Is Science Compatible with Mysticism?

[Mr Spinkles]

The only 'curtain' is the one in your own mind.

You are begging the question, I happen to think the opposite, and this is the subject of our debate.

Which 'fantastic' claims do you refer to?

I quoted your claims quite clearly in post #66, I'll do it again:

"Mysticism [ignores] appearances, showing us directly what the true nature of Reality is."

"Science does not tell us what the universe actually IS; it merely tells us how it behaves. In this sense, it tells us about the outward appearances of the universe."​

I submit that, contrary to your claims, it is science which ignores appearances, showing us directly what the true nature of Reality is (not perfectly but to a certain degree of accuracy, the same way a map represents the territory to within a certain degree of accuracy). Science DOES tell us what the universe actually IS (as always I mean it is reasonably accurate, not perfect). It does NOT simply tell us about the outward appearances of the universe.

Of course we disagree here, but notice two things:

(1) Clearly there is room for debate on this since my claim does not contradict what the mystic experiences. If you say you experience Oneness, no problem. I believe you. We have no disagreement on whether or not you experience this. Our disagreement is about whether, as you claim, such experiences let you directly see the Reality of the universe, while science reflects only the outward appearance of the universe. People with vertigo, for example, experience the world spinning around them. I accept and believe that is truly their experience, without having experienced vertigo myself. But whether their experience represents the true inner Reality of the universe, while a non-spinning picture of the universe is just its outward appearance, is an entirely separate, additional, and questionable claim. I do not need to experience vertigo myself to question such a claim. Furthermore, not everyone who experiences vertigo is required to make such a claim. Similarly, not everyone who has had a mystical experience makes the specific claims you have made above (as we have seen in these threads).

(2) I have requested, but you have not provided, any evidence/argument to support that your claim is correct, and my claim is incorrect. You have simply re-stated your claim over and over.

 

[Sunstone]

It's pretty gutsy to take a mystical experience, such as an experience of oneness, at face value.

 

[atanu]

And it is pretty gullible to take the model created by mind-senses at face face value.

 

[Sunstone]

And it is pretty gullible to take the model created by mind-senses at face face value.

Metaphysics provides us with one case study after another in gullibility.

 

[Mr Spinkles]

What the mystical realization is, is a 1st person perspective of reality.
...
Mysticism is a specific, disciplined approach to consciousness development in order to "see" what Is, unmediated through all the mental models of the world, beyond these interactions with 3rd person objects of the mind.

I'm not saying you're wrong, but I would suggest that this is incomplete. I don't see how it can be denied that looking through a telescope or microscope is also just as much of a 1st person perspective of reality. Alternatively, it is arguable that anything the mystic "sees" is also something of a 3rd person perspective, since that too is mediated by the physical processes of a functioning brain, although this reality is hidden from the mystic's view without the aid of science. Finally, even if we grant everything else you have said, it is misleading to say the mystic sees "Reality" instead of "part of Reality". I think you would agree with me that no matter how perfect the mystic's view of some part of Reality, the mystic does not see the vast majority of Reality without the aid of science--the color of my shirt, whether it will rain tomorrow, what kind of life exists on another planet, is everything really made of energy, etc.

In fact, I think you would further agree, without contradicting anything you said so far, that without the aid of the scientific maps/models you mentioned, the mystic cannot comprehend the immense age or size of the universe, or the complexity of a bacterium, what is the nature of light, space, time, etc. For example, there is simply no way that a person can "see" directly in their mind's eye the enormous number and positions of all the atoms in the universe, like a computer simulation. The impossibility of this is supported by both our own 1st person attempts to try it, and our scientific knowledge of the finite size and capabilities of the human brain and how computers work. I think any honest scientist, including one who promotes mysticism, will concede that you cannot directly "see" in your mind the Reality of quantum fluctuations, or relativistic warping of spacetime, or complex chaotic systems. But by using the models of science, like scientific notation to represent large numbers, e.g. 10^24, or writing equations, or drawing simplified representations on paper as a sort of "external hard drive" to help out our limited brains, we can get much closer to an accurate perception/comprehension of Reality; and that would be ALL of Reality, not just the tiny corner immediately perceptible/comprehensible to us.

