On God and Science

[Idisaffect]

Hopefully I'll get around to formulating a response some time soon.

Please do.

That energy.... rejoins the source

Kind of like a single drop of rain landing in the ocean. ALL ONE FLOWING. I remember having that vision under the influence of mushrooms. It was in the redwood forest in northern California.
Ahh...good memories.
Now, I'm just left to wonder.

The answer is never the answer.
The need for mystery is always greater than the need for answers.
-Ken Kesey

[cwta eugene]

Great stuff! I'm amazed at the fact that, while some major beliefs are being combatted here, everybody seems to be keeping it civilized. Well done!

[mosespa]

Kind of like a single drop of rain landing in the ocean. ALL ONE FLOWING.

Right...only, if the religious folk are right, it is possible for a drop of rain completely missing the ocean and landing on a rock instead. Seperated from it's source...cut off from it's kind...doomed to evaporate uselessly.

Okay...maybe I'm getting a little carried away.

[iwantmypinkfloydnow]

edit: I may appear insensitive at some parts in this post, but keep reading till the end.

1. But, please keep in mind that just because humans cannot "sense" something doesn't mean that it doesn't exist.
...
It's a handicap that we refuse to acknowledge things that we cannot directly experience. We see all around us, every day, examples of things which exist to us yet not to other forms of life.

2. There MAY JUST BE dimensions that we cannot perceive. Sure, we can't prove it one way or the other...that still has no bearing on it's status of existence. It's one of our limitations, if you will.

3. Dogs cannot see colours, we are told. Does this mean that colours don't exist at all? Well...they certainly don't for the dog. But is the dog the only form of life?

4. I feel that stands to reason that if there's a belief in something happening to one after they die and if that belief system seems to have been around for as long as humans have been keeping record, there must be something to it.

I simply don't believe that some wealthy, powerful individuals could create THAT successful a scam. My faith in human ability isn't quite that high, you see.

5. But, here's the thing...you are expressing things individually rather than dualistically. Oil and water are polar opposites, yes; they are a Yin and Yang, if you will. You CAN reconcile oil with water, conceptually. Since all we can do on this subject is hypothesize, that's really all that matters, anyway...the conceptual realm.

Think of oil as one half of a specific whole...and water is the other half.

6. Can you please tell me where to find one? Not even the tres-chic antique stores in this area have any...and I really want one.

1. Ah the good old "the absence of evidence is not evidence of absence." As one person from another forum responses: "To default to something being a possibility because we can't disprove something would mean that any absurd claim in human history ever made would have to be believed. AND THAT IS ABSURD!"

The "absence" hypothesis has been stomped on so many times that my 5th grade teacher simply disproved my hypothesis of UFO's with the statement that there is a pink elephant in the room. I think we all know where that's gonna lead to.

Yes it's true there are some things we human's can sense; that is why we have instrumentation. Infrared camera's, electro-microscopes, and yes even the LHC which will observe particles that are smaller than the light photons we see with (because they leave traces you see, or evidence of existence, so no need to see it). Heck even math is used to find out about things that can potentially exist, like string theory.

They are the "other forms of life" that you were talking about, except they aren't much alive.

2. The LHC is now working on seeing evidence of extra dimensions. You see theoretical physics (I like to call string theory hypothetical though since there is little evidence proving it) says that these extra dimensions are very small and encapsulated. Strings "live" there and you have to crack open an atom to detect it. (The 4th dimension BTW is time, and we can all sense that).

3. Same again with #1, instruments help us detect what we can't sense, like ultraviolet, which bees can.

(Oh and a funny thing about color: it's a perception. Sure the different frequencies of wavelengths are there but the colors that we see is a way the brain distinguishes those frequencies)

4. Just because beliefs are old doesn't make it true. Look at Scientology: it was started by a SciFi writer who was down on his luck (not wealthy at all; if one thing, his religion made him rich). I won't be surprised people will still believe his bullshit a 1000 years from now.

When you don't know the origin of a statement or hypothesis, it is very questionable. For example, the story of Adam and Eve might have been a folk tale told at the Euphrates river (we're not so sure and that makes things worse), Noah was based on Gilgamesh, and over time these stories change and it gets older and people believe in it even more, because age = authenticity somehow, even though it is nothing like the original.

It's like a game of telephone where people whisper statements until it passes along and comes out something completely different.

