Science and spirituality don't contradict. I agree that for most spiritual phenomena it is more apropriate to seek for psychological explanantions than to seek for explanations rooted in particle physics.
But this doesn't contradict the spiritual notion in any way.

I would say that it even confirms the spiritual notion to a degree, since it would inevitably lead to the conclusion that spiritual experiences are real and not just made-up fantasy's of some people trying to make money (wich does also happen a lot ofcourse).

Another thing is that the existence of a god cannot be proven or disproven. Therefore as well believers as non-believers do right to consider science a more reliable source of facts about this world we live in, than ancient books, myth's or personal intuïtion's.

But to me this view goes very well with the belief in a spiritual realm. To me this world is a devine creation. So to me, the divine exists alongside with the material world. Therefore i think they would never contradict eachother and thus there would never be an interference of any kind from one side or the other since this would mean inevitably that one of the two worlds would overrule the other wich would in the end lead to contradictions and thus to the negation of one of the two worlds.

Therefore, seeking proof of the existence of god in science is a pointless notion to me, as well as the opposite.

Nicely said polytrip.

Errrm I could warble on about the many revelations of my recent Iboga experience, but I won't, because I already have.

But on that note, there is one thing I would like to discuss...and that is the experience of seeing with my eyes closed. Now, I was in a pitch black room at night, with a mindfold on, with my eyes closed. There was NO light source.

This was experienced not long after very vividly experiencing the opening of my third eye/pineal/crown chakra/mind's eye whatever (please bare in mind I'm not some rainbowed out, new age, third eye hugging freak). I am doing a science degree, and it is with a scientific mindset that I approach these experiences. But anyway the third eye opening, and my astral traveling down a long tunnel to the Iboga realm...well these had already made an impression on me, and things were just getting started...

A bit later in the experience, very suddenly, just like the appearance of the eye, the walls and then my entire room came into focus, lit in a silvery light. I put my hand in front of mindfold, with my eyes closed, in my pitch black room, and it made no difference. I moved my arm and hand in front of me, and could see it moving clearly. I could reach out and touch things around me. This wasn't an isolated occurrence. This ability remained with me for the next 24 hours or so. I could see any part of my room I wished to simply by willing myself to.

The moment this happened, it was very profound. I new what I was experiencing, I had considered COMPLETELY IMPOSSIBLE. And yet, here I was experiencing it with undeniable clarity. This might be hard for others to believe without having experienced it, but I am POSITIVE I was seeing with my eyes closed.

Now, I'm not attaching a spiritual label to this, but if science can provide a viable exclamation (and there must be one) I would very much like to hear it. (And no I don't buy the 'all your other senses were uber enhanced' vibe...I'm sure they were, but it does not allow one to see in the dark, or the 'it was from memory' excuse- it doesn't explain how I could clearly see my hand and arm as I moved them in front of me).

It's a very cool ability...how it works I don't think we humans are going to figure out for a while. As some of us know, the nature of consciousness is very strange.
The first time I visited Wyoming I set up my tent and meditated. When I closed my eyes I realized I could see the entire galaxy through my eyes closed, through the tent. I could not see the stars through the mountain, or earth, but they were visible through the trees...I was amazed...it was so beautiful. (sober, mind you)

in your case, with your room...
maybe you were the source of light?

I've looked at people in the dark and seen perfect symmetrical bioluminescence underneath...even more beautiful than jellyfish.

The third eye sometimes shines a light ... like a lantern into the higher octaves of consciousness... I don't care if I sound new agey too because I do not know how else to speak of this phenomena.



p.s. it could be that and or an echo location from the heart beat? hmm

Hey man thanks for that.

"The third eye sometimes shines a light ... like a lantern into the higher octaves of consciousness... I don't care if I sound new agey too because I do not know how else to speak of this phenomena."

That's IT man, you nailed it! Can't believe I didn't expand in that in my report. Yes my third eye was shining very brightly, projecting a powerful beam of light, that I could intensify with concentration, and apparently when sober, with meditation, according to my healer.

