann Institute researchers built a tiny device measuring less than one micron in size, which had a barrier with two openings. They then sent a current of electrons towards the barrier. The "observer" in this experiment wasn't human. Institute scientists used for this purpose a tiny but sophisticated electronic detector that can spot passing electrons. The quantum "observer's" capacity to detect electrons could be altered by changing its electrical conductivity, or the strength of the current passing through it.

Apart from "observing," or detecting, the electrons, the detector had no effect on the current. Yet the scientists found that the very presence of the detector-"observer" near one of the openings caused changes in the interference pattern of the electron waves passing through the openings of the barrier. In fact, this effect was dependent on the "amount" of the observation: when the "observer's" capacity to detect electrons increased, in other words, when the level of the observation went up, the interference weakened; in contrast, when its capacity to detect electrons was reduced, in other words, when the observation slackened, the interference increased.

 

It states that the observer in this experiment was not human, therefore human's or human consciousness had no influence on the experiment. Quantum mechanics is actually very well understood by physicists and this "observer effect" you mention is due to particles behaving like waves. Each particle can be described by a wave function which is a solution to the Schrödinger equation. when an observer (human or not) measures its position, the wave function collapses to where the particle is found.  

[Tagged]

3 hours ago, thaibeachlovers said:

Our "dominance" has been exposed as a sham when a virus can stop human endeavour in its tracks. Seems the real master of the world can't even be seen with the human eye.

Some of us always knew that human's opinion of themselves as supreme was vastly over rated.

I aggree, totally, we are so far just a fart in the wind timewise if Im gonna use an expression. Very few humans can survive outside their tribes and modern facilities that makes us safe. Many have tried to live in the wilderness for a year, but most give up or die. So very few master the nature by themselves with few modern or none modern aids.  

 

 

[Tagged]

3 hours ago, sirineou said:

Notice how you conveniently manage to ignore the Galileo comment . 

There is plenty on money for a scientist to make in religion, I think the one who scientifically proves the existence of God will do pretty well for him/her self don't you think?  

I believe the most genuine people who have the ability to discover, create and understand complex things, are not those who make most out of it. Very often it those who understand how  to take adventage of others discoveries.

 

 

[Sunmaster]

5 hours ago, Fat is a type of crazy said:

My only issue I have with what you are saying is that science does by definition cover everything - inner and outer. If it is - it is covered by science.

The problem might be that at this stage, science can not accept many spiritual beliefs because they are not at this stage provable, either because:

a the theories are still beyond current scientific method to prove, or  

b because they are aren't real but just imagination, hope or faith.

 

Scientific funding over history is likely to go where results can make a dollar and or benefit people. It's not a dislike or bias against spiritual theories but just a facing of reality as to a and b above.

It doesn't help that a lot of spiritual theories, especially from the 60's onwards,  had been debunked.

I am not sure how those ancient principles differ from scientific method - maybe they take a spiritual path, rather than using test tubes, to find the ideas and theories, but whatever is discovered should still be provable and consistent and become science.

People who have theories that can't be proven, but may in fact be correct, have to cop it and just continue to say ''I have a theory''.

The alternative is they can call it a religion and say, ''science is not up to proving my theory so have faith people, and follow my teachings''. They have crossed a line into hope and faith and imagination and dreams whether they like it or not. 

It may be that such theories are better for peoples lives even if science can't prove them at this time. I haven't seen such a theory that ticks my boxes and is worth making that leap of faith. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

  

I appreciate your thoughtful reply and I agree with it to a certain point.

But...science doesn't cover everything. In fact, as it stands, it is uncapable of doing so in regards of the inner worlds, because it mainly uses outer worlds techniques to do so. 

Brain scans for example can show the brain's activity during meditation or REM dreaming, but they can't fully understand the subjective implications of those states. This is the field that spiritual science has explored since time immemorial. The evidence gathered through millions of personal experiences clearly points towards something that can't simply be dismissed as fantasy or wishful thinking. Higher states of consciousness are as real as anything else. Again, the effects of those states on the brain activity and chemistry has been researched and proven by science, but what they mean on a personal, subjective level are out of the reach of science (for now at least). 

 

It doesn't help that a lot of spiritual theories, especially from the 60's onwards,  had been debunked.
Which spiritual theories are you talking about? I would argue it is quite the opposite actually. The more science advances, the more it overlaps with the ancient teachings. We've seen this with the example of the quantum scientists leaning on the Vedic teachings. 