What is more, without the aid of science, the mystic can be positively mislead about the nature of Reality even if he/she is able to achieve a perfect 1st person view of the tiny corner of Reality inside his/her own mind. This appears to be the case with godnotgod, who has gone so far as to deny one of the most salient aspects of Reality, that matter is composed of atoms, because of a mystical feeling of Oneness he has misinterpreted.

I'm not, of course, saying that mysticism as a mental discipline cannot help one more accurately/directly comprehend what is going on in one's own mind, or in one's immediate surroundings. I'm not saying it can't help you focus or appreciate what is learned from science. But it is incomplete simply to say mysticism without the aid of science is sufficient to perceive "Reality". The truth seems to be that mysticism is more like a tool, like a telescope, which can be extremely useful, but which does have limitations; and like any other observational tool it can even be misleading if abused or used exclusively.

 

[atanu]

I'm not saying you're wrong, but I would suggest that this is incomplete. I don't see how it can be denied that looking through a telescope or microscope is also just as much of a 1st person perspective of reality. Alternatively, it is arguable that anything the mystic "sees" is also something of a 3rd person perspective, since that too is mediated by the physical processes of a functioning brain, although this reality is hidden from the mystic's view without the aid of science. .

Sorry for intruding.

Do you ever consider that the brain is a representation of our seeing. Then by a magic we ascribe seeing to that same brain?

Brain does not come and say "I see you, Mr. Spinkles". It is we who see the brain and it's activities.

 

[Mr Spinkles]

And it is pretty gullible to take the model created by mind-senses at face face value.

That's why science is about testing the model, not taking it at face value.

 

[Me Myself]

I'm not saying you're wrong, but I would suggest that this is incomplete. I don't see how it can be denied that looking through a telescope or microscope is also just as much of a 1st person perspective of reality. Alternatively, it is arguable that anything the mystic "sees" is also something of a 3rd person perspective, since that too is mediated by the physical processes of a functioning brain, although this reality is hidden from the mystic's view without the aid of science. Finally, even if we grant everything else you have said, it is misleading to say the mystic sees "Reality" instead of "part of Reality". I think you would agree with me that no matter how perfect the mystic's view of some part of Reality, the mystic does not see the vast majority of Reality without the aid of science--the color of my shirt, whether it will rain tomorrow, what kind of life exists on another planet, is everything really made of energy, etc.

In fact, I think you would further agree, without contradicting anything you said so far, that without the aid of the scientific maps/models you mentioned, the mystic cannot comprehend the immense age or size of the universe, or the complexity of a bacterium, what is the nature of light, space, time, etc. For example, there is simply no way that a person can "see" directly in their mind's eye the enormous number and positions of all the atoms in the universe, like a computer simulation. The impossibility of this is supported by both our own 1st person attempts to try it, and our scientific knowledge of the finite size and capabilities of the human brain and how computers work. I think any honest scientist, including one who promotes mysticism, will concede that you cannot directly "see" in your mind the Reality of quantum fluctuations, or relativistic warping of spacetime, or complex chaotic systems. But by using the models of science, like scientific notation to represent large numbers, e.g. 10^24, or writing equations, or drawing simplified representations on paper as a sort of "external hard drive" to help out our limited brains, we can get much closer to an accurate perception/comprehension of Reality; and that would be ALL of Reality, not just the tiny corner immediately perceptible/comprehensible to us.

What is more, without the aid of science, the mystic can be positively mislead about the nature of Reality even if he/she is able to achieve a perfect 1st person view of the tiny corner of Reality inside his/her own mind. This appears to be the case with godnotgod, who has gone so far as to deny one of the most salient aspects of Reality, that matter is composed of atoms, because of a mystical feeling of Oneness he has misinterpreted.

I'm not, of course, saying that mysticism as a mental discipline cannot help one more accurately/directly comprehend what is going on in one's own mind, or in one's immediate surroundings. I'm not saying it can't help you focus or appreciate what is learned from science. But it is incomplete simply to say mysticism without the aid of science is sufficient to perceive "Reality". The truth seems to be that mysticism is more like a tool, like a telescope, which can be extremely useful, but which does have limitations; and like any other observational tool it can even be misleading if abused or used exclusively.

