# Is There Scientific Evidence for the Existence of God? How the Recent Discoveries Sup



## DeLamar.J (Jul 13, 2004)

This article is long but it explains alot of things about the posibillity of there actually being a god or surpreme being that desighned the universe.

http://www.leaderu.com/real/ri9403/evidence.html


----------



## Flatlander (Jul 13, 2004)

I'm still working my way through it, but the author seems to be premising the argument for a creative designer based on this proposition:



> This is either a truly amazing series of coincidences or else the result of careful design.


I must admit, the author does a great job of detailing just how improbable our existence is, but in an infinite universe, there are infinite possibilities.  On this point, the argument seems to be susceptible to a switch - Though the necessary and sufficient conditions for our existence are improbable, given that the conditions are as they are, the probability of our existence increases significantly.


----------



## DeLamar.J (Jul 13, 2004)

It really is impossible for all those things to happen by chance. So many things that we need to survive just happining by chance over and over, no way. I will be pondering this all day now. :erg:


----------



## Touch Of Death (Jul 13, 2004)

The proof is indirect. Chuck Mistler likes to push these situations as proof and no matter how winning these seem they don't prove anything other than there is a lot we don't fathom.
Sean


----------



## michaeledward (Jul 13, 2004)

The article is premised on the assumption that the universe was created to support 21st century human beings. That ego-centric assumption is the downfall of the article, in my opinion.



> _Needs Statement for a Habitat Place in the Suitable Universe for Complex, Conscious Life_
> 
> An abbreviated, but illustrative, list of additional requirements must be specified for a place of habitation in this universe. First, we need a star that is located in a relatively "quiet" region of the universe (e.g., not too many neighbors that are producing high intensity, sterilizing radiation). This star needs to have its highest intensity of radiation in the range that is suitable to drive the chemical reactions essential to life without destroying the products of these reactions. Furthermore, this star needs to have a very special satellite within its solar system. A partial list of the requirements this satellite must meet include:
> 
> ...




Why does 'Complex, Concious Life' require land masses balanced against liquid areas on a planet? 
Why does 'Complex, Concious Life' require predictable seasons and moderate temperature fluctuations from day to night?
Why does 'Complex, Concious Life' require days and nights?

If we assume that *we* are the point of the universe, then, perhaps, this 'Needs Statement' is accurate. But, that is an awfully big assumption, for such an insignificant species, on an unremarkable planet, located in an obscure section of one small galaxy in an amazingly wonderous and beautiful universe.

But, like Dennis Miller, that's just my opinion, I could be wrong.

Mike


----------



## Baoquan (Jul 13, 2004)

The anthropic teleological argument is old, and in my opinion, flawed. 

The (anthropic) idea that our existance is the purpose of the universe is (a) preposterous and (b) highly arrogant. 

As for the teleological argument, which can be formulated very basically as:

1. Design requires a designer
2. Everything in the universe displays design in its inherent nature.
3. Therefore everything in the universe was designed by a designer.
4. Therefore there is a designer (call it God).

Both of the two premises (1 and 2) are problematic, but the second much more so than the first.

The belief in the second premise arises from science. Our understanding of so many things in the universe, the success of science and logic, can fool us into believing that the universe has an elegant design to it - science is the uncovering of the "rules" of this design. However, it seems more plausible to suggest that the rules we uncover aren't rules of design, but rules we "make up" in order to describe the universe. We may be able to make a direct correspondence between the objects of our formal language that we use to formulate science, and the objects and phenomena of the natural universe. But this does not entail that the sentences of our formal language correspond to a rule of design of the natural universe.

Finally - we are looking at the problem of existance from a priveleged perspective - we see the chain of events which result in our existance, and it looks pretty damn unlikely - even _impossible_. But if you look at each step as one small success that occured while countless millions failed - well, then it's just a question of how much "sample space" we have to count the probability against. The universe is awfully big, and provides a LOT of sample space. If the universe is (or universes are) infinite, its not only plausible that we happened by chance, but *necessary* that we happen...and happen an infinite number of times.

Personally, i dont *know* if there is a God or not - i'm rationally agnostic - but this particular argument for the existance of god isnt convincing, or even compelling.


----------



## heretic888 (Jul 14, 2004)

Claims like these are always interesting, but they are really missing the point.

None of this is "evidence".

Provocative?? Sure. Interesting?? Yup. Indicative?? Maybe.

But proof?? Evidence?? No way, no how.

Yes, a pure "random chance" explanation of the universe is at present extremely lacking. That does not automatically "prove" there is a Higher Power or Big Boom Bah behind it all, only that we don't know.

In a legal courtroom, all of this would count as "circumstantial evidence". As someone else put it, that's very, very indirect evidence. Its not enough to indict someone for charges of murder, and it certainly isn't enough to "prove" there's a God to a non-believer.

My guess is that "attempts" like these always boil down to one thing --- fear. There is an actual fear of doing what it would take to "prove" anything like that --- which is personal development and evolution of consciousness. All of the various wisdom traditions are unanimous on this: "proof" for the Divine cannot be seen in matter, and cannot be acquired through logic; it is only attained from years of contemplative practice (i.e., meditation, dummies).

Yup, its fear. What it really takes is making some changes to the mapmaker --- and not just switching around maps. The easy way out, if you ask me.

Laterz.


----------



## Nightingale (Jul 14, 2004)

DeLamar.J said:
			
		

> It really is impossible for all those things to happen by chance. So many things that we need to survive just happining by chance over and over, no way. I will be pondering this all day now. :erg:




actually, it's not impossible. merely highly improbable.


----------



## rmcrobertson (Jul 14, 2004)

The problem is, folks, that there're inadequate definitions of terms like, "impossible," "improbable," and, "chance," here, which--as Gould pointed out repeatedly--is a common error among proponents of, "intelligent design," theory. Evolution isn't random.

It isn't chance that leads to, say, the development of eyes or wings. For eyes to work, there have to be certain commonalities--for example, some kind of light-gathering structure. For wings to work, there has to be (for example) some way of shaping a structure that catches the air. It's just physics, guys, not chance and not Divine Intervention.

But in many ways, evolution also isn't intelligent or purposeful. When you hear people claim that Nature made something happen, they're anthropomorphizing like crazy. Chance events also influence development--no big-*** meteor, and we'd probably still have dinosaurs running things. 

Things aren't, "random," in the sense you're claiming. They also aren't, "deliberate," as far as science tells us. 

