Discussion in 'Skeptiko Shows' started by Alex, Apr 21, 2015.

  1. Typoz

    Typoz Member

    Nov 1, 2013
    Wasn't the Higgs bosun a character in a pirate adventure story? :)
  2. Doug

    Doug New

    Nov 6, 2013
    Could be, amazing what they can discover in a particle accelerator these days
    Typoz likes this.
  3. Michael Patterson

    Michael Patterson New

    May 1, 2015
    Home Page:
    Can we agree on what science is? Is it fundamentally a methodology? If so then mysticism and magic must be acknowledged as sciences. Is it the beliefs based on accumulated fruits of inquiry into the nature of human reality? If yes then the question is what is the dominant paradigm at any given time and can we predict how it will change? I would ask another question. Does it matter at all what 'science' thinks about anything? For most of us who benefit from the technological consequences of science we care a great deal about what is thought. But seeking the opinion of 'scientists' on the natural and reality of spirituality makes as much sense as asking a taxi driver's opinion on bioethics in the anticipation that they will have an opinion worth anything [yes, I do understand that these days that might be a safe bet]. My point is that scientists generally have no sufficient understanding of spirituality to make the general category of 'science' useful. If we reframe the question to ask whether some scientists [engaged in relevant research] will have an impact the answer might reasonably be 'Yes'. I think we need to move from general categories of assumed uniform competency. For example there was a time when, if the subject of religion was raised, a bishop would be wheeled out as an expert on religion. That is, of course, preposterous nonsense, but in a culture conditioned to the notion that Christianity was the only valid religion it made perfect sense.
    John Dewey made the very good point that there really is no such thing as Religion, only religions and the religious. I suggest, in the same manner, that there is no such thing as Science, only sciences and scientists. So let us reframe the question further. Is there [to be] a science that transforms how we think about spirituality? I think there will be. I think that our intellectual culture will finally overcome the trauma and bias that arose from the impact of Christianity on our culture and we will return to rational disciplined inquiry into the nature of human reality, sans dogma and the conceits and delusions of political and commercial interest. At least that is my happy place to go to.
    DasMurmeltier likes this.
  4. Johnny

    Johnny New

    Apr 20, 2015

    Einstein chopped and changed his views on a number of occasions, at times he confirmed his atheism and at other times he claimed deism, and he always openly rejected an intervening and personal God, although one person who was close to him who was his chauffeur, made statements that Einsten always used to sing songs he had written himself, to God.
  5. Luke Perkins

    Luke Perkins New

    Oct 18, 2014
    I wonder how much the near death experience has given rise to religiosity and spirituality in the first place. Presumably over the eons people have been having these experiences of 'extended' consciousness and reporting an afterplace/life or heaven and also reporting out of body experiences objectively verifiable by others that have impressed those around them. This mix of subjective experience and objective data would be transformational on a cultural level esp. in less materialistic times. These days the 'data' doesn't seem to survive the 'its just your subjective experience' argument. And perhaps is weakened also by different subjective NDE experiences.

Share This Page