@aussie
I am posting this out of compassion for you and the other members of this forum.
There are many people in this world who are blatantly ignoring things. There is an entire political party that is blatantly and deliberately ignoring climate change, there are a number of religions that blatantly and deliberately ignore scientific facts, and there are a number of people who are very invested in the scientific paradigm who blatantly and deliberately ignore anything that challenges their faith in the material, deterministic paradigm of the world.
Everyone ignores things that challenges beliefs that they are personally invested in. For someone to lose their beliefs is in many ways like they are losing a part of themselves. People are too invested in their belief systems.
But sometimes we have to step outside of our comfort zone and open our minds as though we are like a child in order to really understand reality.
Forget about these movies. Forget about spiritual woo and other such nonsense. Forget about religion. Let go of exotic topics. Do not focus on mind effecting matter, or mind effecting mind, or how the universe started, or any other fascinating source of intellectual pleasure. Leave these tasks for other people.
Instead - focus on your own 'spiritual' development, or whatever you wish to call it. Focus on your own growth. This is the only path that will take you to the destination that you want to reach.
The truth does not fight. It does not argue. It doesn't even stand up for itself. The truth has infinite patience - it is simply waiting around for people to realize it.
What the bleep do we know 1 & 2
@Dragline: Pascal's wager was and still is a fallacy. "There might be an evil vampire goblin in the sky who will stab you with his spear if you don't obey what I tell you". Do you honestly believe just because there's some insignificantly remote possibility of that being true that therefore you should supplicate my wishes just to be sure?
Some other things, I think it's a bit unfair to blame christianity for the fall of the roman empire and the dark ages. Christianity definitely contributed to them, but neither the christians nor the hordes were responsible. By the time Rome began getting sacked on a regular basis, the Empire had been crumbling for a long time. Prior to that there had been civil wars for several hundred years, and the period immediately before the "official" fall was just a short- and highly fascist- interlude between times of continuous bloodshed. There are several possible reasons why Rome reached the state of decline that it did, but at any rate Christianity taking over and the hordes invading were mere symptoms, not causes.
Not that that speaks well of christians either way. Not much difference between being the cause of a disease and the symptom of one.
@Jenny: If religion/most spirituality really did cause people to be happier/more confident/more sexual/more capable then I would have no problem with it. My problem is that it merely convinces them that they are, while in 99% of cases the opposite is true. It makes them less happy and more fascist, it condemns sexuality, it tries to bring everyone down to the same level rather than celebrating individual capability, and so on. Not to say that there aren't a few cases where religion is used in a life-promoting way, but a few outliers does not a definition make.
I do think there is ultimately a purpose behind religion and the like. However, I think the correct (or "scientific") way to proceed would be to ask what it is that we're trying to find in those things that we haven't been able to do in "normal" life, rather than to uncritically accept whatever it is they're doing whether they actually accomplish their goals by those means or not.
Some other things, I think it's a bit unfair to blame christianity for the fall of the roman empire and the dark ages. Christianity definitely contributed to them, but neither the christians nor the hordes were responsible. By the time Rome began getting sacked on a regular basis, the Empire had been crumbling for a long time. Prior to that there had been civil wars for several hundred years, and the period immediately before the "official" fall was just a short- and highly fascist- interlude between times of continuous bloodshed. There are several possible reasons why Rome reached the state of decline that it did, but at any rate Christianity taking over and the hordes invading were mere symptoms, not causes.
Not that that speaks well of christians either way. Not much difference between being the cause of a disease and the symptom of one.
@Jenny: If religion/most spirituality really did cause people to be happier/more confident/more sexual/more capable then I would have no problem with it. My problem is that it merely convinces them that they are, while in 99% of cases the opposite is true. It makes them less happy and more fascist, it condemns sexuality, it tries to bring everyone down to the same level rather than celebrating individual capability, and so on. Not to say that there aren't a few cases where religion is used in a life-promoting way, but a few outliers does not a definition make.
I do think there is ultimately a purpose behind religion and the like. However, I think the correct (or "scientific") way to proceed would be to ask what it is that we're trying to find in those things that we haven't been able to do in "normal" life, rather than to uncritically accept whatever it is they're doing whether they actually accomplish their goals by those means or not.
-
jennypenny
- Posts: 6910
- Joined: Sun Jul 03, 2011 2:20 pm
@haplo--my example of feeling more confident, etc, was just in reference to feeling more attractive, not religion. Study after study does show that people with some sort of faith live longer and say they are happier. Pew Research has a group devoted to this topic, so you can go to their website to see some studies.