Then anyway, the idea of God-as-Gepetto is pretty cheesy. You do not know that the Great Punta is constantly tinkering, constantly fiddling---and, I'd say, it's only human arrogance that makes us assume that He's got nothing better to do that hang around here. 

You find the big guy by faith and introspection, and in other idealist ways that have little to do with science. However, science can show that some beliefs--like the idea that the world's flat, or that Creation took six days, or that the earth was made in 4004 BC--are just plain wrong.


----------



## heretic888 (Jul 14, 2004)

Mwaha..... it depends on your definition of "science".


----------



## Brother John (Jul 14, 2004)

rmcrobertson said:
			
		

> You find the big guy by faith and introspection, and in other idealist ways that have little to do with science. However, science can show that some beliefs--like the idea that the world's flat, or that Creation took six days, or that the earth was made in 4004 BC--are just plain wrong.



I agree that science isn't THE means of finding God. But I feel that too often science is taken as PROOF of something...and it isn't, it's a systematic means of observation and little more.

Also: World flat, yes science helps debunk....and quick.
The creation in 6 days. I don't think so. If you believe in a supernatural God who isn't contained/constrained within the framework of natural law (thus the Super in suprenatural) then miracles aren't just possible, but probable. I don't think that science does away with the belief in the actual 6 day creation. Personally, I'm a Christian...but I've not made up my own mind on the time it took to create everything. I don't know how the salvation of my soul hinges on this point...so maybe I'll just ask God how he did it later.

Your Brother
John


----------



## Flatlander (Jul 14, 2004)

Something that I think needs to be clarified here is that the evolutionary theory is comprised of two parts:

1) A change or mutation occurs in an organism.

2) That change causes a variation in survivability of the species.

The theory cannot adequately address the cause of the change, rather, it can only validate the apparent survivability that results.  Thus, the ones that change have a higher probability of survival under the given conditions.

The root of the argument posed in the article is attempting to address the initial cause for the changes.  Design or chance?  For me, the mathmatics of the problem suggest that probabilities within infinite possibilities indicate we must eventually come to be.  No amount of ooohhh-ing and aaaahhh-ing at the beautiful symmetries that underlie physical laws enhances the position of design.

Furthermore, the currently favoured universal model states that the universe "bangs, expands, slows down, stops, retracts, collapses, and bangs again" in a cyclical pattern.  When matter becomes so compressed as it would need to be at the point of reconsolidation/bang, it needs to be looked at from a quantum perspective.  Assuming that the cyclical expansion and contraction is going on "forever", and the lack of absolute truth in quantum theory (tendencies to exist, probability of location/velocity), it's reasonable that over the periods of infinite cycles, we would see infinite variations of universal structure. (If we could see them)

Therefore, this time around, we are here, now.  Next time, we may not be.  The argument hasn't addressed these issues, and I feel they are relevant to the topic of "Creator/Chance".


----------



## Rich Parsons (Jul 14, 2004)

Flatlander, no disresect meant. 



			
				flatlander said:
			
		

> The theory cannot adequately address the cause of the change, ...



I agree with the above.



			
				flatlander said:
			
		

> rather, it can only validate the apparent survivability that results.  Thus, the ones that change have a higher probability of survival under the given conditions.



I do not agree with the above. You may have a mutation that is likely to survive and they do not survive.  Not all mutation is for the positive and better survivial of the species. Some mutations have and will die off depending upon their environment and conditions of survival.

Just my limited understanding :asian:


----------



## Flatlander (Jul 14, 2004)

double tap


----------



## Flatlander (Jul 14, 2004)

Rich, I agree too. Maybe I said it bad. Sometimes, I get too excited.

You are correct, not every mutation is automatically guaranteed enhanced survivability. Hence, survival of the fittest. 

My apology for being ambiguous or misleading.  And thanks for pointing that out.


----------



## Scout_379 (Jul 14, 2004)

The universe was "created" by innumerable causes, conditions, and coincidences. Life appears on planets merely as a result of these causes and conditions. Life on Earth appeared because of very convenient coincidences. Buddist POV

One thing that science truly has proved, is that the universe is freakin huge! What this essay does for me is convince me that there must be another place in this truly massive area that has also had these convenient coincidences.  because of the scale of the universe, it is not surprising that our one little planet developed life.


----------



## heretic888 (Jul 14, 2004)

> The universe was "created" by innumerable causes, conditions, and coincidences. Life appears on planets merely as a result of these causes and conditions. Life on Earth appeared because of very convenient coincidences. Buddist POV



That doesn't sound particularly "Buddhist" to me...


----------



## Scout_379 (Jul 14, 2004)

huh?  wat do u mean?

What would be your opinion of the buddist POV? just askin...


----------



## Flatlander (Jul 14, 2004)

Scout_379 said:
			
		

> The universe was "created" by innumerable causes, conditions, and coincidences.


Actually, I would say "very specific", rather than "innumerable".


----------



## heretic888 (Jul 14, 2004)

> huh? wat do u mean?
> 
> What would be your opinion of the buddist POV? just askin...



Well, at the risking of taking the thread somewhat off-topic...

My answer would be: it depends on which context you are talking about.

Most schools of Buddhism would view the entire manifest universe and all subsequent "change" and "evolution" (actually pretty much anything having to do with time at all) as illusions. The "really real" is shunyata, mu, ku, emptiness, void, nothingness, the formless --- of course, ultimately, Form and Emptiness are regarded as "not-two", or nondual: the ultimate paradox. 

On the other side of the equation, however, there are Buddhist prayers devoted to "this precious human body" --- for the explicit reason that, in Buddhism, only human beings are capable of achieving Liberation. Not rocks, not animals, not even the gods (devas). Only humans in our mortal frailty. Thus, there is an implicit notion of underlying "purpose" or "meaning", even within the illusory world of samsara, toward nirvana --- that the development of these "precious human bodies" within time and space is a step toward realizing Buddhahood.

Of course, I could just be horridly skewing all of this, and it really does depend on which sect we are referring to.  :asian:


----------



## Scout_379 (Jul 14, 2004)

If am wrong, please tell me, but i need details. Im trying to understand this myself, and I am willing to change, but i need reason.
What I meant by innumerable, is there were so many things (uncountable), leading up to and in the development of the universe and Earth. I was referring to everything, not just what sparked it. if you take my meaning


----------



## heretic888 (Jul 14, 2004)

I just gave my answer. Next time, have a little more patience, weed-happa!!  :boing2:


----------



## Flatlander (Jul 14, 2004)

Scout_379 said:
			
		

> If am wrong, please tell me, but i need details. Im trying to understand this myself, and I am willing to change, but i need reason.
> What I meant by innumerable, is there were so many things (uncountable), leading up to and in the development of the universe and Earth. I was referring to everything, not just what sparked it. if you take my meaning


The problem is, you cannot refer to what caused the creation of the universe.  There is no space-time at that point.  Any reference is completely nonsensical.  We haven't an appropriate reference frame.


