The Science of Spirit?

What is a human being? What is life? Can science give us reliable answers to such questions? The electricity of life. The meaning of human consciousness. Are we alone? Are the traditional contests between science and religion still relevant? Does the word "spirit" still hold meaning today?

Moderators: MGmirkin, bboyer

The Science of Spirit?

Unread postby StevenJay » Thu Sep 18, 2008 9:03 am

"[...] scientists will ultimately have the last word on the nature both of the soul itself and of the “hallucinatory” trajectories of light the soul may follow in its course. The truly inquisitive spirit secures enlightenment not through revelatory visions or inspired guesses, but through reliable research methods." - Rens Van der Sluijs

http://www.thunderbolts.info/tpod/00current.htm

Hi, guys -

I rarely post anything on this forum, and even then, it's usually in the form of some sort of comic relief. But I have to say that when I read today's TPOD, I was really taken aback by the astonishing degree of narrow-minded hubris displayed by Mr. Van der Sluijs' closing remark above! He seems to imply that every great sage, mystic and seer who has ever graced this planet with his or her presence have all been basically full of cow-flops.

Does he truly believe that our spiritual essence (and, no, I don't mean religious) can somehow be dissected and examined like a common salamander and then ultimately defined via the decidedly left-brained reductionist approach?? In my opinion, it smacks of the same sort of elitist attitude held by the vast majority of today's mainstream scientific community.

So, using those same "reliable research methods," when does the search for the "love particle" begin? Perhaps the LHC will reveal it, eh? :roll:
It's all about perception.
User avatar
StevenJay
 
Posts: 506
Joined: Thu May 01, 2008 11:02 am
Location: Northern Arizona

Re: The Science of Spirit?

Unread postby Grey Cloud » Thu Sep 18, 2008 10:10 am

Hi Steven,
You wrote:
I was really taken aback by the astonishing degree of narrow-minded hubris displayed by Mr. Van der Sluijs' closing remark above! He seems to imply that every great sage, mystic and seer who has ever graced this planet with his or her presence have all been basically full of cow-flops.

I agree with you. Phrases such as 'scientists will ultimately have the last word...' fill me with a sense of dread regardless of the subject under discussion. To me, such phrases are stated as articles of religious faith.
I will stick with Lao Tzu, Plato, Heraclitus etc and Mr Van der Sluijs can keep his scientists and the polluted air, land, and water that they produce.
If I have the least bit of knowledge
I will follow the great Way alone
and fear nothing but being sidetracked.
The great Way is simple
but people delight in complexity.
Tao Te Ching, 53.
Grey Cloud
 
Posts: 2477
Joined: Sun Apr 13, 2008 5:47 am
Location: NW UK

Re: The Science of Spirit?

Unread postby seasmith » Thu Sep 18, 2008 2:13 pm

~
StevenJay wrote:

...displayed by Mr. Van der Sluijs' closing remark...


Steven,
You may communicate directly with Mr Sluijs at the url below-

http://www.mythopedia.info/

Respectfully,
s
seasmith
 
Posts: 2815
Joined: Thu Mar 27, 2008 6:59 pm

Re: The Science of Spirit?

Unread postby moses » Thu Sep 18, 2008 5:26 pm

I also find this Thunderbolts article has too much personal opinion in it.
However, there is so much Saturn System in religion, it makes it difficult
to recognise real inward experiences from old Saturn System experiences.
But throwing everything out is unwarranted.
Mo
moses
 
Posts: 1106
Joined: Wed Mar 19, 2008 3:18 pm
Location: Adelaide

Re: The Science of Spirit?

Unread postby Grey Cloud » Fri Sep 19, 2008 6:31 am

Moses wrote:
However, there is so much Saturn System in religion, ...

I'm still waiting for somebody to give me an example.
If I have the least bit of knowledge
I will follow the great Way alone
and fear nothing but being sidetracked.
The great Way is simple
but people delight in complexity.
Tao Te Ching, 53.
Grey Cloud
 
Posts: 2477
Joined: Sun Apr 13, 2008 5:47 am
Location: NW UK

Re: The Science of Spirit?

Unread postby Divinity » Fri Sep 19, 2008 5:17 pm

What is Science for if it cannot eventually provide us with all generic truth/s? Would people prefer the mystery of not knowing the nature/choice/recourse/history of the Soul? 8-) I want to know it all and believe there is a rational explanation for everything, which is why I am here on the forum - to watch existing mysteries reveal themselves in a manner which is straightforward, logical and proveable.

Divinity
Divinity
Guest
 

Re: The Science of Spirit?

Unread postby moses » Fri Sep 19, 2008 7:27 pm

What is Science for if it cannot eventually provide us with all generic truth/s? Divinity
If Science is logic, then what is beyond logic cannot be found by science.
Mo
moses
 
Posts: 1106
Joined: Wed Mar 19, 2008 3:18 pm
Location: Adelaide

Re: The Science of Spirit?

