• 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!

Science and Mysticism?

Are both science and mysticism based on experience?


  • Total voters
    6

Sunstone

De Diablo Del Fora
Premium Member
From: http://www.centerforsacredsciences.org/worldview.html

"Just as scientists maintain that the truth of their theories can be verified by anyone who conducts the proper observations and experiments, mystics maintain that the Truth of their teachings can be verified by anyone who is willing to undertake the appropriate spiritual disciplines and practices. Thus, the difference between science and religion is not (as many people have supposed) that one relies on empirical investigation and the other on blind faith. Rather, the difference lies in the domains to be investigated and the kinds of truth to be verified."

Do you agree or disagree with the quote? Why?

Are both science and mysticism based on experience? Why or why not?
 

eudaimonia

Fellowship of Reason
Yes, I agree that both are based on experience. Both introspection and extrospection are forms of experience. The devil is in the interpretation of that experience.


eudaimonia,

Mark
 

Sunstone

De Diablo Del Fora
Premium Member
eudaimonia said:
Yes, I agree that both are based on experience. Both introspection and extrospection are forms of experience. The devil is in the interpretation of that experience.


eudaimonia,

Mark

Are you suggesting that the mystical experience is solely an introspective experience? Just curious.
 

yuvgotmel

Well-Known Member
In my opinion, both come with empirical evidence; however the algorithms may be, or at least may appear, different.

There is new work being done in the area of consciousness though that is making breakthrus. Here is a cut and pasted excerpt from another post that I made on the Atheist board:
Scientists are finding some "proof" of "something," but they tend to refrain from calling it "god." Many now refer to Princeton's Global Consciousness Research Project when talking about quantum entanglement and the possibility for a higher level of global consciousness.

For those of you who may be unaware of Princeton's Global Consciousness project, you can visit this link: http://noosphere.princeton.edu/index.html

Using random number generators (nicknamed EGGs), Princeton students have been observing anomalies immediately before, during and shortly after major events, such as earthquakes, tsunamis, terrorist attacks and even mass prayer sessions and concerts for world peace!

The project has been running for nearly a decade; and their most striking results came shortly before, during and after the attacks of 9-11. During the height of the attacks, the random number generators--which continually generate numbers--ceased to be random throughout the world. The results were shocking. Read more here: http://noosphere.princeton.edu/terror.html

Many other events, as can be found listed on Princeton's website can be seen here: http://noosphere.princeton.edu/results.html This is NOT a complete list of events, but is a good starting point for examples.

As I said, many scientists hesitate to call what they are learning and observing as "god," but "proof" of "something" is becoming more and more evident.
That is but one example. Here is another (in a cut and pasted excerpt from yet another thread):
There was a recent guest host on Coast to Coast AM that you may or may not be aware of named Lee Baumann, Ph.D. He was formerally a medical physican, who saw quite a bit of evidence of an afterlife through his practice in the medical field. He began to write about Near Death Experiences after he saw many clinically dead individuals return and describe their experiences.
Baumann is the author of three books:
God at the Speed of Light
The Akashic Light: Religion's Common Thread
Window To God: A Physician's Spiritual Pilgrimage
And one last thought, from a research paper that I helped my son write on Egyptian mythology over a year ago:
The Egyptian understanding of the psychology of man led them to form rituals and mythologies in order to keep the core information (of the sciences) intact for future generations. In fact, the Egyptians had no word in their language that means the same as our word “religion,” and their word “magic” was interchangeable with their word for “science.”​
Their scientific knowledge included, but was not limited to: cosmology, astronomy, biology, genetics, mathematics, architectural engineering, sound harmonics technology, geology, esotericism, and the interaction of all these things as a whole unit. The Egyptian mythologies had multi-layered meanings.
“List ye now to the unveiling of Mystery.

List to the symbols of Mystery I give.

Make of it a religion.

For only thus will its essence remain.”

~Wisdom of Thoth from the Supplementary Emerald Tablet XIV~
 

Halcyon

Lord of the Badgers
Sunstone said:
Do you agree or disagree with the quote? Why?

Are both science and mysticism based on experience? Why or why not?
I agree.

Mysticism and science are based on observation, mysticism observes internally verifiable truths while science observes externally verifiable truths.

In my opinion, both come with empirical evidence; however the algorithms may be, or at least may appear, different.

Scientists are finding some "proof" of "something," but they tend to refrain from calling it "god." Many now refer to Princeton's Global Consciousness Research Project when talking about quantum entanglement and the possibility for a higher level of global consciousness.

I'd disagree with you, but it's just my personal opinion;

I don't see mysticism as displaying evidence, nor requiring it. I see any evidence people collect that they believe "proves" a mystical experience, as just being the result of natural processes as yet undiscovered.
To me, a mystical experience is an observation of the origin of evidence, that is, the source from which existence and thus evidence derives, but that lacks evidence of its own "existence" - because existence is a product of that origin, not a constituent component.
 
Top