5. Your talking to an anti-dualist here friend. It started when I read John Searle's (an anti-dualist among other things) philosophy of biological naturalism, which is something I come to accept because it's realistic. (BioNatur BTW is monism, which explains pantheism, which is close to my beliefs).

Here's Searle's lecture on dualism: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nRwOuE7IJoA

if the video is too long here's a passage from his book. But it won't make sense if you don't start from the beginning of his book, but I think you'll get the gist of it.

6.fedoraprimo.com FTW
**********************************************

Just to summarize everything, the reason why I don't take the dualist or metaphysical realm into consideration is because it simply doesn't exist and it never existed in the first place when a person made it up or hallucinated about. The only origin they have had are from the human mind, not of the world we live in. Humans haven't sensed anything metaphysical and neither have any instruments, but even if they are, they are still anchored in the physical world and share no origin to the metaphysical hypothesis that people original had!

It's like finding the existence of God. Yes he's there, he's physical, but all most all of those past questionable stories about him came from people's minds!

So until we find evidence for something, maybe we can confirm some metaphysical statements people have made, but even if we do that. That means those statements were physical in the first place and had nothing to do with the metaphysical ( or someone got lucky) , i.e. Giant Squids.

Also metaphysical statements are a dead end. If I said something existed, but there is no way to sense it, what good is it anyway? They provide no real world progress at all except making people feel good and when it comes to that; I have no problem with it. If a religion or a belief advocates peace and empathy, than I will whole hardely embrace it, like how I embraced Zen Buddhism and some of Jesus' sayings.

However if people start forcing their beliefs and metaphysical statements unto others then it's a problem. Like creationists who think there's a controversy in the teachings of the origin of life because it isn't being taught dualisticly: one involving evolution (physical) and one involving supernatural forces (metaphysical). Or anti-homosexuals, or jihads... etc.

If the book Siddhartha has taught me one thing, is that you have to live at both extremes to find your place in life. When I was young I was christian, when I was a teenager I was an atheist. Now I am what I feel is comfortable with me.

Here's a TED talk that I found very interesting and wraps up some of my feelings when it comes to God and Science, hope you like it: http://www.ted.com/index.php/talks/a_j_ ... cally.html

[Idisaffect]

Humans haven't sensed anything metaphysical

Except for the fact that they made up the word and its definition.
The universe fits our definition of abstract. So does the human brain. When your talking about humans "sensing" something you're dealing with metaphysics. Insinct. Intuition. Imagination. It's all in our minds!

I'm sensing something metaphysical right now.

[mosespa]

1. Ah the good old "the absence of evidence is not evidence of absence." As one person from another forum responses: "To default to something being a possibility because we can't disprove something would mean that any absurd claim in human history ever made would have to be believed. AND THAT IS ABSURD!"

The "absence" hypothesis has been stomped on so many times that my 5th grade teacher simply disproved my hypothesis of UFO's with the statement that there is a pink elephant in the room. I think we all know where that's gonna lead to.

Yes it's true there are some things we human's can sense; that is why we have instrumentation. Infrared camera's, electro-microscopes, and yes even the LHC which will observe particles that are smaller than the light photons we see with (because they leave traces you see, or evidence of existence, so no need to see it). Heck even math is used to find out about things that can potentially exist, like string theory.

They are the "other forms of life" that you were talking about, except they aren't much alive.

2. The LHC is now working on seeing evidence of extra dimensions. You see theoretical physics (I like to call string theory hypothetical though since there is little evidence proving it) says that these extra dimensions are very small and encapsulated. Strings "live" there and you have to crack open an atom to detect it. (The 4th dimension BTW is time, and we can all sense that).

3. Same again with #1, instruments help us detect what we can't sense, like ultraviolet, which bees can.

(Oh and a funny thing about color: it's a perception. Sure the different frequencies of wavelengths are there but the colors that we see is a way the brain distinguishes those frequencies)

4. Just because beliefs are old doesn't make it true. Look at Scientology: it was started by a SciFi writer who was down on his luck (not wealthy at all; if one thing, his religion made him rich). I won't be surprised people will still believe his bullshit a 1000 years from now.

When you don't know the origin of a statement or hypothesis, it is very questionable. For example, the story of Adam and Eve might have been a folk tale told at the Euphrates river (we're not so sure and that makes things worse), Noah was based on Gilgamesh, and over time these stories change and it gets older and people believe in it even more, because age = authenticity somehow, even though it is nothing like the original.