Its funny because when yiu imagine the posibility of outsideness, you are still inside. All your reality comes from you. Nothing is "outside" .

I understand what you are trying to say, but thats just the thing. Its impossible to say it because you cannot imagine a real outside.

It reminds me of "if you see the buddha in the road, kill him".

I will talk feom practicality, if there is a reality outside of our experience, in what way is it real? If it is outside of our experience and we do not experience it inn anyway, how real is it? Even our imagination is more real because we experience it.

Experience is real. Thats it.

 

[Mr Spinkles]

Sorry for intruding.

Do you ever consider that the brain is a representation of our seeing. Then by a magic we ascribe seeing to that same brain?

Brain does not come and say "I see you, Mr. Spinkles". It is we who see the brain and it's activities.

I don't really understand your question .... I think for my argument to work, we simply have to notice that the brain has something to do with seeing whereas other things (like your fingernails) do not. Does that answer your question? (Probably not ...)

 

[Mr Spinkles]

Experience is real. Thats it.

Okay so when I experience observing separate cells through a microscope, or I experience being non-equivalent to the rest of the universe, that experience is just as real as godnotgod and Willamena's mystical experiences (Oneness, I am the universe, etc.)? They would disagree with that.

 

[atanu]

That's why science is about testing the model, not taking it at face value.

Mr. Spinkles can you ever prove objective reality of any third party witness?

All third party witnesses are witnessed by you alone.

 

[atanu]

I don't really understand your question .... I think for my argument to work, we simply have to notice that the brain has something to do with seeing whereas other things (like your fingernails) do not. Does that answer your question? (Probably not ...)

If brain is seeing and you are not, then how are you sure of what brain seems to be showing ?

 

[godnotgod]

Okay so when I experience observing separate cells through a microscope, or I experience being non-equivalent to the rest of the universe, that experience is just as real as godnotgod and Willamena's mystical experiences (Oneness, I am the universe, etc.)?

Yes, except that you are interpreting it incorrectly through the filter of your discriminating mind, which is dissecting reality into 'this' and 'that'.

 

[godnotgod]

You are begging the question, I happen to think the opposite, and this is the subject of our debate.

I quoted your claims quite clearly in post #66, I'll do it again:

"Mysticism [ignores] appearances, showing us directly what the true nature of Reality is."

"Science does not tell us what the universe actually IS; it merely tells us how it behaves. In this sense, it tells us about the outward appearances of the universe."​

I submit that, contrary to your claims, it is science which ignores appearances, showing us directly what the true nature of Reality is (not perfectly but to a certain degree of accuracy, the same way a map represents the territory to within a certain degree of accuracy). Science DOES tell us what the universe actually IS (as always I mean it is reasonably accurate, not perfect). It does NOT simply tell us about the outward appearances of the universe.

If science is actually showing us the true nature of the universe, then the question would already have been settled by science. Instead, it forges ahead, with the idea in mind that it will someday solve this mystery, and it is approaching the question by thinking it can gather data which will lead up to a conclusion. It does this by deconstruction, reduction, and dissection. The problem is that science is already dealing with appearances from the very beginning of its investigation, but it is unaware that it is doing so. It begins with the assumption that the material world is real, and that Time, Space, and Causation are realities which can be applied to it. In doing so, it sees the world divided into many 'parts', which it thinks comprises the whole, when, in reality, those same 'parts' are merely contiguous features of a single reality, just as all ocean waves, though each slightly different than all the others, are all features of the one featureless ocean from which they all emerge. The bottom line here is that science is dealing with the foreground, or the figure, of the world, rather than the background, or source, from which the world emerges. In this analytical approach, it cannot possibly deliver an accurate rendition of what the true nature of the universe actually is. All it can do is to tell us about how this universe behaves, in terms of the facts it uncovers. Facts are not reality. Facts are details about the phenomenal world, which may or may not be real.
Quantum Mechanics is now showing us that previous models of reality have been overturned.

Now you have made a claim: that science knows the true nature of reality. You should be able to tell us what that is in one statement, since its true nature is but one nature that is applicable to all phenomena.

