Spirit "Science"

[Hashi Lebwohl]

3) The supernatural elements are intelligent and do not wish to be observed.

This one is the most likely. I suspect they get a good laugh at us worrying about it so much.

[Vraith]

3) The supernatural elements are intelligent and do not wish to be observed.

This one is the most likely. I suspect they get a good laugh at us worrying about it so much.

Heh...I would actually consider that a true definition of Evil, if they are like that and affecting us.
[and yes, I would still consider it to be evil even if every interference were a "good" miracle.]

[peter]

One of the problems is there is spirituality - and there is Spirituality (and I'm not sure which is which). If you believe there to be intuitive Knowledge out there, that will never be acessed by the current scientific method, but only by entering into meditative or altered states of conciousness, but do not attach this belief to anything that equates to theism, then your view of spiritual science will be at least consistent if not neccessarily correct. Or you may take the view that this is balderdash - that knowledge which science cannot access is not knowledge at all - chimera's, phantasm's and illusions of the mind sent(?) to decieve us in the face of our being overwhelmed by the situation we find ourselves in. For you then the very idea of 'spiritual science' will be anathema. Or you may be in that small catagory of scientists (or perhaps not so small but those with the courage to openly state thier position) who can accomodate religious belief alongside their scientific knowledge. These have been 'spiritual scientists' all along and so the idea will not be a problem to them.

[Cambo]

If you believe there to be intuitive Knowledge out there, that will never be acessed by the current scientific method, but only by entering into meditative or altered states of conciousness, but do not attach this belief to anything that equates to theism, then your view of spiritual science will be at least consistent if not neccessarily correct.

This is me. And I dislike the amount of pseudo-scientific charlatans like Deepak Chopra who try to shoehorn scientific theories into belief systems very much like my own. Facts are facts, and intuition is intuition.

[peter]

Can I ask Cambo - I had you in my head as a Christian (with no negative conotations attached you have my word) rather than say a 'spiritual atheist' (neither as above). I personally hover between different positions depending on where I am in my head - but I certainly buy into the teachings of Christ. I'm just not sure about the 'miraculous' side. Do I believe in 'God' - gosh I wish I could answer that. Today I don't know but for sure I will pray to 'Him' if I need to!

[Fist and Faith]

Any examples of intuitive Knowledge that is not known to have ever been accessed by the current scientific method, but only by entering into meditative or altered states of consciousness?

[Cambo]

Can I ask Cambo - I had you in my head as a Christian (with no negative conotations attached you have my word) rather than say a 'spiritual atheist' (neither as above). I personally hover between different positions depending on where I am in my head - but I certainly buy into the teachings of Christ. I'm just not sure about the 'miraculous' side. Do I believe in 'God' - gosh I wish I could answer that. Today I don't know but for sure I will pray to 'Him' if I need to!

Nope, not a Christian at all. Like you I certainly find worth in the teachings of Christ (less so other parts of the Bible), but I'll go a little further than you and say I don't believe in his purported miracles at all. I'm not an atheist either, though I have no religion. When I'm in need of a reasonably quick definition I identify with panentheism - which means, roughly, God within All.

I recently formulated an apt but lengthy way of describing my particular set of beliefs, and I'll post it in the "What is it You Believe" thread in case you are interested. Here suffice it to say I hold a lot of common ground with many New Age pseudo-sciency types like Chopra when it comes to what I think about the fundamental nature of reality. But I dislike being associated with that lot because of their tendency to mangle science and rationality in order to justify their beliefs. [/i]

[peter]

Thanks Cambo - will definiely go and have a read of that. I suppose that by listening to what others have to say about their beliefs I can occasionally make some sense of my own.

Gosh Fist - Is the 'oneness' of the Creation ever acessed by science? (I believe it is by certain meditative tecniques and certain adepts of Bhuddism etc and in certain altered states of conciousness [suplementary question; is this 'oneness' an existential fact or a chimera of the mind in certain (adled for whatever reason) states of perception. ie is it true or false]).

[Avatar]

Everything is in your head.

It doesn't make it false. In fact, we could argue that in your head everything is true, even if nowhere else. Because if you act as though it were true, it might as well be true, even if it's not.

--A

[peter]

Hi Av. But surely Science would not have it so - in the current methodology would it not be the case that what can not be demonstrated by observation/experiment, what can not be tested and reduced to it's components and ultimately numbers on a page, cannot be accorded the same status as Knowledge as that which can.

