Religion and Ethics Forum
General Category => General Discussion => Topic started by: Sriram on November 06, 2025, 04:03:30 PM
-
Hi everyone,
Not much time left on this board.
I would like to make some final points based on what I remember to have discussed in the past with all of you.
1. Spirituality and Religion are different.
2. Secular spirituality is a form of practice common to all humans while religion is cultural.
3. Spirituality is an inner quest through which we identify our true nature.
4. Consciousness is a fundamental inner reality that goes beyond materialism.
5. Near death experiences are evidence of an afterlife.
6. Evolution cannot be a chance based process with random variations forming its foundation. It has to be a deliberate adaptation based process (Phenotypic plasticity).
7. Natural selection is just a metaphor and not a real process.
8. It is not about God in a religious sense but about a common intelligent consciousness that is within everything
Thanks for everything guys.
Cheers.
Sriram
-
We still have 7 weeks to kick all of those around
-
:D That's why I posted it!
-
1. Spirituality and Religion are different.
OK.
2. Secular spirituality is a form of practice common to all humans while religion is cultural.
I'm not sure that it is. I'm reasonably confident I'm human, spirituality is a concept I've still yet to see a meaningful definition of, let alone one that would apply to me.
3. Spirituality is an inner quest through which we identify our true nature.
Where does this assumption that we have a 'true nature' come from? We can change our life-path in an instant, it takes a moment to make a decision.
4. Consciousness is a fundamental inner reality that goes beyond materialism.
You can think that, if you'd like, but the organ that's generating the thought is your brain.
5. Near death experiences are evidence of an afterlife.
Not good evidence, though.
6. Evolution cannot be a chance based process with random variations forming its foundation. It has to be a deliberate adaptation based process (Phenotypic plasticity).
No, it's entirely conceivable that evolution is the random process of mutation pruned for efficiency by survival and reproduction rates - there is no requirement for any conscious input or design in order for the phenomenon to operate exactly as we observe.
7. Natural selection is just a metaphor and not a real process.
Natural selection is a metaphor for the real process - the process is real, existence favours certain genetic expressions and disfavours others resulting in a selection pressure. The metaphor comes in the idea that 'someone' is required to select. It's natural, and it's real - it's the 'selection' that's metaphoric.
8. It is not about God in a religious sense but about a common intelligent consciousness that is within everything.
What is? What collective intelligence is in everything? I had a Reform Party nodule knock on the door on Monday, no evidence of any intelligence of any sort there, collective or otherwise.
O.
-
1. -
2. Spirituality is common to all humans in the sense that it does not depend on ones culture or background. Anyone interested in exploring ones mind and consciousness through subjective processes can take it up.
3. It is about identifying ones Self.....the innermost core of what we really are beyond mental constructs and concepts.
4. The brain in a part of the process. ....just as the hand is part of the process of eating or writing. But the process does not originate in the hand. Similarly the brain. Once the self is identified we can know that it is beyond materialism.
5. Enough evidence that is consistent, across the world and plentiful.
6. The biological organs and processes are too complex and interconnected to be just based on random variations. It has to be a deliberate adaptation where the phenotype adapts regardless of the genotype.
7. Natural Selection is similar to artificial selection that the idea originated from. There is some kind of an intelligence (consciousness) behind it.
8. Intelligence does not mean human like intelligence. There is some purposeful intelligence that drives evolution and life in general. This has to be sensed through implicit pattern recognition.
-
2. Spirituality is common to all humans in the sense that it does not depend on ones culture or background. Anyone interested in exploring ones mind and consciousness through subjective processes can take it up.
That's psychology. What does this 'spirituality' idea add? What does psychology not cover?
3. It is about identifying ones Self.....the innermost core of what we really are beyond mental constructs and concepts.
That's still not addressing this assumption that there's a 'true' nature that we need to grasp. You talk about some core of us that is beyond mental constructs and concepts, and yet we are mental constructs, we are a concept - if you go beyond that, you go beyond the person and you're looking, if you're looking at anything, at something else.
4. The brain in a part of the process. ....just as the hand is part of the process of eating or writing. But the process does not originate in the hand. Similarly the brain. Once the self is identified we can know that it is beyond materialism.
