(January 14, 2015 at 1:40 am)IATIA Wrote:(January 14, 2015 at 1:20 am)schizo pantheist Wrote: The main meat of my position is that there is a ton of science out there that supports theismSay What!hock: Pretend I am from Missouri. Show me!
I know somebody in Missouri! One of the wisest most intelligent beings I know! In that case you would have no problem studying up!
I would recommend, if not already familiar, to become aware of the basic logical fallacies. Just search that term and start reading. This is basic philosophy stuff, you don't have to have a degree to know how to think these days with logic on the internet. This goes for all who wish to debate me on any topic. I will point out yours and you have logical permission to point out mine. This means no jesting, which is a waste of life force energy, meaning, your posts have to not be not poking fun as if "ha ha, I know already, you're dumb, you brainwashed theist etc etc". This is a common logical trick (it obscures logic and derails from the topic). It will receive no response.
The next thing, once a basic idea of philosophy is acknowledged, is to critically study the inner human experience. The human sciences, in other words. Anthropology, for a start, but with a focus on human perception of reality. It is human perception that has formed the various ideas of theology so this is a good focus. Along this same line of study, is psychology. I mean psyche in the Greek sense, meaning soul. The study of the soul. Not the study of math and chemistry, how this brain chemical synergies with that and lo and behold this somehow explains the vast awareness of human cognition. My opinion is this is a dead end for the most part. Acknowledged it is in the balance, but that is exactly where it needs to stay, balanced. Too many atheists take this end of science, the hard math, lab work, etc, overboard, as if it is all there is, and deny the other branches of science.
Stanislov Grof, a world renown psychologist whom I would recommend reading, (though some of his ideas to me seem old school, he is a pioneer in this science), says the only reason mainstream science as a whole rejects any notion of spirit, is because they haven't studied this area, they turn a blind eye to it because it interferes with their trajectory in life, their bias. Basically, the science of planet earth has not evolved enough to talk to all branches of itself successfully. Too many human emotions get involved with the scientists.
Things are changing though, with other pioneers in critical analysis of the experience of existing such as Carl Jung and his theories. He was quite psychic and looked at it through a scientific lense, and has a good way of putting it into comprehensible thought forms. His method of psychology, including the collective unconscious and the archetypal deities that reside there, is gaining more popularity as more ignorance and stigma against anybody who has a spiritual experience subsides. There is a blend of science and spirit emerging in our modern era, but the scientists are still "smarting" from the wound theism caused general intelligence, which I would call the sorcery and black magic of totalitarian churches that seek to dominate all areas of life especially the crotch, basically the foundation of any society, what a family is and how it should be done, etc. Raise them right! Make sure they are believers or else! This damages many psyche's so they turn the other way and use the logical fallacy of non sequitur. This is wrong (well, duh!) which means a supreme being does not exist. The two do not follow when a macro version of reality is taken into consideration. Look at the big picture, all over the world, all throughout history.
So you see, you ask, what science is there, and the answer takes work on your end. I am not going to give you your "understanding human experience" degree. I am not the professor here per se. If I am, I don't lecture much and there is a lot of homework.
Science has as different definition in the eastern philosophies. For example, the practice of yoga is considered a science by many. It is not a hard test tube style science that western academia likes, but that doesn't make it any less wise at it's ability to generate a true perception of truth via experience, observation. I am not hindu so can't speak with authority on it but it is the idea, there are many similar spiritual practices out there that have the invitation of "try and see for yourself".
By denying inner experiences altogether as invalid, many western science minded individuals rule out the vast pile of documented subjective experiences found, as I said, in the study of human perception of reality, in history, anthropology, and notably the religious texts of the world, their angle of looking at it. Although that is as science, it is not good enough for them likely because it is too complicated. The complicated nature of it makes it difficult to have an accurate macro view, which is what is required. It may take many generations of study to really prove things, and a scientist who wants the answer quickly with an experiment will be disappointed.
I find the Bible a source of great wisdom, and it is quite popular, so I'll quote what I believe to be universal wisdom attributed to whoever Jesus was. Luke 17:20-21
“And when he was demanded of the Pharisees, when the kingdom of God should come, he answered them and said, The kingdom of God cometh not with observation:
Neither shall they say, Lo here! or, lo there! for, behold, the kingdom of God is within you.”
Looking within to see Reality, Truth, or the “kingdom of God”, is the scientific method that has been recommended not only by this religion Christianity, but by so many shamans and meditating religions the world over, that would’t it be a logical fallacy to say there is nothing to it? It is not logical at all! Therefore, what are the inner experiences of others, how can this be looked at scientifically. No objective experiments other than cross analysis of inner experiences. Unless you can think of one. This is basically the study I am referring to here. Don’t look “out there” for for proof, meaning your test tube and your scale, look inward and experiment with the wisdom of the ancients. Don’t say the ancients are idiots, basically. How ignorant and immature is that! Look at your own and look at others inner experience to get the truth. Be detached from all of them, especially your own experience, until conclusions are made. This includes the idea of no. Atheism means no. Therefore it is not really detached. It rejects yes. No jumping to the wrong conclusions in other words.
Spiritual science, or an honest science that does not 3d everything, such as ancient magical alchemy, (Jung wrote a lot about it) show that the inner world can become the outer world. Basically, the scientific test is the observation of inner wisdom and how it manifests on the outside world. For example, Jung coined the term synchronicity, which he offered the example of talking about or thinking about something and then just by chance something similar “out there” happens. Premonitions, psychic clairvoyance, meeting entities and testing their claims, these are all ways to balance the inner and outer worlds to gain a true perception of reality. For example, if a spirit (aka hallucination in secular textbooks) tells you the future and it happens, well that is something testable. This is the kind of test that the ancients were familiar with, the inner laboratory, reflecting the outer lab and vice versa.
Paul Stamets, world renown mushroom expert, shared an experience in his earlier years when he used hallucinogenic magic mushrooms and had visions that showed the future. He “hallucinated it all” and then it happened a month later. Things like this. This is science too you know. Kinda like me but without the mushrooms, likely he was looking into other realms, not “hallucinating”. Why rule out the experiences of shamans which they consider more real than this world, and call them some kind of psychoses? That’s the western academic mind for you though.
Be humble enough to not be deceived by the “I don’t understand therefore you must be stupid” demon. Which, archetypally speaking is ignorance, it is prejudice, it is ruling something out with no real knowledge as to what it is or even means. Kind of the logical fallacy of straw man. Make something up that has nothing to do with reality at all, build a straw man (Richard Dawkins is God of all straw man arguments in my opinion) and then proceed to use your “logic” to tear it down and prove it is nothing.
