Is There Any Room For God In Modern Science?

Is it reasonable to say that you are alone a unique quality in the world of energetic reactions, somehow separate from all the fixtures that make everything and everyone move? Specialness is an ego device or an ego's vice and it's greatest defense against wholesome awareness.

 

Even if we weren't all different, then there would still be no way of telling how different the universe itself is in relationship to us. It is abstract or it isn't, but there is essentially no way to tell how abstract it is or therefore if it is abstract at all, which may itself be an abstraction. But if that is the case, then the universe is abstract. But is it so abstract that it's even not abstract?!

This is a mystery, but we all know we should behave in a civilized way in the face of something whose abstraction is so severe we cannot know it is an abstraction. Because the truly abstract is chaotic from this way of life, and nothing can be chaotic from this way of life because if it were it wouldn't be this life. But still we call it science? There is chaos, and there is order. It's not a matter of mind vs. body.

But really you just can't tell if we're all different or not. People often talk about what if we all see different colors, but what if our entire sense of self is essentially abstract from each another in an imaginistic way that manifests at least subtly different shapes in the world around us. So we all call the same thing "eagle," but really there are two different shapes existing in the world out there? That's what I'm saying: There would be no way to tell. Yet we all assume we see the same things, essentially. Which is an assumption and therefore isn't scientific. We haven't even paid attention enough to know if we should just mostly ignore each other.
Don't get me wrong I'm glad we haven't and hope we never do. My point is just that not everything that is real is scientific. There is a realness to the world we all share. But it is primary to science. There is a point of non-understanding that may precede understanding, but there is no way to tell.

 

I don't understand the point of saying not everything that is real is scientific. Science is a method of apprehending the world. I don't understand the point of saying we can't be sure. What we know is we share the anatomical equipment and there is no reason to speculate that our experiences are fundamentally different. To do so leaps over occams razor. They, our experiences, are local variety of common theme.

Now you bring up the point of abstraction. Abstraction is the natural facility of mind and is a creative function allowing us to imagine potentials. One of the potentials we can imagine is that we are fundamentally different, then we can also imagine that apples are not apples. On the other hand you can imagine going to the moon. Point about abstraction is that it is not set in stone, there is wiggle room and perhaps this is the fundamental difference between the living and inanimate matter.

 

Agreed, and meanwhile everyone on this forum is refusing to practice Magick for themselves or get an Astrology reading and meanwhile are talking about how i shouldn't be going on in endless talk. You think I'm the joke when actually it's the skeptics that are the joke. Do Magick for yourself.

 

-

 

I didn't say you are a joke, and I'm not on the side of the skeptics. However, it's hardly likely that you will convince anyone to practice anything on the forums. People come here, or a lot of them, to opinionate, not with an open minded attitude. Such entrenched positions rarely shift as a result of talk. A lot of atheists invest a lot of time and energy in their atheism. Same is true for some who follow some kind of spiritual path.

If one accepts that 'every willed act is a magical act', then like it or not, we all do magick anyway. But magick is only one way. Yoga for example is another. To some extent, so are psychedelics.

I'd say the best thing is to stick to what you believe to be right. Don't become inflexible, but don't allow the attitudes of others to get to you.

 

Which is why I have tried to point out the difference between the miraculous fact of life and a magical efforts of the living. I don't know that sticking to what you believe to be right and not becoming inflexible are compatible efforts and it seems this would insure that you come up against other equally convinced attitudes. Technically the attitudes of others don't get to us, it is our own thoughts that disturb our peace. We can so very believe we are right and be mistaken all the while believing we need to defend our position because it is the right one and we are led down a path of strife. What I have found is if your right verdict causes you personal anxiety then your verdict isn't right. If others get to you then you view isn't adequate refuge. It doesn't contain the magical properties you hope for.

 

Another view of abstraction, before the big bang. Our view of the physical expansion of the universe emerges from an abstract beginning.

 

:iagree:

 

My point is just that maybe this thread, and maybe our culture, places too much emphasis on something being scientific. God could not be scientific and still be real. I would think God would be unscientific, as nothing is better than a firsthand experience of something. But if you experience God firsthand, that isn't something you're going to be able to communicate secondhand. Saying, "God is this/that," is not at all the same thing as experiencing God for yourself.

 

It seems to me that the thoughts of others both can and do influence us all the time. One has only to be exposed to advertising for example, Even if you don't buy the product, the advert may well be annoying and thus produce negative thoughts. Any time you open your awareness to others you can be influenced by their thoughts. Those who study science are influenced by the thoughts of scientists. Magic enthusiasts by magicians etc.

Also disagree that sticking to one's beliefs and flexibility are not compatible. It depends on the beliefs and on what they are based. For instance, I may have a belief that has come about through my own experiences. It's not necessarily that I know all there is to know about the thing in question, and in the light of further experiences one may adjust one's belief. You migh believe that God is pure being, and that's ok. Later on you might come to understand that god is also ananda. That wouldn't mean dropping you belief in God, simply modifying it.

One has to have some kind of direction, perseverance is also needed, but flexibility is necessary if there's to be any chance of growth.

 

that is not a possibility, all the pieces MUST fit together and ultimately can be described via science.
If God exists, God is scientific and will/would ultimately stand up to the rigors of scientific inquiry.

just because something is a subjective experience of "god" or "kundalini" or whatever is being put forth, it is still subject to scientific investigation.
Just the existence of numerous first hand subjective accounts comprises a data set and that data set lends itself to analysis from myriad vantage points.

