You must ignore a great deal of things in your life.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Is Science Compatible with Mysticism?
- Thread starter Sunstone
- Start date
That the distinctions you make, such as capital-low letter truth and reality, propositional and non-propositional, subject but not object, do not contribute constructively to the message I believe you are trying to express.
Truth, reality, the light of understanding, the undivided love--as you say, it isn't a "thing," and as such, splitting it into even more things doesn't help.
What words do you propose?
I don't. I don't go around proselytizing mysticism (well, not any more) and I'm pained by watching people bash their heads against brick walls of their own making.
The best I can do is point people at those who have said it better than I, and hope for the best.
You must ignore a great deal of things in your life.
You mean things I have no basis for believing exist? Yeah. I tend to ignore the undetectable leprechaun farting invisible rainbows outside my widow. But I take it you don't.
Are you suggesting I do?I don't. I don't go around proselytizing mysticism (well, not any more) and I'm pained by watching people bash their heads against brick walls of their own making.
The best I can do is point people at those who have said it better than I, and hope for the best.
Honestly, as I hear your comments I have the distinct feeling you don't hear what I'm actually saying. I'm honestly at a loss what your complaint with me is.
You call the love of your spouse (if you have one), a leprechaun farting? Where is your empirical evidence for your feeling of awe when you look at the sunset or the night sky.
Don't be absurd. No one in this thread is a target for a Dawkins level polemic of fairies in the bottom of a well.
Nevermind. Carry on.
And absolutely yes, poetry is better. But this is an discussion about the differences between science and mysticism, and why they are compatible. Obviously, I'm going to have to use logic and reason in one breath, and poetry in the next. Don't worry, I have poetry in me in spades.You could always try poetry.
You've said this before....
Coming back to this, Willamena, you judge me incorrectly. You assume a great deal about me here if you see me proselytizing anyone. My only purpose in this thread is informational. I full well understand that there is no way someone can be convinced through logic and reason into what mystical experience is, and that is not my intention. When I hear misunderstandings or misrepresentations of what mysticism entails, of what it claims or doesn't claim, I think that merits discussion, since I have experience in this area.I don't. I don't go around proselytizing mysticism (well, not any more) and I'm pained by watching people bash their heads against brick walls of their own making.
If I were proselytizing, it would have to be about some doctrine or faith that you must believe. There is nothing to believe! The only thing you will ever see me do is encourage others to seek the value and benefit of it for themselves, just like getting good exercise or developing your mind through study and intellectual pursuits. I see it as a human practice for the mind and body and soul. If someone isn't interested, then so be it. No skin of my nose. If they are, or might be, then having good information about it is important, as opposed to all these misnomers that get tossed about like it is somehow anti-intellectual or is tantamount to believing in fairies or some other utter nonsense.
It seems to me you are not seeing beyond yourself and your past, and are projecting this on me. That's a shame.
godnotgod
Thou art That
It cannot be verified by such means at all! It is beyond the confines of logic, reason, analysis.
'Tat tvam asi' is essentially the experience of divine union. There is no 'self' or 'other', which would be necessary for empirical validation. The experience itself is its own validation.
Do you allow that there may be other forms of knowledge as valid or even more valid than empirical knowledge?
I stand corrected.
I came to it through logic, reason and poetry, though I honestly can't dispute your claims (and wouldn't anyway).
godnotgod
Thou art That
Science, via this methodology, claims that it will someday come to a full understanding of the universe. Does empirical knowledge tell us exactly what the universe actually is, or does it just tell us about it.
And malt does more than Milton can
To justify God's ways to man
Ale, man, ale's the stuff to drink
For fellows whom it hurts to think
Look into the pewter pot
To see the world as the world's not
And faith, 'tis pleasant till 'tis past
The mischief is that 'twill not last
-A. E. Housman
Science can be seen as telling us about the universe, to use your term. I believe that position implies methodological naturalism. To assume that science -- or anything, including mystical experiences -- tells us exactly what the universe actually is, is to dabble in madness. Also known as metaphysics, about which very little, if anything, can be known for certain.