It is clear to me, and by the sounds of it you, that something very powerful and very real is going on here...just because it falls outside the realms of 'known' science doesn't mean it isn't a real phenomena...very interesting stuff.

well, well done... you explained that quantum physics does not explain spiritual phenomena... good for you. I agree. but what your alluding to is that this negates that spiritual phenomena still occurs and is not yet explained. You are not going to explain or have evidence to support your explanations of what spiritual phenomena is scientifically at this point, and if you do my point is all you will do is discover new questions.
if you ARE indeed correct ( i am not assuming you are, because your not really supporting your arguements enough for me too) that quantum physics does not explain spiritual phenomena ( which i do not think it does, however it lends some interesting QUESTIONS) all that does is lead to the search for more questions... you have not explained away spiritualist phenomena though.

Burnt, it is probably as simple as this: at an impressionable age I was taught there was this eerie Spirit that haunted our local church. You could tell the Spirit was present, because a red lamp signified Its presence.

No amount of scientific knowledge or clever rhetorics will smash this belief. It may be nothing more than some form of imprinting, like a duckling setting eyes on the first thing outside of its shell and thinking it is mother duck.

My knowledge of science has at least allowed me to view with distaste the way some people take certain unsubstantiated beliefs to be facts.

This probably isn't what you want to hear. You want to smash beliefs. I recognise my belief might be an illusion, but like taking a sledge hammer to a rainbow, it is a pointless effort really. And rainbows are so pretty anyway.

I must say excellect thread Burnt and thought provoking replys from all other posters as well. But my friend polytrip hits the nail on the head.

Anyone want to do the math on who is going to be responsible for more human deaths? The big churches and mystics or the scientists.

Science may win and find some big answers I hope so. Time will tell. On with the debate

MV

Spirituality doesnt have to be some blabla belief. Spirituality can be an attitude. I dont believe in this or that form of god, and I dont think this is supposed to be the point of spirituality. Spirituality, to me, is about becoming more conscious, balanced and in tune with both ourselves and whatever surrounds us. This is an attitude, not a belief, and it doesnt deny science at all, and it doesnt need quantum physics to legitimize itself.

Science is incredibly necessary, but it is limited to the intellectual faculties, to a cold analytical view of the world. Spirituality, as I see it, includes science, but goes beyond it to other realms. Think, for example, about interpersonal relationships. Science cannot give you a formula on how to act in a relationship. One needs to 'feel it', to respond and 'think' emotionally, beyond formulas and proven facts. You cannot learn how to be patient, good-hearted, well meaning and generous by reading books and looking at graphs. Neither can you learn how to raise a child by books or advices.

To me, spirituality includes all of this realm also. Spirituality is about being 'in tune' with the surroundings, about being ecologically conscious, about being healthy, about being informed, having a balanced rational side, about striving for self-improvement.

Science cannot put down in intellectual language all the nuances of existence, though it can classify and put in words or formulas the 'backbone' or 'evident parts' of it, so to say.

I dont see spirituality as united with all this new age or religious beliefs and affirmations, but I see that some of the words can be positively interpreted and taken to daily life. The reading of certain spiritual writtings, can create awe-inspiring, goosebump-filled moments. Some stuff rings as true to one's inward conscience and has an unexplanable beauty. Check Rumi, for example.

But its also obvious, if one looks with a reasonably impartial look, that a LOT of religion/spirituality is based on mistaken assumptions, blind beliefs, misunderstanding of original words, bad translation or straight deception and editing by the ruling powers/selfish individuals.

In any case, also for science to make sense, blend with its context and not be a dead and abstract 'technification' of existence, one needs to look at it also with the emotion, and use it for useful purpouses. Death technology such as weapons, non-sustainable products and so on, are an example of bad aplication of science. Controling the masses and creating domesticated individuals and inculcating beliefs through religion is also an example of bad aplication of religion/spirituality. Science for sustainable and contextual development and useful balanced knowledge and technologies is a good example of science, just like using the 'emotional intuitive power of certain spiritual thoughts and techniques, and using it in daily life for becoming a better, healthier and more harmonious person in general, is a good application of religion/spirituality.

Science cannot talk about the 'beginning' or the 'end', and neither can any religious belief. There is always a (or many) singularities that are out of reach. There are always mathematical limitations, such as godel showed, or physical limitations, such as plank and the whole quantum mechanics showed. One can paint it as a mechanical linear clockwork dead machine, or one can paint the singularity with a beard and a magic staff, but its just one's painting. This 'uncertainty' or 'quantum' doesnt explain the hokus pokus that tarot people or 2012 says.. These things are just beliefs. But it does show that we can never know the full truth, that there is always a mistery at the horizon. This makes life beautiful

Awesome post endlessness!