I still don't understand why I would want to view everything scientifically. I don't do it when I'm looking at a painting by Munch or El Greco. I don't do it when listening to Tchaikovsky. I don't do it when I'm reading Shakespeare. Yet those things bring me great pleasure and improve my quality of life.
That doesn't mean that I think people who can't appreciate Expressionist art or classical music are wrong. Others get the same enjoyment out of listening to Coldplay (even though it makes me want to jab pencils in my ears). Neither of us is wrong.
To stretch the metaphor further, if someone doesn't enjoy music at all and never listens to it, should they really try and convince me that music has no value in my life? How could they understand the enjoyment I feel when I listen to it?
--------------
Way OT now, tapping out...
I still don't understand why I would want to view everything scientifically. I don't do it when I'm looking at a painting by Munch or El Greco. I don't do it when listening to Tchaikovsky. I don't do it when I'm reading Shakespeare. Yet those things bring me great pleasure and improve my quality of life.
That doesn't mean that I think people who can't appreciate Expressionist art or classical music are wrong. Others get the same enjoyment out of listening to Coldplay (even though it makes me want to jab pencils in my ears). Neither of us is wrong.
To stretch the metaphor further, if someone doesn't enjoy music at all and never listens to it, should they really try and convince me that music has no value in my life? How could they understand the enjoyment I feel when I listen to it?
--------------
Way OT now, tapping out...
There is an entire cross section of the population for whom cycling is a meditative, vigorous, endorphin producing pass time. We love it. It brings us health and happiness.
Cyclists are a unique breed. We have certain traditions and dress. We shave our legs. We have particular rules about how to ride, who takes the front and for how long, when to rotate through a pace-line..... I could go on for weeks.
I could also go on for weeks about why you should be cycling. There are some among us who believe that you shouldn't be permitted to ride a bike at all unless you conform to our traditions; shaved legs, spandex skinsuits, carbon-fiber gear, and all. They would ban beach cruisers and recumbents.
Others would ban cars entirely and allow us to revert to the Asian tradition of using public transit for long distances and bicycles for everything else. They would require this song to be sung by school children everywhere http://vimeo.com/10965438
They would only hire people who ride well and follow the cycling rules. They would insist that government officials sign pledges to enforce the cycling creed. They would use the increased endorphin level produced by cycling as a reason to mandate it for everyone.
You might point out that there is no logical reason for cyclists to shave their legs. You could mention that that song is really grating on the nerves. You might even suggest that there are times when it is practical to have a car. Gasp!
The hard-core cyclists would respond by asking, "Why are you attacking my method of achieving an optimum endorphin state?" Some of the nicer cyclists might say, "I'm not trying to convince people to believe what I believe, I'm trying to convince people that my belief is not a threat." :}
Cyclists are a unique breed. We have certain traditions and dress. We shave our legs. We have particular rules about how to ride, who takes the front and for how long, when to rotate through a pace-line..... I could go on for weeks.
I could also go on for weeks about why you should be cycling. There are some among us who believe that you shouldn't be permitted to ride a bike at all unless you conform to our traditions; shaved legs, spandex skinsuits, carbon-fiber gear, and all. They would ban beach cruisers and recumbents.
Others would ban cars entirely and allow us to revert to the Asian tradition of using public transit for long distances and bicycles for everything else. They would require this song to be sung by school children everywhere http://vimeo.com/10965438
They would only hire people who ride well and follow the cycling rules. They would insist that government officials sign pledges to enforce the cycling creed. They would use the increased endorphin level produced by cycling as a reason to mandate it for everyone.
You might point out that there is no logical reason for cyclists to shave their legs. You could mention that that song is really grating on the nerves. You might even suggest that there are times when it is practical to have a car. Gasp!
The hard-core cyclists would respond by asking, "Why are you attacking my method of achieving an optimum endorphin state?" Some of the nicer cyclists might say, "I'm not trying to convince people to believe what I believe, I'm trying to convince people that my belief is not a threat." :}
-
Spartan_Warrior
- Posts: 1659
- Joined: Fri Dec 02, 2011 1:24 am
@Ego: ...*slow clap*
I would add that the cyclists base outlawing automobiles on their own loudly vocalized and dogmatic belief that automobile drivers are just absolutely horrible people doomed to an eternity of suffering if they keep driving automobiles. And if automobile drivers try to speak up in defense of their rights or even their character, why, they're the intolerant ones. How dare they be so intolerant to the cyclists' beliefs!
To be fair, of course, this entire discussion is conflating spirituality (a personal relationship) with religion (more of a socio-political entity). But still a great post.