Last edited:
Well, you could say I did as well, but it was because I was drawn in my soul to the well from which those sprang. I write music and would tap into that inspirational well and let it sing through me, expressed in my hands, through my heart, through my soul. Logic and reason played a part in that in trying to expand that level of understanding, understanding the world through science likewise inspired me. I'll never forget the time I first learned of evolution. Rather than devaluing humanity, it illuminated it as a brilliant shining jewel on this living tree of life. We were no longer the top of creation over other lifeforms, but beautiful among them. But it was really more the discovery of this through reason, that the heart could "see" something marvelous in it!
Then taking the next step, and entering into that stream through direct immersion took me to where the power of logic and reason could not. It's been a long journey for me, and hardly one could call anti-intellectual or anti-science. But with it, is the heart and soul of a poet. Indeed, aren't a lot of mystics lovers of science and poetry? It is no wonder to me at all.
That's kind of funny, because if we can't be certain that science can be seen as telling us about the universe, that that position implies methodological naturalism, that to assume science--or anything, including mystical experiences--tells us exactly what the universe actually is, then what can be we be certain of?
I hate to add fuel to the fire, as I largely agree with you on the value of empiricism and (as an agnostic and a scientist) do not believe there is any superior method to those of the sciences when it comes to verification.
That said, if we ignore things that can’t be verified empirically we lose most or all of the sciences.
Empiricism developed in opposition to Kant’s belief that some truths require a priori knowledge. As “truths” included (or indeed were) propositions, this meant that there were mathematical statements which could not be verified empirically. In other words, from the 1800s onward mathematics was viewed as an empirical “science”.
One result of empiricism was the attempt by Frege to construct a logic (a mathematical logic) upon which all of mathematics could rest. Although he failed, his effort meant a new path to finally making mathematics consistent with empiricist goals. This was so important that logicism (the attempt to achieve what Frege did not) became a central goal in science & mathematics. It was one of the 23 problems Hilbert declared to be the most important in mathematics, all the big names (Peano, Russell, Whitehead, Ramsey, Carnap, Mill, Hilbert) attempted to solve it.
Kurt Gödel did solve it, but only in the sense that he proved it couldn’t be done. It was a massive blow to logicians, mathematicians, and scientists.
It didn’t end empiricism, but it was a major blow and did end one type of empiricism. Another serious blow to empirical mathematics came from Quine, and depending on who you ask, empiricism is either ended or it is of a different kind.
What’s important is that mathematics, so far as anyone knows, cannot be verified empirically, despite attempts to make this so from Kant (who started it by provoking it) onwards. I don’t think you’d argue that it can be “safely ignored”.
This wasn’t the most serious challenge to empiricism, however. The success of physics and newer branches of the sciences from Newton’s time culminated in the 19th and early 20th century view that physics had basically finished all but a “few small clouds” and soon would be done. Science would be mostly social sciences.
Quantum mechanics didn’t just show that this was wrong, and there was a lot more to do. For many it ended empiricism completely. A core component of the theory is that there is an absolute limit to knowledge through empirical inquiry/the “scientific method”.
Finally, within physics not only do we have vast disagreements about what quantum theory is or involves (and by extension any unified theory), we have theories like the various multiverse theories. Many or most of these probably can’t ever be verified empirically, and were constructed mathematically. All of quantum physics involves a sort of quasi-empiricism as any description of a quantum system irreducibly statistical. Every model of every quantum system is a mathematical description of a system which is never observed/measured.
Basically, the entirety of scientific research involving any kind of quantum mechanics (i.e., any work in chemistry, biology, physics, etc., which makes us of the mathematical devices from quantum mechanics, such as the Schrödinger equation) is no longer strictly empirical. At some point, I'm using a model of a physical system (a cell, molecule, whatever) which, when it comes to the quantum system that is or is a part of this physical system, I am using a mathematical model of that system without ever observing it. I use variables to describe this physical system but I cannot tell you how these variables correspond to some physical component this system.
If I have a model of a neuron, and I am asked “what does this variable in your model correspond to in the cell?” I can answer. I can say “this is the number of potassium ions” or “this is the membrane potential” and so on. I can't do this with a quantum system.
Last edited: