(February 5, 2012 at 12:56 pm)RW_9 Wrote: The unknown science approach that is becoming more and more popular seems silly to me. Since some things are unknown, you just randomly decide to attach spiritual terms to the unknown? That is no different than people who claim we can't know the origins of the universe, thus it must have been the doing of a deity. It is nothing more than people being uncomfortable with the purely unknown and filling it with feel-good nonsense to make them feel more secure about existence.

I understand your sentiments. But I'm not saying that a spiritual world necessarily has to exist, or that I even necessarily believe that it does.

My arguments are really concerned with people who attempt to proclaim that to even remotely consider that there might be a spiritual essence to life is utterly 'stupid' and unsupportable.

IMHO, that position is just as unwarranted as those who demand that a spiritual essence to life must necessarily exist.

My argument is to basically state that the door has not be closed on the possibility of a spiritual essence to life, and that I can personally imagine many plausible scenarios that have cannot be ruled out by our current knowledge of the true nature of reality (which is basically zilch truly!)

I don't "need" for the world to be spiritual. I have no problem with death, or simply ceasing to exist. What would be the big deal about that? I would just be lights out and I wouldn't even know that I had died, (or even that I had ever lived). I simply wouldn't exist anymore.

To me that is not 'scary'. Why should I fear something that I wouldn't even know happened?

I don't reach out to the idea of a spiritual world in the desperation of avoiding death. In fact, in some sense, to simply cease to exist has a far more tranquil and peaceful attraction to it. You just disappear and that's that. What could be easier?

If a spiritual world actually exists then that means that crap is never going to stop happening. That could be actually be quite a burden.

So maybe ceasing to exist would actually be far better.

I don't believe that a spiritual world exists because I necessarily want that to be the case. I believe that it exists because ceasing to exist is probably too darn good to be true.



But no, seriously, I confess that the idea that there might be something more to life than this fucked up life we're currently experiencing does have an appeal. Especially if the "True Nature" of our spiritual essence is far better than the current situation.

It's certainly worth pondering I think. Hey, if it's plausible, then it may very well be possible. Why be so quick to rule it out?

Wouldn't it be great, if when we die we actually "wake up" and realize that we are just some sort of mysterious consciousness that was dreaming?

Maybe those dreams are even like videos in a library and we're currently experience the one called "Earth".

I mean, holy shit, you could just take that video, toss it in the trash can and say, "Who wrote that fucking dream?". And then move on into a better dream.

If that's the true nature of spiritual existence wouldn't that be better than just ceasing to exist?

And if it's plausible, why be so quick to rule it out?

(February 5, 2012 at 2:22 pm)Abracadabra Wrote: And if it's plausible, why be so quick to rule it out?

I hate giant quote blocks, so I'm just going to quote your last line.

The issue is that if you let your imagination get ridiculous enough, almost anything can be thought of as plausible. I see no reason to fill the unknown with anything whatsoever. You are taking the notions of mythology and fiction and plugging them into your worldview for no apparent reason and without any rational justification. A lack of evidence isn't a call to make up your own answers; it's a call to continue rational inquiry and attempt to find actual answers.

Filling the unknown with superstitious nonsense isn't just pointless, but it actively distracts from rational inquiry.

(February 5, 2012 at 12:56 pm)RW_9 Wrote: The unknown science approach that is becoming more and more popular seems silly to me.

By the way RW, are you aware of the 'Black Hole War' that took place between Leonard Susskind and Stephen Hawking? It's a fascinating story of physics and laws of information and entropy.

It was basically about whether or not information could be lost from the universe via a black hole. Susskind won that war, and the solution seems to be that all information that falls into a black hole must also remain on the 'surface' of the event horizon. I realize that this is crazy and hard to comprehend, and I don't personally claim to understand how this works exactly myself.

But the point is that this is science and physics, and it has to be this way for the laws of physics to remain in tact.

From this observation and finding, other cosmologists have since realized that our universe must have a similar property. In other words, all of the information that exists within the 3-D spacetime of the universe, must also exist on a 2-D surface that theoretically exists potentially at the "boundary of the universe" If only at the "boundary of the Big Bang in terms of time" Kind of like the Microwave Background Radiation.