I would add that the cyclists base outlawing automobiles on their own loudly vocalized and dogmatic belief that automobile drivers are just absolutely horrible people doomed to an eternity of suffering if they keep driving automobiles. And if automobile drivers try to speak up in defense of their rights or even their character, why, they're the intolerant ones. How dare they be so intolerant to the cyclists' beliefs!
To be fair, of course, this entire discussion is conflating spirituality (a personal relationship) with religion (more of a socio-political entity). But still a great post.
-
jennypenny
- Posts: 6910
- Joined: Sun Jul 03, 2011 2:20 pm
@Jenny: That's nice and all but when was the last time anyone went to war over whether Tchaikovski or Mozart was better? How many people have been hanged or burned at the stake because they liked Matisse and not Escher? When is the last time you heard of two scientists deciding that shooting at each other was the best way to solve a dispute?
The tendency of modern people seems to be to relegate everything to arbitrary preference, but rarely are preferences ever really arbitrary. I could even make an argument for objectivity in art as well, but that would really be off topic. Point is, though, the consequences of religion aren't arbitrary, and in fact are very seriously bad more often than not. Art and music don't tell you how to live your life, who to befriend and who to kill, or what you should do at certain times of the year.
Study after study does show that people with some sort of faith live longer and say they are happier. Pew Research has a group devoted to this topic, so you can go to their website to see some studies.
I decided to check out pew. I'm not impressed, it looks like a mindless collection of irrelevant statistics. At any rate, if that were true then I would expect the people of the bible belt to be happy, friendly, and to outlive their counterparts from less devout regions of the country. That's not what happens, though, and in many ways I observe just the opposite. The popular image of a racist, inbred backward hole is much closer to the truth. Obviously there's more to it than just believing and having faith in some sky ghost or other such nonsense.
I don't think you need to "think scientifically" about everything. However, curiosity is the foundation of science. What is the foundation of its opposition?
The tendency of modern people seems to be to relegate everything to arbitrary preference, but rarely are preferences ever really arbitrary. I could even make an argument for objectivity in art as well, but that would really be off topic. Point is, though, the consequences of religion aren't arbitrary, and in fact are very seriously bad more often than not. Art and music don't tell you how to live your life, who to befriend and who to kill, or what you should do at certain times of the year.
Study after study does show that people with some sort of faith live longer and say they are happier. Pew Research has a group devoted to this topic, so you can go to their website to see some studies.
I decided to check out pew. I'm not impressed, it looks like a mindless collection of irrelevant statistics. At any rate, if that were true then I would expect the people of the bible belt to be happy, friendly, and to outlive their counterparts from less devout regions of the country. That's not what happens, though, and in many ways I observe just the opposite. The popular image of a racist, inbred backward hole is much closer to the truth. Obviously there's more to it than just believing and having faith in some sky ghost or other such nonsense.
I don't think you need to "think scientifically" about everything. However, curiosity is the foundation of science. What is the foundation of its opposition?
Looks like you are looking for straw men to put up here. There is not necessarily a conflict between science and spirituality, although it seems many would like to create one.
And you can find spiritual people who are curious (most good ones are) and scientists who really are not -- particularly when their pet theories are challenged. It has often been said that science does not truly advance until the holders of the last theory die out. Classic example was Tycho Brahe and Kepler, but the same occurred in Darwin's time and with virtually every scientific revolution. Scientists are still human and become very wedded to whatever theory they devote their life/research to. Old habits die hard.
If you don't like Pew, which is generally well respected and arguably quite science-friendly, there are other studies that note a correlation between spirituality and health and longevity in humans. You may question the interpretation, but do you really deny that evidence exists? I'm not aware of any studies that find the contrary.
Stereotyping spiritual people as uneducated, fat rubes from MS is not very accurate either -- I'm not sure the Dali Lama or many others would fit that description.
Your real complaint seems to be with the intolerance of many religious people. But its a fallacy to apply that generalization to all such people and a non-sequitur to justify some kind of reverse intolerance.
@jacob -- that Quantum Woo link made me laugh, especially about the "moron" particles.
Here is a interesting little short about quantum physics that Art DeVany (paleo grandpa guy) put up on FB today: http://www.newscientist.com/video/19476 ... thing.html Interesting (although simplistic) differentiation between probablistic and deterministic views of the world.
And you can find spiritual people who are curious (most good ones are) and scientists who really are not -- particularly when their pet theories are challenged. It has often been said that science does not truly advance until the holders of the last theory die out. Classic example was Tycho Brahe and Kepler, but the same occurred in Darwin's time and with virtually every scientific revolution. Scientists are still human and become very wedded to whatever theory they devote their life/research to. Old habits die hard.
