everything else does .....

Please do not forget; a scientist at Harvard "claimed" that negroes did not have the same intelligence as whites.

C.I., you are arguing that he is not a "real" scientist?

Much of the knowledge attained in the so-called social sciences is highly interpretive, resembling a kind of empirical philosophizing more than any of the physical sciences. Yet they also produce much of what may be valued as "truth".

We must keep in mind that humankind has generated inventories of facts and conceptual models of how much of Nature operates well before the advent of the scientific method. To repeat myself, the scientific method is the most reliable and efficient way to construct useful models of the natural world. But it does not generate all the knowledge we need. Philosophy, spiritual practices, the so-called social "sciences" and the arts are also needed for the pursuit of answers to questions that cannot be examined scientifically--unless one defines 'science' as all intelligent efforts to understand the world. In that case you would agree with my (and IFF's) pluralistic picture of knowledge and the ways it may be pursued.

See,

The God Delusion, Richard Dawkins
God: The Failed Hypothesis. How Science Shows That God Does Not Exist, Victor J Stenger
God Is Not Great, Christopher Hutchins
Breaking the Spell: Religion as a Natural Phenomenon, Daniel C Dennett

along with similar obnoxious books.

There is a good book about the failings of religion, however. It is:

The End of Faith, Sam Harris

This guy not only points out the problem with faith-based religion, but points to an alternative -- the Buddhist and Vedanta texts and the practice of meditation.

IFF, I've argued that Dawkins and Hutchins are what we may call "fundamentalist atheists", having many of the limitations of Christian Fundamentalism (I won't put in the same category, however, as Madaline Hare, the dumbest expression of atheism--she is one of those whom it may be said believed in a No-God and worshipped him). I call myself an atheist nevertheless, in the sense of Buddhism's disregard for theistic notions as just plain unnecessary and senseless.

IFF & JLN, What I was trying to get at is that just because a small number of scientists may believe some things about science over religion, that doesn't justify "scientism" by the preponderance of scientists. Also, don't we have to see what those scientists base their beliefs on? In other words, can you challenge their opinion as to why they concluded what they did? Are their arguments reasonable, or illogical?

C.I., I'm not sure I understand you. I'm not saying that some scientists advocate an ideology of Scientism. I'm saying that such an ideology would be very inconsistent with the culture of Science--and very poor philosophy.
If anything "scientism" is a term for people (all of whom are probably naive regarding the scientific method) who consider science the only way to achieve knowledge and that all valid knowledge of the world is the result of scientific investigation. I do not know any scientist who argues that position.

That's the answer I was looking for.

Well, for example, I observed a physicist on another spirituality board who was adamant that anything smacking of spirituality was hooey. To him, the scientific method was the only valid way of gaining knowledge. He claimed to be a Ph.D. physicist and, from what he said, I believe it. (As a physicist myself, I can usually tell if someone lies about something like that when they discuss science.) In fact, when I advocated a view of spirituality that was non-faith based, he attacked me and accused me of probably lying about being a scientist. He was a real extremist. However, I have met a number of atheists in my profession who bordered on these kinds of extreme views, and contempt for anything spiritual.

IFF, I'm not a scientist, but most of my family, friends and acquaintances are Christians - as is the general population in the US. I've had my share of arguments with siblings about different aspect of church dogma; example:homosexuals are sinners, but they love the sinner.

I believe in treating all humans the same, and will do everything in my power to allow them equal rights. Many Christians have a problem with that.

Many Christians believe in "right to life," but does almost nothing to help the 13 million orphaned children of this world. They put their effort into saving the zygote over the living. They believe stem cell research kills a living baby. I see hypocrisy and ignorance.

I respect those who doesn't try to push their religious beliefs on the rest of society. They think they're doing "god's work."

I don't believe in all the so-called scientific theories until they are confirmed and reconfirmed by others. I'm not the sharpest pencil on the planet, so there are things I admit I don't understand.