 

[Windwalker]

I'm not saying you're wrong, but I would suggest that this is incomplete. I don't see how it can be denied that looking through a telescope or microscope is also just as much of a 1st person perspective of reality.

Looking through a telescope is a 1st person experience of viewing objects outside himself. Mysticism is knowing the Subject of all objects, not knowing all objects. Mysticism does not replace scientific inquiry into the study of natural objects. Only misguided mystics might fantasize such nonsense.

Alternatively, it is arguable that anything the mystic "sees" is also something of a 3rd person perspective, since that too is mediated by the physical processes of a functioning brain, although this reality is hidden from the mystic's view without the aid of science.

First the mystic does not see "something". "It" is not an object, not a "thing". As such, science cannot "see" that, because science looks at "things" and tries to comprehend them. No mystic should ever imagine, and I'd think those with this insight know better, that we "comprehend" anything. We "apprehend" and that is markedly different than comprehension.

Please read the following, as I'm going to be bringing you back to this throughout our discussion:

The words apprehension and comprehension refer to two different mental processes of grasping or taking hold of experience. Apprehension is the ability to understand something by relying on tangible or concrete experience. A simple example is when you touch the fire it will burn your finger. This experience can lead you apprehending that you should not touch fire. Whereas comprehension does not require concrete experience to understand, it is the ability to understand through reliance on conceptual interpretation and symbolic representation. Comprehension means the complete process of understanding, to perceive, interpret and process knowledge. In the examination point of view a comprehension means an exercise characterized by questions based on a short paragraph or text. A comprehension is to test the aptitude of the student.

Linguists tend to define comprehension as ‘understanding and deciding’. They define apprehension as ‘understanding and hesitating’. It is thus for sure that comprehension ends in decision whereas apprehension ends in hesitation. Comprehension at time paves the way for discussion too, whereas apprehension paves the way for imagination.


Read more: Difference Between Apprehension and Comprehension | Difference Between
​

There is a reason why mystics say that God, or Reality, or whatever word for this one prefers, is beyond comprehension. It is not a cognitive knowledge. It transcends reason. It is non-rational, but not irrational. Which simply means its nature is not a rational proposition. To be such, it must be an object of study. As it is not, it is inappropriate to use the tools of science and reason to attempt to first define, then secondly explain, and then thirdly try to comprehend that which transcends all categories and all definitions. It is only something apprehended, not comprehended.

Finally, even if we grant everything else you have said, it is misleading to say the mystic sees "Reality" instead of "part of Reality".

No, it's not "part of" reality. This is where we are running into difficulty. I believe the use of the word reality here means something to you very specific. Reality to you is a universe of objects; a universe of forms. Think of it in terms like this. Reality, used with the capital letter, is to mean the Absolute. "It" is the Formless. Energy isn't the correct word either, except if meant metaphorically. In the mystical apprehension of Reality it is a metaphoric expression of that which encompasses all reality, all material, all mental, all experienced universe. It is the Formless through which all form arises. It is not itself another form. It is not an object. Even though you see me clumsily using words like "it". Our language does not support a nondual view, except in the loose use of words in metaphor, such as call that Reality.

Once again, "it" is not an object. Reality in the way you use it is.

I think you would agree with me that no matter how perfect the mystic's view of some part of Reality, the mystic does not see the vast majority of Reality without the aid of science--the color of my shirt, whether it will rain tomorrow, what kind of life exists on another planet, is everything really made of energy, etc.

Negative. The mystic does not see some part of Reality, in that use of the world. There are no "parts" of that. However when we look at the world of form, we are looking at the world of form. And no mystic should ever say they know all forms and have all knowledge about forms!!

In another thread sometime ago asking about Omniscience, I had this to say that might shed some light on this thought:

"The notion of omniscience is of course something I am familiar with from my Christian past. I disagree with that which imagines it to mean knowing all things, all data, past, present, and future in the details of everything like some sort of hyper-scientific and Greek Fates sort of encyclopedic knowledge. That is not omniscience.

I understand omniscience as deeply simple. It is seeing past all facades, all forms, all illusions to the very nature of all that is. Bare, naked, pure, true.