----------



## RandomPhantom700 (Jul 14, 2004)

heretic888 said:
			
		

> My guess is that "attempts" like these always boil down to one thing --- fear. There is an actual fear of doing what it would take to "prove" anything like that --- which is personal development and evolution of consciousness. All of the various wisdom traditions are unanimous on this: "proof" for the Divine cannot be seen in matter, and cannot be acquired through logic; it is only attained from years of contemplative practice (i.e., meditation, dummies).


So, in other words, anyone trying to use logic or faith in order to either prove or disprove the divine--or, in general, address the subject at all--really recognize that meditating is the only way to do so, and are just avoiding it out of fear.  They don't sincerely believe that they've come to any conclusions, they're just trying to avoid the truth.  Okay, Freud.  

Incidentally, I've been told that the only way to "know God" or understand the divine is to, basically, accept Jesus into my heart.  Why's one explanation more justified and the other not?


----------



## heretic888 (Jul 14, 2004)

> The problem is, you cannot refer to what caused the creation of the universe. There is no space-time at that point. Any reference is completely nonsensical. We haven't an appropriate reference frame.



Y'see... now _that's_ starting to sound a lil' Buddhist!  :boing2: 

The whole point of Shunyata or Clear Light Emptiness or Buddha Mind or whichever label you prefer is that It is Nondual --- the entire space-time reference breaks down when trying to explain It, which is precisely why all those cranky Zen masters are so critical of people trying to "figger it out" through logic and reason.

Laterz.


----------



## heretic888 (Jul 14, 2004)

> So, in other words, anyone trying to use logic or faith in order to either prove or disprove the divine--or, in general, address the subject at all--really recognize that meditating is the only way to do so, and are just avoiding it out of fear. They don't sincerely believe that they've come to any conclusions, they're just trying to avoid the truth. Okay, Freud.



No offense, Random, but those complaints are about as valid as someone at a pre-operational mode of cognition complaining he has to "learn logic" to figure out the Pythagorean Theorem. There are certain methodologies used to acquire certain truths --- and no one "way" or "method" is going to tell you everything about everything. That's just the way it is. 



> Incidentally, I've been told that the only way to "know God" or understand the divine is to, basically, accept Jesus into my heart. Why's one explanation more justified and the other not?



Who says both explanations are not equally justified?? 

To give a short answer, my guess would be because the Zen roshi doesn't actually care if you "believe in" the Buddha or not. He cares if you actually understand what he's trying to teach you.

If not, you get a thwack on the head!! "No think, stupid!!"

Hee. Laterz.


----------



## Flatlander (Jul 14, 2004)

I know.  It's the same paradox as wave/particle, matter/energy, local/nonlocal particle communication, mind/body dualities.  In fact, I see big bang and black hole in much the same light.:rofl:

Seriously, I think they are different manifestations of the same event.


----------



## heretic888 (Jul 14, 2004)

> I know. It's the same paradox as wave/particle, matter/energy, local/nonlocal particle communication, mind/body dualities. In fact, I see big bang and black hole in much the same light.



Not just those dualities, either --- there is fate/free will, sacred/profane, good/evil, self/other, existence/non-existence, and *gasp, exclaim!* design/chaos.



> Seriously, I think they are different manifestations of the same event.



Yup. To which the Buddhist reply would be something like: "and that 'event' is samsara itself".

Hee. "No think, stupid." *THWACK!!*


----------



## Scout_379 (Jul 14, 2004)

very true it depends on the sect. I was typing when I got the notification srry.

correction - notifications,  I try not to be hasty but i thought i was done lol

like i said i am just trying to understand, not argue, I am truly sorry if it comes out that way. 

to heretic888:

The illusions you are referring to are illusions because of the constantly changing nature of the universe and that it cannot be treated as as permanent.  Nirvana is supposed to be the ultimate realization of this. I am aware that it is only possible from the human "realm"
If you are interested in buddhism, and the core teachings common in all sects go to www.buddhanet.net 



			
				heretic888 said:
			
		

> To give a short answer, my guess would be because the Zen roshi doesn't actually care if you "believe in" the Buddha or not. He cares if you actually understand what he's trying to teach you.


my thoughts exactly

to flatlander



			
				flatlander said:
			
		

> The problem is, you cannot refer to what caused the creation of the universe. There is no space-time at that point. Any reference is completely nonsensical. We haven't an appropriate reference frame.





			
				flatlander said:
			
		

> I know. It's the same paradox as wave/particle, matter/energy, local/nonlocal particle communication, mind/body dualities. In fact, I see big bang and black hole in much the same light.:rofl:
> 
> Seriously, I think they are different manifestations of the same event.


very interesting, food for thought


----------



## heretic888 (Jul 14, 2004)

> The illusions you are referring to are illusions because of the constantly changing nature of the universe and that it cannot be treated as as permanent. Nirvana is supposed to be the ultimate realization of this.



Well, it goes beyond that --- the realm of samsara actually is viewed as illusory.

Some scholars and writers have portrayed Buddhism as teaching some kind of "intellectual holism" over a mere "atomism" --- that all nirvana was was Buddha realizing how everything exists in intermeshed systems and webs and whatever metaphor those types like to use nowadays.

Nah, sorry. Buddhism would say those "webs" and "systems" are illusory, too. This is the basis of the Madhayamika teaching of Shunyata --- everything is ultimately empty, void.

I think a closer Buddhist answer would be: "the actual 'nature' of the Universe is neither permanence, nor impermanence --- but shunyata."

Of course, once again.... "No think, stupid." *THWACK!*


----------



## Scout_379 (Jul 14, 2004)

I'm still learning the stuff so bear with me. I'm not exactly fluent with the buddhist teachings as yet, and have alot to learn.  You obviously have more experience on the topic, it would be idiotic of me to argue.  But can we get back to the topic at hand?


----------



## heretic888 (Jul 14, 2004)

> But can we get back to the topic at hand?



