-
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 religion are not necessarily in conflict.
- Thread starter Gambit
- Start date
Ouroboros
Coincidentia oppositorum
Agree.
I don't agree with this as much though. I think you might benefit reading one of Ken Wilber's books.
Last edited:
HonestJoe
Well-Known Member
That hypothesis and any related ones can be assessed using the physical sciences. We as human beings (currently) are significantly limited in our ability to do so fully, though we can still do it, albeit with a lot of assumptions but someone/something which itself existed outside space and time wouldn’t have such a restriction and could use science even more effectively. Science itself isn't the limiting factor, we are.
Consciousness is certainly subjecting to the "owner". That doesn't mean it can't be objective when viewed from the outside. After all, some "object" much bring it to be, whether than is the brain alone or more than that and that could be studied. Again, we might need to use some assumptions and might not reach all the definitive conclusions but that it's the same as throwing science out completely.
Debateable
Member
Just what is this list of things? I'm curious to know.
Things seriously studied in the last 150 years of modern parapsychology research.
JerryL
Well-Known Member
Science is the process of creating models which make accurate predictions about observable reality. That's what science does.
I have no idea what religion claims to do.
They are in conflict when religion makes claims which do not match the models and also fail to produce valid predictions.
rbj
rbj
It is true that Science (as we now practice it and as we *should* practice it) is concerned only with efficient causes. I would say that not just Religion is concerned with final causes, but a person's philosophy as a whole is. Richard Dawkins concerns himself with final causes when he speaks or writes about "Cranes supporting cranes" (ultimately in some sorta circular manner) as an alternative to a "Skyhook". Owen Gingerich might disagree with you (and with Stephen Jay Gould) about the "non-overlapping magisteria".
For my money, I would say it really depends on what one's particular religion contains. In my opinion, authentic and orthodox (small-case "o") Christians believe in resurrection. But genuine "resurrection" (*not* resuscitation) as a topic surely does not belong in a physiology textbook. This is an overlapping magisteria and both Science and this particular religion has something to say about it and they don't say the same thing.
shawn001
Well-Known Member
You believe in ghosts and I am asking you how ghosts have clothes? Do clothes cross over with the dead? Your the one talking about the supernatural here and paranormal. Then saying there is evidence and there of course isn't.
"But anyway, above the physical plane your appearance is controlled by your thoughts." "And yes you can change your clothes by thought."
Explain the psychophysiology and mechanism of that for us scientifically.
Science doesn't yet understand PK (psycho-kinetics) but it happens. But in the end I believe matter is all a product of consciousness.
shawn001
Well-Known Member
Where has it happened, you keep telling me these things happen yet show nothing as in NO EVIDENCE.
Please don't start with Uri Geller.
"But in the end I believe matter is all a product of consciousness"
again, its not "I believe" its show some evidence.
Its actually the other way around for life on Earth. You't would have consciousness, which we can show evolved, as did everything in the universe, without the elements and we know where the elements came from like Carbon in the first place.
So I ask you where does the element carbon come from?
shawn001
Well-Known Member
This was a question you again completely ignored.
"Explain the psychophysiology and mechanism of that for us scientifically."
I can say pink unicorns and that is silly to you, you can post the same and then say science hasn't proven it. Right nor have they proven pink unicorns exist. They might but there is no proof of them.
shawn001
Well-Known Member
I don't normally use wiki very much but..