That is all. That is everything. It has nothing to do with specific information, but purity of insight into the bare soul of all that is. That is omniscience."
​

The mystic experiences omniscience. I know what that is from experience. It has nothing to do with some sort of Santa Clause magic mind reading everyone's thoughts and knowing every molecule in the universe! That's silly.

In fact, I think you would further agree, without contradicting anything you said so far, that without the aid of the scientific maps/models you mentioned, the mystic cannot comprehend the immense age or size of the universe, or the complexity of a bacterium, what is the nature of light, space, time, etc.

Absolutely correct! I've been saying that directly all along.

For example, there is simply no way that a person can "see" directly in their mind's eye the enormous number and positions of all the atoms in the universe, like a computer simulation.

Yes, that is nonsense. That is not what the mystical experience is.

I think any honest scientist, including one who promotes mysticism, will concede that you cannot directly "see" in your mind the Reality of quantum fluctuations, or relativistic warping of spacetime, or complex chaotic systems.

Very true, but let's clarify something first. You would never say, the Reality of quantum fluctions. That is not the appropriate use of the captialized word in that context. The Reality of quanta, or anything is its "Such'ness", not its particles.

But please let me share this thought with you since you brought up scientists who promote mysticism. As I'm sure you are familiar with those great physicists who were mystics, including those who came up with Quantum physics. Not one of them, not one of them, felt their scientific theories proved God or the mystical experience. Yet every one of them were mystics despite what science showed them! It is only the popular imagination that takes Quantum physics and tries to make it prove what the mystics have been saying all along. If this is true, then why didn't any of them who were mystics themselves ever believe that??

I believe the reasons are for the reasons I'm stating. You are arguing against a notion of the relationship between mysticism and science that is two things: First, it's bad mysticism. Secondly, it's bad science.

(continued in next post)

 

[Windwalker]

(continued....)

What is more, without the aid of science, the mystic can be positively mislead about the nature of Reality even if he/she is able to achieve a perfect 1st person view of the tiny corner of Reality inside his/her own mind.

No, because the mystic is not studying reality in the way you understand it. I covered the use of Reality in its symbolic form to explain this. Let's just call it God then. Of course, that word too sucks in a lot of people's minds as they have been taught it means a white-haired super-person in the sky up there, out there somewhere.

I think any word at all is insufficient to communicate it, but maybe saying something like the Transcendent All, the Nondual, Brahman, etc, might help. But even then, without direct experience, it remains but a mental object, and as such it is perceived by you and others as a "thing", which then can and should follow the rules of scientific analysis.

And that's the problem. It's like, trying to know love by looking at the chemicals involved under a microscope!

This appears to be the case with godnotgod, who has gone so far as to deny one of the most salient aspects of Reality, that matter is composed of atoms, because of a mystical feeling of Oneness he has misinterpreted.

Again, you misuse Reality in this context. But I will let godnotgod explain for himself in his words his thoughts. I don't suspect he is saying this, but he has to speak for himself.

I'm not, of course, saying that mysticism as a mental discipline cannot help one more accurately/directly comprehend what is going on in one's own mind, or in one's immediate surroundings. I'm not saying it can't help you focus or appreciate what is learned from science.

And back to the difference between apprehend and comprehend. You mistake understanding mysticism as some form of mental exercise. It is not that. Yes, the practice of meditation does benefit the powers of concentration and does help mental processes, you do better cognitively, etc. That's very true. I feel my IQ shot up at least 15 points science I began meditation, simply by learning to clear the debris that clouds thought. But that is simply a side effect, not the goal.

But despite the sort of mental benefits I have, I do not at all imagine has to do with being able to cogntively comprehend the Absolute. If anything, it helps you be smart enough to realize it has nothing to do with any of those things that go into creating models of reality and comprehending them.

We are talking the exact opposite of that. This is like comparing apples to an Ocean.

But it is incomplete simply to say mysticism without the aid of science is sufficient to perceive "Reality". The truth seems to be that mysticism is more like a tool, like a telescope, which can be extremely useful, but which does have limitations; and like any other observational tool it can even be misleading if abused or used exclusively.

Of course it has limitations. It doesn't teach you how to drive a car or use words in language! It's not a substitute for reason, despite the fact it helps illuminate it.