The 'trancendentant experience' of the Creations ultimate 'oneness' would not as yet (to my knowledge at least) be in any way testable in this sense and as such would fall into the realms of metaphysics rather than science. I do see where you are coming from with your post (and quite probably agree with it as well) but the last sentance really takes us into the realms of Descartes 'Cogito' and ultimately hits the same brick wall that even he was not convincingly able to navigate his way over.

[Hashi Lebwohl]

In fact, we could argue that in your head everything is true, even if nowhere else. Because if you act as though it were true, it might as well be true, even if it's not.

--A

This actually resolves 95% of all discussions or debates about religion, which theology is "correct", and the existence or non-existence of God. If you believe something to be true and live your life as if what you believe is true then for you it is true even if it isn't true for anyone else. As you note, this does not make the belief "false".

[Avatar]

Hi Av. But surely Science would not have it so - in the current methodology would it not be the case that what can not be demonstrated by observation/experiment, what can not be tested and reduced to it's components and ultimately numbers on a page, cannot be accorded the same status as Knowledge as that which can.

This is why I distinguish between truth and fact.

If you believe something to be true and live your life as if what you believe is true then for you it is true even if it isn't true for anyone else.

Exactly.

--A

[Cambo]

Hi Av. But surely Science would not have it so - in the current methodology would it not be the case that what can not be demonstrated by observation/experiment, what can not be tested and reduced to it's components and ultimately numbers on a page, cannot be accorded the same status as Knowledge as that which can.

This is why I distinguish between truth and fact.

If you believe something to be true and live your life as if what you believe is true then for you it is true even if it isn't true for anyone else.

Exactly.

--A

Very succinct Av, summarises my thoughts quite nicely. My problem is with people trying to pretend the truths they perceive have a factual basis.

[peter]

Yes, but because you believe something to be true and live your life as though it is does not make it true. If objectively the thing is false it just makes you the holder of an erronious view. True for you it might be, but that matters not a hill of beans in the long-term development of human potential. Harping back to our trancendental experience of 'Oneness' that cannot be objectively demonstrated - Either it is 'true' in which case it has potential for advancing the human condition/understanding irrespective of it's current position outside of the framework of accepted science - or it is false, an illusion, a chimera, in which case it can only ever lead to a dead end in terms of human advancement.

[Hashi Lebwohl]

We are not concerned with the results for long-term development of ourselves as a species; this particular topic is concerned with personal development only. Believeing that something is true makes it true for the individual; questions of objective truth (whether that exists or not) are irrelevant. If that belief leads one to a dead end then the believer in the not-true thing has to deal with that themselves.

My problem is with people trying to pretend the truths they perceive have a factual basis.

The people who go on and on trying to tell us all the facts and logical arguments that prove that what they believe is true, often including trying to convince us to believe the same way they do, are actually trying to convince themselves that what they believe is true. They secretly fear that they are wrong and they cannot face the fact that their life and/or worldview might be based on something not true.

[Vraith]

The people who go on and on trying to tell us all the facts and logical arguments that prove that what they believe is true, often including trying to convince us to believe the same way they do, are actually trying to convince themselves that what they believe is true. They secretly fear that they are wrong and they cannot face the fact that their life and/or worldview might be based on something not true.

Heh...am I doing that right now, when I say...I'm not sure that's true.
Or, more accurately, I'm almost certain it is true for some, or even many.
I don't want to overstate/misdirect too much, cuz I like to win me some arguments. [I bet no one could tell ]

But I also just enjoy the process of arguing [talking rational argument here, or at least a good attempt at such...shouting matches not so much].

AND, if there's one thing I like more than that [there are actually lots of things I like more than that, but beside the point] it is an argument that teaches/convinces/reveals something new or cool or "true" especially if/when it proves me wrong/makes me change my mind.

And I'm certain there are plenty of folk like that.
There are quite a number scattered around the Watch, I think [though I can't know, never having met any of them.]

[Hashi Lebwohl]

Far too many people misunderstand what it means for something to be true. There are things we know to be demonstrably true--when using arithmetic on integers we know that 1 + 1 = 2 regardless of the observer and regardless of whether the observer believes the statement--and there are things we believe to be true--"gif" is pronounced with a hard 'g' sound similar to the one used in the word "give". The problem arises when those people take their belief, regardless of its actual veracity, and base their sense of self-worth or self-image on those beliefs. This results in flame wars, all-caps yelling, comparisons of the arguer to any number of awful characters from human history (usually Hitler), insults towards the arguer's mother or parentage, affirmations that the arguer will burn in hell, or something else equally dramatic. To those people, pointing out a flaw in the argument that props up their belief is the same as pointing out a flaw in them personally.