"Evaluation
There is a broad scientific consensus that PK research, and parapsychology more generally, have not produced a reliable, repeatable demonstration.[12][16][17][67][80][81]
A panel commissioned by the United States National Research Council to study paranormal claims concluded that "despite a 130-year record of scientific research on such matters, our committee could find no scientific justification for the existence of phenomena such as extrasensory perception, mental telepathy or ‘mind over matter’ exercises... Evaluation of a large body of the best available evidence simply does not support the contention that these phenomena exist."[80]
In 1984, the United States National Academy of Sciences, at the request of the US Army Research Institute, formed a scientific panel to assess the best evidence from 130 years of parapsychology. Part of its purpose was to investigate military applications of PK, for example to remotely jam or disrupt enemy weaponry. The panel heard from a variety of military staff who believed in PK and made visits to the PEAR laboratory and two other laboratories that had claimed positive results from micro-PK experiments. The panel criticized macro-PK experiments for being open to deception by conjurors, and said that virtually all micro-PK experiments "depart from good scientific practice in a variety of ways". Their conclusion, published in a 1987 report, was that there was no scientific evidence for the existence of psychokinesis.[67]
Carl Sagan included telekinesis in a long list of "offerings of pseudoscience and superstition" which "it would be foolish to accept (...) without solid scientific data".[82] Nobel Prize laureate Richard Feynman advocated a similar position.[83]
Felix Planer a Professor of electrical engineering has written that if psychokinesis was real then it would be easy to demonstrate by getting subjects to depress a scale on a sensitive balance, raise the temperature of a waterbath which could be measured with an accuracy of a hundredth of a degree centigrade or affect an element in an electrical circuit such as a resistor which could be monitored to better than a millionth of an ampere.[84] Planer writes that such experiments are extremely sensitive and easy to monitor but are not utilized by parapsychologists as they "do not hold out the remotest hope of demonstrating even a minute trace of PK" because the alleged phenomenon is non-existent. Planer has written parapsychologists have to fall back on studies that involve only statistics that are unrepeatable, owing their results to poor experimental methods, recording mistakes and faulty statistical mathematics.[84]
According to Planer "All research in medicine and other sciences would become illusionary, if the existence of PK had to be taken seriously; for no experiment could be relied upon to furnish objective results, since all measurements would become falsified to a greater or lesser degree, according to his PK ability, by the experimenter's wishes." Planer concluded the concept of psychokinesis is absurd and has no scientific basis.[85]
PK hypotheses have also been considered in a number of contexts outside parapsychological experiments. C. E. M. Hansel has written a general objection against the claim for the existence of psychokinesis is that, if it were a real process, its effects would be expected to manifest in situations in everyday life but no such effects have been observed.[86]
Martin Gardner has written that if psychokinesis existed then one would expect players to be able to influence the outcome of gambling games.[87] He gives the example of the "26" dice game played in bars and cabarets in Chicago but year after year the house takings are exactly those predicted by chance.[88] Casino owners have not noted any decrease in profits.[89] Science writer Terence Hines and the philosopherTheodore Schick have written if psychokinesis was possible, then surely one would expect casino incomes to be affected but the earnings are exactly as the laws of chance predict.[90][91]
"
Physics
The ideas of psychokinesis and telekinesis violate several well-established laws of physics, including the inverse square law, the second law of thermodynamics, and the conservation of momentum
Psychokinesis - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Now, on the other hand the military has developed synthetic Telepathy using science of the brain and electronics.
Army developing ‘synthetic telepathy’ - Technology & science - Science - DiscoveryNews.com | NBC News
"Evaluation
There is a broad scientific consensus that PK research, and parapsychology more generally, have not produced a reliable, repeatable demonstration.[12][16][17][67][80][81]
A panel commissioned by the United States National Research Council to study paranormal claims concluded that "despite a 130-year record of scientific research on such matters, our committee could find no scientific justification for the existence of phenomena such as extrasensory perception, mental telepathy or ‘mind over matter’ exercises... Evaluation of a large body of the best available evidence simply does not support the contention that these phenomena exist."[80]
In 1984, the United States National Academy of Sciences, at the request of the US Army Research Institute, formed a scientific panel to assess the best evidence from 130 years of parapsychology. Part of its purpose was to investigate military applications of PK, for example to remotely jam or disrupt enemy weaponry. The panel heard from a variety of military staff who believed in PK and made visits to the PEAR laboratory and two other laboratories that had claimed positive results from micro-PK experiments. The panel criticized macro-PK experiments for being open to deception by conjurors, and said that virtually all micro-PK experiments "depart from good scientific practice in a variety of ways". Their conclusion, published in a 1987 report, was that there was no scientific evidence for the existence of psychokinesis.[67]
Carl Sagan included telekinesis in a long list of "offerings of pseudoscience and superstition" which "it would be foolish to accept (...) without solid scientific data".[82] Nobel Prize laureate Richard Feynman advocated a similar position.[83]
