<p>this. this is exactly what is wrong with your thinking. scientific thought involves abstracting truths from experiential reality, not taking the experiential reality as necessarily true. just “observing,” “thinking hard about,” or even “feeling strongly” that something is true doesn’t <em>count</em> as making it true. </p>
<p>presupposing a worldview and then assuming it’s science’s job to “come to terms” with it is hardly critical thought. it’s just giving preference to your subjective beliefs. </p>
<p>yes, scientific texts (and papers, and conferences) tend to be “conservative” in their views, if you define “conservative” as “not going off on enormous hypothetical leaps of fancy with almost little or no objective data and a threadbare, unscientific theoretic framework” then yeah. </p>
<p>look, obviously the idea of uniting spirituality and science has great appeal for people. but look at the people writing these books. do they have doctorates? published papers? hardly. now, one explanation is that there’s an enormous hard-headed conspiracy among all the dogmatic academics that holds THE TRUTH down! the other explanation, far more simpler, is that these people oversimplify and distort science in order to write feel-good quasi-spiritual pap, which gives only the illusion of depth. sure, you know DEEP DOWN that it’s right, but people can be convinced of anything and if you don’t understand that then you’re deeply misguided about human psychology in general.</p>
<p>it’s the same principle at work when people record youtube videos explaining how the physics of the WTC falling down don’t match up to scientific physics - it’s total crap. </p>
<p>once again, i extend the offer to you to produce a single academic paper or journal article that backs up all your claims of how “science has proven .” otherwise, PLEASE STOP RAPING MY FIELD OF STUDY TO DEATH BECAUSE I OBVIOUSLY KNOW WHAT I AM TALKING ABOUT AND YOU CLEARLY DO NOT thanks guy :-)</p>
<p>I don’t want to start arguing with applejack again, so I’m not even going to address his posts. I’ve made my opinions clear on previous threads.</p>
<p>In response to the original question: I can’t say that religious people are mentally ill - I was one once. They’re trying to come to terms with existence like everyone else, only they’re going about it in (what I believe to be) the wrong way.</p>
<p>Yes, actually, the neuroscientist does have both a doctorate and published papers. And, more importantly, the research being discussed in the other book are published papers of research done by highly respected doctorates from places like Princeton and Yale with doctorates. </p>
<p>And I did produce a single academic paper or journal article. I produced two books full of them. </p>
<p>R-E-A-D, then judge. It takes devout adherence to a dogma to simply dismiss published empirical evidence on the grounds that you don’t want to threaten the worldview you have chosen to believe. Hiding behind the mask of “science” doesn’t change that.</p>
<p>And to your comment StellaNova - consider the possibility that you are still rebelling against your religious experience and clouded from seeing the wisdom beneath all the dogma, fear, judgment, and other b.s. that religion has become.</p>
<p>I demand links to those academic papers, rather than books “full of them” (they obviously are misrepresenting the papers you silly goose) </p>
<p>show me the direct evidence for your beliefs rather than referring to them in some abstract metaphysical sense dude is that honestly so hard to ask for</p>
<p>Wow. They really have you hook, line, and sinker. </p>
<p>Your psyche so needs the dogma of a very primitive scientific community to be true that you outright claim they are “obviously misrepresenting” papers you have never even seen. That’s not very scientific. </p>
<p>Seriously. That’s traveling down a path to blind extremism on par with the most lethal of religious expressions.<br>
I guess it’s too hard to ask an educated person to read a book, but you want me to find links for dozens upon dozens of papers across numerous fields? You’re not that important to me. </p>
<p>Applejack, you are either the most literate ■■■■■■■■ person on the planet, or a world-class ■■■■■. If you’re the former, congratulations; your level of function is remarkable. If the latter, I tip my hat to you for successfully baiting me and and every other person who responded to your insanity. Extraordinary, either way.</p>
<p>Oh, and that study’s great because it essentially blows your whole point out of the water - while the nuns were “subjectively” in a state of union with “God,” the research shows that it was due to neural correlates in brain regions which perceive and mediate sensory reality. No surprises there. </p>
<p>Unless you’re willing to argue a sort of personal, humanistic authenticity to religion a la William James (who did it far more elegantly and convincingly than you, by the way) then your point remains unsupported, and frankly, worthless.</p>
<p>Milli, let me elaborate my point of view, and please tell me with what you disagree (preferably not rude).</p>
<p>I neither believe or not believe in God (these are not mutually exclusive). Actually, I don’t see a point in believing at all. </p>
<p>I do not believe in traditional Christian God, because he appears to be a hero of some fairytale, and does a lot of illogical things. But I think that there is a possibility that God exists (God, Gods, god, gods, superhuman, aliens, super civilizations, underline the needed) because it is not proven that he doesn’t exist. But again, I do not see a reason to believe or not to believe in God, as it wouldn’t change my life at all (to me believing seems pointless, as I said, but it’s only me). I prefer to trust something provable. At least provable based on axioms (that I assume to be trust to my senses, and what I perceive). But even using human senses as a base for experiencing the world, you cannot prove that there is no God.</p>
<p>Great milli, but what is your point of view then?