If you don't like Pew, which is generally well respected and arguably quite science-friendly, there are other studies that note a correlation between spirituality and health and longevity in humans. You may question the interpretation, but do you really deny that evidence exists? I'm not aware of any studies that find the contrary.
Stereotyping spiritual people as uneducated, fat rubes from MS is not very accurate either -- I'm not sure the Dali Lama or many others would fit that description.
Your real complaint seems to be with the intolerance of many religious people. But its a fallacy to apply that generalization to all such people and a non-sequitur to justify some kind of reverse intolerance.
@jacob -- that Quantum Woo link made me laugh, especially about the "moron" particles.
Here is a interesting little short about quantum physics that Art DeVany (paleo grandpa guy) put up on FB today: http://www.newscientist.com/video/19476 ... thing.html Interesting (although simplistic) differentiation between probablistic and deterministic views of the world.
-
aussierogue
- Posts: 379
- Joined: Thu Nov 10, 2011 1:02 pm
lol - ive loved revisiting this topic a few days out.
I think people are a little misled that somehow i am trying to prove spirituality through QM.
I have never tried to prove the existence of god. I am merely saying that maybe those that do believe in some kind of spirit whatever that may be - and given ideas such as prayer, meditation and the like - then the idea that mind changes matter (is this QM?) is an explanation....simple as that really. Its a scientif explanation for what has previously been given a spiritual slant.
I think, for me anyway, the idea merits more investigation.
There is something rational about the idea that "all" things are related -something that science upto now cant quantify. Thats what i run with. If that means im spiritual (and prior to having a scientifc explanation then thats the label i was happy with) then so be it. They are just words.
Again being dogmatic either way is disingenous - I find it a little inhumane when some people completely ridicule the idea of the interconnectivity between beings. People once thought the world was flat.
I think the bit being lost here is that if Quantum whatever does mean mind changes matter then science is the god that most people are praying too. in other words science wins!
I would be more than happy to dedicate my meditations to science rather than buddha or Jesus or Mohammad - bring it on!
cheers
Aussie
I think people are a little misled that somehow i am trying to prove spirituality through QM.
I have never tried to prove the existence of god. I am merely saying that maybe those that do believe in some kind of spirit whatever that may be - and given ideas such as prayer, meditation and the like - then the idea that mind changes matter (is this QM?) is an explanation....simple as that really. Its a scientif explanation for what has previously been given a spiritual slant.
I think, for me anyway, the idea merits more investigation.
There is something rational about the idea that "all" things are related -something that science upto now cant quantify. Thats what i run with. If that means im spiritual (and prior to having a scientifc explanation then thats the label i was happy with) then so be it. They are just words.
Again being dogmatic either way is disingenous - I find it a little inhumane when some people completely ridicule the idea of the interconnectivity between beings. People once thought the world was flat.
I think the bit being lost here is that if Quantum whatever does mean mind changes matter then science is the god that most people are praying too. in other words science wins!
I would be more than happy to dedicate my meditations to science rather than buddha or Jesus or Mohammad - bring it on!
cheers
Aussie
"I think it's a bit unfair to blame christianity for the fall of the roman empire and the dark ages."
Completely unfair, and I am definitely not a supporter of christianity or any other religion for that matter. Rome had far larger problems.
It would be interesting to control the Pew research for meditation like activities and community. I would think mind health (meditation, prayer, etc.) is the main cause for the improved health. Along with a sense of community. I don't think there are any big surprises in Pew's numbers, but I don't credit religion with it. Other types of organizations could do the same thing without "belief" being attached.
My problem is I don't want to be part of that community at all.
Completely unfair, and I am definitely not a supporter of christianity or any other religion for that matter. Rome had far larger problems.
It would be interesting to control the Pew research for meditation like activities and community. I would think mind health (meditation, prayer, etc.) is the main cause for the improved health. Along with a sense of community. I don't think there are any big surprises in Pew's numbers, but I don't credit religion with it. Other types of organizations could do the same thing without "belief" being attached.
My problem is I don't want to be part of that community at all.
@dragline: Correlation does not equal causation, and when American christians go to Africa knowing damn well what causes AIDS and what prevents it, and tell the Africans "The Devil causes AIDS and God hates condoms", I don't call that ignorance, I call it pathological dishonesty.