My wife is a Buddhist, and she believes in reincarnation. I don't, but I respect her for her belief. I even joined her on a Buddhist pilgrimage to Japan several years ago where we visited over 33 temples in ten days. I prayed with them at every temple - out of respect. Even at christian events, I bow my head during prayer.

Finally, when I visited Martin Luther King, Jr's tomb in Atlanta some years ago, I bowed my head, clasped my hands together, and stood in silence out of respect for the man.

I believe in karma.

Yes I see the world in cause and effect too, it just makes good sense to try and appreciate how our actions impact on those around us. I actually believe very little indeed. I enjoy discussing religion and philosophy very much especially here on a2k with such varied/informative views but for me it's very simple & practical involving kindness and compassion. Beliefs are always in danger of being/becoming baggage, not to say beliefs are bad at all but I think sometimes the attachment to the belief becomes more important than the belief itself. You could argue this is when scientism and the like creep in, for example, the physicist mentioned above by IFF seems fearful to me. I intuitively prefer completeness and unity in terms of moment to moment experience. Beliefs seem to be about projecting ideals when the time for action is always now. Of course we need to think about the long term but rather than our beliefs guiding us (or our strict attachment to them), maybe beliefs need to be consistently seen for what they are or re-evaluated as each moment passes by.

The one thing that jumps out at me reading about religion through my own tinted glasses is simplicity. I think particularly in esoteric or mystic areas, maybe we see varied and (at least from one perspective) complex ideas or doctrine but of course by their own admission doctrine is never "truth". To me, this is one reason why we so often see traditionally non-religious people as representing some of the kindest and most decent around, life can be very simple indeed. In this sense it can be a bit disheartening to see supposed "religious" people fighting with atheists over truth and ideal itself. Like I say though, this is my own perspective on spirituality.

Your views sound very balanced to me. I agree with you in many respects. I particularly like that you are willing to respect the beliefs of others and join in on the ceremonies and rituals out of respect. I try to do that as well. ("When in Rome, do like the Romans") The areas where we have differing views may be the result of a different set of life experiences.

Belief is not Truth. However, as we gain knowledge it is inevitable that we start to form beliefs. The important thing is that we are not so attached to our beliefs that we take any disagreement or contradiction as a threat to our sense of identity. I see this so much in people that they get very defensive when you express a contrary view. It is a symptom of ego, or the mind-made self. Simplicity is the ability to "be here now", without all the baggage of the conceptual mind as a barrier to present awareness. It is the capacity to think and act without being limited by beliefs.

Ultimately, I do not have strong or clear beliefs, in the sense that all beliefs are statements made in languages that are man-made and operating within a framework reflecting cultural presuppositions rather than the World itself. All is subjective (and intersubjective), and that's an objective fact.
Truth is no more than propositions about the nature of Reality which cannot be grasped in our little verbal or mathematical formulae. We must make such propositions for psychocultural and pragmatic reasons, but we need not get caught up in them.

C.I., even as a Buddhist I do not believe in Karma nor in the Cosmos as a deterministic (causal) phenomenon. Causality is a way of thinking about and ordering experience, but it does not constitute an adequate description of Reality.
I see events and conditions and try to understand or explain them in terms of "effects" and their antecedent conditions, "causes". But I do not see discrete things that can be considered separate and distinct effects and causes. I observe continua of conditions and call the early part of my observations causes and the latter part their effects. Causality is a cognitive strategy; it's good to think with but does not, I repeat, describe the Cosmos in any adequate philosophical sense. I think practicioners of the New Physics might agree.

Your post above makes sense IFF. What I don't get is how you make claims like this one below.





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?

(Sorry if that sounds aggressive, it isn't meant to be. I am trying to learn and understand.)

JLN, I believe in karma in the sense of fate; that our actions do affect our state of life. I also believe gene and environment has as much or greater influence on our lives.

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.