Spiritualism and Science?

[Scientist]

The reason I'm asking this is because I found out recently that there is a course at my university called "Spiritualism and Science". I sat through the first lecture. I figured it would be an informative course which would tell me about different forms of spiritualism and give me some background. (I don't believe in that stuff but I don't mind knowing more about it.) But it turned out to be a course in which all forms of spiritualism are extolled at the expense of science. Over 30 people that actually believe in spiritualism follow this course. One person claimed she had five "guides" surrounding her!
I ask you are these the kind of people we want to call scientsits?
I'm disgusted by the idea that these future so-called scientists will pollute our true science and sent us back in to dark ages.

And so the question becomes: Can spiritualism and science go together?


PS. Oh yes, the person who leads the course called me "a negative force"

[dsm]

Scientist said:
And so the question becomes: Can spiritualism and science go together?

No. At least not yet - they'll need to effectively prove that there are spirits around us first. Spiritualism as it is like today is more like another fairy-tale religion.

PS. Oh yes, the person who leads the course called me "a negative force" [/B]

That just proves to me that these people cannot be taken serious.

P.S. What is "a negative force" called in Dutch? :-P

[JavaGuy]

Think what you want, but I wouldn't laugh. Some people experience things you haven't and maybe it's because they're looking for them. I wouldn't exactly say they should be our medical and genetics researchers, but I think there's another science all its own in which these people belong.

Yeah, and don't go around spreading bad vibes man.... keep inner peace an' all that.

[dsm]

I'm not laughing, but I wouldn't take 'em too serious before it's been scientifically proved that there are spirits about which some people can get in contact with.

[IMJack]

One person claimed she had five "guides" surrounding her!

Mmm, between education and brainwashing, fine line there is. Mmm.

And so the question becomes: Can spiritualism and science go together?

Not easily. There are going to be people that will search and work for the science behind everything. If, tomorrow, people developed magic powers and spirits began to manifest in the physical world, there will be people who search for the natural laws governing the magical and spiritual. (That said, I need to lay off the Shadowrun. It's already a three-sourcebook-a-day-habit, and it's destroying me. :P)

Likewise, there will be people who demand that science is al heresy and the only 'truth' is found in faith. People like this piss me off.

Personally I try to take a moderate approach. I say (and don't flame me or drive the thread off-topic): The world works by an awfully convenient set of rules. Somebody must have written those rules at one point, and meant for us to figure them out on our own. Science, and the ability to understand and manipulate the forces of the world, is itself a gift from whatever higher power you happen to believe in.

[JavaGuy]

I think Jack has got it pretty well. Course, could be wrong wrong just like anything else. Just gotta go something I suppose, and hope that it's alright to be wrong in the end.

[Executor6666]

WARNING!
Flamewar ahead!
Flame density: Lethal
Take proper caution and wear protective gear beyond this point
--Internet Department of Safety

By the way, my answer is no. Religions are myths, and God is the result of humanity's attempts to comprehend the incomprehensible. For example, the formation of the universe started when a singularity containing all of the universe's matter (it was then energy because the speck was too hot for real matter to exist) exploded in the Big Bang. The speck was caused when a very, very, very old universe ended its existence by contracting in a Big Crunch (our own universe will go through a Big Crunch in about a trillion years). But ther's a catch! Since the universe as we know it did not exist before the Big Bang, there is no "before" the Big Bang (time is part of the universe). If that makes your head spin, the following will truly boggle your mind.

Reality and time do not exist in the period between Big Bangs and Big Crunches, so there is no before and after. The universe before ours never existed because its reality is gone. If you try to understand this "history," you're doing it in vain because humanity cannot contemplate these ideas. You can only know it.