Where is your evidence for this? What are you basing that claim on? Where is the gap in the process that requires something else, where is the sudden appearance of a phenomenon not stimulated by something material?
5. Enough evidence that is consistent, across the world and plentiful.
Enough for you, perhaps, but you don't seem to set a particularly high standard for the quality or consistency of evidence that you're requiring to support some claims.
6. The biological organs and processes are too complex and interconnected to be just based on random variations. It has to be a deliberate adaptation where the phenotype adapts regardless of the genotype.
A the long-debunked 'specific complexity' nonsense. Where is the threshold at which something becomes 'too' complicated? How are you determining that? How many billions of iterations or marginal improvements and adaptations would be sufficient to explain a given 'complexity'? The 'specific complexity' claim is just an attempt to outsource the argument from incredulity - you can't believe it, therefore it must be false, your inability to accept it couldn't possibly be a limitation of your own world-view?
7. Natural Selection is similar to artificial selection that the idea originated from. There is some kind of an intelligence (consciousness) behind it.
Artificial selection descended from natural selection - people saw natural variation in the strains that survived and flourished, and then worked to utilise that by artificially constraining the selection pressures. There is intelligence added to the selection - there is no evidence for any intelligence in the natural selection process - but the variation remains a purely natural, unguided series of events so far as we can tell.
8. Intelligence does not mean human like intelligence. There is some purposeful intelligence that drives evolution and life in general. This has to be sensed through implicit pattern recognition.
No, this has to be accepted as an article of faith, because whilst the evidence doesn't disprove the notion, no intelligent agency is required in order to have a perfectly functional understanding of the evolutionary process. You can chuck a God/supernatural guiding intelligence into the mix if you want, but it doesn't add anything.
O.
-
1. You can use the word psychology if you want. It is just a new word compared to spirituality. But in spirituality a distinction is made between spirit and mind. The mind is a construct that is created as we grow. Spirit is what we are. The body is like hardware, mind is like software and the spirit is like the person in front of the computer.
2. See above. Spirit is what we are behind the mind and body. We can call it consciousness. Like the moment we are born....consciousness (or spirit) exists but the mind is still to be created. That happens as we grow and learn.
3. The evidence is the fact that when a person is dead the brain remains behind as just a piece of flesh. The difference between Living and dead body/brain. It is obvious that when we are alive something within is using the brain....and when that departs the brain remains behind as a rotting flesh.
4. NDE's are the best evidence we have for life after death. ...and it is quite substantial.....for now.
5. Deliberate adaptation has been proven is cases of phenotypic plasticity (polyphenism).
6. Darwin came up with the idea of Natural Selection only after observing Artificial Selection. It is also likely that, being a religious person earlier, he even believed that some superior intelligence directed the selection.
7. It is a belief but with sufficient reason. Religious beliefs in specific deities and events can be blind belief but not the belief in a natural intelligence (or consciousness) directing evolution and life in general. There is sufficient reason for that.
-
Dear Sriram and Outrider, Good Morning ;)
The word "psychology" comes from the Greek words psyche (meaning "breath, soul, or spirit") and logos (meaning "the study of").
The word "spirituality" is derived from the Latin spiritus, which means "breath," "soul," or "vigor".
Gonnagle.
-
Dear Sriram and Outrider, Good Morning ;)
The word "psychology" comes from the Greek words psyche (meaning "breath, soul, or spirit") and logos (meaning "the study of").
The word "spirituality" is derived from the Latin spiritus, which means "breath," "soul," or "vigor".
Gonnagle.
You are committing the etymological fallacy, which is confusing the etymology of a word wit its meaning.
-
1. You can use the word psychology if you want. It is just a new word compared to spirituality. But in spirituality a distinction is made between spirit and mind. The mind is a construct that is created as we grow. Spirit is what we are. The body is like hardware, mind is like software and the spirit is like the person in front of the computer.
See, that's why I'd use psychology, because it doesn't venture off into unsubstantiated meaningless ideas like 'spirit' - what we are is mammals who've evolved a capacity for abstraction. Mind is not like software, really, because the mind is dependent upon the structure of the hardware of our body - as to the idea that there's some outside driver operating this, you'd need to show the signals coming in and going out, you'd need to show the consistent presence of stimuli that doesn't have a physical, demonstrable source in order to need some external explanator - and you don't have that.
2. See above. Spirit is what we are behind the mind and body. We can call it consciousness. Like the moment we are born....consciousness (or spirit) exists but the mind is still to be created. That happens as we grow and learn.
Why would you need to find some mysticism to justify consciousness - just because we can't completely explain something doesn't mean that you need to resort to magic. Given how nebulous our current conception of 'consciousness' is, trying to ascertain if it's inherent a birth or manifests later seems a stretch. The mind is present from birth, although it's unrefined, and perhaps consciousness is as a result of that, or perhaps consciousness is just one of the tools and patterns that develops as the mind develops.
3. The evidence is the fact that when a person is dead the brain remains behind as just a piece of flesh. The difference between Living and dead body/brain. It is obvious that when we are alive something within is using the brain....and when that departs the brain remains behind as a rotting flesh.
No, what's obvious is that when we're alive there's a continuous, coherent pattern of brain activity, and when we die that stops. We aren't our brains, we're the pattern of brain activity that's happening within it.
4. NDE's are the best evidence we have for life after death. ...and it is quite substantial.....for now.
Yes, they absolutely are. That's how bad the case for life after death is, that the best you have is NDE.
5. Deliberate adaptation has been proven is cases of phenotypic plasticity (polyphenism).
You are going to need to provide a citation for a claim that deliberate adaptation has been confirmed in a natural setting; that would be a literally world-changing scientific revelation, and I've seen nothing to that effect in any reliable publication.
6. Darwin came up with the idea of Natural Selection only after observing Artificial Selection.
Which in no way invalidates the theory.
It is also likely that, being a religious person earlier, he even believed that some superior intelligence directed the selection.
My understanding is that he struggled with the implications of his findings, and even hesitated to publish for some time because of the inevitable conclusion, but his scientific integrity won out and he did publish, and he stood by the findings. Yes, he was religious, but he didn't let that religious belief prevent him following the evidence to the logical conclusion.
7. It is a belief but with sufficient reason. Religious beliefs in specific deities and events can be blind belief but not the belief in a natural intelligence (or consciousness) directing evolution and life in general. There is sufficient reason for that.
If it had sufficient reason, all the people who've read what you think the sufficient reasons are would be convinced, but we aren't. Either they aren't sufficient, they're not reasonable, or both. As to why religious belief (i.e. acceptance of a religious claim in the absence of sufficient evidence to support it, and even in contradiction to the evidence against it in some cases) can be blind, but your preferred unaffiliated belief in some spiritual, supernatural, disembodied intelligence without a body of canon to support it is somehow justified without actually providing that justification remains another claim for you to adequately justify.
You keep making these assertions from your personal position of incredulity - you don't believe it, therefore it must be false. If you want anyone else to think it's false you need something more than just your assertion and the acceptance of your own limitations of imagination and/or understanding. We have evidence of a physical, material existence in which we, as conscious, intelligent, self-aware creature exist. There are things that we don't yet know.
What we have no justification for is presuming that, if we don't currently know something, that it's a result of it being some extra-dimensional, supernatural, magical, spiritual mystery beyond the capacity for humanity to know, and not merely a little bit more complex than we're ready for. It's more likely to be behind the next rock than in Valhalla - we need to look at more rocks, and fewer old books, in order to find new understanding.
O.
-
You are committing the etymological fallacy, which is confusing the etymology of a word wit its meaning.
I think Gonzo is more noting with interest rather than making an argument.
-
I think Gonzo is more noting with interest rather than making an argument.
Dear Sane,
Once again, thank you ;)
Gonnagle.
-
Hi everyone,
Not much time left on this board.
I would like to make some final points based on what I remember to have discussed in the past with all of you.
1. Spirituality and Religion are different.
2. Secular spirituality is a form of practice common to all humans while religion is cultural.
3. Spirituality is an inner quest through which we identify our true nature.
4. Consciousness is a fundamental inner reality that goes beyond materialism.
5. Near death experiences are evidence of an afterlife.
6. Evolution cannot be a chance based process with random variations forming its foundation. It has to be a deliberate adaptation based process (Phenotypic plasticity).
7. Natural selection is just a metaphor and not a real process.
8. It is not about God in a religious sense but about a common intelligent consciousness that is within everything
Thanks for everything guys.
Cheers.
Sriram
Dear Sriram,
Point 2 and point 8, are you basically saying that mankind is a mean seeking creature?
Gonnagle.
-
we
N
....
What we have no justification for is presuming that, if we don't currently know something, that it's a result of it being some extra-dimensional, supernatural, magical, spiritual mystery beyond the capacity for humanity to know, and not merely a little bit more complex than we're ready for. It's more likely to be behind the next rock than in Valhalla - we need to look at more rocks, and fewer old books, in order to find new understanding.
O.
Great post, and this last bit is crucial. Just to add to it that nothing in terms of the supernatural is of explanatory value, rather it just adds another level to be explained which is generally done by hand waving.
-
Dear Sriram,
Point 2 and point 8, are you basically saying that mankind is a mean seeking creature?
Gonnagle.
... or may be there are or have been individuals who have had inner 'experiences' that cannot be communicated adequately in words to those who doubt. H.G. Wells short story 'The Country of the Blind' comes to mind.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Country_of_the_Blind
-
Outrider....
1. There is nothing meaningless about the word spirit. As far as i am concerned, there is nothing supernatural about spirit. It is just what we are. You tend to slot words and concepts into natural and supernatural.....accept the former and reject the latter.
2. Nothing mystical about spirit. It is just about the Self. About identifying what WE are beyond the mind and body. You may prefer to assume that we are just the body and the mind as just a product of the bodily processes. People like me don't.
3. Again....you assume that mere brain activity is all that we are. Many of us believe that we are an entity that possesses consciousness and which occupies the body-mind. There is enough evidence for that assumption.
4. NDE's are also evidence for the above.
5. I think there is enough evidence that organisms adapt their phenotype to suit their environment with the genotype remaining the same.
6. The idea of natural selection was born from artificial selection. So....it assumes intelligent direction at some level. The purely materialistic idea of random variations was a later creation.
7. IF we don't know something it does not necessarily mean that the gap will be filled by already known materialistic phenomena.
-
Great post, and this last bit is crucial. Just to add to it that nothing in terms of the supernatural is of explanatory value, rather it just adds another level to be explained which is generally done by hand waving.
Not happy with the term Supernatural because of it's elasticity in the hands of those using it. I think language frames are the thing which is explanatory and that of science is definitely limited...and that's before we come onto other language frameworks.
-
Not happy with the term Supernatural because of it's elasticity in the hands of those using it. I think language frames are the thing which is explanatory and that of science is definitely limited...and that's before we come onto other language frameworks.
You can use whatever term you like, it won't change the point that another level is added and there is no explanatory value
-
Not happy with the term Supernatural because of it's elasticity in the hands of those using it. I think language frames are the thing which is explanatory and that of science is definitely limited...and that's before we come onto other language frameworks.
Perhaps you would be happier if we just called it 'Magic': works for me!
-
You can use whatever term you like, it won't change the point that another level is added and there is no explanatory value
Not sure what you mean by another level added. I think it was Jay Gould who talked about domains and magisteria. I'm happy that science has limits as an explanatory language frame and to pretend it IS the exhaustive language frame is reductionism , eliminitivism and scientism all three of which can and probably have alienated humanity from it's own self value.
-
Perhaps you would be happier if we just called it 'Magic': works for me!
Not sure how you are defining magic here or whether you'll even tell me.
-
Not sure what you mean by another level added. I think it was Jay Gould who talked about domains and magisteria. I'm happy that science has limits as an explanatory language frame and to pretend it IS the exhaustive language frame is reductionism , eliminitivism and scientism all three of which can and probably have alienated humanity from it's own self value.
Since I haven't said anything like that I don't see the relevance of your post. As to another level if you are using the idea that science is limited, which we agree on, and Gould's idea of magisteria which for the purposes of this i'll run with even though i think ot is flawed, then the insertyourfavouredtermforsupernaturalhere is a different thing and is therefore another level. And appears to have no explanatory value.
-
Since I haven't said anything like that I don't see the relevzn e of your post. As to another level if you are using the idea that science is limited, which we agree on, and Gould's idea of magisteria which for the purposes of this i'll run with even though i think ot is flawed, then the insertyourfavouredtermforsupernaturalhere is a different thing and is therefore another level. And appears to have no explanatory value.
I prefer domain or magisterial. "Another level" suggests either/ both a heirarchy of sufficiency or that one is really the basis of the other. Religion is not "failed science" or is it a partially overlapping magisterial in the way I feel Dawkins suggest it
-
I prefer domain or magisterial. "Another level" suggests either/ both a heirarchy of sufficiency or that one is really the basis of the other. Religion is not "failed science" or is it a partially overlapping magisterial in the way I feel Dawkins suggest it
OK, let's use domain then though as already covered it doesn't change the point. You are adding a domain and it appears to have no explanatory value.
I see you have introduced the idea of non overlapping, presumably from Gould in his use of the idea of non overlapping magisteria. As I said I think Goukd's idea of that is flawed, and in the non overlapping bit completely so. In Sriram's post here he is making statements about events and a view of reality that specifically overlapping with science, e.g. evolution.
-
OK, let's use domain then though as already covered it doesn't change the point. You are adding a domain and it appears to have no explanatory value.
A language framework describes Ideas, experiences and observations both individual and corporate indeed any language frame assumes some kind of corps. It is incorrect to assume that only one has explanatory value.
I see you have introduced the idea of non overlapping, presumably from Gould in his use of the idea of non overlapping magisteria. As I said I think Goukd's idea of that is flawed, and in the non overlapping bit completely so. In Sriram's post here he is making statements about events and a view of reality that specifically overlapping with science, e.g. evolution.
But you are making the same mistake that I feel both Dawkins et cie and the Creationists are making namely that evolution is the essence of religion or that "It all hinges on whether evolution is true. It doesn't and religion is not "failed science".
-
A language framework describes Ideas, experiences and observations both individual and corporate indeed any language frame assumes some kind of corps. It is incorrect to assume that only one has explanatory value. But you are making the same mistake that I feel both Dawkins et cie and the Creationists are making namely that evolution is the essence of religion or that "It all hinges on whether evolution is true. It doesn't and religion is not "failed science".
I didn't say that only one language framework has explanatory value. So irrelevant.
And the point about evolution was simply dealing with the idea if the possible domains in this case being 'non overlapping' and showing that in Sriram's approach they do overlapping. So again your point is irrelevant as it isn't anything I've said.
-
..
6. Darwin came up with the idea of Natural Selection only after observing Artificial Selection. It is also likely that, being a religious person earlier, he even believed that some superior intelligence directed the selection.
..
No evidence for that. Indeed he made the point that there was no external intelligence driving evolution, hence the term 'Natural Selection'; if he believed as you say, then he would have called it 'Supernatural Selection'.
-
Try this fairly short video. It explains quite a bit.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=38F_e2O9hgs
-
No evidence for that. Indeed he made the point that there was no external intelligence driving evolution, hence the term 'Natural Selection'; if he believed as you say, then he would have called it 'Supernatural Selection'.
There is nothing external about our inner consciousness....and nothing supernatural.
-
Not sure how you are defining magic here or whether you'll even tell me.
How about 'Abracadabra' or possibly 'Shazzam' - or any word that conveys the notion of utter nonsense.
-
There is nothing external about our inner consciousness....and nothing supernatural.
And yet your claims are exactly that. It might help if you were honest to yourself.
-
There is nothing external about our inner consciousness....and nothing supernatural.
Agreed. Also there's nothing supernatural about Near Death Experiences or Natural Selection. Even if you claim a supernatural element, you wouldn't be able to prove it, so it would forever remain nothing more than a belief and therefore rather pointless.