Adhering to a belief that isn't true doesn't mean that you are an idiot or somehow less of a person. I believe that legends of Atlantis, a relatively advanced civilization from prehistory, are based on fact and that the remnants of Atlantis (for lack of a better term) will be found under the ice of Antarctica. I base that on three disjointed facts:
1) there are pyramid structures found in equatorial regions all over the world, which could be because they were from a common architectural ancestor and Antarctica is relatively equidistant from India, South America, and Africa
2) there are sites like Tiahuanacu that, according to archaeoastronomy, date to before 12,000 BC (dating sites based on astronomical data to line up with certain stars) or The Sphinx, depending upon how you analyze the weathering, which dates to older than 5000 BC, so our history is far older than we think it is
3) the Peri Reis map accurately depicts the coastline of Antarctica as it exists under the ice (this has been verified by satellite imagery looking through the ice) and the map mentions that it is a copy from older sources
Is my belief true? *shrug* Who knows? I believe it and I would like for it to be true but I am not going to pout, shout, or become unhinged if proven incorrect.

The point is this: believe what you want to but don't base your self-worth on your beliefs, just in case you are wrong. It doesn't hurt to believe something that isn't true but if confronted with proof that your belief is not true then consider changing your belief. If you don't, that is your business.
On the flip side of the coin, do not proceed to prove to someone that their belief is wrong, especially when their belief isn't hurting anyone. If you are an atheist and theists just get on your nerves because how can they believe in God when there is so much proof that He doesn't exist, then simply walk away instead of trying to convince them otherwise. It isn't worth it.

Always remember the Vorlon saying: understanding is a three-edged sword: your side, their side, and the truth.

[Menolly]

Always remember the Vorlon saying: understanding is a three-edged sword: your side, their side, and the truth.

Or as an open-minded believer might say:

Behind every mask of religion, is the one True face of G-d.

All beliefs, even those of non-believers, is their Truth. And all are entitled to have them, as long as they cause no harm to themselves nor others.

[peter]

Can I just clarify what the tennets of this 'Spirit Science' are. I had assumed that it was about a loosening of the shackles that currently bind much of the scientific community ie the 'peer pressure' and almost obsessive quest to be seen as the most rational, the most hard headed kid on the block; a quest that stultifys more than it helps in an area where creativity and intuition are as central to the process as rationality and clarity of thought. I had not seen it as a personal belief system involved only in the inner development of the individual - and if this is indeed what it is intended to be then I have clearly misunderstood the brief (not for the first time or I suspect for the last ) If I'm right in my first assesment - if it is a movement that works to allow the scientific community to actually explore and communicate avenues perhaps outside of conventional methodology, and more importantly feel free to express those views without fear of ridicule, marginalisation and ultimatly black-listing - then so much the better (and also becomes pertinant to the consideration of what impact it will have on the pushing forward of the boundries of Human Knowledge. Ifon the other hand it is purely a personal belief system that individual scientists will hold (and most probably hide from their peers) then I agree 'truth' or otherwise doesn't really come into it (somewhat akin to religious belief within the scientific community as it stands) - it won't effect the long term acummulation of knowledge and will fizzle out in the manner of fashionable 'fads' from time immemorial. Clearly I need to go back and try to nail down what this thing is.

[deer of the dawn]

Peter, so much of what is acceptable in the scientific community, it seems to me, depends on who you are and who you know. Certain scientists get a hearing, no matter how laughable their pet theories are. But someone from outside the inner circle can come up with something brilliant and never be heard. Theoretical science seems very much show biz from where I sit.

I believe that God is truth and truth is in Him; and that we have a capacity for understanding some of what comprises truth; but being limited creatures, no one of us can say "I have the Truth (and by implication, you don't)".

I also believe that there are kinds of truth: emotional truth, mathematical truth, etc. But all of these are outward manifestations of the God to whom all Truth belongs (and we are pups nosing crumbs under His feasting table, squabbling over them like pups would do).

I believe the Bible is God's delivery system for truth to the human mind, no less than Creation (Romans 1:19,20).

Facts... ah, to me this is more contentious even than truth. Even 2+2=4 is suspect, since 0.9999... =1.

My problem is with people trying to pretend the truths they perceive have a factual basis.

I believe my truth has a rational basis, but factual? Again, facts pose as absolutes but they can be just as slippery as truth. Data is interpreted according to the theory one wants to prove. To me, the laws of thermodynamics support intelligent design; to another they support evolution.

The truth is a lens through which the universe makes sense. Facts can enter in to that equation (like the fact that my behavior changed measurably after I found faith) but they are an unreliable foundation for truth.