For Arguments Sake: Nothing Exists Beyond The Physical Realm

I can see why religion promotes this particular sentiment; it relies on it. Unfortunately, this sentiment is probably one of the worst pieces of advice that could be given to humanity. It leaves the mind completely open to coersion from a range of external sources, many quite dangerous as we've seen from terrorist activities.



I believe that you have experienced something. But we probably differ on the meaning of "real" in this case.



Then it isn't "science".



As far as I know, nobody in professional science is trying to prove that God doesn't exist (it would never even be attempted). And it is entirely our point that nobody can prove that it (God) does exist, either you or anyone else. The same applies to the "spiritual" aspect of things, it cannot be proven, or disproven.

I am very pleased that science continues to try to explore new ideas and possibilities. This is the best part of science. But there's a difference between seeking something which you think might exist, and claiming that it does exist.

Best Regards,

Foxfyre: "Things like that just can't be explained by 'provable' laws of science."

should read -Things like that just can't be explained by 'currently provable' scientific knowledge - (i insist there are no 'laws' ) .

Even though i am completely convinced that there are no supernatural forces interfering with the workings of the universe, i am equally convinced that there is much still to be learned about processes and forces operating in ways we know almost nothing about.

I feel it would be easier to fund research, and attract competent personnel into those areas, if there were not the 'stigma' of "oh that belongs in the "spiritual realm", about such questions.

I agree that many 'events' that are demonstrably 'strange' or overly 'coincidental', tend to be avoided by capable scientists for fear they will be 'tarred' with the 'superstition' brush, by the establishment.

Scientists are as commonly 'conservative' as are 'believers'!

[they both have a tendency to believe only what is written in the 'accepted' texts!]

an 'open mind' is the most beautiful thing on the planet!

[after women, of course! ]

Derevon, just because someone finds a statistical anomaly which they don't understand, it doesn't necessarily follow that you've discovered something paranormal or spiritual.

Whatever they have found simply isn't convincing enough to make skeptics think that there's anything interesting to be learned by spending time on it. That's why it's being ignored. The people with the greatest investment in this type of study are those people who are assuming that paranormal or spiritual aspects have been indicated. But science will never conclude this anyway, so it's a deluded quest. At best, science will only say that it's found something it doesn't understand. It will never conclude that anything is "supernatural" in any form (science is prohibited from this conclusion by its very nature).

Best Regards,

Agreed
Rosborne: Exactly right! If there is ever strong evidence for a "spiritual" world, science will simply treat it as an unexplored aspect of the natural world. There has been some interesting research in the past few years inducing the "mountain top" religious/spiritual experiences people have that convince them of the supernatural by applying EM fields to portions of the brain.

BoGoWo: It's not so much a matter of "what's in the books." Scientists are just beggars who happen to do it in a boardroom. A lot of valid experiments have already been carried out with psychics/far-seers and such that simply don't provide the support the idea needs for serious continued funding. The DoD would kill for a reliable psychic or seer, but you may have noticed that they continue to use informants and satellites instead... With out something to provide an incentive for more main-stream research than has already taken place, the supernatural will stay of the fringe with the UFO's.

Devervon: If there results and methodology is as sound as you claim, then they should put their work through a peer review process in a credible journal. Good results are good results regardless of whether or not the purposed explanation is currently in favor. Do you have any results that have made it through a review board?

There have been results from similar experiments with similar conclusions, published in what you would refer to as credible journals, for example in Journal of Scientific Exploration. As for this particular assessment by Prof. Jessica Utts, I don't really know how well it has been reviewed. I know at least that some Oregon professor of psychology, who is a renowned sceptic, tried to point out what he claimed were various fallacies in the methodology, but he has been forced to admit that there's no way his proposed flaws could account for the extraordinary results which the assessment presented.

Overall, there hasn't been particularly much research done in the field of parapsychology. Funding has always been a problem when it comes to this kind of research, as it's of little commercial value. Also, interest for the paranormal has been pretty low in the scientific community, perhaps due to scientists' fear of losing credibility or reputation, or because the topic largely seems to fall outside the domains of science.