Furthermore, as we learn and understand more about the actual mechanics of our nervous system, subjective experience are open to even further scientific investigation.
60 years ago LSD was largely a mystery concerning what it does, we have tons of documentation on what the subjective experience was/is and lots of speculation, but how it accomplished such things was mostly unknown.
Today thanks to scientific research and progress we have a pretty good understanding of what it does and can explain a considerable amount of the subjective sensory experience via this new scientific understanding of our nervous systems and that previous data set of subjective experience reports is what helped guide where to look in the brain.
What still remains to be connected is the peculiar quality of the subjective experienced that has the vast majority reporting a deeply personal and meaningful and spiritual experience.

I have also made mention of research into speaking in tongues, a spiritual practice, most specifically Christian, and brain activity.
What was found so far is that it is unique in the patterns of activity and areas of the brain involved and goes counter to what was expected or assumed but instead confirmed to a degree a common subjective experience that has reported countless times. The brain activity also negates the idea, at least for the subject(s) tested of it being "faked" and they were making up nonsense.

Now does that prove the existence of God and every word of the Bible true, of course not, but it does warrant further investigation and maybe a reappraisal of the source material and some of the events reported.

Michael Persinger has developed a helmet that in some persons can mimic almost exactly the subjective experience of "being in God's presence".
Is the helmet summoning God, doubtful, is it inducing temporary insanity? again, no.
What it is doing is inducing certain brain wave patterns in specific regions of the brain via magnetic pulses.

so then does that mean God is a myth?
again, of course not,
it's all just more information to throw in the kettle to stew around and study via scientific research.

but consider this, one thing is certain, our nervous systems have evolved as information gathering devices.
Could it simply be a matter of tuning into the right station?

 

Nevermind, I can't explain the same thing over and over again.

 

We share our specific thoughts from time to time and share in the whole mind all the time. I don't know if you mean to but your seeming presents a me against or subject to outside and unwanted influences perspective. Is that the way it is? Is reality at war with itself or do we just not fathom the extent of our own greater proportions. Scientists share the thoughts of scientists etc. If you are annoyed it's not the other guy but your own level of attention on what is important to you which turns out to be not annoyed. The difference in attention between what is commonly experienced, visa vi your seeming and what can be is the difference between whether you perceive yourself in a world that controls you and a world you control. You cannot perceive both with consistency and therefore we seem mostly struggling for control or we roll with the punches.

We can be convinced that we don't want what has transpired or what we have and then the next moment be faced with our own life or death situation and find ourselves struggling to keep our life no matter what it's proportions seemed to be. I wonder about the quality of attention that is ever not aware of others.
How myopic must the moments concerns be. Complaints are a luxury we take with our time..

 

You don't know how to tell if your experience is real or even if it is the same universe that we all belong to. Don't know how to instill confidence on this issue except hit you in the head with a two by four so you can observe the sensation that follows and then make a guess as to whether it is real or not.

 

What you describe is having an open mind. No matter if it be open from being cracked open. Having an open mind means you are funda-mentally flexible.

The flexibility required for growth is to eat when you are hungry and rest when you are tired. No balancing act required.

Every one has the same direction, there is good for me and I must have it. Can't get rid of the stuff. We are absolutely devoted to our good there is no question of sticking to belief in terms of what we are actually devoted to.

Our models of god mean nothing. We feel in the presence of god when in a state of joy.

Let then joy be the guide and if you don't have it time to regroup.

 

I took it to suggest the methodology and control science necessitates in a lab or controlled enviroment, requires us to an extent preclude the dynamics of subjective direct experience in the natural world.

If that is what he is getting at, I kind of understand it and have heard Terence Mckenna say more or less the same thing.

 

You don't seem to be grasping my posts. I've explained many times that this solipsism isn't my own personal philosophy. It's just that I could never prove to a solipsist that we share the same feelings.

Hitting me on the head doesn't prove that you and I have the same feelings. Perhaps I am just creating you and your response to the stimuli via my own imagination. Maybe this purely hypothetical world I have created is strange and senseless, but why shouldn't it be?

Again, not saying that I believe this to be true. Just that I can't prove it isn't true.

I've already explained how not everything that is taken for granted as being real is capable of being described by science.

Again, it's not that I don't agree with everything you guys are saying. My only point of contention is that there is no direct experience of another's experience. That much is assumed, and it's a good assumption, I think, but still an assumption.

I can't make this clear enough: I believe you exist and are a sentient being much like me. Not exactly like me, of course, but I don't think anyone would ask for that. The only thing I believe that perhaps you do not is that I can't prove it. I can't think of a conceivable way I could prove verbally to another person that I am a thinking/feeling being. What am I supposed to say, "I'm a thinking, feeling being because you see me and I have arms and legs like you; we are similar, and you think, so I must be thinking"??? That's not an objective proof at all and obviously does not stand up to scientific rigor.

This has nothing to do with the fact that science has studied the brain and knows what areas correspond to what neurological stimuli. Because perhaps all of that imaging is just how your own personal being seems as well.

AGAIN, I don't believe this! I just can't prove it isn't so.

 

I think to be aware of the extent of the dynamics of the subjective direct experience is the more aware route. Which is why I say know thyself which is something that Mckenna also said as does just about anyone who actually takes the time to examine the contents of their own mind which requires sustained attention because the mind is extremely active. You got to put in the time behind the blind to observe the animal behaving in it's natural state. The detached and objectively accurate observer exists in you but it gets sidetracked by the temptation to qualify or get involved in your own sensational/emotional take. And consciousness is the most all consuming subject there is.