Also, a new universe could theoretically "bud" off of a black hole in our own if the black hole is large enough and it explodes (black holes contain singularities). You cannot travel to a different universe because it does not exist to us. If someone lived in one of these theoretical alternate realities, we would not exist. You could perhaps reach another universe through a spinning black hole (a rapidly spinning black hole has a ring-shaped singularity that you could pass through if you approached from a certain angle. However, the black hole has to be oh-my-gosh-here-it-comes-jumbo-sized so its gravitational pull is gentle enough not to tear you apart. If you emerge in any universe besides a "parallel" universe, you will no longer be yourself because you would be conforming to different physical laws. YOu would not "live" in our sense of the word, and the universe you left will not exist. Also, you will have to move quickly before the white hole that ejected you into this new universe before the other items it threw out pull together into a black hole that swallows up the white hole.

I think I'll stop now an give your aching brains a rest.

[Sharessa]

/me starts his karma with his ki, then runs over the neighbour's dogma

[m0l0t0v]

The following may sound a bit spiritual to some. but I assure you it is NOT; it based on filosophy (which is NOT the same as spiritualism!)

And so the question becomes: Can spiritualism and science go together?

Filosophically speaking Science can be seen as the quest for the fysica AND METAfysica. = Science helps us to gain knowledge on the world around us and ultimately what, who and why we are. Since spirituality represents all we cannot prove but can only believe in, the metafysica can be seen as the ultimate spirituality.

But what is Science? It is build on reason (ratio). But what is this ratio? Ratio is logic. I ask you what is logic? filosophers have been thinking about this question for thousants of years. Could it be that logic is something spiritual? A force incomprehensible by man.
Plato said the "real world" is a world of ideas. We live in the "shadow-world", where all we can see is the shadows of the idea-world.
Example:
None of us have ever seen a true and perfect circle, but we all know what it looks like. We all have a notion of the IDEA circle but can only see or create a shadow of a circle.
The same goes for pure logic. It excists in the idea-world and all we see now is the shadow.
But there is a difference in trying to reach the perfect circle and trying to reach perfect logic. Unlike a circle, logic is the path to logic itself. The only way to reach logic is by logic itself. So the logic in the idea-world must be the same logic as in the shadow-world. We as mankind must therefore able to find this logic in our reallity (=shadow-world). Sounds logical doesn`t it!

So the only way to reach the ultimate spiritual world = the idea-world is through logic. And since science is (supposed to be intrument of) logic; the only way to "the spiritual world = metafysica" is SCIENCE!

[Scientist]

dsm asked:
P.S. What is "a negative force" called in Dutch? :-P

een negatieve kracht

"We also know how cruel the truth often is, and we wonder whether delusion is not more consoling."
- Henri Poincare (1854-1912)

Irrationalism, pseudoscience, and quackery have become extremely popular in recent years. Unsupported and illogical claims are heard and seen everywhere in tabloid magazines, on television, etc. Ancient forms of spiritualism are experiencing a renaissance, often advocating ideas that, I think, do not belong to a modern, civilized world. Followers of the so-called New Age movement (and others) seem to have an infinite ability to contrive new, fantastic ideas. Or adopt really old ones, for that matter. The older and more esoteric the methods or philosophies are, the more appealing they seem to be, and if they are from a far-away place, it only makes things better.

Being Open-Minded
"Keeping an open mind is virtue - but not so open that your brains fall out."
- Space Engineer James Oberg

Open-mindedness is always important; how else would we learn? But there are limits, as Oberg cynically points out. Open-mindedness is not by necessity the same thing as belief.
To me, being open-minded doesn't mean accepting fantastic claims at face value. By doing that one risks to oversee alternative explanations. The honest seeker of truth considers all plausible explanations (s)he can think of or that are provided, and then makes a reasonable judgement if possible. The seeker of excitement and fascination tends to care less about the truth; the "gut feeling" is what counts. (Note that this doesn't hinder the seeker of truth to become fascinated.) The comforting feeling of possessing arcane knowledge often overpowers rational thought and perspicacity, which results in close-mindedness, not open-mindedness (as people often think). Reasonable objections and doubts are met with suspicion and disconfirming evidence is something the believers' "open minds" cannot easily cope with. Where is their open-mindedness?