Encapsulated many of my core beliefs, well said.

Namaste

Perhaps its time for society to redefine the term spiritual, which has changed enormously since the days when Houdini was campaigning against the addiction people seemed to have with Medium's and their parlor tricks.

Seeing with your eyes close makes sense in the material world view. Its just your brain projecting an image with your eyes closed. It can happen. John lilly documented this years ago with his isolation tank experiments.

What I mean by spiritual should be redefined. As anything that exists apart from matter and energy that is intelligent and effects our planet. Of course there will be other kinds of matter and possible weirder aspects to the universe. But none of this suggests we have a soul or there is a spirit guiding the world.



What is so divine about creation? How is it divine? What constitutes something that is divine?

The theistic god most likely doesn't exist. A deistic god could however but why believe in it for no reason? A god or spirit that interferes with our minds and our world probably doesn't exist. By that I mean an intelligent entity not some other unknown cosmic force that we haven't figure out yet. Perhaps there are other dimensions but I would hardly give them or anything within them the title "spirit". That's what I am getting at.



claims about psychic abilities, contacting entities from beyond, souls, ghosts, and the like have NEVER been verified. The burden of proof isn't on me.

Concerning QM I brought up the three main aspects of QM that people use to say it explains spiritual phenomenon and refuted them. If you have a problem with my refutation address it specifically.

However without knowing before hand I guarantee you could not extract any true information from your imagined stars for example the location of galaxies or the number of stars in a spot. This is called the imagination it does not mean you have magic powers.

Are you a fan of Castaneda?

Did you even read my post? For someone who is raised to believe in God, it takes effort not to believe. Such a person is not believing for no reason - it has been instilled into them at an impressionable age that there is a God who is interested in their welfare.

From the perspective of someone not raised with such beliefs - sure, it would seem odd to decide one day to believe in something for which there is no evidence. I feel the same way about Scientologists, Mormons, Pink Unicorns, Flying Spaghetti Monster, etc.

Try and understand the situation from a perspective that is not your own.

Off Topic: Burnt, I hope your way of 'thinking,' your 'perception,' gives you and others around you happiness, that is all.

Damiana

why should it not be possible to unit science and spirituality in a sort of "single world view".
both disciplines may get new impulses for growing and developing because of the fusion.
that is wonderful!
look here for example:
http://www.futurehi.net/glossary.html

it is when you say that you have disproven it as the basis of your argument... and yoru not going to disprove it, but you can help people formulate better questions.

The last picture is an accumulation of hits. I am not disputing the fact that depending on the measurement (observation) electrons of photons have particle or wave like character. If you measure wave like character you get waves if you measure a particle property like position you get particle. Its even weirder that you can make this decision about the photon or electron even after it has left its source.

However the double split wave pattern will still come about as a result of statistical probability the more photons you wack it with. At first it appears random but as you hit the detectors more and more you get a double split wave interference picture comes into view. That's what the picture is showing.

I am saying the duality is misleading because they are the same but why call it a wavicle?

So whats waving?

The statistical distribution of many particle detections.

Lets quote two famous physicists who know way more then me on it (all from wiki so check the source but ive heard it elsewhere).

Richard Feynmann.



L Ballentine





By without cause I mean the universe at the quantum level is indeterministic.



I believe this to be incorrect for the following reason.

Shrodingers wave formalism represents a wave as an abstract mathematical quantity. It gives the probability of finding a particle at a certain space at a certain time.

Realize though that the name wave function is a misnomer. Heisenberg's matrix mechanics its an abstract mathematical thing just as much. The wave function was developed because when it was developed the only examples were in the form of waves. Paul Dirac's has another mathematical formalism which represents quantum states by vector in abstract multidimensional space. It doesn't matter which one you use they all give the same indeterministic statistical results.



I am saying there is no evidence for a role of consciousness for because the reasons people use to say that consciousness plays a role are wrong and incorrect (which I've stated already). Also how do you explain the universe before there was human being with consciousness's walking around? How could anything exist? It must have though because we are here.



Look the idea that consciousness is causing it has no basis. An observer could be a stupid Geiger counter. The path of a particle cannot be determined unless its measured. What that means is that you do not decide the value of that measurement you merely observe that value which follows a probabalistic distribution.



Science can't say whether dishonesty is better then compassion. Science can evaluate things about dishonest or honest people and societies but only we humans can make the judgement. Regardless it makes perfect sense that human beings evolved the ability to love and feel compassion for others in their group. It vastly benefited survival and increased cooperation. Its a positive trait in an evolutionary sense. That's why it feels right to most of us.