It's like a game of telephone where people whisper statements until it passes along and comes out something completely different.

5. Your talking to an anti-dualist here friend. It started when I read John Searle's (an anti-dualist among other things) philosophy of biological naturalism, which is something I come to accept because it's realistic. (BioNatur BTW is monism, which explains pantheism, which is close to my beliefs).

Here's Searle's lecture on dualism: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nRwOuE7IJoA

if the video is too long here's a passage from his book. But it won't make sense if you don't start from the beginning of his book, but I think you'll get the gist of it.

6.fedoraprimo.com FTW
**********************************************

Just to summarize everything, the reason why I don't take the dualist or metaphysical realm into consideration is because it simply doesn't exist and it never existed in the first place when a person made it up or hallucinated about. The only origin they have had are from the human mind, not of the world we live in. Humans haven't sensed anything metaphysical and neither have any instruments, but even if they are, they are still anchored in the physical world and share no origin to the metaphysical hypothesis that people original had!

It's like finding the existence of God. Yes he's there, he's physical, but all most all of those past questionable stories about him came from people's minds!

So until we find evidence for something, maybe we can confirm some metaphysical statements people have made, but even if we do that. That means those statements were physical in the first place and had nothing to do with the metaphysical ( or someone got lucky) , i.e. Giant Squids.

Also metaphysical statements are a dead end. If I said something existed, but there is no way to sense it, what good is it anyway? They provide no real world progress at all except making people feel good and when it comes to that; I have no problem with it. If a religion or a belief advocates peace and empathy, than I will whole hardely embrace it, like how I embraced Zen Buddhism and some of Jesus' sayings.

However if people start forcing their beliefs and metaphysical statements unto others then it's a problem. Like creationists who think there's a controversy in the teachings of the origin of life because it isn't being taught dualisticly: one involving evolution (physical) and one involving supernatural forces (metaphysical). Or anti-homosexuals, or jihads... etc.

If the book Siddhartha has taught me one thing, is that you have to live at both extremes to find your place in life. When I was young I was christian, when I was a teenager I was an atheist. Now I am what I feel is comfortable with me.

Here's a TED talk that I found very interesting and wraps up some of my feelings when it comes to God and Science, hope you like it: http://www.ted.com/index.php/talks/a_j_ ... cally.html

1. I don't agree with your opening quote. The way I see it, the "good old" argument you refer to does not give one carte blanche to run wild with outrageous notions and expect them to be accepted. For the record, though, absurd claims are accepted as truth every day. Some even far nuttier than the idea of a Creator God.

I'm not claiming that "up equals down" or "right equals left." What I am claiming is that we have solid evidence that things can exist outside of our narrow boundaries of perception...even with the instruments we've developed so far. Instruments that will look quaintly archaic within the next fifteen years.

The fact that we have instruments to help us detect some of these things (which we discovered either quite on accident...or with the help of someone who didn't give a crap about people mocking him for believing in the existence of things imperceptible to the human eye, lol) doesn't mean that we have conquered everything.

After all, I think it stands to reason that if there are things beyond our perception, there are probably things beyond the perception of the instruments we've created to help us detect these things.

For example, even after the first microscope saw cells...there were still unseen atoms which were very much in existence despite the general ignorance of their existence.

Now...we think the atom is the smallest thing; but those pesky subatomic particles seem to be still smaller. Being fragments of atoms, this makes sense. *shrug*

But any notion of a "metaphysical existence" presumes that there is a difference between it and the physical realm. Instruments which are tuned to see atoms are not tuned to pick up the phenomena.

2. It'll be interesting to see what comes of that. If you really think that you can trust information gathered from a very expensive thing funded probably by the same guys who fund wars and own the media so that they can keep telling us that it's really for the best.

3. Right. But what is perception?

It's the individual interpretation of an objective fact. However you perceive a thing to be, it still has a very intrinsic (is that the right word, lol) form which remains regardless of how you perceive it to be.

One night whilst engaging in a little hallucinogenic exploration, I perceived what appeared to be a very large snake weaving in and out of a tree in the yard. After about five seconds of concentrating really hard on the tree, I was able to observe that it was actually just a vine around the tree and a trick of the light from the security light in the yard and the shade of the tree, the vine appeared to be in motion.

At no time did a snake actually appear...no matter how much my perceptions insisted that it was a snake, it was not a snake. Ever.