Judging the Credibility of Extraordinary Claims
The following principles and questions are helpful when judging the credibility of extraordinary claims, or when thinking objectively about one's own arguments and conclusions:
· Actual existence of a phenomenon: Is it possible to scientifically prove or make probable that the purported phenomenon actually exists? Remember: Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.
· Testability: Is the claim testable at all? If not, the claim is probably mere speculation or fantasy. Furthermore, if the claim is testable, is it actually tested? And if it is tested, which methods were used? Are the results reproducible in a way that makes them statistically significant? Is there a complete (i.e. trustworthy) documentation available to the public?
· The burden of proof lies upon the claimant, whereas the doubter has no obligation to disprove anything. Not only should the claimant attempt to prove his or her hypothesis. Supposing (s)he wants to achieve just respectablility, (s)he also has the obligation to try to disprove the hypothesis. This is one of the scientist's primary tasks; to try to falsify his or her hypotheses. How else would (s)he rightly rule out alternative explanations?
· Occams razor: of two logical explanations, the one based on the least number of unfounded presumptions is to prefer - until, perhaps, further evidence changes the premises. Occam's razor doesn't posit that the simplest explanation is to prefer, which is a misunderstanding sometimes used by naive creationists to say that genesis is superior to evolution due to the former's simplicity alone. Note also that an explanation, however logical, can be totally worthless if the premises are false or unfounded.
· Causation and correlation are not equivalent! There may be a nearly perfect correlation between human natality and the arrival of storks in the spring, but, of course, that doesn't make storks the actual cause of increases in birth rates! However obvious this may seem, the difference between causation and correlation is often neglected.

If you succeed to prove the existence of a so-called "supernatural" phenomenon, you will revolutionize all of science, gain enormous fame, and be awarded the Nobel Prize! Indeed, you will accomplish what most scientists only dream about. Considering the number of charlatans who operate today and the simplicity of most of their claims, it's very strange that none of them has thought of this. Actually, it's even more remarkable that scientists, who devote their entire lives to exploring the innermost secrets of nature, show little or no interest in investigating preternatural claims. They are the ones who ought to be most eager to do so. May it be that they're just plain bored of all the gibberish? (Remember that many of the claims are older than science itself and there has been plenty of time for evaluation.) So if the close-minded "white coats" are too ignorant to bother, why don't you take the chance?

[JavaGuy]

The supernatural CAN'T be explained, which is why it's named so. Really, existence itself is a supernatural thing. Therefor, if there is no supernatural, we don't exist. It all falls into place so.... badly.

[Lüt]

Scientist said:

And so the question becomes: Can spiritualism and science go together?

Of course.

God invented science =)

People just try to figure it out.

And get it wrong a lot.

Scientist said:

I'm disgusted by the idea that these future so-called scientists will pollute our true science and sent us back in to dark ages.

Paranoid Anonymous.

[dsm]

JavaGuy said:

The supernatural CAN'T be explained, which is why it's named so. Really, existence itself is a supernatural thing. Therefor, if there is no supernatural, we don't exist. It all falls into place so.... badly.

It can't be explained YET, but it might become explained one day, you'll never know.

[Scientist]

JavaGuy said:

The supernatural CAN'T be explained, which is why it's named so. Really, existence itself is a supernatural thing. Therefor, if there is no supernatural, we don't exist. It all falls into place so.... badly.

Existence can be explained. Just think of Descartes'"Cogito Ergo Sum" (I think therefor I am). He showed existence can be demonstrated using pure reason. Thus it is not supernatural.

Lüt said:

God invented science =)

People just try to figure it out.

perhaps, but than again maybe man invented god and people are just figuring this out.

[IMJack]

Existence can be explained. Just think of Descartes'"Cogito Ergo Sum" (I think therefor I am). He showed existence can be demonstrated using pure reason. Thus it is not supernatural.

That's not really proof of existance, is it? i mean, it proves your ability to reason and make an observation, but it doesn't prove that the world around you exists. You have faith that what you see, feel, experience, and learn is real. Demonstration and proof come out of a laboratory; philosophers are best left creating philosophy.

