The flaw in the concept of heaven

Post Reply New Topic

I've seen some of Sheldrake's thinking. I'm not impressed.

.....what....?

I never said it was a given, just a possibility. Then again, I'm not sure about a thing you said, so for all I know you're seconding my opinion, in which case, thanks!! !

Don't you see? If you make an observation, then make a prediction based on that observation, in the world of science you're allowed to call people on their bulls**t or prove them right. Example: you notice that when you let go of a ball on planet Earth, it falls to the surface at 9.8 m/s^2. You decide to tell others that this is the case, and that if they drop something, it will fall at the same rate. Others are now able to test it for themselves, to see if your idea is any good. You can't do that with something that is 'supernatural'. This is not an opinion, it is part of the definition of 'supernatural'.

Let me again try to get my point across: you say there is a possibility of something supernatural existing. By thinking this, you accept that there may be things which no other human can understand, but that happen regardless. And that's the problem: in even accepting the possibility that stuff happens that can't be proved by people, you're essentially being a child with fingers in his ears going 'LA LA LA LA LA LA I can't hear you!! !'.

This is also known by such fascinating terms as: ignorance, psychosis, dogma, faith, belief, 'I've-just-got-a-feelin', and 'f**ck you, I'm right'. Whether you go the whole way or just accept the possibility of supernatural phenomena, you're being just as ignorant.

Although, you know what they say: ignorance is bliss.

"Accepting the idea of morphogenetic fields also opens the door to the scientific investigation of the idea that consciousness and mental processes can function without physical support. This would allow the existence of non-physical beings (gods, angels, life after death, etc.) - a subject of prime interest to most religious and spiritual traditions."

-Dr. Rubert Sheldrake

From what (admittedly little) I have read on Sheldrake, he puts forth fantasy couched in the language of science.

He is a graduate from Harvard, so I wouldn't say he is just interested in fanciful, magical thinking. There is a science to the mind. There is also a taboo in studying paranormal activity. That is not a scientific response, it is an emotional one.

True. If he can find scientific ways of explaining the unexplainable, and those ways are replicable by others, I applaud him.

However- I detest the use of the terms 'paranormal' and 'supernatural'. By their very definitions, they mean "outside reality". However strange, a phenomenon is either true or not true- paranormal and supernatural phenomena, by definition, do not exist. Just because it's freaky or currently unexplainable does not mean it's paranormal. I much prefer the vernacular here, as it is more appropriate. So, if you were to say that studying 'weird s**t' is taboo, I'd have to agree with you. And that is unfortunate.

I cringe when I have to use words like supernatural and paranormal, but what else should we say? It's all unknown science, if it is real. How about we call it the theory of non-materialism?

Immaterial would be a better term.

even better, i also believe this

Well, that makes two of you. Who could argue with that?

you? or are you trying to argue? because clearly you think we cant be either right or agree so wich is it?

Well, since energy alone is not alive, it seems likely it never dies but that's one of those eternal imponderables. Sometimes when I stick a hairpin into an electric socket and get a shock and say ouch, I do believe I hears a small chuckle of satisfaction from the socket but that could be an illusion.

Energy can't be destroyed. People die, but their energy doesn't. It gets recycled.

Exactly. Just like their molecular constituents which turn into bacteria and a few mice and worms. But that's certainly not what people have in mind when they speak of the hereafter.