http://www.universetoday.com/2010/06/21/maybe-ets-calling-but-we-have-the-wrong-phone/
--- In [email protected], "Hugo" <fintlewoodle...@...> wrote: > > > > --- In [email protected], "John" <jr_esq@> 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... >