Do you strongly believe/know that there is no God (I am sorry if capitalization irritates you)? If yes - why, I am pretty sure that as a scientist you would decide on believing in something only if it is supported by some evidence, not just because you like it.
If no - then what is your point? Thanks</p>
<p>It’s interesting that you use these two examples. I’ve witnessed old ladies in their 70s bend thick bars of steel. It’s all very scientific, just knowing how to mentally focus the ambient energy of the force that is around us and through us. They were barely putting any muscle strength on the steel and certainly didn’t have the strength to bend steel that thick with their arms (I tried and couldn’t make it budge, and I am significantly younger, larger, and stronger than them).</p>
<p>I’ve also witnessed people who had elevated themselves to a state of consciousness whereby they stabbed themselves and felt no pain and released no blood.</p>
<p>I’ve even stared into the eyes of a man whose eyes literally started glowing a bright white as he accurately spoke of the deep insecurities within me (even though I’d only met him about 30 minutes earlier). Then the glow faded and he stood up and made some tea. That man, in particular, eminated an energy of love that I can only imagine is a glimmer of what masters such as Christ, Krishna, and others demonstrated that compelled so many and created so much fear in so many others. Consider that these “messiahs” just became, through trial and error, masters of physics.</p>
<p>Jesus disappears from the Bible until he’s 30. What was he doing? A great deal of evidence suggests he was wandering in the East, learning ancient spiritual ways. That Jesus, to me, is far more compelling. Then again, I find Batman who spent years mastering his craft intriguing and Superman who descended and took on the model of Moses rather boring.</p>
<p>I think the most important thing we humans can do - whether we are scientific or spiritual in focus - is be humble and open to the possibility that we really don’t know much of anything yet. I mean, we still use oil and haven’t even stepped foot on one planet besides our own. We are children.</p>
<p>I think the most important thing we humans can do - whether we are scientific or spiritual in focus - is be humble and open to the possibility that we really don’t know much of anything yet. I mean, we still use oil and haven’t even stepped foot on one planet besides our own. We are children.</p>
<p>I so agree with this last paragraph, it pretty much sums it all up. It just doesn’t go well with the categorical topic you posted (this one).</p>
<p>You should be aware that A Milli just copied one of my posts and attributed it to him/herself. The paragraph you so agree with is my writing. It’s plagarized without reference. </p>
<p>I believe my point is the same as your’s, Alone. That we don’t know. If you pay attention, the knee-jerk reaction of materialists is to force burden of proof onto others. They assume that evidence rests with them. This is not true. Materialists have yet to prove their claims and find that verified experiences convolute their assumptions. </p>
<p>My point is that we, as a very primitive society that just a century ago lost the horse and buggy, don’t know. I offer books with large numbers of scientific studies that point to a large realm of reality more fascinating and empowering than any we have known (something I would not call spirituality, but rather science of the mind), and all A Milli can do is attack and call me ■■■■■■■■.</p>
<p>I am saddened by this conversation and the hostility at the heart of A Milli’s belief structure. I thank you for maintaining a civil tone, Alone and wish you well in your own journey to understanding truth.</p>
<p>You are so incredibly rude, applejack. I know you are new to these boards, but you do not conduct yourself in any manner that is appropriate for mature conversation. It is time to grow up and accept that you do not have all the answers, no matter how easy it is to cocoon yourself in that belief.</p>
<p>I never claimed that quantum theory had all the mystical answers or that I learned it from some guru.</p>
<p>All I meant was that what we do know about quantum theory, which can roughly be summarized in the notion that an object remains in a state of vast potential until it is observed, gives us profound insight into a physics that reveals the limitations of classic physics and moves beyond the realm of time and space as we understand reality. Applying that principle to a macro level does not take a PhD. It just takes life experience.</p>
<p>The same is true of neuroscience. While most neuroscientists remain rooted in a materialist worldview, there are others who have proven that much of materialism is rooted in assumptions and dogmas without any empirical evidence. This vangard of neuroscience is beginning to prove that the mind exists separate from the brain, and is able to sustain existence beyond the workings of the body.</p>
<p>But if you wait for scientists to define your reality, you’re going to find them constantly behind. One need only experience the potential of human consciousness for oneself rather than scorning and demanding proof from others, resting comfortably in the bomb shelter of skepticism.</p>
<p>You ask how a field of science can lead to an old lady’s ability to bend thick steel with her mind, yet ignore the fact that the old lady bent thick steel with her mind. Why, at that point, does it matter what the root explanation is or what our primitive scientific inquiries tell us? We get caught up focusing on how things happen and miss the applcability.</p>
<p>One need only look at the primitive flying machines we use to see how little we understand as a society, even our most highly regarded university researchers.</p>
<p>If this thread gets ugly, I might have to post a long list of great scientific minds who were also religious.</p>
<p>Both sides need to get real. Anyone who can conclude that God exists or God doesn’t exist based on scientific evidence either has a weak background in science or does not understand basic rules of logic. There isn’t a correlation between believing in a religion and intelligence. Yes, there are many stupid religious people just like there are many stupid non religious people. Same goes for intelligent religious people and intelligent non religious people.</p>
<p>I find it frightening that people of both sides are so inclined to label others based on irrelevant information and call it logical.</p>