The topic being whether there is "scientific proof" of a God, Supreme Being, or Big Boom Bah in the aforementioned article.....

I'd say: nah. No how, no way, are we gonna find the Ultimate Answers by tinkering with quanta and black holes. Now, don't get me wrong, that stuff is interesting as hell and can assuredly complement our knowledge of the Kosmos...

But, at the end of the day, studying dirt will tell me about dirt. It won't tell me about God or Tao or Buddha or Brahman or Gaia or whatever (even if we provisionally accept that that dirt is a manifestation, expression, or emanation of Godhead). 

The "Tao of Physics" is interesting, its provocative, its even indicative --- but its also, at its very best, little more than indirect, circumstantial "evidence" for God's existence. That's not proof by any scientific criteria.

If you wanna know "God" or "Buddha", then you know what you gotta do. And its not study math, examine microscopes, or read about social systems. As before, different truths have different validity claims, and different validity claims are tested through different methodologies. Contemplative practice may not tell me how genetic alleles randomly mutate, but it can tell me other stuff --- precisely the kind of stuff the author of that article is trying to figure out. And vice-versa.

Laterz.


----------



## psi_radar (Jul 14, 2004)

There's simply too many variables to make a convincing argument for the scientific existence of god. The only "proof" I've heard of for the existence of god still requires an assumption or element of faith:

Postulation: God, by definition, is a perfect being. To be perfect, something must exist. 

And as many variables the known universe presents, I believe it's too small of a venue to be confirm the existence of an almighty God, or his alias, the Creator of Everything. What's outside our universe? Empty space? Space is still something. Is it infinite or contained? What's outside of that container? Are there other containers like ours? Is there an almighty creator assigned to each of these containers? What's beyond those containers? We might never know.

What does it mean to be god? Can we, or other species evolve into creatures that resemble gods? Could we be fooled to believe other advanced races are god (s)? Could we eventually create our own planets, stars, galaxies? Leave our corporeal bodies behind to become beings comprised solely of ethereal forces? Can we challenge god? Who knows--perhaps we can, if we are able to get past all the human frailties we now possess. Then how will our outlook on the divine change? This is common Sci-Fi fodder--check out Arthur C. Clarke's _Childhood's End _ or _2001, A Space Odyssey_, the awful Star Trek V--and even some classics have a touch of it--such as Milton's Paradise Lost when Satan wished to become God's equal and was cast into hell. 

IMO, if we want to seek the divine, we have to find it within, and be comfortable with what we find, not twist scientific evidence to create a story that spackles the cracks in our faith and belief system.


----------



## Feisty Mouse (Jul 14, 2004)

I think trying to assemble evidence for the existence of God is fine to do, but misses some of the point of various religions, which is they are based on faith.  At a certain point, believers (of whichever system) have to take a leap of faith.  Some people might find this "unscientific".  I think it's part of the beauty of faith and spirituality.  It's a kind of trust in ...something greater than you. 

At the same time, if someone is going to assemble scientific evidence for anything, by all means let us examine it empirically and thoughtfully.  Some people see a divine hand in our existence - others, a probability.  Those are not irreconcilable to me.  But giving probabilities does not, in this case (and to my mind) offer a proof or conclusive evidence. 

It does, however, allow me to reflect on the nature of the universe and how tiny and amazing our planet is.


----------



## Flatlander (Jul 14, 2004)

heretic888 said:
			
		

> Yup. To which the Buddhist reply would be something like: "and that 'event' is samsara itself".


I think that we'll run into difficulty looking at things from this particular reference frame, if we want to stay on topic here.  The potential problems I see to begin with:

- Once one becomes "enlightened" science loses all relevancy,
- Language loses all value, except to help others achieve "enlightenment",
- When all is viewed as "one", what else is there to talk about?

Besides this, reference to this "oneness" doesn't take into account other's definition of god or designer, thereby negating the relevancy of their positions, in terms of being able to discuss the same issues.  In order to stay on thread, I suggest we define God in the context of this discussion as "Creator".  Nothing more, nothing less.  In that way, perhaps we can all be on the same page.


----------



## heretic888 (Jul 14, 2004)

Just want to add a few things...



> The only "proof" I've heard of for the existence of god still requires an assumption or element of faith:
> 
> Postulation: God, by definition, is a perfect being. To be perfect, something must exist.



Not a very persuasive "proof", in my opinion.

My philosophy professor put it like this: Suppose, for a moment, that we wish to envision "the Perfect Date". Someone that is smart, sexy, charming, and ...uhhh... willing. Another quality of this Perfect Date would be that she exists also. However, just because we have a conception of this Perfect Date who, by definition, must exist --- does _not_ mean she's actually out there.

The same thing could be argued for "God".



> I think trying to assemble evidence for the existence of God is fine to do, but misses some of the point of various religions, which is they are based on faith. At a certain point, believers (of whichever system) have to take a leap of faith. Some people might find this "unscientific".



Whoa, watch your generalizations there, Mouse. 

That claim isn't true for ANY religious tradition that I've come across --- although it may be true for the "average believer". At a point in spiritual development, it is said to be a matter of _direct experience_ --- not faith or reasoning. This is just as true of contemplative and mystical Christianity as it is for the Eastern religions. And there are just as many saintly exemplars of this in the West as there are in the East.

I reference within the Christian tradition alone: Origen of Alexandria, St. Clement of Alexandria, St. John of the Cross, St. Catherine of Genoa, Lady Bingen of Hildegard, St. Teresa of Avila, Meister Johannes Eckhart, St. Augustine (to a degree), St. Ignatius of Loyola, St. Dionysius Areopagite, David Boehme, the _Theologica Germanica_, the "authentic" Pauline letters (particularly Galatians and Ephesians), etcetera and so on.

All of the above describe their "belief" in Godhead in very direct and experiential terms --- very reminiscent of the Eastern mystics like Shankara, Nagarjuna, Lady Tsogyal, and Ramanuja. No "mere faith" here.



> Once one becomes "enlightened" science loses all relevancy



Nope, sorry. 

"Enlightenment" is, in fact, acquired through an extremely scientific process: you have the injunction or exemplar (meditative/contemplative practice), the datum or illumination (satori or kensho), and the principle of fallibilism (the supposed "enlightened" must compare and contrast his experiences/datum with those that have also successfully completed the injunctions --- thus the emphasis on community, or sangha, in all the great monastic traditions). The wisdom traditions, at their best, recognize themselves as spiritual sciences, and rightly so. Of course, again, only those that have completed the injunctions will acquire the datum --- as with all good science.

