--- In [email protected], "John" <jr_...@...> wrote: >
> > It appears that for you science and spiritually cannot mutually exist. But > it is necessary to develop knowledge of both to give substance to your search > for meaning. I don't believe I can make any argument in this forum that > would satisfy you individually. Everything I've written here should suggest that science and spirituality DO co-exist for me it's just that when you apply a bit of critical thinking to a lot of the spiritual thinking the reality of the latter tends to disappear into the dreamworld from where it came. The only argument *anyone* could make to convince me that MMY (and all other seekers of the perennial philosophy) had somehow intuitively cognised a fundamental level of reality and that they can explain it better than science ever could is by demon- strating that this has in fact happened. There are many ways you could do this but I have *never* seen anything even remotely convincing that you can gain information about reality in this way. > For some people, it is possible to have faith in a particular > religious/spiritual system without completely proving it in scientific terms. > But that person can pursue science in its true form for the sake of finding > the truth in physical or relative >terms. But what happens if the scientist asks questions that require answers that disaprove the thing he has "faith" about? All of a sudden he can't be religious any more, at least not without a bit of cognitive dissonance...... > A good example of this is the speaker of this lecture who happens to be the > director of the Vatican Observatory: > > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aYOR0dPZc3I > Funny thing is I'm just filling in answers without reading your whole post first and I was honestly going to use as an example to my point above the fact that the Vatican sat down with a bunch of scientists to discuss their findings and at the point of the big bang theory, after reluctantly agreeing to the evidence for everything else, they decided to call a halt and declare the time before the big bang to be god's domain. > > It's the vedic meme that gives us the belief that we are > > part of the unified field in a conscious way not anything > > that has come from physics or biology. The brain evolved > > to do stuff like this, it's capacity to kid itself is > > probably infinite. You're confusing MMY speak with > > reality. > > Dr. John Hagelin has made several presentations about the science or physics > of MMY's ideas. If you don't agree with it or understand it, it's not my > problem. Don't you think it would be your problem if you'd committed yourself to it as an explanation and it turned out to be a load of crap? I've watched a great many hours of J Hagelin and I find his claim to have finished Einstein's work to be laughable bordering on the offensive. He ought to be thankful that I never kept copies of his lectures as I'm sure youtube would make a happy home for them, and I wouldn't disable the comments section..... The Physics of Yogic Flying indeed, I told a few physicists I know about his ideas behind that and they looked at me in shock, then humour. The mind doen't operate from that level, if proof is needed go and look in a "flying" room. Or do you think people are about to take off or create world peace? > > Being able to think may be a pretty good sign that you > > exist but not that anyone else does. And none of this > > has any bearing on the question of how we could know that > > the universe isn't just following physical principles, > > which is what it appears to be doing. I guess I just > > don't share your faith that MMY knew anything real about > > nature that has eluded everyone else. > > Maybe MMY is not the right person for you. There is nothing wrong about > pursuing the answer as you see fit or that explains the nature of things as > you see them. But part of "faith" is that there is a correct answer for you. > The intellect in you will be in the process of evaluating/searching for the > answer. This is why I prefer Truth to Faith. The Truth doesn't depend on what I think of it. > > I think the problem here is that being a religious or > > spiritual person gives you an idea that life is somehow > > programmed to attain high consciousness, to become godlike, > > or that the universe wants us to exist so it can admire > > itself (true, I've heard people say it). This is central > > to SCI, it's a mistaken belief as life doesn't *have* to > > do anything of the sort, and frequently doesn't. If DNA > > didn't make the occasional mistake when copying itself the > > changes in cell structure wouldn't have accrued to become > > the complexity we see today. If DNA was perfect we wouldn't > > be here discussing it. How does that fit with ideas about > > cosmic consciousness? > > > > This is an ugly little fact for the religious but a fact it > > most surely is. The engine of life is these unwitting mistakes, > > if you want to believe that the universe is somehow a willing > > part of the process you need to explain why it lets so much > > randomness rule the outcomes. And that applies to quantum > > physics as well. Why does god love playing dice *so* much? > > > > In short, the director of the Vatican Observatory quipped that, "God does not > play dice. He just loads the dice"... for life to develop in the universe. > Please, watch the clip referenced above to get the flavor of the ideas > presented. Oh alright, but it sounds like a load of special pleading crap from someone who's invested his whole life in a medieval belief system and is desperately trying to squeeze god in there somehow...
