Liberal,
I believe that in an earlier discussion, you proposed, and I agreed, that science is an inadequate epistemology for knowing the Truth.
How do you know
1)The universe does satisfy/possess the conditions it does (amorality, energy…etc)?
2)why do your assigned properties (temporal…) necessitate those conditions?
No, you just read an implication that isn’t there.
I’m not asking anyone to accept my meaning. They can deicde for themselves. I repeat, no one inferred that science is supposed to answer any question. It was merely noticed that there are questions science can’t answer. My objection is to your use of the word valid. A question can be valid even if it can’t be answered by science. Don’t you agree?
Your analogy doesn’t apply.
Lets not forget the title of the thread and the OP.
Argent, I do believe science and spirituality to be perfectly compatible. I believe science helps dispell the myths of religion for those who ardently seek the truth. I also think it’s importent to understand the difference between what I know to be true and what may be a belief in progress. The pattern of humanity seems to reveal that there is a lot more we don’t know than things we know. As scientists gain knowledge then the concepts of what is accepted as scientific fact is refined and expanded. I think the spiirtual quest is like that as well.
As individuals we must operate under the guidelines of what we believe to be true. Even atheists operate under a belief system. Their moral code is based on something.
The major difference to me is that I believe we are primarily and in reality spirit and only temporarily a physical body. That doesn’t stop me from getting pissed when something irritates me. It hopefully prompts me to ask different questions of myself.
Honor and respect your right to your own journey and try to respect the rights of others to do the same. Nobody is wrong for chooseing what they believe or don’t believe.
There are plenty of “evidences”, for one who doesn’t have one’s head implanted in one’s posterior; primarily the fact that my brain can think to ask the question validates the question. Does a slug wonder about its fate after death? Does a duck worry about the reason for its existence? Maybe! Who knows? One thing I DO know: the ponderings and angst experienced by the OP are fairly universal phenomena not to be discounted so arbitrarily, and certainly not to be dismissed out of fear or ignorance.
What right did our ancestors have to ask whether the earth was indeed as flat as it appeared?
Using clair obscure’s brand of logic, one would assume it was ridiculous to question anything unseen prior to the use of the microscope and telescope, not to mention various modes of transportation; this line of un-reasoning would have kept humanity in the dark ages.
Who are you to validate or judge what is and is not a valid question, merely because you lack the creativity / curiosity to do so yourself?
Amen.
Argent Towers,
I was raised by scientists, biologists by trade, and my upbringing was all about rational scientific approach to the world, with no organized religion/church experience at all. I spent a good time of my youth in my stepfather’s lab, field classes, and fieldwork in Mexico. I learned scientific method, and the construct of the Latin naming system. So, that is very much welded into my mind, and a great gift.(Thanks to my stepDad, who finally retired from teaching last month at age 74)
So, absolutely no religious upbringing, but, because of being out in the “real”, natural world, was raised with a sense of wonder, appreciation, and inquisitiveness about the environment we live in. That was as fine a cathedral as any.
At about your age, I went through those usual crises of spirit. All the questions an intelligent person has, and wrestling with the plethora of approaches to an answer. I suspect that for you, it’s even more complex these days, with access to so much more information.
To make a long story of searching short, I found Buddhist theory to be a nice fit to the way my scientifically educated mind approaches the world. Specifically Tibetan tradition; very rational, emphasis on developing one’s own ability to perceive phenomena/“reality”, with techniques to improve perception. I am not particularly accomplished, to be truthful, but that system of spiritual inquiry is productive for me, in the sense of solace, too.
There have been many books exploring Tibetan Buddhist methods of knowing the mind; two fine ones you might enjoy are "MindScience: An East West Dialogue"http://www.wisdompubs.org/products/0861710665.cfm, a documentary of a Harvard Medical School Symposium with the Dalai Lama, Indo-Tibetan scholars, and Western medical scholars, discussing human brain “software” Good read.
Also, B. Alan Wallace is an amazing Buddhist scholar, especially at the interface of Buddhist theory and scientific theory. He was one of the first Westerners to go through the rigorous Tibetan monastic system, then got a degree in physics and philosophy of science, then a PhD in religious studies from Stanford. This book in particular might help you in your understanding; “Choosing Reality; A Buddhist View of Physics and the Mind” http://www.snowlionpub.com/search.php?isbn=CHRE2N A very heavy, mind-boggling read, but worth it.
I know I’m not debating here, am answering the OP, though, I hope. Argent, keep asking those questions. I’ve found that the best spiritual questions are like the best scientific questions. It’s glimpse after glimpse after glimpse. Hone your mind, learn from smart folks, and keep open and flexible.
This thread is cool. I’m intrigued, piqued, thinking, questioning…and so on.
As the op states, both science and spirituality serve as attempts towards a true description of the universe and our place in it.
Science always holds its truths on probation. Science always is open to proving itself wrong and recognizes that truth may be out there but that all we can create are better approximations of it.
Religion is revealed truth which is true by definition.
They are most complementary when they attempt to answer different questions. Religion was a folk science once upon a time, and still is to some. It needs to abdicate that role and stick to the metaphysical.