I don't need science to tell me that if I throw a rock in a pool its going to make a splash. That's just what I noticed always happens. That's way different then saying because I saw a ghost that means it was real.



That assumes there is something beyond the material world. You consider consciousness to be beyond the material world. How can we say that consciousness exists beyond the material world when all evidence shows how our conscious experience is a result of the material world (our brain interacting with its environment in space and time).



Assuming I have good eyes when they are open they get light this light our brain paints a picture with. Thus we are subjectivily experience the picture the light is painting in our brain. When your eyes are closed you don't see that light and you don't project an image of that light. You see my subjective experience changes as a result of objective reality. Its that simple.

I am not saying your claim is invalid. There is something at work in the universe. You just happen to call it divine which to me suggests non material or beyond reality. I see no reason to suggest that our universe is beyond reality or made up of anything non material (matter and energy even in forms we do not yet understand).



I said QM doesn't provide any evidence for ghosts or universal consciousness. I stated the reasons people say it goes. Those reasons are not correct.

[quote=burnt
What I mean by spiritual should be redefined. As anything that exists apart from matter and energy that is intelligent and effects our planet. Of course there will be other kinds of matter and possible weirder aspects to the universe. But none of this suggests we have a soul or there is a spirit guiding the world.



...but we ARE here all the same...he way you put it just sort of makes it seem all cold, not very special..and so ordinary..
The universe is here, its moving, things are living..growing, dying and being born...and it's so far beyond us as individuals..it would seem that there IS at least something guiding it all, call it science or not..I think we should be able to agree on that, and the fact that we have absoltily not come close to defining what that really is.

It's like the "big bang"...it's nothing more than the mythology of our time..yes, science plays a big role in defining the mythology of our era...but there is der more than one way to tell it to people. Language can be used to make something seem as big or small/significant or otherwise as one wishes..

So you kindly explain to someone that they're "spirituality" is wrong, that they are somehow confused or naive, uninformed, whatever...yet you dont even really know what that "spirituality" they are referring to consists of...

Like I said before..I AM here, we are all here..isn't that mysterious enough?? Science has never givenme any clue as to why its all here..who really cares about some universal throry that explains everything if it forgets the first chapter?? Sciece is awesome, I love science, and physics, I find it facinating, but it only takes us so far because it is based on what we can measure..

There is no doubt sooooo many things out there that we do not yet have the ability to measure, but one day will..but when has it ever been any different?? I dont believe that science is any closer to explaining the nature of the universe/multiverse/everything..whatever you call it.. Science has done aot to help foreward and improve human culture and understanding of technology, medicine etc..but what I want to make clear is that, the level of mystery, of questions we all want answers to, hasnt gotten any smaller in relation to what science tell us..new questions are being asked every day...

I dont understand how science would replace spiritualality, science is a system of measuring things...science is like a ruler, measuring out a grid on a page, and that page is the universe(or all that we can measure)..but what about the rest??surly that page exists within somewhere..and than even so, that place would have to exist somewhere..unless you think that it all just "ends"..whatever that even means. I dunno, I like science, but I feel like all you are saying is that scientists have measured things(which is inevitable)..

I don't think science has nothing to say about ethics. There are two things that should be mentioned: 1-science can explain ethics, but this does not result in ethics or a moral code 2-you can take it one step further and scientifically proof that a certain type of behaviour is 'better' than other behaviour, but there is no scientific model that is completely satisfying in this way. You can always cover just a certain field of ethics.

The hard scientific model has it's purpose; For those who use moral relativism as an escape of moral limitations for themselves. The armsdealer or businesman who distributes child-pornography can say that right and wrong do not realy exist and are only subjective statements, different for each individual...well, he doesn't realy believe this himself, because if he did he could make no objection then to being thrown into prison for his evil acts as well, wich he does. So the relativism is only used as an instrument to get away with all sort of things.