Science has proven that there exist things which cannot be detected by the naked eye. Why does science insist that it's impossible for there to be things which simply cannot be detected?

If A remains A regardless of the perception of B, why is it so hard to accept that A could be imperceptible to B and still remain A?

Because it would mean admitting that B is ignorant of the existence of A. And that would just really crush B's fragile ego...as well as admit that there IS a certain uselessness to B's position as a scientist because there are always going to be things that he can't figure out.

4. You're right here, too. Just because a belief is old doesn't mean that it's true. But if you've really been reading what I've been on about this whole time, you'll see that I'm not defending religion in a literal (but rather a conceptual) sense.

I do not believe in a bearded, humanoid giant sitting on a throne casting lightning bolts down on people who piss him off.

If there is a God (and I do believe that there is,) I believe that God would be (by definition) so far beyond human comprehension that no two people could ever agree on what to do about it all.

Wait...that's kinda the case, isn't it?

Scientology will probably still be around in 1000 years, providing that there is still a society similar enough to ours to give a rip. There will probably be Jedi equivalent, as well.

From what I understand about the "theology" of L. Ron Hubbard, it's really not that dissimilar from any other religion if you pare the concepts down radically enough.

God could be an alien race. God is certain extra-terristrial in the sense that He's not FROM around here.

As for your reference to "Telephone," sure...I can see that. What I'm saying is that there must have been some event which became the first statement of the game. People are getting so hung up on what the statement has become that they seem to have completely forgotten that there WAS an event which became the statement that started it all off.

I'm sure you won't consider this a strong point, but the thing about scripture is that it's really not a good idea to take it LITERALLY. If a Rabbi had to be able to give five different interpretations of any given verse from the Torah that Rabbi probably had to also be able to reconcile those five different interpretations back into something which made sense as a whole concept in order to keep his brain from melting down.

5. I'm curious to know how one can BE an anti-dualist. Do you not believe in opposites?

6. " maybe we can confirm some metaphysical statements people have made, but even if we do that. That means those statements were physical in the first place and had nothing to do with the metaphysical"

Now...is it just me, or does that sound suspiciously like "the absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence?"

"If I said something existed, but there is no way to sense it, what good is it anyway?"

You don't think that using your imagination to take your mind to places that it might not otherwise go isn't a good thing?

Dude...that's how ALL of your precious instruments came about in the first place.

Now...I'm in COMPLETE agreement with you on the whole "shoving things down other people's throats" thing. That's just wrong.

You know, I really AM quite impressed with how civil we've all been towards each other...anyone want to take odds on how much longer it lasts?

Humans haven't sensed anything metaphysical

Except for the fact that they made up the word and its definition.
The universe fits our definition of abstract. So does the human brain. When your talking about humans "sensing" something you're dealing with metaphysics. Insinct. Intuition. Imagination. It's all in our minds!

I'm sensing something metaphysical right now.

I could be wrong (imagine that, lol,) but I think the point that Vahan's making here is all about semantics.

Of course no one has ever sensed anything metaphysical. By definition, the metaphysical is that which our five senses cannot perceive.

Notice that he DIDN'T say that no one had never EXPERIENCED or ENCOUNTERED the metaphysical.

[iwantmypinkfloydnow]

1. Except for the fact that they made up the word and its definition.

2. The universe fits our definition of abstract.

3. So does the human brain.

4. When your talking about humans "sensing" something you're dealing with metaphysics. Insinct. Intuition. Imagination. It's all in our minds!

5. I'm sensing something metaphysical right now.

1. Yeah, to explain the strange things people have no explanation for, like eclipses and that dude who claims he saw God.

2. Um...no I think astronomers have proven that it pretty much exists.

3. Talk to a neurologist and he'll show you a preserved human brain. It exists all right.

4. Yet the mind originates from the physical human brain. I mean neurologists have given us a very valid explanation of how I experience pain in my thumb. They are already getting better at finding the origin of consciousness. For example, in one experiment, people who had non-damaged eyes but can't see in one of them because their Visual cortex were damaged somehow could "guess" numbers on cue cards. Apparently there is a part of the brain where consciousness (or it could be the entire brain) arises and it processed that visual information without relying on the back of the brain.

So I could insure you that sensing, instinct, intuition, and imagination have a physiological origin. Read Gladewell's "Blink" and you'll see how.