Religion, and philosophy in general, is good at asking questions. Science can use these questions. That’s something of a positive relationship. After this, I’m not so sure. I’m pretty confident that the dogmatic is pretty useless for science. In fact, to me it looks more like a hindrance.
To Liberal and others, I apologize for saying “It appears to me that many people in this thread are using a god of the gaps argument to justify their belief in the spiritual.” I was also reading many other of this type of thread and I carried my thoughts over to this arena. However, there was this in this thread…
Continuing the discussion…
I’m not sure why there has to be something.
Cells fighting against equilibrium.
Consciousness’s source is the brain, which is an aggregate of (irrc) over a quadrillion connections between billions of neurons. When the neurons die our consciousness fades. Do you recall what “it” was like before you were born? Of course you don’t, your consciousness wasn’t grown yet. Barring evidence to the contrary, I see no reason why “it” will be any different after I die.
Asking where it goes it like asking where the light goes after the company cuts your power for not paying your bills. I suppose you could say the machinery responsible radiates heat away to the environment.
If you believe that the word “mind” is not another way of saying brain then I must point out that the brain is extremely active when you sleep. I would also say that the brain is a very physical part of our body.
I hope whoever is dreaming us doesn’t…wake up.
Whatever works for you.
If I crack open your skull and remove certain pieces of your brain you will be irrevocably changed. Your fundamental personality, intelligence, and outlook on life would be replaced or twisted, possibly without you even remembering your past “self.”
As people age their brains slowly degrade. This manifests itself in many ways.
How do you reconcile this with the belief of a spirit per person basis? How is a spirit (which I assume you believe to be non-corporeal in nature) affected by these things?
Where was your soul before you were born? What does it do when it leaves your body?
Do people with dissociative disorder have multiple souls or just one confused one?
Do animals have souls? What about your cat? A dog? A dolphin? A chimp? A worm?
If we make AI, will it have a soul too?
The fundamental problem I see with all of this soul business is the mechanism. The vast majority of people I have talked to say that a soul is not a material thing. You can’t detect it with scientific instruments. Fine. How does it interact with our world, then? There has to be a fundamental point where the soul is making something happen. Otherwise it might as well not exist. If the soul powers our brains then where is it happening?
The only explanation that seems to work is magic. Magic doesn’t work in science.
If we can detect neutrinos…
Huh? This sounds like cause for celebration, especially since I know many troubled individuals. However, I’m not very familiar with the incident you describe. If they really did predict that then…well, that’s rather silly of them sans, you know, trials, evidence and the like.
Unless you can help me, the logic is hurting me a little here. Depression and mental illness have not been totally cured (although we are much better off today than 40 years ago), ergo that is a gap and God exists.
Do you think we should stop trying to fill the gap*, as it were?
Speaking of which, what’s wrong with a soul if someone is mentally ill?
Why does there have to? Your are creating a void that needs to be filled, then inventing a thing to fill it. Take the universe at face value (a la Aristotle and Ptolemy), until convincing proof comes along to justify a change in our understanding (a la Copernicus and Newton).
Where does the fire go when the match is extinguished? The matchstick is still there, but the intense heat, light and smoke are all gone. Did they all go to an afterlife? Perhaps the fire gets reincarnated onto some other matchstick the moment it gets rubbed against a strikeboard.
Inspired by this thread:
http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?p=6287725#post6287725
[QUOTE]
If by dogmatic you mean clinging to certain beliefs in spite of the evidence I certainly agree.
I think the statement you quoted can be understood to mean, “I tend to believe there is something else out there”
You’re free to believe the opposite.
The fact is we don’t know. There are unanswered questions. The desire to know moves us forward, in science and in the personnal spiritual journey. You may not have evidence to believe anything else. That’s your choice.
Hardly, there are still many questions left unanswered about the brain and consciousness. More than those left unanswered about how electricity makes my lights go on.
HAve you ever had a dream in which you recognized it as a dream and wanted to wake up? If you had even an inkling that we are in something akin to a dream wouldn’t you want to know if that was indeed the truth?
thank you, and you as well.
You’ve successfully pointed out that there are a lot of unanswered questions. Those exist in science as well.
Consciousness source is not the brain. If you want some evidence I will provide links. Read them fully there is a lot of information in them.
http://www.aleroy.com/wildcard/
This ends with more links, all are important and there are studies and documented science data, not just experiences.
lekatt, instead of:
How about:
Also, your link states “Eternally, all people hold within themselves the perfect light of their Creator. Skeptics, believers, and experiencers alike share the common bond of their Creator’s Unconditional Love.” ::Not really existent throw up smiley::
Does that mean you don’t like it?
Just for the record, I would have loved it if anyone reading this in the past hour were to find some clever way to say “Duh” in response to lekatt’s question. Same goes with any other thread were someone has asked a question of me, but you think the answer is fairly obvious.
Did you notice you maybe the only one not reading the links.
Since you are expressing negative thoughts, it don’t count unless you read the links.
W
T
F
!
My quote, was from within your link.(As you said, “you maybe the only one not reading the links”) Thus, I must have read it. What the hell, man?
Analytical reasoning.
Rule of modus tollens.