Sorry if I come off in 'cynical bastard' mode, but I just can't get in tune with the super-polarized at any side of any issue. I'm a moderate by nature.

[JavaGuy]

It's true, Scientist, that "I think therefor I am" is just as illogical and crazy as anything else. So what if we think? I mean, we have to "be" before we can think or there is no "I" to be thinking the thoughts.

[m0l0t0v]

Wow, useally when I post a reply with filosophical stuff people make fun of me or insult me! I might be pushing my luck here but here`s some more:

JavaGuy:

So what if we think? I mean, we have to "be" before we can think or there is no "I" to be thinking the thoughts.

IMJack:

That's not really proof of existance, is it? i mean, it proves your ability to reason and make an observation, but it doesn't prove that the world around you exists.

That is exactly the point Descartes was trying to make!

here`s a rough summary/translation of how Descartes got to his "Cogito Ergo Sum" :

1. Senses can give false information;
--> Yet I am here!
2. There is no clear border between dream and awake;
--> But even in dreams the mathematics remain (2 + 3 is still 5)
3. Everything can be a deception even mathematics
--> Man can be unsure, but God doesn`t lie
4. There can be a lying spirit (= malin genie) that lies to us
--> Even with the 'malin genie' you cannot doubt the fact you are doubting. This is the only thing you can be sure of.

I doubt therefore I think;
I think therefore I am.

Knowing that I am doesn`t take away the doubt about points 1 to 3, but it tells me that I exist even if the world around me does NOT.

Descartes went on trying to prove the world exists as well, but to do this he "proved" the existence of God. Not very convincing if you ask me (being an atheist). But Cogito Ergo Sum still stands!

[fodders]

It scares me when someone can quote Descartes, but cannot spell philosophical :)

[Scientist]

If someone can quote Descartes I will forgive him his bad spelling. :)

[m0l0t0v]

I was made fun of... (again!)

Firstly; Filosophical CAN and MAY be spelled with an F.
If you don`t believe me just search for 'filosophical' or 'filosophy' in Google or what ever. If I`m wrong so are thousants of others.
Secondly; it`s very easy to attack a single word, but not the thought described! Just because you have a better spelling doesn`t weaken my arguments.
thirdly; now that we are bitching about words and not thoughts I didn`t really QUOTE Descartes, what I used was a "ROUGH SUMMARY/TRANSLATION".
Take that you nitpicker!

Hoping I didn`t misspell anything... >;)

[fodders]

Because 200 others cannot spell it neither, does not make your mistake less naughty :)

[m0l0t0v]

Dear Phodders:

Lets us stop this 'F vs PH' quarrel and focus on more important things.
I am not looking for trouble and you seem like a nice guy, so please don`t waist me time making me defend my own spelling. We both know it can be spelled with an F, although it`s probably better (or more PHequently) spelled with PH.

PHriends?
F-)

[Phoenix]

Sites with filosophy/filosofy are mainly humourous sites. If you want to be taken serious you have to improve your English. I have to too and am stuck at the Uni learning English, and that during summer!

For quick references use
http://dictionary.cambridge.org/

if you really want to get your point across you need a thesaurus to avoid misusing words or a possible misinterpretations of your statement.
http://www.bartleby.com/62/

As for the original topic. NO WAY!

It seems we go in circles. First we believed that people were possessed by demons. Then we thought psychology showed some may think, as psychiatry has proved, in multiple personalities or known as schizophrenia. As the woman said: 'she has five advisers'. With proper medication she would have no such thing. http://www.schizophrenia.ca/ - Now we pretent science looks at the same phenomena from the old perspective, the 'dark' unknown side. Evil or good spirits swarming around the soul, talking and making suggestions. - Sorry I don't buy that. We seem to have a surge of pagan mysticism flooding science as creationists had flooded before them. Neither are science or even understand science. Why? Glad you ask, both explain but lack prove. You have to prove the existence of the spirit before you can continue with your science. Just because you hear voices proves nothing of the sort.