 

[Mr Spinkles]

Mr. Spinkles can you ever prove objective reality of any third party witness?

All third party witnesses are witnessed by you alone.

No I do not claim to be able to prove anything beyond all doubt. What is your point? You said it's gullible to take models at face-value. Science doesn't do that. And that's a good thing, because otherwise I would be out of a job.

If brain is seeing and you are not, then how are you sure of what brain seems to be showing ?

I'm not sure, that's why I test it. For example, if you aren't sure if you are awake you can pinch yourself. If you aren't sure if your subjective bias is influencing your observations, you do the experiment using "double-blind" methods. Such tests can never provide absolute proof of anything, they merely provide evidence. Just checking: do you acknowledge the difference between proof something is 100% true, vs. evidence that something is more-or-less accurate?

What on Earth has this got to do with my post #85 response to Windwalker? Please get to the point.

 

[Mr Spinkles]

Hi Windwalker,

Thanks for your response, I think we agree so if you don't mind I'll just comment on one or two of your points:

In the mystical apprehension of Reality it is a metaphoric expression of that which encompasses all reality, all material, all mental, all experienced universe.

Okay so you are saying the mystic does not see PART OF, but ALL of "a metaphoric expression..."? That doesn't seem very impressive, to be able to see a metaphoric expression. The alternative is that you mean the mystic sees not PART OF, but ALL of "all reality, all material ... universe"? But that's clearly untrue since the mystic doesn't see the color of my shirt, or indeed 99.9999...% of the material universe, without the aid of science.

Negative. The mystic does not see some part of Reality, in that use of the world.

Clearly the mystic DOES only see some part of Reality, in the use of the word which I gave: the mystic does not see the color of my shirt, etc. Surely you agree with this, in the use of the word which I gave?

As I'm sure you are familiar with those great physicists who were mystics, including those who came up with Quantum physics. Not one of them, not one of them, felt their scientific theories proved God or the mystical experience. Yet every one of them were mystics despite what science showed them! It is only the popular imagination that takes Quantum physics and tries to make it prove what the mystics have been saying all along. If this is true, then why didn't any of them who were mystics themselves ever believe that??

Yes, but for the record, I think it's a bit misleading to say "every one of them were mystics". Albert Einstein for example said harsh things about mysticism, like this: “The mystical trend of our time, which shows itself particularly in the rampant growth of the so-called Theosophy and Spiritualism, is for me no more than a symptom of weakness and confusion. Since our inner experiences consist of reproductions, and combinations of sensory impressions, the concept of a soul without a body seem to me to be empty and devoid of meaning.” And: “I have never imputed to Nature a purpose or a goal, or anything that could be understood as anthropomorphic. What I see in Nature is a magnificent structure that we can comprehend only very imperfectly, and that must fill a thinking person with a feeling of humility. This is a genuinely religious feeling that has nothing to do with mysticism.” Einstein also said nice things about mysticism, and God, but he was using poetic language to talk about a sense of wonder at the universe and a sense of curiosity and humility at how little we can comprehend. Like most physicists I think Einstein would consider much of the "mystical" talk to be almost meaningless word-salad, with the likes of Deepak Chopra being on the extreme end of the nonsense spectrum.

First the mystic does not see "something". "It" is not an object, not a "thing". As such, science cannot "see" that, because science looks at "things" and tries to comprehend them. No mystic should ever imagine, and I'd think those with this insight know better, that we "comprehend" anything. We "apprehend" and that is markedly different than comprehension.

Okay I'll use the word "apprehend" then. What the mystic apprehends is not strictly 1st person or unmediated, it's still mediated by a functioning brain. I suspect that a mystic who suffers a traumatic brain injury, or a mystic under the influence of various different drugs, does not apprehend the exact same thing as all other mystics.

And that's the problem. It's like, trying to know love by looking at the chemicals involved under a microscope!

Looking at the chemicals involved may not be sufficient to gain accurate knowledge of love, but it is necessary. That is to say, all other things being equal, the person who has studied the chemicals has a more comprehensive knowledge of the reality of love than the person who has not. This may seem to you like a surprising claim but if you think about what I am saying I suspect you will agree. Once this is accepted, it becomes apparent that the mystical claims we have seen on this thread become quite misleading.

