Science vs Faith

[Ben Dhyan]

What the hell was the g-damned question ?
~
'mud

Sure 'mud...as a result of my saying in post #371......"There is much body consciousness which is independent of ego awareness."

Ricky asked in post #372....."So give some examples which you have personally experienced, beyond the usual physical sensations we experience in and on the body. For example, are you conscious of the spaces between the atoms in your body, and what is that actually like?"

In the following posts....I tried to explain that I was referring to some body consciousness of which the ego was not aware (my post #371), but he continued with his attack by keep on asking me about my personal experiences of this 'some body consciousness'...So I asked him to quote my words, knowing that he will then see his mistake because there are not any....and when he can''t find any..... he won't admit his mistake by implying in his post #379...that it is I who is not straight...."I have given up, it is impossible to get straight answers from this character."

It would be nice to get an apology...

 

[Rick O'Shez]

WOW.....I'll have to read that later when I'm not so stoned !

I don't think that will help.

 

[`mud]

Hard to answer that....HEY!
Are you implying anything here !
I had to delete that 'cause I had a replacement,
and accidently deleted the whole thing !
OH WELL....one gets the message...don't one ?
~
You two are amongst my favorite posters here,
I hate to see you two clawing out......
And I still don't what the 'ego' thing was,
like first kiss stuff....tinkling nerve endings in the neck...
or the arse if you one chooses.
~
Explain the answer, Rick,
I forgot what the question was !
~
'mud

 

[`mud]

hey Ben,
Still trying to read those posts,
'ego...' ??
~
'mud

 

[Ben Dhyan]

hey Ben,
Still trying to read those posts.
'ego...' ??
~
'mud

Ego is the personal 'I'.....self identity...

 

[idav]

Is the inter-atomic space in your body pervaded by life? Does body consciousness pervade it?

All parts of the body are living awareness to one degree or another. However it takes the collective to be an 'I', or rather a 'We', if you will.

 

[jeager106]

Oh poo.
I have no issue with melding science with faith.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

All parts of the body are living awareness to one degree or another. However it takes the collective to be an 'I', or rather a 'We', if you will.

True.....but this is relative...an organ is a collective of billions of live cells...and a planet billions of live beings...etc... .

 

[Vorkosigan]

You took my point all wrong. I was talking about the 96% of the universe outside of our 3D linear time experience and direct observation by our senses and instruments. Yes, I was getting at additional planes of nature and life forms without physical bodies. Science can not reach this stuff yet and I find the evidence overwhelming that some such things do exist. That is what I was trying to say when I said 'Science is a good thing. But I am seeing more and more that its reach into reality is short.'.

It looks more like your reach into science is short. Inform yourself about quantum physics just a bit and you will have a glimpse of how deep science is into what “material” really means.
Spoiler alert, you may get your mind completely blown by awe.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

Spoiler alert, you may get your mind completely blown by awe.

Cool!

 

[George-ananda]

It looks more like your reach into science is short. Inform yourself about quantum physics just a bit and you will have a glimpse of how deep science is into what “material” really means.
Spoiler alert, you may get your mind completely blown by awe.

I already have a layperson's understanding of quantum mechanics and I know that the 'nature of it' and the 'WHY' questions are beyond science's current reach. As well as the nature of consciousness, and many different types of phenomena showing that we are in an mind-blowing many dimensioned universe in which science can only directly detect about 5% of the matter and three-dimensions and the rest being so-called dark matter. I believe many events (lumped under the field parapsychology/paranormal) from the human experience have no current satisfactory explanation within the current reach of science (NDEs, psychic experiences, spirit communications, childhood factual reincarnation memories, etc. etc.).

Yes, it is mind-blowing which makes the universe so interesting and providing job security for theoretical scientists. Unfortunately, I see a tendency in many people who like science to want to insufficiently 'explain away' phenomena that highlights the shortness of science's current reach especially when it might smack to them as giving some credence to man's spiritual wisdom traditions. This is not a true scientific attitude.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

Yes, it is mind-blowing which makes the universe so interesting and providing job security for theoretical scientists. Unfortunately, I see a tendency in many people who like science to want to insufficiently 'explain away' phenomena that highlights the shortness of science's current reach especially when it might smack to them as giving some credence to man's spiritual wisdom traditions. This is not a true scientific attitude.

You keep saying the same things and you have obviously made up your mind already. You are hardly going to win the "Open mind of the year" award.

You seem to have no understanding of the powerful psychological mechanisms behind religious belief, like confirmation bias and wishful thinking.

 

[George-ananda]

You keep saying the same things and you have obviously made up your mind already. You are hardly going to win the "Open mind of the year" award.

I actually consider myself an open-minded skeptic. It is the evidence fully considered from all sides that has formed my beliefs as to the most reasonable understanding of reality.

You seem to have no understanding of the powerful psychological mechanisms behind religious belief, like confirmation bias and wishful thinking.

I am very well aware of and consider such things. Far too much evidence can not be satisfactorily explained away by those factors.

 

[McBell]

Far too much evidence can not be satisfactorily explained away by those factors.

Perhaps.
But your standards for "evidence" may well be...

 

[George-ananda]

Perhaps.
But your standards for "evidence" may well be...

may well be...what? I consider the quantity, quality and consistency of the data and I believe most fair-minded people that actually take the time to thoroughly study what I am saying would agree that important and telling things do occur beyond reasonable doubt that are not explainable by the paradigms of current science.

What are your standards?

My evidence includes controlled experiments with incredible odds against chance. But of course even triple-blind experiments with gifted mediums are flawed if you listen to materialists. At some point, you just have to judge for yourself.

 

[Martin_M]

I've been listening to science documentaries all of my life
I just love science

but now and then the discussions runs with only numbers and guesses
what has been observed is known only by the effect

somethings are left to your willingness to believe

seems to me....science has a touch of believing
without proof

I agree. I don't know how many podcasts I've listened to that conclude they have figured out why something evolved the way it did. Of course no one saw it evolve, and there's no way to prove they've guessed right, it's total speculation. I've often wondered why this is considered a conclusion not a hypothesis.

 

[whirlingmerc]

Depends what you mean by faith. Much of what is called science is faith: the assumptions of naturalism taken axiomaticaly PLUS methodology of the scientific method and/or the related scientific historical invesigation approaches

Scientists can be as dogmatic as any religious folk

 

[Rick O'Shez]

Scientists can be as dogmatic as any religious folk

Not in my experience. Scientifically-minded people are inclined to be sceptical of their own opinions too, and will change their minds if new evidence emerges. Whereas religious people are more likely to cling to their beliefs, and more likely to indulge in confirmation bias and wishful thinking. Obviously I am generalising, but it is what I have observed over a long period of time.

 

[`mud]

Plain and simply...Fear of their 'Gods' !
Mine loves me !
~
'mud

 

[Thief]

Not in my experience. Scientifically-minded people are inclined to be sceptical of their own opinions too, and will change their minds if new evidence emerges. Whereas religious people are more likely to cling to their beliefs, and more likely to indulge in confirmation bias and wishful thinking. Obviously I am generalising, but it is what I have observed over a long period of time.

dogma is a belief unsupported by evidence (religious)
a good science explanation is a belief.....when unsupported