Ask a Spiritual Physicist

[AllenPapapetrou]

Hi GK,
I enjoyed your reply. Most of it falls in line with my understanding.

Scientific Theory:
In modern science, the term "theory" refers to scientific theories, a well-confirmed... type of explanation of nature, made in a way consistent with scientific method, and fulfilling the criteria required by modern science. Such theories are described in such a way that any scientist in the field is in a position to understand and either provide empirical support ("verify") or empirically contradict ("falsify") it. Scientific theories are the most reliable, rigorous, and comprehensive form of scientific knowledge,[2] in contrast to more common uses of the word "theory" that imply that something is unproven or speculative (which is better defined by the word 'hypothesis').

Mathematical Theory:
Is more complex to define in a short paragraph. In essence, however, a mathematical theory uses the same guidelines as a scientific theory, but is restricted, obviously, to mathematical theorems.

However, what was drilled into us in my Astronomy and Physics education is a follows:
A Scientific Theory can never be proven True, only False, or Unproven . This is because some of the assumptions of the theory may be shown to be incorrect by new discoveries. For example, Newton by Einstein.

Thus, Scientific Theories rest upon the faith the Scientific Community has for the assumptions.

Mathematical Theories, however, can be proven True, False, or Unproven. The assumptions are not time based, i.e. new discoveries.

There is no similarity between science and religion. With the exception that both concepts were born to attempt to understand information about our world and the universe around us. How the two go about this process is completely different.

Yes there have been scientists who have been religious as well; there still are today. Anybody can be a scientist as long as they abide by the scientific method. When the scientific method is abandoned, the person can no longer be considered a scientist.

And yes I am stating this as an absolute. This answer is not 'in my opinion' or 'from my perspective'. This answer is factual based upon the definitions (There I go again!). To believe anything else sends us down the slippery slope where anarchy of thought is the only result.

Well, call me an Anarchist and color me plaid! 'Cause here I go down the slope.

The similarity between Science and Religion is: Faith.

The Scientist has faith the assumptions are correct. The Religious person has faith the doctrines are correct.

Both are Faith based perspectives.

Both could be incorrect, even when the consensus says otherwise.

Aloha.. Allen
__________
Know of any Living Bliss Masters, Please contact me

 

[AllenPapapetrou]

That is a hell of an idea. How long does it stand still? Can we construct houses with such walls?

Aitareya Upanishad of the RigVeda did say "Prajnanam Brahma" which I translate as "Consciousness creates the universe". No consciousness, no observer, no universe.

Apparent motion can create apparent stillness. For example, the standing wave one can get when wiggling a rope tied a one end.

Now take that principle to the smallest of the small and the largest of the large. Then bring in the observation of harmonic "stillness".

And, Yes, all of nature is re-constructed with such walls.

Aloha.. Allen
__________
Know of any Living Bliss Masters, Please contact me

 

[Gordian Knot]

Allen you said "The similarity between Science and Religion is: Faith."

Although proposed over and over and over again (almost never by scientists by the way), it is simply not true. It is also not true that scientific theories can never be proven to be true, but rather only false or unproven.

The number of scientific theories that have been proven true are in the millions. What happens when one breaks the sound barrier. What is formed when one adds two helium atoms to one oxygen atom. Is there such a thing as anti-matter. Many of the wondrous achievements of modern science are possible only because scientists have proven the science is fact.

Yes there are also theories that have been proven true, then updated or amended. Einstein's General Theory of Relativity. Plate tectonics. Evolution. When our solar system formed. The age of this Universe.

And there are scientific theories that are wildly speculative. Quantum Theory. The Multiverse. What happened before the Big Bang. But even these ideas were obtained by observation and testing, not by having faith that it might be true.

None of what science has accomplished is based on faith. It was accomplished by using the scientific method. Do we know the answer to everything. Of course not. Anyone who would suggest otherwise would be silly. And that is the second thing that separates science from religion. Science accepts and readily agrees that what we have learned may be proven wrong.

Religion must be faith based because there is no way to ever prove any person's version right or wrong. Religions do not accept that they might be wrong (with the exception of a relatively few more enlightened folks). Everyone's religion is the one and only right religion. The religious do not accept that they may be wrong. It is not open for debate.

It baffles me why there is this need to attempt to try and force fit science and religion into the same slot when one is a square peg and the other is a round one. From my perspective this goal is futile, and it demeans both science and religion. These two great traditions can stand on their own perfectly well. To try and make some connection between diminishes them both.

 

[A Cup Of Tea]

It baffles me why there is this need to attempt to try and force fit science and religion into the same slot when one is a square peg and the other is a round one. From my perspective this goal is futile, and it demeans both science and religion. These two great traditions can stand on their own perfectly well. To try and make some connection between diminishes them both.

Though I agree with you some people need it to fit because of their particular faith (not aimed at you Allan), so it comes down to a matter of faith. It is often a misunderstanding of how the scientific method works (again, not you Allan) , and if faith is all you know, that's what you'll compare it to. So no more frustration on this topic, ok?

When I read parts of your post I imagined the branches of a tree, the green ones waving in the wind and twisting to find the sun. But the grow of solid branches that have been tested by time, immovable by the fleeting nature around it.

No Allen, I wouldn't call it faith, but I don't know if there's a good word for it.

 

[Namaste Jesus]

It's pretty clear that no one is ever going to be in complete agreement on this issue. Yet, the same old arguments keep cropping up on thread after thread.

It puts me in mind of two little boys, each with a slice of cake. Instead of eating it, one puts his under a microscope and tries to identify the ingredients and the other searches the kitchen trying to figure out who made it. Each failing to notice the egg shells on the counter and the flour and sugar residue on their mother's apron.

The moral of the story: Stop wasting time gentleman. Enjoy your damn cake!

 

[AllenPapapetrou]

Ah Intractable One, you bring me much joy and mirth.

Allen you said "The similarity between Science and Religion is: Faith."

Although proposed over and over and over again (almost never by scientists by the way), it is simply not true. It is also not true that scientific theories can never be proven to be true, but rather only false or unproven.

The number of scientific theories that have been proven true are in the millions. What happens when one breaks the sound barrier. What is formed when one adds two helium atoms to one oxygen atom. Is there such a thing as anti-matter. Many of the wondrous achievements of modern science are possible only because scientists have proven the science is fact.

Yes there are also theories that have been proven true, then updated or amended. Einstein's General Theory of Relativity. Plate tectonics. Evolution. When our solar system formed. The age of this Universe.

And there are scientific theories that are wildly speculative. Quantum Theory. The Multiverse. What happened before the Big Bang. But even these ideas were obtained by observation and testing, not by having faith that it might be true.

None of what science has accomplished is based on faith. It was accomplished by using the scientific method. Do we know the answer to everything. Of course not. Anyone who would suggest otherwise would be silly. And that is the second thing that separates science from religion. Science accepts and readily agrees that what we have learned may be proven wrong.

Religion must be faith based because there is no way to ever prove any person's version right or wrong. Religions do not accept that they might be wrong (with the exception of a relatively few more enlightened folks). Everyone's religion is the one and only right religion. The religious do not accept that they may be wrong. It is not open for debate.

It baffles me why there is this need to attempt to try and force fit science and religion into the same slot when one is a square peg and the other is a round one. From my perspective this goal is futile, and it demeans both science and religion. These two great traditions can stand on their own perfectly well. To try and make some connection between diminishes them both.

You repeated a doctrine of science which I know as the "Doctrine of the Scientific Laymen".

From KJV, Hebrews, Ch. 6 V.1:

Therefore leaving the principles of the doctrine of Christ, let us go on unto perfection...
​

The laymen approach to time is linear and unidirectional. Modern cosmogony is starting to recognize alternate perspectives of time, which include non-linear and multi-directional.

With these newer perspectives they feel they are getting closer to proving their Theories to be True. But they most always provide cautions, such as "closer approximation" and "further validation".