5. Than it's no longer metaphysical, since you sensed it, it exists, therefore it's physical.

[mosespa]

*watches Vahan become a SHINING example of my own statement that the biggest cause of irreconciliation between science and religion is that of each side getting hung up on it's own jargon*

[iwantmypinkfloydnow]

*watches Vahan become a SHINING example of my own statement that the biggest cause of irreconciliation between science and religion is that of each side getting hung up on it's own jargon*

Why does science get stuck up it in it's own jargon? Cause the scientific method is successful in what it does. If it was to changed where you accept a hypothesis that can neither be proven nor disproven, than we don't have science at all, you get pseudoscience.

When I reply like that mos, I'm just presenting facts that science has shown. You can accept it or ignore it.

Religion on the other hand is all about spirituality and feeling better about oneself and others. It is based on faith where "we are willing to believe in what we knows ain't so" (a bit of Twain there). I don't see anything wrong with religion and if I was hung up in my own jargon I will just as easily become a staunch atheists and aggressively attack all beliefs as something people waste their time with even though religion has brought about charity, hope, happiness and empathy to those who follow the good teachings.

When it comes to arseholes in the science/religion debate, it's always staunch atheists and religious nuts.

5. I'm curious to know how one can BE an anti-dualist. Do you not believe in opposites?

Dualism as in metaphysical/physical. We discussed this before, remember? You even posed the same argument!

There is so much more I would love to bring on to the table and clear up some of my past statements. But dam!t I have no time

[mosespa]

1. Why does science get stuck up it in it's own jargon? Cause the scientific method is successful in what it does.

2. If it was to changed where you accept a hypothesis that can neither be proven nor disproven, than we don't have science at all, you get pseudoscience.

3. When I reply like that mos, I'm just presenting facts that science has shown. You can accept it or ignore it.

4. Religion on the other hand is all about spirituality and feeling better about oneself and others. It is based on faith where "we are willing to believe in what we knows ain't so" (a bit of Twain there). I don't see anything wrong with religion and if I was hung up in my own jargon I will just as easily become a staunch atheists and aggressively attack all beliefs as something people waste their time with even though religion has brought about charity, hope, happiness and empathy to those who follow the good teachings.

5. When it comes to arseholes in the science/religion debate, it's always staunch atheists and religious nuts.

6.

I'm curious to know how one can BE an anti-dualist. Do you not believe in opposites?

Dualism as in metaphysical/physical. We discussed this before, remember? You even posed the same argument!

7. There is so much more I would love to bring on to the table and clear up some of my past statements. But dam!t I have no time

1. And the "religious method" is successful in what it does inasmuch as it gives hope to people who may not otherwise have it. It serves other purposes as well...some useful, some not-so-much...but that's what you'll get with any duality. More on that in a sec.

2. And what's the difference between a pseudoscience and theoretical science? Other than that a pseudoscience is looked down upon as bullsh*t while theoretical science is revered? It's just a question of semantics, isn't it?

3. I know, man. But what's really funny is that I don't do either. I read somewhere that the two of the keys to enlighenment are the ability to entertain a notion without taking it seriously and the ability to hold two conflicting notions in one's head at the same time.

Dude, I don't even have to TRY to do either of those things anymore.

4. For the record, Vahan...I have never tried to suggest that I think you're one of those atheists who feel they have to verbally pummel believers into submission. I don't.

But here, you kind of make my first point for me. You acknowledge that religion has purpose and that it's rather effective in accomplishing that purpose.

So...why discard it entirely?

5. Well said.

6. Okay...back to this.

I must admit that I've not checked out any of the stuff you've suggested so I don't really know if where I'm about to go has anything to do with it.

Never let that stop me before, though.

The only way that I can make "non-dualism" a concept that makes sense is to see it as the notion that the physical world is the place where all dualities come together into the cohesive whole that each opposing notion is part of.

If that's not what you're getting at, feel free to elaborate on what it means to you.

7. Don't sweat it, man. I'm sure this thread isn't dying anytime soon.

[iwantmypinkfloydnow]

1. And what's the difference between a pseudoscience and theoretical science? Other than that a pseudoscience is looked down upon as bullsh*t while theoretical science is revered? It's just a question of semantics, isn't it?

2. I read somewhere that the two of the keys to enlighenment are the ability to entertain a notion without taking it seriously and the ability to hold two conflicting notions in one's head at the same time.

3. For the record, Vahan...I have never tried to suggest that I think you're one of those atheists who feel they have to verbally pummel believers into submission.