In addition, "enlightenment" --- contrary to what you may have read or heard --- does not make one omniscient. Shunyata tells me about the ultimate nature of the universe --- it doesn't tell me squat about socioeconomic modes of production, genetic engineering, automobile mechanics, quantum physics, or anything of the sort. Scientific injunctions are also used to acquire knowledge of these subjects, but they are of a different sort than the ones used to acquire satori (and each field, similarily, has its own injunctions). Ultimate truth does not automatically confer knowledge of all relative truths --- that is why there is such a dilineation between the two in all the traditions.

So, in either event, in no way is science ever made irrelevant.



> Language loses all value, except to help others achieve "enlightenment"



Well, this part here depends on what you mean by "language".

In any event, in no way does language use "value" in the enlightened state. In fact, everything is regarded as having value in the enlightened state as all things are viewed as radiant emanations of Godhead or Buddha Nature.

The purpose of language is to communicate. This does not change with nirvana.



> When all is viewed as "one", what else is there to talk about?



A lot, actually --- you will note most of the greater historical sages either taught to great numbers and/or wrote extensive treatises. I fail to see what bearing this has on the discussion, though.



> Besides this, reference to this "oneness" doesn't take into account other's definition of god or designer, thereby negating the relevancy of their positions, in terms of being able to discuss the same issues. In order to stay on thread, I suggest we define God in the context of this discussion as "Creator". Nothing more, nothing less. In that way, perhaps we can all be on the same page.



I don't --- namely, because we _won't_ be on the same page.

What you are talking about is an exlcusive position that attempts to privilege particular conceptions of "the divine" --- namely, the Judeo-Christian view of an ontologically separate "Creator". Ken Wilber pointed this out very explicitly in his "The Marriage of Sense and Soul". Namely, that when most people talk of "integrating" religion and science (which is really what this is about), what they really mean by "religion" is _their_ particular religious beliefs.

The only way this could proceed is to go by religious definitions that basically ALL the traditions agree on --- which is _not_ an ontologically separate Creator/Designer.

But... do all the great religious traditions agree on a Divine Mystery that is ultimately unqualifiable, beyond conventional human understanding, and transcendent of all qualifiers?? Well, yeah. Every. Single. One.

So, no, this "oneness" is not excluding others --- it is intimately found in most, if not all, of the wisdom traditions (reference Adlous Huxley's "The Perennial Philosophy" and Huston Smith's "The Forgotten Truth"). The Creator concept, however, is very excluding to everyone that's not of the Judeo-Christian persuasion.

Laterz.


----------



## Flatlander (Jul 14, 2004)

I'm pretty sure I'm understanding your view here, so bear with me.



			
				heretic888 said:
			
		

> "Enlightenment" is, in fact, acquired through an extremely scientific process: you have the injunction or exemplar (meditative/contemplative practice), the datum or illumination (satori or kensho), and the principle of fallibilism (the supposed "enlightened" must compare and contrast his experiences/datum with those that have also successfully completed the injunctions --- thus the emphasis on community, or sangha, in all the great monastic traditions). The wisdom traditions, at their best, recognize themselves as spiritual sciences, and rightly so. Of course, again, only those that have completed the injunctions will acquire the datum --- as with all good science.


For me, the jury is still out on whether or not the answers revealed are the result of scientific inquiry when meditating contemplatively.  I haven't been successful with this, and so cannot responsibly comment.

What I meant was, once "enlightenment" had occurred, my understanding was that now, the quest was over, the true nature of the universe was revealed, thus the scientific method was no longer needed in order to reveal the answers.



> The purpose of language is to communicate. This does not change with nirvana.


I understand that.  But the usefulness of language can really only be to help others realize their own buddha nature, thus, no unnecessary conversation.  Debate on other topics has no right purpose.



> So, no, this "oneness" is not excluding others --- it is intimately found in most, if not all, of the wisdom traditions (reference Adlous Huxley's "The Perennial Philosophy" and Huston Smith's "The Forgotten Truth").


 I agree wholeheartedly.



> The Creator concept, however, is very excluding to everyone that's not of the Judeo-Christian persuasion.


If the universe exists within consciousness, which I believe to be the Buddhist viewpoint, then couldn't it be argued that some part of that consciousness creates the universe?  Therefore, Buddhists can have a creator too.  All this rolled up into One.


----------



## heretic888 (Jul 14, 2004)

> For me, the jury is still out on whether or not the answers revealed are the result of scientific inquiry when meditating contemplatively. I haven't been successful with this, and so cannot responsibly comment.



The three strands I listed above (injunction, datum, fallibilism) are the only required components of good science. And, they are applied to a number of fields --- everything from logic to mathematics to biology to psychology to meditation --- not all of which, obviously, are exclusively sensorimotor (or "objective") in orientation. 

Why do you think there is such a strong emphasis on communal checking in the wisdom traditions?? Of the sangha in Buddhism?? Of the 'koan battles' in Zen?? Of communal solidarity in the various monastic traditions?? This is the principle of fallibilism, of communal validation, at work.



> What I meant was, once "enlightenment" had occurred, my understanding was that now, the quest was over, the true nature of the universe was revealed, thus the scientific method was no longer needed in order to reveal the answers.



Well, there are also "post-Enlightenment" stages in the various traditions --- particularly emphasized in Vajrayana.

In any event, as I said before, absolute truth does not confer relative truth. Just because you now "know the true nature of the universe", doesn't mean you know how to drive a car or track the stock market. 

There is plenty of room for both, in my opinion.



> I understand that. But the usefulness of language can really only be to help others realize their own buddha nature, thus, no unnecessary conversation. Debate on other topics has no right purpose.



Actually, according to the Nondual traditions, all discussions (like all phenomena) are themselves Buddha Nature in its totality. Therefore, it wouldn't be entirely... "right" to say they have no "right purpose".



> If the universe exists within consciousness, which I believe to be the Buddhist viewpoint, then couldn't it be argued that some part of that consciousness creates the universe? Therefore, Buddhists can have a creator too. All this rolled up into One.



Well, the Buddhist view would say that the universe was not "created" since its true nature is Shunyata, Void. That which was born cannot die -- and this is the meaning of "immortality".

In any event, the conception of the divine as an "ineffable Mystery" is much more universalistic than any Creator/Designer concept.

Laterz.


