Eorl wrote:...You aren't leaving any room for doubt in statements like this one, and I for one doubt the validity of this statement so much that I have to say....prove it. If this was a scientific theory you were forwarding, you would be well aware of the burden of proof. Why do you think a theory on the existence of a soul does not require similar scrutiny? I find you very interesting IFF, because as a physicist, your job is to study the very nature of the universe, yet here you are proposing things that appear to fall outside of nature. How can anything be outside of nature. Nature is nature. No aspect of nature can be NOT part of it's nature. I just don't get it. I wonder if you simply want more from the universe than it appears to offer, so much so that you feel the basic laws of science can be ignored when it suits you?
I have two modes of discussing these matters:
1.) I just present what I have learned over the years, without justification, as points for discussion (if there is interest). Because the concepts I try to present are sometimes a bit complicated or difficult to express, I don't attempt to justify these ideas in any way, but merely to present the information as clearly as I am able.
2.) I consider particular spiritual or metaphysical ideas with regard to offering empirical evidence, personal experiences, or other justifications (explanatory power, observed commonality across different cultures, etc.) that I am aware of, in order to consider possible supportive evidence.
When considering spiritual matters, I try to be rigorous in the sense that we cannot allow any violation of the known laws of physics, or any logical contradictions, or consider propositions that cannot be verified in some fashion (although verification may require subjective experiences, or consideration of the experiences of others). Obviously, ideas for which there exists objective evidence (near-death/out-of-body experiences involving testimony of events witnessed by 3rd parties, medical research on physiological changes due to meditation and other practices, validation of psychic phenomena, etc.) are given higher priority. However, there is limited opportunity to explore or validate spiritual topics without considering subjective experiences as well. I suppose I am attempting to extend the empirical approach to include subjective experiences under certain conditions.
As to your question of whether there can be anything outside of nature, we must consider the role of subjectivity or consciousness. Psychic states, or altered/higher states of consciousness, represent a class of experiences that can help us to understand our potential, not just as an interesting intellectual discussion, but with the goal of minimizing suffering and living responsibly. I do not mean to imply that there are things "out there" that science can't see. The phenomena I am considering are entirely internal. However, the metaphysical model I am proposing is based on the view that the world "out there" is a projection of consciousness, so that there is not a sharp distinction between subject and object. I don't think that most scientists today subscribe to naive materialism, or the idea that consciousness arises entirely from matter, although most would probably not agree with the idealist view that the world is simply the projection of consciousness.
Let's get specific. As to my claims about the soul, they are based upon (1) my own memories and behaviors suggesting that I have lived other lives, as well as similar experiences of many others, in addition to my, and others', experiences of astral phenomena such as the chakras, auras, etc., (2) the record of many near-death experiences such as the
near-death experience of Pam Reynolds, (3) the esoteric cosmology of certain schools of Buddhism, Hinduism, Tantra, Kabbalah, Suffism, Theosophy, Yoga tradition, the Urantia book, some schools of Christian mysticism, and (4) the descriptions offered by many modern spiritual teachers who claim direct experience of astral worlds or phenomena (such as Paramhansa Yogananda, Meher Baba, Swami Muktananda, Da Free John, Gary Renard, etc.). With regard to (3) and (4), I have gleaned a metaphysical description of the soul and after-death states which is common to different esoteric traditions and teachings, and appears to explain the near-death and other-life experiences. Is this convincing evidence to the skeptic? Perhaps not, but we are not doing science here. We are trying to understand spiritual experiences and their metaphysical implications. Is this just a collective delusion? Perhaps, but the consistency of these experiences across different cultures and at different historical periods is impressive. There are also recorded near-death and psychic phenomena that defy explanation unless we assume either the reality of the spiritual dimension, or else fraud or delusion on the part of doctors, police, scientists, etc. who witnessed these events. Finally, for those of us who have had these experiences, there is a desire to understand them and integrate them into a coherent world-view that is consistent with scientific understanding.