Unread postby Grey Cloud » Sun Sep 21, 2008 9:49 am

Moses wrote:
If Science is logic, then what is beyond logic cannot be found by science.

I agree totally with this statement.

Divinity wrote:
What is Science for if it cannot eventually provide us with all generic truth/s? Would people prefer the mystery of not knowing the nature/choice/recourse/history of the Soul?

Why do you assume that 'science' is the only or best way of gaining knowledge? There is, in any case, no such thing as science (you can't put it in Junglelord's bucket). There is only humans doing certain things in a certain (scientific) way. Science is part of capitalism so to me it is part of the problem not part of the solution. Science, in any case, only deals with the physical world and produces gadgets and gizmos for use in the physical world.
If you think that science will provide answers about the soul you are mistaken. Even science admits that there are some areas where its methodology is unsuitable.
Putting ones faith in scientists is no different than putting it in priests or politicians (or saviours or benign ETs).
Every great teacher that we have record of has said that the solution lies within the individual. None of these teachers was trying to move product.
As a general comment about the EU and PC I see it it/them as a possible solution to a part of the puzzle. I do not see it as THE solution.

From what I have read of v. d. Sluijs (TPODs and stuff on his site) I get the impression that he subscribes to the ideas of Jung and or Freud - to me this is another point deducted.
If I have the least bit of knowledge
I will follow the great Way alone
and fear nothing but being sidetracked.
The great Way is simple
but people delight in complexity.
Tao Te Ching, 53.
Grey Cloud
 
Posts: 2477
Joined: Sun Apr 13, 2008 5:47 am
Location: NW UK

Re: The Science of Spirit?

Unread postby moses » Sun Sep 21, 2008 6:06 pm

Grey Cloud wrote:Moses wrote:
However, there is so much Saturn System in religion, ...

I'm still waiting for somebody to give me an example.

A full scale Saturn System discussion will have to wait for DT.
However we can do Velikovsky. Do you consider that there were
interplanetary lightning bolts ? And do you think that the planets
were in a different orbit to today ?
Mo
moses
 
Posts: 1106
Joined: Wed Mar 19, 2008 3:18 pm
Location: Adelaide

Re: The Science of Spirit?

Unread postby Grey Cloud » Mon Sep 22, 2008 8:24 am

moses wrote:
Grey Cloud wrote:Moses wrote:
However, there is so much Saturn System in religion, ...

I'm still waiting for somebody to give me an example.

A full scale Saturn System discussion will have to wait for DT.
However we can do Velikovsky. Do you consider that there were
interplanetary lightning bolts ? And do you think that the planets
were in a different orbit to today ?
Mo

Hi Mo,
Rather than de-rail this thread I have opened another in the NIAMI section:
viewtopic.php?f=10&t=1026
If I have the least bit of knowledge
I will follow the great Way alone
and fear nothing but being sidetracked.
The great Way is simple
but people delight in complexity.
Tao Te Ching, 53.
Grey Cloud
 
Posts: 2477
Joined: Sun Apr 13, 2008 5:47 am
Location: NW UK

Rens Vander Sluijs Replies

Unread postby Steve Smith » Fri Sep 26, 2008 10:12 am

StevenJay wrote:

...I have to say that when I read today's TPOD, I was really taken aback by the astonishing degree of narrow-minded hubris displayed by Mr. Van der Sluijs' closing remark above! He seems to imply that every great sage, mystic and seer who has ever graced this planet with his or her presence have all been basically full of cow-flops.

Does he truly believe that our spiritual essence (and, no, I don't mean religious) can somehow be dissected and examined like a common salamander and then ultimately defined via the decidedly left-brained reductionist approach?? In my opinion, it smacks of the same sort of elitist attitude held by the vast majority of today's mainstream scientific community.

So, using those same "reliable research methods," when does the search for the "love particle" begin? Perhaps the LHC will reveal it, eh? :roll:


RVS:

The forum correspondent who wrote this obviously despises science, but I wonder if he knows what science stands for. It's nothing to do with using math or being overly rational. For me, science (as opposed to religion) is asking questions (instead of answering them definitively). It is being curious about the world we live in and doing our utmost (research) to learn. It INCLUDES spirituality. Consciousness or the soul are part of the world we live in and as such are amenable to study (hopefully) in the same way as a thunderstorm, a fossil or an earthqake are.

I am completing an article on Near-Death Experiences, in which I argue that the visions seen by people on the verge of death need to be taken seriously and explained, one way or another. Yet the bottomline is that there's no point in BELIEVING any revelations just because they are revelations. Some sort of impassionate approach (research) is needed to come to any conclusion that is also useful for other people than the ones who've had the experience themselves. Note that people experiencing visions, such as shamans, hermits, other ascetics or NDE-experients often have great difficulty in coming to terms with their experiences and not infrequently welcome any light medical doctors can shed on the nature of what they've been through.

