First, I absolutely believe that you had this experience. Second, there's no way to confirm or deny your experience using scientific measures. This poses a problem.
The generally accepted idea is that something is either scientifically explainable, or spiritual in nature. If I say that there's a scientific explanation, I have to produce results/theories or admit that I don't believe you. If I say that it's spiritual in nature, I can make anything up, and there would be no way to dispute it. If I say "I don't know" then I'm either not a critical thinker, or I can be converted. I have a BIG problem with this way of thinking. Things DO exist that we cannot fully explain, and I am NOT a subscriber to "spirituality." & When discussing the brain? Well, that's an even more slippery slope, considering that the entirety of our lives pretty much banks on that one region.
So, while I think you're coming from a similar perspective, and I'll happily banter on with you about psychological theory, I'll have to respectfully bow out of a conversation that requires either "scientific evidence" or "spiritual explanations," when there is none (IMO).
Hmm, I probably haven't expressed my position very well, then, because I don't buy the binary view of science vs. nature, either. Not only CAN spirituality be explained to some degree by science (ie, nuns brainscanned showing particular brain centers active during spiritual experiences), I also *don't* believe that science can explain everything. I also don't believe that if science can't explain it, it's not fact.
I think some of what people explain away as spiritual (the making up whatever crap position) stems from a discomfort with the idea that, in fact, we are NOT ABLE TO EXPLAIN IT AT ALL. That really tweaks some noodles.
All of which is a long winded way of saying, not only am I hypo-spiritual, but I also haven't taken Science as my religion.
Are we at all in the same neck of the woods here? Or did I miss your point?
Re: Two thingsmaroonmdJanuary 8 2009, 20:13:44 UTC
I think so? I guess what I'm trying to say is I'm perfectly fine with saying "I don't know" or "we don't know (yet)." And I'm perfectly fine with discussing theories (as possibilities), based on what we do know. But I'm not okay with "It has not been defined, therefore it does not exist" nor "It clearly exists, so I'll make up a cause."
I think both of these standpoints stem from the "discomfort" you described above, and that really tweaks MY noodle!
But I think we differ semantically- "I also don't believe that if science can't explain it, it's not fact." Replace "it's not fact" with "it does not exist" and I'll agree. IMO- just because we have not proved something, does not mean that it does not exist. But just because it may exist, does not mean it is a fact.
Also, I do believe in the scientific method, I just don't subscribe to the general attitude of scientists. Part of the scientific method is trying to prove and disprove something that may exist. Denying the existence of the unknown, is counterintuitive, IMO.
We are TOTALLY like minded here. What you're describing (so-called scientists rejecting existence based on lack of "proof") is what I call the Religion of Science. You'd think knowing there's stuff they don't know would make them ragingly curious, instead of in denial.
Let's go beat up some scientists who don't believe in ghosts! LOL
Re: Two thingsmaroonmdJanuary 9 2009, 18:00:46 UTC
EXACTLY! I am relieved and happy to find an equal here! :D
Unfortunately, when it comes to ghosts and things, we have the believers making up bullshit about "scientific" devices and research. This only feeds the attitudes of the "Religion of Science" scientists. Can we kill them all, and get back to some serious work now? e_e
The generally accepted idea is that something is either scientifically explainable, or spiritual in nature. If I say that there's a scientific explanation, I have to produce results/theories or admit that I don't believe you. If I say that it's spiritual in nature, I can make anything up, and there would be no way to dispute it. If I say "I don't know" then I'm either not a critical thinker, or I can be converted. I have a BIG problem with this way of thinking. Things DO exist that we cannot fully explain, and I am NOT a subscriber to "spirituality." & When discussing the brain? Well, that's an even more slippery slope, considering that the entirety of our lives pretty much banks on that one region.
So, while I think you're coming from a similar perspective, and I'll happily banter on with you about psychological theory, I'll have to respectfully bow out of a conversation that requires either "scientific evidence" or "spiritual explanations," when there is none (IMO).
Reply
I think some of what people explain away as spiritual (the making up whatever crap position) stems from a discomfort with the idea that, in fact, we are NOT ABLE TO EXPLAIN IT AT ALL. That really tweaks some noodles.
All of which is a long winded way of saying, not only am I hypo-spiritual, but I also haven't taken Science as my religion.
Are we at all in the same neck of the woods here? Or did I miss your point?
Reply
I think both of these standpoints stem from the "discomfort" you described above, and that really tweaks MY noodle!
But I think we differ semantically- "I also don't believe that if science can't explain it, it's not fact." Replace "it's not fact" with "it does not exist" and I'll agree. IMO- just because we have not proved something, does not mean that it does not exist. But just because it may exist, does not mean it is a fact.
Also, I do believe in the scientific method, I just don't subscribe to the general attitude of scientists. Part of the scientific method is trying to prove and disprove something that may exist. Denying the existence of the unknown, is counterintuitive, IMO.
Reply
We are TOTALLY like minded here. What you're describing (so-called scientists rejecting existence based on lack of "proof") is what I call the Religion of Science. You'd think knowing there's stuff they don't know would make them ragingly curious, instead of in denial.
Let's go beat up some scientists who don't believe in ghosts! LOL
Reply
Unfortunately, when it comes to ghosts and things, we have the believers making up bullshit about "scientific" devices and research. This only feeds the attitudes of the "Religion of Science" scientists. Can we kill them all, and get back to some serious work now? e_e
Reply
Leave a comment