----------



## Feisty Mouse (Jul 14, 2004)

> Quote:
> I think trying to assemble evidence for the existence of God is fine to do, but misses some of the point of various religions, which is they are based on faith. At a certain point, believers (of whichever system) have to take a leap of faith. Some people might find this "unscientific".
> 
> Whoa, watch your generalizations there, Mouse.
> ...


 Hey there, heretic.  Point taken - it is true that the Fathers and Mothers of the Church, saints, and so forth, did have direct experiences.  (I'm speaking from an Eastern Orthodox point of view.)  My generalization should be applied, perhaps, to the remainder of believers - those who believe because of someone else's experience.  But each person DOES have a personal experience with their faith.  I think, perhaps, a leap of faith (along with my own personal experiences) must be taken for someone like myself - who tries to live in both worlds (which is really one world), of Religion and Science.


----------



## RandomPhantom700 (Jul 14, 2004)

heretic888 said:
			
		

> No offense, Random, but those complaints are about as valid as someone at a pre-operational mode of cognition complaining he has to "learn logic" to figure out the Pythagorean Theorem. There are certain methodologies used to acquire certain truths --- and no one "way" or "method" is going to tell you everything about everything. That's just the way it is.


To quote Berty, "Please read what I wrote". I wasn't really arguing the point of whether meditation is the only way of coming to an understanding or knowledge of the divine--I am personally wary of that claim, but can't really say anything about it. What I was taking issue with was your claim that those who attempt to use logic or faith to address the divine are only doing so out of fear of meditation. Whether or not someone's intellectual argument for or against God's existence is viable or not, it's still being written as a sincere claim, and not just a Freudian avoidance tactic. Sorry, but I must make another comparison to fundamentalist arguments--"He knows the truth of the Bible, but he denies it, because he doesn't want to acknowledge his sin" (paraphrase). 

Again, maybe meditation is the only way to understand God, or Budha, or the great Cheese in the Sky, I really don't know. I just don't agree that every person who writes an argument about God's existence is doing so out of fear or denial. 





> Who says both explanations are not equally justified??


You have in the past, though not in this thread.


----------



## heretic888 (Jul 15, 2004)

> Hey there, heretic. Point taken - it is true that the Fathers and Mothers of the Church, saints, and so forth, did have direct experiences. (I'm speaking from an Eastern Orthodox point of view.) My generalization should be applied, perhaps, to the remainder of believers - those who believe because of someone else's experience.



Yes, this is one of the general understandings in Buddhism, as well --- that the student is to have faith in the teachings and experiences of his or her predecessors and teachers. Of course, one is to balance this with a healthy dose of skepticism (something I see all-to-lacking in most, but not all, of the Judeo-Christian religious strands). There seems to be an understanding of balancing between what you might call "blind faith" (in which you unquestioningly accept whatever you are told) and "blind cynicism" (in which you unquestioningly reject or deny whatever you are told). The Middle Way, I suppose. 

Come to think of it, that kind of attitude seems to have many parallels in martial arts study as well, neh??  :asian:

Of course, as I pointed out above, there are ways to somewhat "scientifically" confirm the experiences and insights of one's predecessors --- namely, through communal checking and so forth (of those that have completed the actual injunctions, not just anybody that feels like passing judgment). But ultimately, when this is bereft of _personal_ experience and observation, then it all comes down to faith (to a degree) --- as all good science does.

But, as before, faith isn't always blind. 



> But each person DOES have a personal experience with their faith.



I think each person has experiences of some variety, that they then use to justify or validate their beliefs --- and this is not just limited to religion. I'm not so sure that all, or even most, of these experiences are anything even vaguely similar to the accounts of the saintly exemplars I listed above.



> I think, perhaps, a leap of faith (along with my own personal experiences) must be taken for someone like myself - who tries to live in both worlds (which is really one world), of Religion and Science.



Well, when we are lacking direct personal observation or experience of a phenomena, then there is always an element of "faith" involved. This goes for science, as well. This isn't a bad thing, its just part of the limitations of human knowledge.

This is why, namely, there is such an emphasis on communal checking, fallibilism, and so forth within the scientific method --- so that personal observations can be put to the test of those that have also completed the proper injunctions or exemplars (i.e., if you want to know microbiology, you have to look through the microscope --- if you want to know the Divine, you have to meditate). That is also why there is an emphasis on communal validation within the contemplative traditions, as well.

Both blind faith and blind cynicism are unhealthy options that we wish to avoid.

Laterz.


----------



## heretic888 (Jul 15, 2004)

> What I was taking issue with was your claim that those who attempt to use logic or faith to address the divine are only doing so out of fear of meditation. Whether or not someone's intellectual argument for or against God's existence is viable or not, it's still being written as a sincere claim, and not just a Freudian avoidance tactic.



Its not a Freudian avoidance tactic as much as it is a samsaric avoidance tactic.

The fear I spoke of is of the separate-self sense's utter terror at what is actually involved to "know God". To come to the realizations we've been talking about, it is necessary for the separate-self, the ego, to literally and unavoidably _die_ to its exclusive identification --- and that is what is to mind-boggingly terrified to most (including myself). 

This is why, when people's personal beliefs are questioned, they often react in a very aggressive, sometimes violent fashion. Personal beliefs are the life-support system of the separate-self --- and when that support system is endangered, the self literally experiences a death-threat.

Instead of doing what is necessary --- transcending the narrow separate-self indentification altogether, changing the mapmaker --- it is so much easier to just come to a new idea, a new paragidm and claim this paradigm is what will "save us", "prove God's existence", or "take us to the Divine". It is so much easier to just switch maps around.

In "Up From Eden", Ken Wilber called these attempts to avoid the Nondual "immortality substitutes" --- instead of directly witnessing the Real, it is much easier to confer various substitute projects and claim these are what confers immortality --- whether its money, culture, 'reason', or that golden cow idol in your backyard.

Freud himself called this fear of self-death _thanatos_ --- although he used in a slightly different context. But, it should be remembered that none of this is necessarily "Freudian" in orientation --- as opposed to karmic.



> Sorry, but I must make another comparison to fundamentalist arguments--"He knows the truth of the Bible, but he denies it, because he doesn't want to acknowledge his sin" (paraphrase).



There are innumerable differences I could draw between the two --- the ethnocentric orientation of the fundamentalist juxtaposed to the pan-centric orientation of the Bodhisattva, the communal checking and fallibilism of the contemplative tradition juxtaposed to those that rely on nothing than mere "belief", the emphasis on healthy skepticism in Buddhism juxtaposed to the unhealthy emphasis on blind faith, the emphasis on direct experience of the noumenal Realities as opposed to mere intellectual agreement with my babblings --- but, really, what's the point??