To be an atheist is not to rule out spirituality or the possibility that living beings have a soul that survives the body, if only for a while. On the contrary, organised and/or traditional religion seems a major impediment to progress in understanding these phenomena. Atheists, in my own opinion, are best equipped to make real progress in understanding what spirituality is and how it fits into the natural world. This as opposed to Richard Dawkins’ rather narrow definition of science – which is healthy and eloquent, but excludes classes of observational/experiential data that seem just as real as ‘ordinary’ sensory data.

Hope I don’t offend any religious people with this; I’m just speaking for myself here (though confidently) and have no need to convince others of these ideas.

Rens

Personal note from Steve: It is the judgmental and ill-informed tone of messages like SteveJay's that prevent many from engaging in these discussions.

Responding to the notes from obviously "spiritual" people -- and I use quotation marks because no one can define "spirit" -- and what appears to be a blanket disregard for the years of research and study conducted by people like Rens, Dave Talbott, Ev Cochrane, Dwardu Cardona and other mythologists, I can only hope that they will take steps to actually read and understand what these men have spent their lives investigating. Has anyone read God Star? Or Martian Metamorphosis? Or Thunderbolts of the Gods? Or the dozens of Picture of the Day articles submitted by Rens Vander Sluijs? It sure doesn't look like it. And I don't see anyone on this board sending in their own ideas for review.
Steve Smith
Guest
 

Re: The Science of Spirit?

Unread postby Grey Cloud » Fri Sep 26, 2008 10:55 am

I cannot speak for StevenJay but I can say that I see no evidence that he 'despises' science in his post.
For my own part I view science as just another area of human endevour which produces some good and some not so good results. What galls me is the constant refrain that science is going to come up with the answers to the problems humanity faces. Even more galling is the always implicit and often explicit assumption that only science can do this.
When science can stop polluting my planet and my food I might have a little more confidence
in it.
Rens gives as examples thunderstorms, fossils and earthquakes. I would ask what does science actually know about any of these after, say, a century of studying them?
Rens also brings religion into his reply. Why does it have to be a case of either science or religion? What about philosophy from which science and religion both originate? I read lots of religious texts but I do not consider myself to have any religious inclination whatsoever. I no more listen to priests of religion than I do to priests of science. I read what I read and I think what I think.

Steve Smith asked whether anyone had read Cardona, Talbott or Cochrane. I haven't yet read any of Talbott's books only his web-based stuff. Ditto for Cochrane, though I would ask why anyone would want to read anything by someone who wrote a book called 'Starf*cker' [sic]? Hardly going for the intellectual high-ground there.
I have read God Star and thought it was one of the worst books I have ever read (and I've read thousands [sic] of books). I have a thiry-odd page critique of it if anyone is interested.
If I have the least bit of knowledge
I will follow the great Way alone
and fear nothing but being sidetracked.
The great Way is simple
but people delight in complexity.
Tao Te Ching, 53.
Grey Cloud
 
Posts: 2477
Joined: Sun Apr 13, 2008 5:47 am
Location: NW UK

Re: The Science of Spirit?

Unread postby Steve Smith » Fri Sep 26, 2008 2:12 pm

Post the God Star critique here. I'm sure Dave Smith will not object to the length since it will enhance the experience of everyone. I benefit from all penetrating insight.
Steve Smith
Guest
 

Re: The Science of Spirit?

Unread postby Grey Cloud » Fri Sep 26, 2008 6:21 pm

Steve Smith wrote:Post the God Star critique here. I'm sure Dave Smith will not object to the length since it will enhance the experience of everyone. I benefit from all penetrating insight.

I didn't claim it was a pentrating insight, just a critique written in my own tin-pot style. If Dave Smith gives it the okay then I'll post it.
If I have the least bit of knowledge
I will follow the great Way alone
and fear nothing but being sidetracked.
The great Way is simple
but people delight in complexity.
Tao Te Ching, 53.
Grey Cloud
 
Posts: 2477
Joined: Sun Apr 13, 2008 5:47 am
Location: NW UK

Re: The Science of Spirit?

Unread postby mague » Sat Sep 27, 2008 4:42 pm

I predict hereby: The biggest experience science will gain once they found the "last truth", the cap of all theories, is, that the "last truth" is impossible to describe in words.

The speech center of the human brain is only a tiny part of the universal formula. It is impossible to describe the whole with a part of the whole. Well, probably it is possible, but it would take millenias to phrase a single sentence. Kant anyone ? Or should we just all agree on 42 to be the answer.

In that regard if find it irrelevant who will have the last word. The last word wont describe anything relevant. Ill enjoy the silence after the last word tho ;)
mague
 
Posts: 781
Joined: Fri May 02, 2008 2:44 am

Next

Return to The Human Question

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest