Religion bashing

Post Reply New Topic

As before:



(Monsignor Georges Lemaître originally proposed the 'Big Bang' theory.)

I still can't get why those afflicted with a mysticist worldview see the limitations of the scientific method as something negative, as a defect. Quite the contrary, the scientific method is designed to be self-correcting, ever-expanding. True, we don't know everything. The fact is, we never will. So what? That doesn't make science useless. It's still the only reliable tool we have for gathering knowledge.

According to the latest Scientific American the big bang theory which seems in accord with Christian philosophy may not be true after all.

I am a Mystic and I don't see the scientific view an impediment, it validates what I already see for myself.
It seems to be the other way around. Look at this whole thread and count the number of insults. Who were these insults aimed at? When the shaman and the scientist work together, respect one another, and accept each others view points, then that is when greater discoveries can be made.

I love science. I used to be an Atheist. But after having a desire to learn more and through my own practice, I have experienced spirituality.
I believe there is spirit in everything. I believe we have souls. I believe in God. I get ridiculed for this because I can't logically explain it.

Logic and reason can be as much of a brick wall as any religion. All of these institutionalized ways of thinking are a crutch that keep us from reaching our fullest potential as humans.

Yes, but regardless, Monsignor Lemaître discovered that the Universe is expanding before astronomers corroborated his findings. That was unthinkable in his time.

I'm not exactly pro-Christianity, but I can point to a good number of important scientists who were in a clerical occupation.

How does the scientific view validate assertions that have no empirically observable basis?



What can the shaman do that the scientist can't improve upon, or prove wrong if need be? What can the scientist do that the shaman is able to assimilate and reconcile with?



Beliefs are not arguments. Subjective experience has subjective value, and limited applicability. It has no use in serious discussion. Only facts serve as arguments.



On the contrary, reason frees us from prejudice, superstition and fear. As Sam Harris has pointed out, no civilization has ever suffered because it became too reasonable.

Just humor me and open your mind a little. Think about this more without having to reference it to some research that was conducted by someone other than yourself. Read this without being biased.

http://deoxy.org/8_int.htm

If you can't even imagine something, how can you set out to prove it with the scientific method?

Thanks for the link. It is a subject I happen to have been giving some thought to for a while. Our thinking frameworks are certainly limitations; we need to become able to identify every cognitive bias that distorts our judgment.

However, the seriousness with which the text started got lost somewhere in the middle of its argument. I'll comment on some parts that are specially confusing:

The author can not possibly have any evidence that points to such a conclusion. The mechanisms whereby DNA mutates and replicates are being thoroughly examined by molecular biologists, and no need for including higher beings in the explanation has been derived from such studies.



This just doesn't make sense.



Here the author iredeemably departs for woo-woo territory. Millions of inhabited planets? Which ones? Why doesn't he point at them so we can find them? How can he presume to know so many details about what happens to the human brain in outer space? What evidence can he produce in support of the existence of telepathy? What's all that talk about "circuit contelligence" about?



Someone should have explained the author that a speculative paper does not become serious by tossing a few "quantums" here and there. Eighth phase of evolution? What is he talking about?



Same as above. Again, this doesn't make any sense.



Finally, what most puzzled me was to read that the author was Dr. Timothy Leary, Ph.D., and that the website where this paper was stored had a banner entitled "The Deoxyribonucleic Hyperdimension." Quite appropriate.

Timothy Leary worked with LSD. Before you go running, just listen.

If we can label these experiences and create a model for it, then it is there as fact. Scientists and religionists would all be able to tap into this and a global consciousness will arise. As of now, only the spiritualists and mystics know of this and they are few and far between. If everyone can have direct contact with Infinite Intelligence, the world will be so much better.
Aren't there any scientists or mathematicians here who would like to research this?

DMT is produced in our brain already. Every night when we dream we experience it's effects. It is responsible for spiritual visions, hallucinations, and out of body experiences. I think it is best to have a spontaneous experience with DMT and not to take mind altering substances too much or ever for that matter. If we learn how to tap into it, then we expand our consciousness and our imagination becomes more clearer.

I feel passionate about this because it could mean we can make a quantum leap in our evolution if we can master our minds and learn what the pineal gland is and how to harness our own DMT through meditation. First we have to have a desire to know more than what the physical world has to offer.

He is the only person I know of to put these indescribable experiences into a language that is somewhat understandable.
Here it is broken down better.

http://deoxy.org/8circuit.htm

http://www.dedroidify.com/pinealgland.htm

I heard this quote today which I found somewhat interesting:

What remains the fundamental obtuseness of most strict atheists is that while they admit that science may not ever reveal everything to us, they are quite incapable of admitting that there are some things which science, in principle, cannot reveal to us. Simply by positing that the universe had an origin, we do not thereby explain its existence, and indeed nor can we explain its existence so much as describe its existence. Equations are meaningless without a reality to describe. You cannot transcend the knowledge of your own reality. It is fundamentally outside the domain of science. Where the boundary of our reality is is only what can be shown, and indeed this has progressed quite swimmingly. However, if we look at the argument from contingency, it may have been assumed that the universe was eternal, yet this does not solve the issue.

In a very strict interpretation of science, I might argue that it is of course quite impossible for science to tell us why anything is, only how it is. To use science to satisfy our need for knowledge requires a philosophy to filter it through.