Laterz.


----------



## rmcrobertson (Jul 15, 2004)

Freud did not at any time call the, "fear of self-death," thanatos. 

The term, "thanatos," in Freud, refers to what he called, "the death drive," a basic and fundamental drive towards oblivion, and back towards the womb. Its most-famous manifestation in Freud's work comes via the urge to repeat, the "repetition compulsion." 

Freud would have identified "enlightenment," in the sense being discussed here, as one of those, "oceanic," feelings he associated with an attempt to recover/to repeat the developmental stage of primary narcissism.

The basic death drive--thanatos--in Freud's arguments, is counterbalanced by a "life drive," eros. Both of these appear to trace back to Freud's account of basic neural physiology: the accumulation and discharge of energy, discussed in his, "Project for A Scientific Psychology," among other places.


----------



## PeachMonkey (Jul 16, 2004)

heretic888 said:
			
		

> Its not a Freudian avoidance tactic as much as it is a samsaric avoidance tactic.


 I don't buy this either, heretic.

 A key assumption behind these arguments appears to be that the skeptic either fears to, or chooses not to, "experience" spirituality in order to analyze it.

 I *have* experienced spirituality.  During a time in my life when I frequented the worship of a popular skygod, I even found myself having a "personal religious experience".

 Later on, when I realized that I had similar experiences during periods spent experimenting with other religions, as well as during meditation, extreme physical activity, and even mind-blowing sex, it occurred to me that perhaps feeling "in touch with a skygod" or "at one with the Universe" or "enlightened" might all be a smiliar, organically based yummy feeling, and had little to do with the particular reality proposed by any one sect or group, I began to walk the path of the skeptic.


----------



## heretic888 (Jul 19, 2004)

> Freud did not at any time call the, "fear of self-death," thanatos.
> 
> The term, "thanatos," in Freud, refers to what he called, "the death drive," a basic and fundamental drive towards oblivion, and back towards the womb. Its most-famous manifestation in Freud's work comes via the urge to repeat, the "repetition compulsion."



Which is why, you'll note, that I said "he used [it] in a slightly different context". 

In my opinion, these two drives ("fear of self-death" and a regressive "death drive") are very similar, if not the same. It is a tendency to not "move forward". The actual truth is that there is not just one "self-death", but several --- each time one reaches a new "plateau" of ego-development, the "self" of the previous stage is (in a sense) put to "death". This culminates in nondual Enlightenment, in which all "selves" have effectively "died".

Thanatos is the drive to stay were you are --- or, at its worst, regress to a previous stage. Eros is the drive to reach the next stage.



> A key assumption behind these arguments appears to be that the skeptic either fears to, or chooses not to, "experience" spirituality in order to analyze it.
> 
> I *have* experienced spirituality. During a time in my life when I frequented the worship of a popular skygod, I even found myself having a "personal religious experience".



"Experiencing" something is not the same as living from it.

Even a convicted killer can "experience" moments of intense compassion --- that doesn't mean he's living up to any kind of moral certitude. There has been some research done into so-called "peak experiences" or "altered states", and it indicates that most people end up having one at least sometime in their life. Thus, by no means are they that rare.

Thusly, temporarily "experiencing" something akin to "ego-death" is not equivalent to Enlightenment. It is a transitory experience, one has not fundamentally changed, and thanatos is still there grinning you in the face. It may be extremely significant or moving (and often is), but it does not presume an actual change in consciousness-identity or cognition.



> Later on, when I realized that I had similar experiences during periods spent experimenting with other religions, as well as during meditation, extreme physical activity, and even mind-blowing sex, it occurred to me that perhaps feeling "in touch with a skygod" or "at one with the Universe" or "enlightened" might all be a smiliar, organically based yummy feeling, and had little to do with the particular reality proposed by any one sect or group, I began to walk the path of the skeptic.



Yes, that is a very valid interpretation of "peak experiences" from a rationalist-skeptic level of identification --- just as experiences of being "born again" are a valid interpretation of peak experiences from the previous mythic-membership level of indentification. But, again, transitory experiences are not changes in one's consciousness structures.

Also, again, research has been done into both "peak experiences" and "higher levels of consciousness" (I would suggest Jenny Wade's and Michael Murphy's work on the subject) --- not to mention older philosophical works, like Adlous Huxley's "The Perennial Philosophy" or Huston Smith's "The Forgotten Truth" (more recent). Cross-cultural galore, but not an "organic yummy feeling" (although, contrary to what the traditional religonists claimed, it does have a very objective grounding in concrete correlates in the brain/organism).

Laterz.


----------



## PeachMonkey (Jul 19, 2004)

heretic888 said:
			
		

> "Experiencing" something is not the same as living from it.


 I never claimed to have become "enlightened".  Experiences of the "ego-death" kind, as you have chosen to label them, simply are not enough to convince me that any particular religious path exists outside of the minds of its practitioners.  Thus the leap of faith required to buy into them, and my skepticism about performing it.



			
				heretic888 said:
			
		

> But, again, transitory experiences are not changes in one's consciousness structures.


 Even an assumption that these changes take place does not alter my skepticism towards religion, nor does it change the fact that some sort of non-intellectual leap is required to adhere to them.  One can perform work to alter one's mind to operate at a higher level and still not believe in invisible skygods, yes?


----------



## heretic888 (Jul 19, 2004)

> I never claimed to have become "enlightened". Experiences of the "ego-death" kind, as you have chosen to label them, simply are not enough to convince me that any particular religious path exists outside of the minds of its practitioners. Thus the leap of faith required to buy into them, and my skepticism about performing it.



Once again, there is a difference between "experiences" and a new state of cognitive functioning. Its basically akin to someone at, say, the pre-operational mode of cognition temporarily "peaking" to a type of formal-rational logic. The person at preop is going to have a VERY different understanding, interpretation, and analysis of formal-rationalism than someone who actually lives by that stage (which is probably why many very valid spiritual experiences end up producing so many cultish nutbars). Likewise, someone at a formal-rational or even post-formal network-logic mode of functioning (and I include myself among these) would have a VERY different interpretation of a "peak" into nondual states than someone at the nondual stage would himself. 

If peak experiences were enough to convince people of so-and-so religion's validity, then there would be no atheists in the world. Peak experiences, as before, are really not that rare. I've had them, you've had them, and probably most of the other posters on here have had one or more, as well.

