MAGIC - and the Origin of Life

real life wrote:

This is where you part company with the great scientists who built the foundations of modern science that we have inherited.

Many of them believed God created the universe, the Earth and all that is in it.

Yeh, but they didn't let it interfere with their ability to do good science.

They all used methodological naturalism as an assumption in their process, even as they backed God further and further into the gaps.

Not one of them EVER included *poof* as a term in their equations.

rosborne979 wrote:

real life wrote:

This is where you part company with the great scientists who built the foundations of modern science that we have inherited.

Many of them believed God created the universe, the Earth and all that is in it.

Yeh, but they didn't let it interfere with their ability to do good science.

They all used methodological naturalism as an assumption in their process, even as they backed God further and further into the gaps.

Not one of them EVER included *poof* as a term in their equations.

Big difference between using natural methods as investigative tools, and assuming that all things MUST have natural causes.

Personally, I do not concern myself too much with the big bang theory. I believe that there are new and more adequate explanations being formed today, and quantum mechanics may enlighten us, since it describes a world that is completely different from the world we percieve.

In this world dualistic notions such as 'here and there' and 'beginning and end' are void of meaning.

real life wrote:

rosborne979 wrote:

real life wrote:

This is where you part company with the great scientists who built the foundations of modern science that we have inherited.

Many of them believed God created the universe, the Earth and all that is in it.

Yeh, but they didn't let it interfere with their ability to do good science.

They all used methodological naturalism as an assumption in their process, even as they backed God further and further into the gaps.

Not one of them EVER included *poof* as a term in their equations.

Big difference between using natural methods as investigative tools, and assuming that all things MUST have natural causes.

There's a big difference between birds and bowling balls to, so what's your point?

rosborne979 wrote:

real life wrote:

rosborne979 wrote:

real life wrote:

This is where you part company with the great scientists who built the foundations of modern science that we have inherited.

Many of them believed God created the universe, the Earth and all that is in it.

Yeh, but they didn't let it interfere with their ability to do good science.

They all used methodological naturalism as an assumption in their process, even as they backed God further and further into the gaps.

Not one of them EVER included *poof* as a term in their equations.

Big difference between using natural methods as investigative tools, and assuming that all things MUST have natural causes.

There's a big difference between birds and bowling balls to, so what's your point?

If I may interject here....I think real life's point is that most of the early scientists were religious and probably believed in a supernatural origin for the universe. I doubt that they saw a conflict with their belief in the scientific method.

Ros' basic argument against the existence of the supernatural is an argument from incredulity.

He cannot conceive of it existing, therefore it must not.

His hyper-naturalism is something he tries to extend to science, i.e. if it cannot be examined naturally then it cannot exist.

Many of the great scientists (who built the foundation of modern science that we have inherited) did indeed believe that God created the universe.

They recognized that the scientific method, useful as it is, has limits. Science cannot explain, and should not be expected to explain everything.

Ros tends not to recognize this shortcoming of the scientific method. His view is basically that everything MUST have a natural cause, and therefore science MUST be able to explain everything.

You are correct, Free, and this is a point I've discussed with Ros previously.

Ros' basic argument against the existence of the supernatural is an argument from incredulity.

He cannot conceive of it existing, therefore it must not.

His hyper-naturalism is something he tries to extend to science, i.e. if it cannot be examined naturally then it cannot exist.

Many of the great scientists (who built the foundation of modern science that we have inherited) did indeed believe that God created the universe.

They recognized that the scientific method, useful as it is, has limits. Science cannot explain, and should not be expected to explain everything.

Ros tends not to recognize this shortcoming of the scientific method. His view is basically that everything MUST have a natural cause, and therefore science MUST be able to explain everything.

If that is what Ros believes then he is denying the reality of all internal, subjective experiences.

We are not machines. We have thoughts, perceptions, emotions and, yes, spiritual experiences. To deny the validity or reality of these because they are not objective and cannot be demonstrated by scientific methods, is to deny much of what it means to be a human being. To say that thoughts, perceptions, and emotions are real, but spiritual experiences are not, just means that you haven't had a spiritual experience so you don't believe it is possible. That is an arrogant position.

I do not deny that people have experiences and feelings. If someone says they had a personal spiritual experience, I would ask "what do you mean?" and "Please describe it".

However, I do not conclude just because someone had a spiritual experience that something supernatural has happened. For me to believe that, they would have to provide substantial proof.

rosborne979 wrote:

I do not deny that people have experiences and feelings. If someone says they had a personal spiritual experience, I would ask "what do you mean?" and "Please describe it".

These are reasonable questions.