In any case, the idea is that all information of every event that ever took place during the entire history of the universe must be preserved in this way. Kind of like a hologram.

I'm not sure how well-established these ideas are in physics, but they are certainly scientifically based ideas.

Well, just look at how strange these ideas are.

You say: "The unknown science approach that is becoming more and more popular seems silly to me."

But what about the "known" science approach? There are many weird things in science like this that allow for a "Spiritual video library" to exist in terms of physical laws.

In fact, there exist scientists who are seriously proposing that the entire universe is nothing more than a holographic projects of sorts.

So this idea that we are spiritual beings participating in some sort of holographic amusement park, is not all that far fetched.

(February 5, 2012 at 2:42 pm)Abracadabra Wrote: So this idea that we are spiritual beings participating in some sort of holographic amusement park, is not all that far fetched.

The question still remains: why are you so insistent on referring to any of this as "spiritual?" There is absolutely no reason to do so. If scientists discover incredible things, there is still no reason to attach supernatural terminology to it. Why must you cling on to superstition instead of just using scientific terms for new discoveries and theories?

If something is discovered and you specifically use spiritual terms to describe it instead of scientific terms, you are intentionally mystifying it for no good reason beyond superstition for superstitions sake - as you said, you find the idea of there being more to this existence appealing. That is the only reason someone would desperately hold on to delusions of the supernatural, and it can do nothing but water down rational discussion.

(February 5, 2012 at 2:32 pm)RW_9 Wrote: Filling the unknown with superstitious nonsense isn't just pointless, but it actively distracts from rational inquiry.

Well, I don't see how it can distract from rational inquiry.

I'm not suggesting that spiritual pondering should replace science.

I can do both and keep them separate.

They are two entirely different things.

---

(February 5, 2012 at 2:50 pm)RW_9 Wrote: The question still remains: why are you so insistent on referring to any of this as "spiritual?" There is absolutely no reason to do so. If scientists discover incredible things, there is still no reason to attach supernatural terminology to it. Why must you cling on to superstition instead of just using scientific terms for new discoveries and theories?

If something is discovered and you specifically use spiritual terms to describe it instead of scientific terms, you are intentionally mystifying it for no good reason beyond superstition for superstitions sake - as you said, you find the idea of there being more to this existence appealing. That is the only reason someone would desperately hold on to delusions of the supernatural, and it can do nothing but water down rational discussion.

Ok, I understand now. You're just objecting to the semantic use of the term "Spiritual".

In other words, you're basically saying that if science discovers that we are ultimately eternal conscious beings then that situation will not longer be thought of as being a "spiritual" situation but it will then simply be a "scientific" fact.

Hmmm?

Interesting.

(February 5, 2012 at 2:57 pm)Abracadabra Wrote: They are two entirely different things.

That is exactly my point. They cannot be done at the same time. Either you do one or the other at any given moment, and doing one distracts from the other. Rationality and irrationality co-mingling is never productive. As can be simply demonstrated by any discussion whatsoever where the two try to coexist; including the threads where you start to inject your superstition (mild as it is) into the discussion.

And you still haven't answered why you insist on clinging to the spiritual terms even when you admit yourself that they are entirely different from science. Unless it is purely because you wish for them to be true. In which case, you are actively and knowingly pursuing meaningless wish-thinking.

(February 5, 2012 at 3:32 am)tackattack Wrote: I would definately define what you deem as spirit as
consciousness[kon-shuhs-nis]   Origin con·scious·ness   /ˈkɒnʃəsnɪs/ Show Spelled[kon-shuhs-nis] Show IPA
noun
1. the state of being conscious; awareness of one's own existence, sensations, thoughts, surroundings, etc.
2. the thoughts and feelings, collectively, of an individual or of an aggregate of people: the moral consciousness of a nation.
3. full activity of the mind and senses, as in waking life: to regain consciousness after fainting.
4. awareness of something for what it is; internal knowledge: consciousness of wrongdoing.
5. concern, interest, or acute awareness: class consciousness.