4. But here, you kind of make my first point for me. You acknowledge that religion has purpose and that it's rather effective in accomplishing that purpose.

So...why discard it entirely?

5. The only way that I can make "non-dualism" a concept that makes sense is to see it as the notion that the physical world is the place where all dualities come together into the cohesive whole that each opposing notion is part of.

If that's not what you're getting at, feel free to elaborate on what it means to you.

1. No, no! That's not how science works! Pseudoscience is where a hypothesis that can neither be proven nor disproven, yet somehow people accept that it's being proven through a scientific method.

A theoretical science involves math first than experiments later. Like string theory, but as Lee Smolin's "The Trouble with Physics" shows, this way of doing science is actually off the track of how science is supposed to be done! Read that book, it'll give you a better sense of how science works and why it works so well.

2. As my last major post made, I did that to, but eventually I found a middle ground that I'm comfortable with. I'm just the type of guy who likes to keep his feet on the ground, so I'm always learning.

3. I never meant to imply that you did.

4. I never said it should be discarded. I'm just saying it's good for the psyche and society even though most of the beliefs originate from people's imagination. In fact science is staring to explain why religion exists in the first place: http://www.economist.com/science/displa ... d=10875666

5. I think we're talking about two different philosophies here.

Hopefully this will clear things up: When I say I'm a non-dualist, I'm just saying is that every phenomenon that we know of has roots in reality and can be explained through reason and intuition (science being the best tool we got since it's directly involved with reality). Anything that we think of as paranormal (or slight glimpses into a realm that we think is outside of our own), is either a hallucination/imagination or, eventually, a phenomenon that can be explained through reason and intuition. However there is nothing wrong with holding on to the belief that these metaphysical experiences have roots in reality (a side of reality we have yet to see), the only problem is when these beliefs turn you into a schitzo or an arsehole who just has to make everyone accept or believe your beliefs.

I'm a naturalist, I believe that reality is the core foundation of everything and there are many sides of it we yet to see. What science is doing is poking holes through a wall that blocks us from reality. It might reveal your beliefs are true after all (like energy is one or that UFO's do exist), but until then your just left to your imagination of what phenomenons are possible in nature. Scientists do that when they hypothesis, but they actually go out there and see if what they are imagining is real and repeat the process to make sure that it's right (that's why science repeats experiments and has "controls" and other strict methods; to be sure that a phenomenon is correctly being detected and observed). Religion is for people who don't have the time or ability to do that, so they take comfort in their beliefs.

Let me give you an example. The universe well eventually expand to a point where we'll lose evidence of other galaxies and the big bang, forever impairing cosmetology and science's ability to punch holes in "the wall" (lol Pink Floyd). These theories of the big bang and other galaxies survived up to a point until all literature and evidence of it is gone and is nothing more than stories passed down by generations through speech and story telling. The science in those days will dismiss these stories of galaxies and big bangs as ludicrous metaphysical and paranormal stories of unknown origins. Maybe they were stories started by the human imagination. Well that sounds reasonable since other origin stories involving God sneezing the universe or an egg cracking open have questionable origins that could lead up to someone's imagination, which is in the same realm as those big bang and galaxy stories. However, even then the science in those days will still continue to look for the origins of the universe despite the ignorance that their ability to detect the origin is impaired. The human endeavor continues and that all that matters.

So you see, there is nothing out there that exists out of reality, just out of perception. Duality is nothing more than the difference of what phenomenons are certainly true and can be physical detected or something that we hope will be true or wish were true, but are stuck imagining it.

You know what? Rereading your statement, I think our philosophies share this "combiness".

[PooF]

What single thing can anyone think of that requires god(s)?

[mosespa]

1. No, no! That's not how science works! Pseudoscience is where a hypothesis that can neither be proven nor disproven, yet somehow people accept that it's being proven through a scientific method.

A theoretical science involves math first than experiments later. Like string theory, but as Lee Smolin's "The Trouble with Physics" shows, this way of doing science is actually off the track of how science is supposed to be done! Read that book, it'll give you a better sense of how science works and why it works so well.

2. As my last major post made, I did that to, but eventually I found a middle ground that I'm comfortable with. I'm just the type of guy who likes to keep his feet on the ground, so I'm always learning.