 

[Mr Spinkles]

If science is actually showing us the true nature of the universe, then the question would already have been settled by science.

Yes but as I said, science shows us an accurate picture of the nature of the universe, not the 100% exact true nature. Therefore, there is always more work to be done in improving the accuracy.

The problem is that science is already dealing with appearances from the very beginning of its investigation, but it is unaware that it is doing so. It begins with the assumption that the material world is real, and that Time, Space, and Causation are realities which can be applied to it. In doing so, it sees the world divided into many 'parts', which it thinks comprises the whole, when, in reality, those same 'parts' are merely contiguous features of a single reality, just as all ocean waves, though each slightly different than all the others, are all features of the one featureless ocean from which they all emerge. The bottom line here is that science is dealing with the foreground, or the figure, of the world, rather than the background, or source, from which the world emerges. In this analytical approach, it cannot possibly deliver an accurate rendition of what the true nature of the universe actually is. All it can do is to tell us about how this universe behaves, in terms of the facts it uncovers. Facts are not reality. Facts are details about the phenomenal world, which may or may not be real.

[Emphasis added] As a scientist, I can tell you that you are wrong, scientists are perfectly aware that they are dealing with appearances and assumptions. At the end of the day you are still just begging the question: you claim that science sees the world divided into many 'parts', but reality is different. But you provide no evidence for this. Individual atoms are resolvable by scanning tunneling microscopes, for example, in fact you can pick up atoms and arrange them at will as IBM has done:

Your claims that this picture, instead of being more-or-less accurate, is just an illusion of outward appearances, and the reality is that all is One, etc. etc., is just totally unsupported by any evidence so far. I see no reason to doubt it is an accurate (not perfect) description of reality.

Quantum Mechanics is now showing us that previous models of reality have been overturned.

Well ... yes and no. (Quantum mechanics is around 100 years old btw.) So because science recognizes its limitations and strives to improve its accuracy, therefore ..... ? This helps your argument, how?

Now you have made a claim: that science knows the true nature of reality. You should be able to tell us what that is in one statement, since its true nature is but one nature that is applicable to all phenomena.

No, your second sentence does not logically follow from your first.

 

[YmirGF]

Do you think science is compatible with mysticism? Why or why not?

As cojoined disciplines, working together? Not likely. As separate pursuits? Sure, why not. The real question is one of credibility. Science has credibility; whereas mysticism doesn't have much tangible credibility.

Do science and mysticism have anything in common? If so, what?

They both come from the understanding of human animals?

If I may offer an alternative view:

And yet unlike science, mysticism lacks the advantage of being able to make progress on such questions by self-correction and ever-improving accuracy.

Very astute, Mr Spinkles. Sadly, there isn't much room for growth once you've hit so-called "Universal consciousness". There isn't much that can be improved upon once one has reached the "Perfect Reality". It's all a tad deflating and oddly anti-intellectual, to boot. I'm endeavoring to change that however it's a tough slog. Then again, I always have enjoyed a good challenge throughout most of my innumerable lives. Strangely, I feel almost like a heretic.

Science thus succeeded in doing, to everyone's satisfaction, what mysticism can only pretend to do, to the satisfaction of the mystic alone.

The simple reality is that science was fairly infantile when mysticism first took hold. Modern science, as we know it, is still very much in its infancy - and look at the marvels it has already produced. Mysticism, while amusing, hasn't generated a fraction of a fraction of comparable merit. When faced with that embarrassing reality, I can only say that there is something very wrong at the very heart of mysticism. The old man's tales don't quite pass muster anymore as the general populous is far better educated and is no longer at the mercy of the self appointed.

It's not that they feel one with the universe, but that they actually are.

Quite the assumptive reasoning, you've got going there, hon. If you are the universe, you really should be able to dredge up Penumbra's real name. Or do you mean they are only sort of, kind of, like a mini-universe with stars in their eyes?

Deepak Chopra put it this way:

"You are the universe looking at itself through its own eyes".

Good grief, please tell me that you are not seriously using Deepak as some kind of authority...