 

I am not sure how those ancient principles differ from scientific method - maybe they take a spiritual path, rather than using test tubes, to find the ideas and theories, but whatever is discovered should still be provable and consistent and become science.

It is said that to know the world, you have to know yourself first. To know yourself is to know God. I think that the insights that revealed the workings of the universe for those ancient sages came as a byproduct of their spiritual practice. They didn't have particle accelerators to study quantum particles, yet their own findings strangely coincide with the findings of modern scientists. How is that possible? Because their conclusions were based on the same scientific principles we have today:

• Make an observation.
• Ask a question.
• Form a hypothesis, or testable explanation.
• Make a prediction based on the hypothesis.
• Test the prediction.
• Use the results to make new hypotheses or predictions.

These principles apply to spiritual science just as well as modern science. I use Buddhism as an example, but it's not restricted only to that.

• Make an observation. - Buddha observed that there is suffering in the world.
• Ask a question. - He asked "What is the cause of this suffering?"
• Form a hypothesis, or testable explanation. - Suffering is caused by selfish craving and personal desire. >>> 4 Noble truths of Buddhism<<<
• Make a prediction based on the hypothesis. - 8-fold path to liberation
• Test the prediction. - Millions of people have since tested the prediction, followed the instructions and came to the same conclusion. Predictions are testable and repeatable.
• Use the results to make new hypotheses or predictions. 

Don't get me wrong. I am well aware of the achievements of modern science and I certainly don't demonize them even if they produced their fair share of misery. What I'm saying is that science has its place in the world, just like spirituality has its place. If I break an arm, I will not go to a Yoga instructor or pray to the Beloved for it to heal. I will go to a doctor and get it cast. However, if I feel miserable due to a spiritual crisis, I will not go to a psychiatrist and gulp down Prozac or SSRI's. I will go to someone who has experience with this kind of problems.

[Peter Denis]

5 hours ago, Fat is a type of crazy said:

My only issue I have with what you are saying is that science does by definition cover everything - inner and outer. If it is - it is covered by science.

The problem might be that at this stage, science can not accept many spiritual beliefs because they are not at this stage provable, either because:

a the theories are still beyond current scientific method to prove, or  

b because they are aren't real but just imagination, hope or faith.

...

Did you ever wonder how the ancient sages were able to make such precise statements about the nature of reality on both micro-cosmic (sub-atomic) and macro-cosmic (the universe) scale?

And that when the tools of current science become more sophisticated (from electron microscopes to space telescopes) it turns out that when science uses these tools they invariably confirm that these sages were right all along (e.g. quantum mechanics).

How is it possible that without the precision instruments which current science has available now, that these ancients were fully versed in what we consider current-day state-of-the-art 'scientific discoveries'.

>> The answer is simple.  They understood and applied the 'law of analogy'.  It has been mentioned many times already in this thread > As above, so below.

The implication being, that a principle observed on our plane, equally applies above and below on all other planes.

So by careful observation of what happens around you, you are able to understand the unviersal laws that govern everything.

I added some excerpts from The Challenge of Faith by Thorwald Dethlefsen, a primer on esotericism which explains this much more eloquently and in far greater depth.

 

Man is the faithful reflection of the macro-cosmic universe – we cannot find anything outside that is not by analogy inside man or vice versa. Therefore it is written above the temple of Delphi: “Know thyself in order to know God.”

= = = = =

It is important to understand that there are horizontal categories as well as a vertical chain of
principles. The first is used almost exclusively in science, the second almost equally
exclusively in esotericism, for the axiom “as above so below” leads inevitably to a vertical way
of thinking. Thus the scientific and esoteric systems of thought diverge from each other by
exactly 90 degrees, which is why we should not be surprised that both parties almost
invariably talk at cross purposes.

= = = = =

Let us compare reality with a circle. Science divides the circle at the periphery into many
segments, many special disciplines (medicine, physics, chemistry, biology, etc). Scientists
hope that by research into all these specialized areas, they can eventually reach the centre
where all the disciplines meet. In practice the scientific approach makes this goal unattainable
because, as specialization increases, inter-disciplinary communication becomes more and
more difficult.
Esotericism does not start at the periphery, but goes straight to the centre. Esotericism
explores universal law – once we have recognized this law we need only project it on to the
different areas of specialization. Such knowledge is superior to that of the specialist because
it can relate to all areas and enable one to see how every specialized area fits into universal
reality.