Unless you take a step further and insist that the spirit is seperate from consciousness and a being in and of itself. Then we're really speaking to 2 people at once.. and that's called something else.... .

I dont think that is what he is saying. I think I understand what he is saying now. He is going along with the gnostic concept of "soul" which really means "experience". To them the Soul is everything, and not anchored in any single thing. The soul is everything and anything that is experienced in the cosmos. this is what they mean by an "immortal soul" in the sense that past experiences can never be wiped away by anyone but a God.

What he is talking about is interaction of everything with everything in the cosmos.

(February 5, 2012 at 3:05 pm)RW_9 Wrote: That is exactly my point. They cannot be done at the same time. Either you do one or the other at any given moment, and doing one distracts from the other. Rationality and irrationality co-mingling is never productive. As can be simply demonstrated by any discussion whatsoever where the two try to coexist; including the threads where you start to inject your superstition (mild as it is) into the discussion.

With all due respect RW, this particularity thread is in the "religion" section of the forums and the topic is "Thoughts on Buddhism".

If you're not interested in discussing anything but science why not look into the science forums?

I mean seriously. We were trying to address Buddhism in this thread. By your own criteria we shouldn't be trying to do two things at once so why even bring science into the conversation at all?

I personally have no problem considering both scientific aspects of things and spiritual aspects of things simultaneously and still recognize the difference between them.

Things are only science if you can devise an experiment to verify them or rule them out.

If they can't be verified or ruled out, then they are clearly open to spiritual consideration.

And that's my approach to the topic of spirituality.

Quote:And you still haven't answered why you insist on clinging to the spiritual terms even when you admit yourself that they are entirely different from science. Unless it is purely because you wish for them to be true. In which case, you are actively and knowingly pursuing meaningless wish-thinking.

Considering possibilities doesn't necessarily mean that I wish for them to be true. It just means that I'm considering that they might be true.

Besides, don't scientists do a very similar thing?

Aren't String Theorists hopefully wishing that strings are real?

Aren't scientists currently hopefully wishing that the Higgs field is real?

What about supersymmetry , etc, etc, etc.

Science is always "wish-thinking" before things are confirmed.

And sometimes they don't get their wish.

At one time many scientists were wishing that the universe was finite and static. Too bad for them that Hubble discovered otherwise.

Many scientists wished that Newtonian absolute space and time could be maintained forever. Einstein pulled the rug out from under those wishes.

Science is really nothing more than a list of wishes that actually came true for certain scientists. We don't even bother keeping track of all the wishes that went down the proverbial toilet.

(February 5, 2012 at 3:43 pm)Abracadabra Wrote: With all due respect RW, this particularity thread is in the "religion" section of the forums and the topic is "Thoughts on Buddhism".

If you're not interested in discussing anything but science why not look into the science forums?

I was discussing spiritual ideas in the thread created to discuss said spiritual ideas. But if you'd rather not continue the discussion, that is fine with me.

And as far as science goes, there is a huge difference between developing theories based on previous knowledge and observed phenomena versus making up ideas out of thin air and attaching supernatural terms to them.

Also, editing your posts I've already responded to kind of confuses a discussion.

Quote:With all due respect RW, this particularity thread is in the "religion" section of the forums and the topic is "Thoughts on Buddhism".

If you're not interested in discussing anything but science why not look into the science forums?

That isnt how this forum works. This is an Atheist forum. Science is ALWAYS allowed on every single topic.

Just because the topic is religion, doesnt mean you get to say whatever you want and not be challenged on it either, not to mention you are a n00b with only 90 posts to your name. Dont come here dictating policy or trying to change the rules or you will find NO respect from the other members.

You dont get to hide from science, or the mention of science on this forum. If someone brings up a legitimiate question in the name of science then you are expected to answer it.

If you wanted to talk about buddhism and mysticism without being bothered about lack of consistency and relevancy by those who hold to scientific mindsets, then you need to swing over to another forum or create your own forum.