@aussie: I think you've missed the point entirely. It doesn't really matter what you dedicate your meditation to, or if you dedicate your meditation to anything at all. The point is that even if quantum physics discovers that everything is one unified whole, that does not directly relate to your psychological experience of everything being one unified whole. I would even agree that there's value in experiencing the world as a unified whole, but it isn't valuable to the field of physics, nor is the field of physics likely to help you experience the world in that way.
As for the myriad spiritual practices you might try, YMMV.
@aussie: I think you've missed the point entirely. It doesn't really matter what you dedicate your meditation to, or if you dedicate your meditation to anything at all. The point is that even if quantum physics discovers that everything is one unified whole, that does not directly relate to your psychological experience of everything being one unified whole. I would even agree that there's value in experiencing the world as a unified whole, but it isn't valuable to the field of physics, nor is the field of physics likely to help you experience the world in that way.
As for the myriad spiritual practices you might try, YMMV.
@Chad: I agree with basically everything you just said o.0. I can also fully understand why you wouldn't want to be part of a "spiritual community", as the woo levels are through the roof even in the best and most down to earth of them. That's why I stick to psychology, although that has its own set of problems.
-
jacob
- Site Admin
- Posts: 17141
- Joined: Fri Jun 28, 2013 8:38 pm
- Location: USA, Zone 5b, Koppen Dfa, Elev. 620ft, Walkscore 77
- Contact:
@aussierogue -
"then the idea that mind changes matter (is this QM?) is an explanation....simple as that really. Its a scientif explanation for what has previously been given a spiritual slant."
No, this is not QM (mind does not change matter, see the no-information and no-teleportation theorems, also there's a scale problem) and it is not a scientific explanation (lack of scientific method). It's a spiritual explanation that has been dressed up in some scientific jargon words, but that does not make it scientific or lend it scientific credibility. The warp engine on Startrek does not have a scientific explanation... it has a creative explanation using scientific words. That's a huge difference.
I really think the Quantum Woo article says it all (I don't have much to add).
"then the idea that mind changes matter (is this QM?) is an explanation....simple as that really. Its a scientif explanation for what has previously been given a spiritual slant."
No, this is not QM (mind does not change matter, see the no-information and no-teleportation theorems, also there's a scale problem) and it is not a scientific explanation (lack of scientific method). It's a spiritual explanation that has been dressed up in some scientific jargon words, but that does not make it scientific or lend it scientific credibility. The warp engine on Startrek does not have a scientific explanation... it has a creative explanation using scientific words. That's a huge difference.
I really think the Quantum Woo article says it all (I don't have much to add).
-
secretwealth
- Posts: 1948
- Joined: Mon Jun 27, 2011 3:31 am
"I find it a little inhumane when some people completely ridicule the idea of the interconnectivity between beings."
It's not a matter of ridicule--it's a matter of it being a hypothesis lacking evidence. If you provide enough evidence for it, then it'll become more likely to be true than it is now, which is very, very unlikely. About as likely as there being a teapot halfway between here and the sun, for instance.
It's not a matter of ridicule--it's a matter of it being a hypothesis lacking evidence. If you provide enough evidence for it, then it'll become more likely to be true than it is now, which is very, very unlikely. About as likely as there being a teapot halfway between here and the sun, for instance.
I hesitated to post here because I am one of those meanies that disparage the use of scientific terms to bolster non-scientific arguments. I have a friend who does some kind of quantum spiritual healing energy cosmic radiation or something, and when she found out I actually do know something about quantum mechanics, she was very enthused: “ So you understand!” I was left speechless. Well, at least now I know that the correct term is “woo”.
I am a Christian, and have had religious experiences as well as scientific ones, but I have not seen any relationship between them. I suppose it’s not impossible for science to influence religious belief since I can’t predict how a particular idea will strike a particular mind, but generally the scientific method does not work in the context of religious belief* or faith and vice versa.
The question for both religion and science remains the same-- is it true or is it not true, even though the means of arriving at a conclusion in each are different. I believe that any standard less than what is true is essentially corrupt.
*A possible exception is the doctrine of original sin. An inductive proof based on empirical evidence is not out of the question.
I am a Christian, and have had religious experiences as well as scientific ones, but I have not seen any relationship between them. I suppose it’s not impossible for science to influence religious belief since I can’t predict how a particular idea will strike a particular mind, but generally the scientific method does not work in the context of religious belief* or faith and vice versa.
The question for both religion and science remains the same-- is it true or is it not true, even though the means of arriving at a conclusion in each are different. I believe that any standard less than what is true is essentially corrupt.
*A possible exception is the doctrine of original sin. An inductive proof based on empirical evidence is not out of the question.
-
aussierogue
- Posts: 379
- Joined: Thu Nov 10, 2011 1:02 pm