[Fat is a type of crazy]

45 minutes ago, Sunmaster said:

I appreciate your thoughtful reply and I agree with it to a certain point.

But...science doesn't cover everything. In fact, as it stands, it is uncapable of doing so in regards of the inner worlds, because it mainly uses outer worlds techniques to do so. 

Brain scans for example can show the brain's activity during meditation or REM dreaming, but they can't fully understand the subjective implications of those states. This is the field that spiritual science has explored since time immemorial. The evidence gathered through millions of personal experiences clearly points towards something that can't simply be dismissed as fantasy or wishful thinking. Higher states of consciousness are as real as anything else. Again, the effects of those states on the brain activity and chemistry has been researched and proven by science, but what they mean on a personal, subjective level are out of the reach of science (for now at least). 

 

It doesn't help that a lot of spiritual theories, especially from the 60's onwards,  had been debunked.
Which spiritual theories are you talking about? I would argue it is quite the opposite actually. The more science advances, the more it overlaps with the ancient teachings. We've seen this with the example of the quantum scientists leaning on the Vedic teachings. 

 

I am not sure how those ancient principles differ from scientific method - maybe they take a spiritual path, rather than using test tubes, to find the ideas and theories, but whatever is discovered should still be provable and consistent and become science.

It is said that to know the world, you have to know yourself first. To know yourself is to know God. I think that the insights that revealed the workings of the universe for those ancient sages came as a byproduct of their spiritual practice. They didn't have particle accelerators to study quantum particles, yet their own findings strangely coincide with the findings of modern scientists. How is that possible? Because their conclusions were based on the same scientific principles we have today:

• Make an observation.
• Ask a question.
• Form a hypothesis, or testable explanation.
• Make a prediction based on the hypothesis.
• Test the prediction.
• Use the results to make new hypotheses or predictions.

These principles apply to spiritual science just as well as modern science. I use Buddhism as an example, but it's not restricted only to that.

• Make an observation. - Buddha observed that there is suffering in the world.
• Ask a question. - He asked "What is the cause of this suffering?"
• Form a hypothesis, or testable explanation. - Suffering is caused by selfish craving and personal desire. >>> 4 Noble truths of Buddhism<<<
• Make a prediction based on the hypothesis. - 8-fold path to liberation
• Test the prediction. - Millions of people have since tested the prediction, followed the instructions and came to the same conclusion. Predictions are testable and repeatable.
• Use the results to make new hypotheses or predictions. 

Don't get me wrong. I am well aware of the achievements of modern science and I certainly don't demonize them even if they produced their fair share of misery. What I'm saying is that science has its place in the world, just like spirituality has its place. If I break an arm, I will not go to a Yoga instructor or pray to the Beloved for it to heal. I will go to a doctor and get it cast. However, if I feel miserable due to a spiritual crisis, I will not go to a psychiatrist and gulp down Prozac or SSRI's. I will go to someone who has experience with this kind of problems.

 

Psychiatry does seem like the least advanced science - the stuff going on inside us must be complicated. I concur that a better solution to taking a blunt instrument such as prozac  may be to follow buddhist meditation or similar built up over 1000's of years of looking at the human experience. Science needs to catch up but I don't think there is a secret area where it doesn't apply.

In terms of debunked theories it may be a bit shallow but I was thinking of how the theosophical society, astrology, new age beliefs, telekinesis, ESP, belief in talking to dead people, and reiki massage all go in and out of fashion with no proof. 

[Tagged]

1 hour ago, Peter Denis said:

Did you ever wonder how the ancient sages were able to make such precise statements about the nature of reality on both micro-cosmic (sub-atomic) and macro-cosmic (the universe) scale?

And that when the tools of current science become more sophisticated (from electron microscopes to space telescopes) it turns out that when science uses these tools they invariably confirm that these sages were right all along (e.g. quantum mechanics).

How is it possible that without the precision instruments which current science has available now, that these ancients were fully versed in what we consider current-day state-of-the-art 'scientific discoveries'.

>> The answer is simple.  They understood and applied the 'law of analogy'.  It has been mentioned many times already in this thread > As above, so below.

 

How do animals build their impressive masterpieces both for survival and also to attrack females? How can they know about mathmatics, and engineering? 

 

Could it be DNA memory, and we humans as well carry dna memory, and our dna is really an alien dna. Life did not start on earth but have travelled space for unsurten time, and life just recycles in space as it does on planet earth? 

 

I just cant understand why som many thinks thats impossible.