3. I never meant to imply that you did.

4. I never said it should be discarded. I'm just saying it's good for the psyche and society even though most of the beliefs originate from people's imagination. In fact science is staring to explain why religion exists in the first place: http://www.economist.com/science/displa ... d=10875666

5. I think we're talking about two different philosophies here.

Hopefully this will clear things up: When I say I'm a non-dualist, I'm just saying is that every phenomenon that we know of has roots in reality and can be explained through reason and intuition (science being the best tool we got since it's directly involved with reality). Anything that we think of as paranormal (or slight glimpses into a realm that we think is outside of our own), is either a hallucination/imagination or, eventually, a phenomenon that can be explained through reason and intuition. However there is nothing wrong with holding on to the belief that these metaphysical experiences have roots in reality (a side of reality we have yet to see), the only problem is when these beliefs turn you into a schitzo or an arsehole who just has to make everyone accept or believe your beliefs.

I'm a naturalist, I believe that reality is the core foundation of everything and there are many sides of it we yet to see. What science is doing is poking holes through a wall that blocks us from reality. It might reveal your beliefs are true after all (like energy is one or that UFO's do exist), but until then your just left to your imagination of what phenomenons are possible in nature. Scientists do that when they hypothesis, but they actually go out there and see if what they are imagining is real and repeat the process to make sure that it's right (that's why science repeats experiments and has "controls" and other strict methods; to be sure that a phenomenon is correctly being detected and observed). Religion is for people who don't have the time or ability to do that, so they take comfort in their beliefs.

Let me give you an example. The universe well eventually expand to a point where we'll lose evidence of other galaxies and the big bang, forever impairing cosmetology and science's ability to punch holes in "the wall" (lol Pink Floyd). These theories of the big bang and other galaxies survived up to a point until all literature and evidence of it is gone and is nothing more than stories passed down by generations through speech and story telling. The science in those days will dismiss these stories of galaxies and big bangs as ludicrous metaphysical and paranormal stories of unknown origins. Maybe they were stories started by the human imagination. Well that sounds reasonable since other origin stories involving God sneezing the universe or an egg cracking open have questionable origins that could lead up to someone's imagination, which is in the same realm as those big bang and galaxy stories. However, even then the science in those days will still continue to look for the origins of the universe despite the ignorance that their ability to detect the origin is impaired. The human endeavor continues and that all that matters.

So you see, there is nothing out there that exists out of reality, just out of perception. Duality is nothing more than the difference of what phenomenons are certainly true and can be physical detected or something that we hope will be true or wish were true, but are stuck imagining it.

You know what? Rereading your statement, I think our philosophies share this "combiness".

1. Right. But here's the thing. "Science" deals with the material realm. Metaphysics deals with things BEYOND the material realm.

Now...to try to pare that notion down to something that will jibe with some places we're about to go, let's consider that statement a metaphor and say that "BEYOND the material realm" actually means "areas of reality which we, as of now, don't have the means to perceive."

If "science" ever does discover a means to reigster these things and verify that they do, indeed, exist...what science will have really proven is that it actually limits people by insisting that the only things which ARE are those things which can be perceived by the five senses.

Perception is a flawed thing to begin with because it's interpretive. To interpret something is to "see it" in a way that is different (if only minutely,) from it's intrinsic nature. It's filtered, if you will. But the filter introduces "contaminants" that are not present in the instrinsic nature of the thing being perceived.

There can never be such a thing as a "pure" observation of anything. Any observation is going to contain some trace of the point-of-view of the observer.

Think of it as a variation of the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle...the observer causing changes in the observation.

2. Nothing wrong with keeping your feet on the groud, dude...until someone yanks the carpet out from underneath your feet.

3. I know...it just felt like we were clarifying some things at that point in the discussion and that was all I had to throw in there.

4. Similarly, if a person actually finds comfort in believing that this is all there is, there is nothing more, than bravo. Like you, I think that what a person believes only becomes a real issue when they're being sanctimonious pricks about it.

That's true of everything from Science versus Religion to Star Wars versus Star Trek...Conservatives versus Liberals, et al. though.

5. Okay...so, what you're saying is that you believe that there is no such thing as "unreality" because it's really kind of a contradiction, right? For anything to happen within the physical universe it must either BE physical to begin with (or else it would be impossible for it to manifest in the physical realm,) or BECOME physical for the period of time in which it enters the phyiscal realm, right?

I follow that...and what's more, I'm not even in disagreement with it.