No credible Scientist would ever say his theory has been proven true. None. Nada. One of the gotchas of Current Science is an inadequate understanding of Consciousness. Truth can rest nowhere else. When Scientists recognize this, they will make a-believable strides.

Aloha.. Allen
__________
Know of any Living Bliss Masters, Please contact me

 

[Gordian Knot]

"Ah Intractable One, you bring me much joy and mirth."
Intractable: not easily controlled or directed; not docile or manageable; stubborn; obstinate: an intractable disposition. 2. hard to shape or work with.

Ayup.

You repeated a doctrine of science which I know as the "Doctrine of the Scientific Laymen".
I have never heard of this phrase, and can find no reference to it by that name anywhere. Is there a more commonly known name for this phrase? You wouldn't be making this up on me, would you Oh Sly One?

No credible Scientist would ever say his theory has been proven true. None. Nada.
Your experience with scientists has been curiously different from mine. Credible scientists know theories have been proven true and say so all the time, re the few examples I gave. It would be more appropriate to say that for scientists, no theory is ever finished. They accept that new evidence can always come along. Still there is enough science has proven to such a degree that they are sure enough of their facts to call them facts.

One of the gotchas of Current Science is an inadequate understanding of Consciousness.
This is no gotcha. It is one of the more commonly used putdowns by the religious crowd though. Science does not know the answers to everything. They freely admit this. A hundred years ago science didn't know if man could survive going so fast as to break the sound barrier. We learned otherwise.

Science is constantly learning, and changing. There is stuff we don't know the answers to. There is stuff we will probably never know the answers to. This is what is awesome about science. The stuff we do know the answers to is because they have been rigorously tested and retested over time.

Religions on the other hand do say they have all the answers. Unfortunately they cannot prove any of it. None of religious doctrine can be fact tested. So one has to take their facts on faith alone and on nothing else.

There is nothing wrong with that. Religion, by definition, deals with concepts that are essentially unprovable. No one has back from the dead and written a post op for us. It is unlikely this will ever happen. Faith has its place in human affairs, and a proper place it is too.

Demeaning science by trying to force fit it into a semi-religious format is wrong though. It is misguided at best.

 

[AllenPapapetrou]

Hi GK

"Ah Intractable One, you bring me much joy and mirth."
Intractable: not easily controlled or directed; not docile or manageable; stubborn; obstinate: an intractable disposition. 2. hard to shape or work with.

Ayup.

Tis tough to get a GK out of a GK box.

I must apologize to you in advance. Please tell me, if you can, how to reply w/o seeming to make personal attacks, if you feel my attacks are personal.

You repeated a doctrine of science which I know as the "Doctrine of the Scientific Laymen".
I have never heard of this phrase, and can find no reference to it by that name anywhere. Is there a more commonly known name for this phrase? You wouldn't be making this up on me, would you Oh Sly One?

The phrase came me from Hebrews, Ch 6, V 1. Because Paul was cautioning about doing exactly what you and other laymen do with Science. Simply because you don't understand the essence of Science just as the folks Paul addressed didn't understand the essence of Christ.

No credible Scientist would ever say his theory has been proven true. None. Nada.
Your experience with scientists has been curiously different from mine.

GK, I am a Scientist, and a Mathematician. I have degrees in Astronomy, Mathematics, and Psychology.

What you've shared show me you are not a Scientist. I'm also a Computer Programmer. Mathematics and Programming are fairly easy for me because, in the end, either it works or it don't: True or False. Currently, Science ain't like that.

...
One of the gotchas of Current Science is an inadequate understanding of Consciousness.
This is no gotcha. It is one of the more commonly used putdowns by the religious crowd though.
...

So, instead of answering my statement, you diverge into total absurdity by invoking religion.

How about addressing my statement as a Scientist could:

We know Science is based upon observation by human beings. Consciousness is the state of being conscious.
Conscious mean being aware of one's environment.

Awareness of one's environment seems very similar to the process of observation.