-
Agreed. Also there's nothing supernatural about Near Death Experiences or Natural Selection. Even if you claim a supernatural element, you wouldn't be able to prove it, so it would forever remain nothing more than a belief and therefore rather pointless.
So my understanding is that Sriram does not see these as supernatural but a form of natural.
-
1. There is nothing meaningless about the word spirit. As far as i am concerned, there is nothing supernatural about spirit. It is just what we are. You tend to slot words and concepts into natural and supernatural.....accept the former and reject the latter.
If there was nothing meaningless about 'spirit' someone would be able to explain in terms of demonstrable phenomena; to date, that doesn't appear to be the case. I don't separate into natural and supernatural, I separate into demonstrable and not demonstrable - if you continue to claim an effect devoid of a demonstrable cause, you're claiming something supernatural.
2. Nothing mystical about spirit. It is just about the Self. About identifying what WE are beyond the mind and body. You may prefer to assume that we are just the body and the mind as just a product of the bodily processes. People like me don't.
You're begging the question - before you can claim that 'spirit' is the bit beyond mind and body you have to demonstrate that there is something beyond mind and body (notwithstanding the fact that it's not clear there's a distinction to be made between those two at all). I know that you don't accept that limit, but the problem is that you don't appear to be able to justify why not.
3. Again....you assume that mere brain activity is all that we are.
Not assume, conclude. We are demonstrably inextricably and significantly tied to brain activity, and to a lesser extent to other bodily activities which can be shown to influence brain behaviour (i.e. hormone levels, sensory inputs, etc.). In the absence of any demonstration of anything else having a significant impact, it's a reasonable conclusion to think that we are that brain activity.
Many of us believe that we are an entity that possesses consciousness and which occupies the body-mind. There is enough evidence for that assumption.
Then why have you been hiding it for the decade and more that we've been here? Bring this evidence out into the light, stun the worlds of philosophy and physiology, go claim your Templeton Prize and Nobel... Or is it the same old argument from incredulity reheated once more?
4. NDE's are also evidence for the above.
Not good evidence, as I previously noted, given how many other entirely physical explanations there are for the few of these that aren't obviously culturally influenced.
5. I think there is enough evidence that organisms adapt their phenotype to suit their environment with the genotype remaining the same.
Tellingly, though, the people that actually study phenotypes and genotypes and publish evidenced papers on the fact don't think there is enough evidence to support that claim.
6. The idea of natural selection was born from artificial selection. So....it assumes intelligent direction at some level. The purely materialistic idea of random variations was a later creation.
No. Recognising similarities of pattern do not necessitate accepting similarities of cause. If I throw a tennis ball into the Grand Canyon that doesn't mean that every subsequent hailstone must have been launched by an angel.
7. IF we don't know something it does not necessarily mean that the gap will be filled by already known materialistic phenomena.
But every time in history that we've filled a gap in our knowledge we've done it by learning about a material cause for observable phenomena. The gaps for woo to live in have become increasingly small, and increasingly far apart as the boundaries of our knowledge have lit up the darkness. By contrast, we've never come to reliably know anything from mysticism, spirituality or religious explanations, we're expected to just accept on faith. The correct answer is 'we don't know', not magic; unless the answer is 'we do know, here are umpty-million scientific papers that are robust and consistent and wide-ranging enough to ascertain that the theory of evolution is irrefutable - and nothing's guiding it.'
O.
-
Not happy with the term Supernatural because of it's elasticity in the hands of those using it. I think language frames are the thing which is explanatory and that of science is definitely limited...and that's before we come onto other language frameworks.
But 'God', 'Soul', and 'Spirit' just hunky-dory, right?
O.
-
Try this fairly short video. It explains quite a bit.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=38F_e2O9hgs
It explains nothing, and asserts that reality is at some level conscious based on the false equivalence of the dream of a landscape and the physical reality of a landscape.
O.
-
That reality has an underlying foundation of Consciousness has been suggested by many eminent scientists (including Max Planck), psychologists and philosophers. This fundamental consciousness is what is generally considered as the all pervading supreme spirit by most religions.
Once this is understood, free of mythology and dogma, many of our problems in understanding the world and processes will be solved.