You see, that's my answer for people who question why God no longer interacts with people as the Bible says He once did. Whenever God reached down from Heaven (a metaphor for "when the metaphysical interacted with the physical,) there was a great deal of atmospheric/meteorological disruption. Columns of fire, brimstone raining down from the sky, lightning, rivers changing courses, etc. etc. etc.

His direct intervention in the affairs of humans ended up creating quite a mess within His creation...wreaking havoc with the laws of nature. So, He quit it.

Instead, what happens now is that Christians pray for things, Buddhists meditate on things, whatever form it takes (even down to individual practice,) and what this does is focus a specific type of energy towards the achievement of obtaining a desired result..."creating our own reality" wouldn't be a totally inappropriate metaphor here. That's the ultimate objective of prayer/meditation/practical magik/superstition, etc. etc...using the "supernatural" (or metaphysical) as a tool towards obtaining a desired result.

Even Christians readily say that God helps those who help themselves...there are many "proven" methods of "positive thinking" that are employed on a daily basis. They all have one thing in common, though; they insist that you can achieve anything you want using their system...but YOU still have to be the one to make things happen. Anyone who asks God for something and then just sits and waits for Him to just hand it over really needs to get over themselves (and I don't think science is going to be of much help, there.)

I believe that Karma (to use but one term) is as "physical" as weather patterns. If a person releases positive energy into the world, it dramatically increases the liklihood that positive energy will be returned to them barring any "random" energies interfereing.

Which begs the question of whether or not one can "cheat" Karma by doing good things for the benefit of receiving good things instead of for their own sake.

I think the point on which we're not going to achieve agreement is that I believe that there could be an "unreality" which operates on a completely different set of "laws" than the physical (or "natural") realm...even if only as a facet of "reality" behind a segment of the wall that science hasn't hit yet.

After all, if everything has an opposite (which is what I mean by "duality,") then it stands to reason, imo, that the "natural" or physical realm does also.

The trouble is that whenever the two happen to cross paths, it's usually mildly calamitous for the material realm. Even the Bible talks about the "tearing of the curtain" between our realm and God's...it also says that that's going to happen at the end of days.

I'm pretty sure that the most rational scientist would agree that if there were a barrier between this realm and another, if that barrier were to no longer be there, it would mean something pretty big. What I don't understand is why scientists refuse to acknowledge that there could be such a barrier which would delineate a limit on where everything we understand makes sense on one side, but not on the other. And vice-versa.

"Because the laws of this realm say that it's not possible."

At this point in time, that seems to be the case. But that's also sort of the point, isn't it? I mean, for such a thing to exist it would HAVE to be "impossible" according to the laws of this realm.

"But...but...but then that means that none of our laws make sense."

Balderdash.

They make perfect sense...on THIS side of the barrier. On the other side of that barrier, though...well...all bets are off.

One of the major beliefs of Christianity (as I understand it, anyway) is that the Earth is going to be destroyed to make way for the Kingdom of Heaven. The barrier will fall and all of the past atmospheric disturbances caused whenever God's hand actually crossed the barrier will look like a partly cloudy day by comparison.

Say it with me: "met-a-phor."

If that barrier is there and it should (for whatever reason) cease to continue being there, it would tend to throw things entirely out of whack. Might even destroy everything we know...at least in the sense that anything that managed to survive such a thing would definitely be altered considerably.

Maybe it's just me...........

[Idisaffect]

Double post

[Idisaffect]

RE: Abstract
I didn't mean the physical brain. I meant the thoughts held within it. And you must admit infinity is abstract.

the metaphysical is that which our five senses cannot perceive.

(I'm sure you'll get a laugh out of this one, iwantmypinkfloyd!)

Now I see you've both missed my extremely relative point:We have more than 5 senses. (yes...you heard me...go ahead and laugh) Our other senses have been repressed. Science is working on proving that, too. Unfortunately, those researchers get discredited by the "serious" scientists. As if we are learning anything important about ourselves by spending billions to go to Mars. I admire science when it helps benefit the people who need it. I'm all for it.
I think humans are always searching outward for the answers when the real search is the search inward. It's a great thing to ease physical pain and I'm glad that the doctor is there but the mental pain needs help, too. Mental pain often leads to mass physical pain in the form of wars etc. The journey within is the one that matters. How else could we begin to heal the mental suffering? Don't say drugs.

We can deal with rockets and dreams
but reality what does it mean? - Curtis Mayfield - Freddie's dead