The scientific model would go like this: human biology add's up to a description of the human mind that can be used as a basic set of axiom's for human psychology. The most basic axiom would be that pain is a bad thing that has to be avoided at all cost; you could even argue that the definition of pain is that it's a sensation, you by definition don't want; pain=to be avoided.
the basic thing is that you don't have the choice, then to follow this axiom and that you could not want it to be different since this would be wanting the impossible.
This is solid ground to stand on. From here on you can justify rationalism as an instrument that can lead to the best possible results, since we have already agreed that you have no choice but to want this best possible results.
The mathematical strategic interaction models show two things: 1-that to reckon with the needs and desires of others is nessecary to get the best results and 2-that rationalism is not something you can completely determine.
The social contract is a set of rules that bring each individual further but only if everybody accepts each of the rules, even if one particular rule is not good for you or undesired. There could be a rule to sacrifice yourself in cases of an emergency and it would seem irrational to sign-up for a package that would contain this rule, but if signing-up for the package as a whole, brings benefits that outweigh this risk, you will sign it.

The moral argument is not aimed at those who do not accept ethics in the first place but to everybody who already agreed to sign the contract, to make clear that some kind of enforcement would occur. At the end there is another way of viewing any moralism: it's always 'them or us', refering to those with a different set of moral rules; for instance thiefs or rapists.

You could argue that as a social species we have evolved to such a degree that reckoning with the needs and desires of others has become part of our genetical design. There is evidence for this: the existance of so called mirror-neurons in our brain.

Nevertheless: anybody can see that there are two things, once again to be said: 1- a scientific aproach can lead to a lot more then you would initially think 2- at the end it is not completely satisfying.

I may have not been clear enough but what I am talking about is not the traditional double split experiment. I am referring to more modern experiments in which one photon or one electron was fired at a time. So there is no two waves of interference causing the interference pattern to come about. What's causing the the interference pattern is the quantum randomness further confirming the indeterminism of quantum mechanics.



I don't mean to imply that any of this is classical nor that its like traditional statistics.



I am in no way asserting that human beings are the only consciousness in the universe. I think most animals have some form of consciousness. My point is how can consciousness exist without organized matter? I find the claim that consciousness is more fundamental then energy baseless. That's what I am disputing against.



Its not the only knowledge which I tried to state by saying when you throw a rock in a pool you know it will make a splash and ripples. You don't need science to know that. You need science to know how mechanistically its happening. Or to predict how a big object splash will be proportional to the objects size etc. People know lots of things without science. But if we want to learn more and learn deeper mechanisms behind things we need science.



Its pretty obvious a dead body is not conscious.

Its pretty obvious a living person is conscious.

Why does it have to be more complicated then that? It is more complicated then that of course. But we can measure conscious activity. I don't see why people think that it is impossible to measure aspects of conscious experience.



Sure it does. It tells that consciousness is a product of brain activity. It shows that certain aspects of brain activity such as neural pathways or specific brain regions ARE involved in very specific aspects of consciousness.



Right and wrong is mostly subjective. Its up to individuals decide what is right and wrong. I don't think anyone has the right to tell anyone what is right and wrong. Obviously things that are damaging like murder and stealing most people in any society consider wrong for obvious reasons. I believe in individual freedom and don't think its the role of science to dictate morals. Science can talk about evolutionary advantages but that doesn't mean its right or wrong evolution has no morals it just is.



I don't see it as boring or cold at all. I am in awe of the universe and the fact that I get to exist in it.



I don't think whatever is guiding the universe is conscious I guess that's the difference between the way I am looking at this and the way a spiritual person would look at it.



The big bang is not a myth. It may not be entirely correct but its certainly more closer to being correct then any other creation or story about the beginning of the universe. There is DIRECT evidence that the universe started out really small and grew really big and is still growing. There is no evidence for any religious creation story.



Why does it need a reason? Humans want to give it a reason to feel that they are special but to me it seems irrelevant.



Sure it is. It gets closer all the time. We map the cosmos. We test aspects of reality. How is that not getting closer to explaining things? I won't make claims that we will figure it all out because I don't know that might not ever happen but who cares? That doesn't mean science isn't any closer or hasn't learned anything.



What makes you think there is a "rest"? If there is evidence or if people can interact with this "rest" then its measurable and thus within the realm of science to learn about. If this "rest" is not measurable and does not interact with ordinary matter (which makes us) then its not important for anything we experience.

Just look at dark matter. It doesn't interact with light at all which is weird. But it does have a gravitational pull so it is interacting with matter and thus we can learn about what it might be. Of course science could be totally wrong about dark matter but I just want to show that anything that interacts with matter is within the realm of science. If it doesn't interact with matter or this universe at all then its not important and doesn't explain anything spiritual.