I stand my statement and this rewording:
One of the gotchas of Current Science is an inadequate understanding of Observation.

Science is constantly learning,
...

Religions on the other hand do say they have all the answers. Unfortunately they cannot prove any of it. None of religious doctrine can be fact tested. So one has to take their facts on faith alone and on nothing else.

There is nothing wrong with that. Religion, by definition, deals with concepts that are essentially unprovable. No one has back from the dead and written a post op for us. It is unlikely this will ever happen. Faith has its place in human affairs, and a proper place it is too.

In the early 1980's I first came upon the Vedantic Sat-Chit-Ananda and the English translation: Existence-Consciousness-Bliss.

The explanation I read was simple: Everything that is has these three characteristics. In the core of my being, and in my everyday self, I knew this as true.

This truth is personal. Personal because it has to be experienced by an individual. When a number of people share having the same experience, the experience becomes a Social Phenomena. To share such wonderful truths with other far away in place, the truths are symbolized in the various Arts: Writing, Sculpting, etc.

The Symbols are meant to evoke the experience in individuals. The Symbols represent the Truth, but they are not the Truths they evoke.

Religion and Science as currently practiced place more emphasis upon the Symbols than what the Symbols represent. Thus the rise of Graven Images in both. Of Sacred Cows in both.

Demeaning science by trying to force fit it into a semi-religious format is wrong though. It is misguided at best.

When someone tries to Demean Science, the first one they Demean is Themself.

Again, I apologize if I've offended you. Part of what I am here to learn is diplomacy within the context of absurd diversity.

Aloha.. Allen
__________
Know of any Living Bliss Masters, Please contact me

 

[Gordian Knot]

You have not offended me. I'm fairly hard to offend actually. It should be pointed out, however, your opening comment from the earlier post could easily be taken as either playful or as condescending. I chose the former based upon the very little I know of you thus far. Someone else with thinner skin might have gone the other way.

My divergence into 'total absurdity' is in direct proportion to your divergence with the comment about the 'gotcha of science'. Which is indeed a common criticism used on a regular basis by the religious to undermine science. Perhaps you didn't mean it that way, but it is the way it is typically used.

Besides, I did go on in that paragraph and the following one to answer your statement 'as a scientist would'. Quoting the first sentence and ignoring the rest of my comments is not kosher, would you not agree?

Of course from your earlier comments, you seem willing to negate all of my statements out of hand because I do not follow the pattern you believe a scientist should follow. Therefor, according to you, I am a layman.

Which does appear to be a pattern in your comments wherein you state your personal viewpoint and treat it as the ultimate one. It is hard for me to believe that is your intent; it does come across that way.

 

[Namaste Jesus]

I should know better then to get into this. I really should. I fear no good can come of it.

GK, I completely understand what you've been saying and I even agree with you to a point. After all, scientific theory can be proven in very real and tangible ways, while religious theory cannot. That fact alone puts them in two entirely different categories and ordinarily, that would be the end of the discussion. Point made. Case closed.

However, (angry mob spotted on the horizon), to a lot of us, God encompasses all and that all includes science. It's truly mind boggling what mankind has been able to discover and prove over the years and this notion does not belittle that in the least.

You see, to a lot of us, the tremendous strides science has made simply put into human terms the parameters set forth by God to sustain life in the first place. (angry mob closing in) I know, I know, this notion too cannot be proven. Well, I'll give you that. I, nor anyone else can give you any hard evidence to support this belief, it's just something we know it in our hearts. I can give you something to consider though.

We all know that scientific theory is real and for all intent and purpose, aside from minor detail changes and updates, may be considered fact. We know things now that only a few short years ago could not even be imagined. Yet, with all the knowledge and information that we've been able to amass and validate, we still can neither tangibly prove nor disprove the existence of God. To me that's very telling. Surely with all that we know and all that we have accomplished, if God did not exist, we would have been able to prove that by now. In a round about way, that sort of proves he does, but that's just me.