Quote:

However, I do not conclude just because someone had a spiritual experience that something supernatural has happened. For me to believe that, they would have to provide substantial proof.

If by supernatural you mean that a personal spiritual experience has caused or revealed something in nature (i.e., objective), then that would require evidence, as you say. Even though I allow the possibility that subjective, or "supernatural", experiences may reveal truths about the natural world, I try not to make that claim. They reveal truths about the human psyche, about dimensions of consciousness that are as real as any other subjective experience. If a person has intense spiritual experiences, it can give them a perspective that may seem extraordinary to the skeptic. From the point of view of the spiritual practitioner, these experiences reveal a deeper understanding of reality. In my personal experience, there is an inner alertness, a peaceful space, or intensified consciousness, that forms the backdrop of all my thoughts, perceptions, emotions, etc. There is a blissfulness and sense of freedom that accompanies my waking experience most of the time. Am I suffering from delusion? Given to magical thinking? I don't think so. You may not believe me, or think that it is an aberration, but at least I am not talking about faith. I am talking about direct experience.

IFeelFree wrote:

rosborne979 wrote:

I do not deny that people have experiences and feelings. If someone says they had a personal spiritual experience, I would ask "what do you mean?" and "Please describe it".

These are reasonable questions.

Quote:

However, I do not conclude just because someone had a spiritual experience that something supernatural has happened. For me to believe that, they would have to provide substantial proof.

If by supernatural you mean that a personal spiritual experience has caused or revealed something in nature (i.e., objective), then that would require evidence, as you say. Even though I allow the possibility that subjective, or "supernatural", experiences may reveal truths about the natural world, I try not to make that claim. They reveal truths about the human psyche, about dimensions of consciousness that are as real as any other subjective experience. If a person has intense spiritual experiences, it can give them a perspective that may seem extraordinary to the skeptic. From the point of view of the spiritual practitioner, these experiences reveal a deeper understanding of reality. In my personal experience, there is an inner alertness, a peaceful space, or intensified consciousness, that forms the backdrop of all my thoughts, perceptions, emotions, etc. There is a blissfulness and sense of freedom that accompanies my waking experience most of the time. Am I suffering from delusion? Given to magical thinking? I don't think so. You may not believe me, or think that it is an aberration, but at least I am not talking about faith. I am talking about direct experience.

I believe that you have the experience. I'm just not sure that it's anything more than a different way of feeling/thinking.

For example, I feel what you are describing every day; inner alertness, a peaceful space, intensified consciousness. Am I having a spiritual experience? If you say that your experience is more intense than my daily experience, how do you know? Maybe my normal awareness is your spiritual awareness.

I guess we need to know what you mean by 'spiritual experience' more precisely.

You may very well be having this same experience, for all I know. By spiritual experience, I mean the intensification of bliss, energy, inner space, feelings of love and gratitude, and sense of freedom and unboundedness that I experience during meditation sessions. Over the years, this experience has begun to "spill over" somewhat into my normal waking consciousness, giving rise to the backdrop of restful alertness and intensified consciousness that I mentioned before.

There are also more specific experiences, such as the awakening of chakras, or spinal centers, which are accompanied by sometimes dramatic symptoms in certain parts of the body. There are other experiences, as well, but their significance is less clear to me.

Your definition of spiritual experience seems to be purely an aspect of personal psychology, not necessarily reflecting any external force or entity. Is that right?

rosborne979 wrote:

Your definition of spiritual experience seems to be purely an aspect of personal psychology, not necessarily reflecting any external force or entity. Is that right?

From an early age, I became convinced that spirituality must be based on real spiritual experience, not on faith. I was never interested in conventional religion. I felt that there probably was a God, but I wasn't about to take the word of preachers or even the bible. I'd always been fascinated with the mystical, and those who claimed to have inner spiritual experiences. While a teenager, I read "Autobiography of a Yogi" by Paramhansa Yogananda. I knew immediately that the yoga path was for me. I was instructed in mediation and have since had association with a succession of spiritual teachers and spiritual communities, and have practiced a variety of techniques. While all of this was happening, I became a physicist and have been able to explore the objective world with a rigorous approach. To answer your question, I don't conceive of God as an external force or entity. God dwells within, but I guess I have a rather impersonal view of God. I'm probably heavily influenced by Eastern mysticism. I'm not averse to the atheistic criticisms. I read Sam Harris's "The End of Faith" and I'm inclined to agree with his scathing criticism of faith-based religion. I note that he does mention Buddhism and Vedanta favorably, as well as meditation. It struck a chord with me because I'd always been suspicious of faith, and felt that seeking direct spiritual experience was the way to go.