Also molotov, there are no grey zones in sleep. You enter in stages, sleep in stages and exist in stages. Again proven.

Also to question one's existence does not prove there always was the question of existence or even that we exist. You can not use logic alone to prove anything, because anyone can change the premise. Logic and mathematics are NOT scientific fields. They are simple tools to make us understand science by measurement.

[Scientist]

m0l0t0v said:

Dear Phodders:

Lets us stop this 'F vs PH' quarrel and focus on more important things.
I am not looking for trouble and you seem like a nice guy, so please don`t waist me time making me defend my own spelling. We both know it can be spelled with an F, although it`s probably better (or more PHequently) spelled with PH.

PHriends?
F-)

:) That's phunny!

[m0l0t0v]

I`ll just ignore the 'F vs PH business'. Who am I to agrue about PH with someone named PHoenix.

I will agrue with this though:

Also molotov, there are no grey zones in sleep. You enter in stages, sleep in stages and exist in stages. Again proven.

So what if there are stages; these stages have no clear borders so the point still stands.

[fodders]

m0l0t0v said:

Dear Phodders:

Lets us stop this 'F vs PH' quarrel and focus on more important things.
please don`t waist me time making me defend my own spelling.

waste my ... :)

[NeFaRiuS]

Science is based around proving things (hypotheses) with experiments that can be replicated by other such scientists. Spiritualism does not concern itself with the 'proving' and 'replicaton' part. It just gives 'answers' and you can choose to accept these or not. So in this way both disciplines can not be comined. But perhaps someday all scientists and -pseudo-scientist will work together and solve the ultimate mystery.

Until then, stay rational!

[dsm]

Science is probably more than one thing - people claim that building tools is a science in itself, yet science is also something about coming up with theories that try to explain our world (a religion in other words).

[fodders]

'Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind.' So Einstein once wrote to explain his personal creed: 'A religious person is devout in the sense that he has no doubt of the significance of those super-personal objects and goals which neither require nor are capable of rational foundation.'

His was not a life of prayer and worship. Yet he lived by a deep faith--a faith not capabIe of rational foundation--that there are laws of Nature to be discovered. His lifelong pursuit was to discover them. His realism and his optimism are illuminated by his remark: 'Subtle is the Lord, but malicious He is not' ('Raffiniert ist der Herrgott aber boshaft ist er nicht.'.'). When asked by a colleague what he meant by that, he replied: 'Nature hides her secret because of her essential loftiness, but not by means of ruse' ('Die Natur verbirgt ihr Geheimnis durch die Erhabenheit ihres Wesens, aber nicht durch List.').

[m0l0t0v]

OK... I give up! I`m a complete moron (if that`s how you spell moron!) because I made ONE mistake. I`ll never post another reply here again and it`s all thanks to Fodders. I tried to be friendly, but NOOOH! I`ll just find a new hobby (like nitpicking or something). Or maybe I can copy-paste other peoples stuff and make fun of them (like some people here!) But before I leave let me say this:

1. Filosophy CAN and MAY be spelled with an F (even if some prefer PH) Fodder was WRONG to say it can`t, I was RIGHT to say it can.
no hard feelings (on my side)
2. By bitching about spelling we spend less time on the real issues.
I`ve said this before but mister I`m-not-listening just could not resist.
3. You can seriously frustrate a guy by paying more attention to his spelling than his ideas.
AAARRGHH! (<-- spelled correctly)
4. Scientist wanted thoughts on Spiritualism and Science. I gave my thoughts; all Fodders did was give me a headache. That`s not what I call productive. In fact the 'me vs my'- mistake toke place when I was defending myself against Fodders COWARDLY and UNPROVOKED attack. So Fodders wasn`t just being unproductive he was being COUNTERproductive!
5. Now that I`m gone maybe Fodders will realize the harm he can do with his bulling. I hope you grow up soon!
6. If you find something misspelled in this reply, that will only prove points 2 and 3!!!

:-X