-
That reality has an underlying foundation of Consciousness has been suggested by many eminent scientists (including Max Planck), psychologists and philosophers. This fundamental consciousness is what is generally considered as the all pervading supreme spirit by most religions.
Once this is understood, free of mythology and dogma, many of our problems in understanding the world and processes will be solved.
But not demonstrated.
That religions package up these 'considerations' into various forms of codified beliefs, and persuade some people to join in, especially if they are personally attracted to such notions, doesn't give substance to conjectures that are unjustified by evidence.
Even clever people, like theoretical physicists, can be gullible when they aren't doing science, as Richard Feynman (a theoretical physicist) pointed out: "I believe that a scientist looking at nonscientific problems is just as dumb as the next guy".
-
But not demonstrated.
That religions package up these 'considerations' into various forms of codified beliefs, and persuade some people to join in, especially if they are personally attracted to such notions, doesn't give substance to conjectures that are unjustified by evidence.
Even clever people, like theoretical physicists, can be gullible when they aren't doing science, as Richard Feynman (a theoretical physicist) pointed out: "I believe that a scientist looking at nonscientific problems is just as dumb as the next guy".
I'm sure a great case for these assertions and assumptions could be made but alas, I think unless I did the job myself we will never hear that case.
Codified belief= Mere intellectual assent to a few statements
Codified= Written down somewhere?
Evidence =Physical evidence. Not logical argument
Not sure what you mean to say about clever people Gordon but I'm sure you count yourself in that number
-
So my understanding is that Sriram does not see these as supernatural but a form of natural.
Dear Sane,
And this is also my understanding, everything is supernatural until it becomes super-natural.
"There are only two ways to live your life. One is as though nothing is a miracle. The other is as though everything is a miracle"
🎵And I think to myself what a wonderful world🎵
Einstein and Louis Armstrong in the same post 8) now that value for yer money 🎵Oh yeeeaahh 🎵
Gonnagle
-
Dear Sane,
And this is also my understanding, everything is supernatural until it becomes super-natural.
"There are only two ways to live your life. One is as though nothing is a miracle. The other is as though everything is a miracle"
🎵And I think to myself what a wonderful world🎵
Einstein and Louis Armstrong in the same post 8) now that value for yer money 🎵Oh yeeeaahh 🎵
Gonnagle
Which does mean that the 'resurrection ' is the same as the holocaust.
-
But not demonstrated.
It cannot be demonstrated objectively. We can only experience it subjectively. That can be done through certain established practices. It is not just a belief.
-
It cannot be demonstrated objectively. We can only experience it subjectively. That can be done through certain established practices. It is not just a belief.
No one can experience Universal Consciousness, we can only experience our own individual consiousness. The idea that a rock has some form of fundamental consciousness is a claim, a belief, but it is not something that can be experienced.
-
It cannot be demonstrated objectively. We can only experience it subjectively. That can be done through certain established practices. It is not just a belief.
If it is subjective, but is claimed to be 'universal', and yet it is not experienced 'universally' by everyone, as would be the case if it was an objective fact, then that surely suggests that it is no more than an unjustified belief that some people hold.
-
Light is universal but blind people cannot experience it. Similarly, inner experiences require a certain mental preparedness. There are many exercises and meditations that help people have the inner experience. There have been well established systems for this in most communities.
-
Light is universal but blind people cannot experience it. Similarly, inner experiences require a certain mental preparedness. There are many exercises and meditations that help people have the inner experience. There have been well established systems for this in most communities.
But light is an objective fact that is indisputable - and even blind people can experience the heat that is associated with some forms of light and, therefore, can experience non-visual aspects of light, and they can do so without requiring any special training. So, as an analogy, I'd say 'light' doesn't work.
Surely one risk of becoming involved in special exercises and meditation etc is confirmation bias - in that deciding to embark on these actions involves an expectation that there is a 'something' there, waiting to be encountered by undergoing special processes. Moreover, if this 'something' is so profound, why don't we all feel it in an everyday sense in the same way that we experience 'light', and where we can demonstrate and justify, in various easily accessible ways, that light is a real phenomena.