In any event, with so many differing beliefs and theories, it's doubtful there will ever be a general consensus. I must therefore reluctantly conclude that religion and science should be kept separate, (for now), and it be left up to each individual to decide for themselves how the two may or may not fit together. (angry mob disbursing- hopefully)

It's truly pointless to squabble over this anyway. Let's face it, in the grand scheme of things, it benefits us not if we figure out how the universe works. There is simply no need to know such grand things now for all will be revealed soon enough. For now, all we need know is, God's in charge, not us. In other words, it doesn't matter if the kids know where the school is, because they're not driving the bus! And so it is for us. (angry mob giving chase) See ya!!!

 

[Gordian Knot]

Well said NJ. I agree with just about everything you have said. My only quibble is with your thought that science could in any way ever prove God might or might not exist. By His very nature, he is beyond any test we mere humans could ever come up with.

And I don't worry about mobs. Gave up my pitchfork a long time ago!

 

[Namaste Jesus]

Well said NJ. I agree with just about everything you have said. My only quibble is with your thought that science could in any way ever prove God might or might not exist. By His very nature, he is beyond any test we mere humans could ever come up with.

And I don't worry about mobs. Gave up my pitchfork a long time ago!

You're right. I guess that was a bit of a leap. Us religious types do that a lot.

 

[A Cup Of Tea]

By His very nature, he is beyond any test we mere humans could ever come up with.

Russell's Teapot comes to mind. The analogy was to indicate the burden of proof, but that teapot could be infinitely hard to detect. And that's still a physical object in physical space.

 

[AllenPapapetrou]

I suggest y'all do a search on academic neurosurgeon Eben Alexander who wrote the book Proof of Heaven which describes the circumstances of his near death experience. In the aftermath of his experience one of his primary foci is bridging Science and Spirituality. The bridge he sees is Consciousness.

My friend Lonnie and I have been having Spiritual and Science conversations for over twenty years. Some of what we discussed is in my Thoughts book.

A lot of his insights came in nighttime visions, like Tesla, Hawking, and Russell. Early in our conversations I told Lonnie that Science and Spirituality had to merge because of their common origin.

With some repetition on my part Lonnie started to see the connection. And he started having Spiritual and Science visions in the same evening/morning, which never happened before I brought the connection to his awareness.

This is the last I have to say on the subject. If you delve deeply enough inside and outside you will see that I am correct.

 

[A Cup Of Tea]

In a spiritual context visions could be a relevant component, but only limited value in in the scientific method where it doesn't do us any good if it doesn't lead to experiments and the vital reproduction of results.

Tesla, Hawking, and Russell wouldn't be important people in the scientific community if they couldn't reproduce what they imagined.

 

[Namaste Jesus]

Russell's Teapot comes to mind. The analogy was to indicate the burden of proof, but that teapot could be infinitely hard to detect. And that's still a physical object in physical space.

That's an interesting comparison. Personally, I've always thought of Russell's analogy as more or less just another unsuccessful attempt to malign the Bible. I guess comparing something as infinite as God to a mere inanimate object just never made much sense to me.

On reflection, my suggestion that the existence of God could ever be proven in tangible human terms doesn't make much sense either. Then again, back when when Russell made his analogy, the notion of finding a tea pot in space seemed impossible. Now of course, we have telescopes in space and satelights far above the planet that are capable of reading an automotive number plate on the surface. Not to mention computer tracking technology that, in time, could conceivably do just that.

So, time and technology marches on.

 

[A Cup Of Tea]

But I don't think that was his analogy, I made it my own. His, I think, was that he could claim that something existed and he should then be responsible for proving his claims, and that the burden was not on the other part. I don't think his comment was on god, but on claims.

 

[Namaste Jesus]

But I don't think that was his analogy, I made it my own. His, I think, was that he could claim that something existed and he should then be responsible for proving his claims, and that the burden was not on the other part. I don't think his comment was on god, but on claims.

That is correct. Burden of proof was the argument illustrated by his analogy. Many believe however that the existence of God is what prompted him to make the analogy in the first place.