Felix Planer a Professor of electrical engineering has written that if psychokinesis was real then it would be easy to demonstrate by getting subjects to depress a scale on a sensitive balance, raise the temperature of a waterbath which could be measured with an accuracy of a hundredth of a degree centigrade or affect an element in an electrical circuit such as a resistor which could be monitored to better than a millionth of an ampere.[84] Planer writes that such experiments are extremely sensitive and easy to monitor but are not utilized by parapsychologists as they "do not hold out the remotest hope of demonstrating even a minute trace of PK" because the alleged phenomenon is non-existent. Planer has written parapsychologists have to fall back on studies that involve only statistics that are unrepeatable, owing their results to poor experimental methods, recording mistakes and faulty statistical mathematics.[84]
According to Planer "All research in medicine and other sciences would become illusionary, if the existence of PK had to be taken seriously; for no experiment could be relied upon to furnish objective results, since all measurements would become falsified to a greater or lesser degree, according to his PK ability, by the experimenter's wishes." Planer concluded the concept of psychokinesis is absurd and has no scientific basis.[85]
PK hypotheses have also been considered in a number of contexts outside parapsychological experiments. C. E. M. Hansel has written a general objection against the claim for the existence of psychokinesis is that, if it were a real process, its effects would be expected to manifest in situations in everyday life but no such effects have been observed.[86]
Martin Gardner has written that if psychokinesis existed then one would expect players to be able to influence the outcome of gambling games.[87] He gives the example of the "26" dice game played in bars and cabarets in Chicago but year after year the house takings are exactly those predicted by chance.[88] Casino owners have not noted any decrease in profits.[89] Science writer Terence Hines and the philosopherTheodore Schick have written if psychokinesis was possible, then surely one would expect casino incomes to be affected but the earnings are exactly as the laws of chance predict.[90][91]
"
Physics
The ideas of psychokinesis and telekinesis violate several well-established laws of physics, including the inverse square law, the second law of thermodynamics, and the conservation of momentum
Psychokinesis - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Now, on the other hand the military has developed synthetic Telepathy using science of the brain and electronics.
Army developing ‘synthetic telepathy’ - Technology & science - Science - DiscoveryNews.com | NBC News
shawn001
Well-Known Member
They have also done it over the internet.
Scientists achieve telepathy using internet
"An international team of researchers may have just successfully achieved telepathy for the first time ever. Using electrodes, the internet and a simple binary system, the scientists established direct brain to brain communication and transmitted a message over a distance of 5,000 miles. RT producer Tyrel Ventura breaks down the team achieved this amazing feat. "
Scientists achieve telepathy using internet
"An international team of researchers may have just successfully achieved telepathy for the first time ever. Using electrodes, the internet and a simple binary system, the scientists established direct brain to brain communication and transmitted a message over a distance of 5,000 miles. RT producer Tyrel Ventura breaks down the team achieved this amazing feat. "
gnostic
The Lost One
No, religion is involved in wishful thinking.
Religious people, esp theistic religions, need a serious "reality-check", because they are finding "causes" that are not really there.
Last edited:
ThePainefulTruth
Romantic-Cynic
Every religion I know of claims some sort of divine revelation, which puts it at odds with religion immediately. "Theology", the study of God and the nature and possibility of God. is probably a better word.
Shawn...all I'm saying is I believe PK exists on the physical and astral planes from examination of all the anecdotal evidence and argumentation; my opinion. I am also saying although I believe it exists, I do not know the 'psychophysiology' of how it all works. So what is your point here?
Robert Landbeck
Member
Science and religion are indeed in conflict of varying degrees. Recent events in Paris reflect that excessive friction while the moral teaching of the roman church, contraception for example, suggest the softer conflict with the secular world. The problem is two fold. The first is that 'domains' will always overlap in the search for progress. The second is the intellectual conception for knowledge that is anathema to that used by science. While science is more often than not self correcting in the search for new insights into both human nature and our universe. Religion, which has painted itself in the corner of infallible dogma and doctrine, is without the critical self scrutiny to even know how to change. For to question such fixed ideas is to question the whole of tradition. Science is self evidently a human construct. Religion pretending to revealed knowledge, remains an all too human theological construct. And probably a counterfeit claim at that! The Final Freedoms
shawn001
Well-Known Member
So you just "believe" it exists, and there is no empirical evidence. When we get the empirical evidence or even a lot better evidence then you have presented so far and I of course have no problem with anyone trying, let me know.
You don't read what I write. Please re-read. I said 'anecdotal evidence' which is the empirical experiences of others.
JerryL
Well-Known Member
I suspect he's denying the veracity of your claim.
The google'd definition of "anecdotal" :
"not necessarily true or reliable, because based on personal accounts rather than facts or research."
Accounts are often wrong.