There is, again, research into the subject --- of both peak experiences and higher states of consciousness. Much of the data is cross-cultural and indicates experiences beyond "the minds of a particular religion". Although, really, this is just second-hand (but interesting) information. 

Ultimately, if you wanna experience it, you have engage the practice.



> Even an assumption that these changes take place does not alter my skepticism towards religion, nor does it change the fact that some sort of non-intellectual leap is required to adhere to them.



This "assumption", as you put it, is grounded in research and evidence. Please look into the references I provided earlier. I could probably scrounge up some specific stats in a day or two, as well.



> One can perform work to alter one's mind to operate at a higher level and still not believe in invisible skygods, yes?



Sure, but "believing in invisible skygods" isn't really the point.

The hallmark of each cognitive stage is the functional substance and reasoning underlying it --- not the particular form and content, which is often culturally relative anyway. Some "rational-skeptics" are atheists, some are agnostic, and some are even deist (believing in a "God of Reason"). All three would employ the same kind and substance of cognition to come to their beliefs.

Its not the form, its the substance. Form is usually culturally relative, substance is cross-cultural.

Laterz.


----------



## PeachMonkey (Jul 19, 2004)

heretic888 said:
			
		

> This "assumption", as you put it, is grounded in research and evidence. Please look into the references I provided earlier. I could probably scrounge up some specific stats in a day or two, as well.


 The "assumption" I alluded to is my own, as I have not yet read the references you provided, and I am in no position to dispute your points. Moreover, since you've shown no tendency to deliberately misconstrue issues, I felt it to be courteous to concede the existence of these "enlightened states" for the sake of discussion. I'm sorry if I implied otherwise.



			
				heretic888 said:
			
		

> Sure, but "believing in invisible skygods" isn't really the point.


 Actually, it is. Feisty Mouse said that followers of religious beliefs have to rely on faith. You said that scholars of Eastern and Western mysticism discuss, and even demonstrate scientifically, "actual experience", making leaps of faith unneccessary.

 I'm willing to assume that experimentation and practice can lead to cognitive changes, even improvements, that we'll refer to as "enlightenment" for short. 

 However, any assignment of these states of mind to any particular mystical practice can be based on culture, fear, or a "leap of faith", but has nothing to do with science.


----------



## RandomPhantom700 (Jul 19, 2004)

Heretic:

Just a quick question.  These "peak experiences" that you claim most, if not all, people have experienced at least once during their lives: wouldn't they have to recognize them as such in order for it to be confirmed that they've had one?  Unless, of course, the researchers you cite simply show how all humans will inevitably have such an experience, thereby enabling them to avoid any empirical research..  Basically, I'm curious as to how they are able to claim that everyone's had them, because I personally have never gone through any such experience.  Then again, I still have another 60 years to go, hopefully.


----------



## heretic888 (Jul 19, 2004)

> The "assumption" I alluded to is my own, as I have not yet read the references you provided, and I am in no position to dispute your points. Moreover, since you've shown no tendency to deliberately misconstrue issues, I felt it to be courteous to concede the existence of these "enlightened states" for the sake of discussion. I'm sorry if I implied otherwise.



Ah, must have been my mistake.  :asian: 



> Actually, it is. Feisty Mouse said that followers of religious beliefs have to rely on faith. You said that scholars of Eastern and Western mysticism discuss, and even demonstrate scientifically, "actual experience", making leaps of faith unneccessary.



Ah, well, the point I was trying to make in the blurb you quoted was that the defining feature of each cognitive stage or level was not its specific content, so much as the deep features and "substance" underlying it. I was not, at that point, trying to demonstrate the "science" of meditative practice.

But, since you brought it up, the question of "leaps of faith" is dependent on whom we are asking the question to. For the meditative experimenters themselves, there is no question of "faith" at all --- it is direct, obvious experience to them. But, for those not engaged in the contemplative injunctions themselves, then an element of faith is involved --- faith in validity of the teachings, and faith in the experiences of one's predecessors.

Of course, a cross-cultural analysis of contemplative traditions can help cement and validate this "faith". It is still faith, mind you, as it is not something you have directly observed --- but, its a faith grounded in scientific method (much as, say, I have faith in the universalism of biologic evolution even though I have never observed the process myself).



> However, any assignment of these states of mind to any particular mystical practice can be based on culture, fear, or a "leap of faith", but has nothing to do with science.



*shrugs* Depends on your definition of "science". It is quite scientific by the criteria I established above (injunction, datum, fallibilism). If you have a different definition (i.e., only things we can objectively observe from the outside are "scientific", thus relegating most psychology and mathematics to the realm of speculation), then that is yours.

You are quite correct that the assignment of particular changs in consciousness to these practices _can_ can be based on culture, fear, or faith --- which is why we must employ the principle of fallibilism. The only way to test whether these practices produce the results in question is to engage them ourselves, and communally validate our results with others that have likewise engaged the injunction. 

Mere "can be's" and "may be's" are not valid grounds for dismissing the scientific basis of any practice. If they were, then I could dismiss the Theory of Evolution based on the fact that it can (but not necessarily) will be based on racist presuppositions (which it often is), a la Social Darwinism. The actual truth, however, is that one must engage the biological injunctions (to put it very simply) to test evolution's validity --- and not simply speculate its validity from a detached and unengaged position.

I am simply reporting the _overwhelming_ consensus of those that have engaged the meditative exemplars, in virtually every culture we have access to (not just them wacky Easterners here). If you disagree as to the effects of meditation, then you had better have a pretty good reason as to why you --- who may or may not practice meditation --- are right, whereas those that do are wrong.

Its basically akin to the Church leaders of Galileo's time dismissing his claims, even though they had never bothered to look through the microscope. If you don't engage the injunction, you won't acquire the datum.

All of the above seems quite "scientific" to me. Then again, I could be wrong.

Laterz.


----------



## heretic888 (Jul 19, 2004)

> Just a quick question. These "peak experiences" that you claim most, if not all, people have experienced at least once during their lives: wouldn't they have to recognize them as such in order for it to be confirmed that they've had one? Unless, of course, the researchers you cite simply show how all humans will inevitably have such an experience, thereby enabling them to avoid any empirical research.. Basically, I'm curious as to how they are able to claim that everyone's had them, because I personally have never gone through any such experience. Then again, I still have another 60 years to go, hopefully.



If I recall the stats correctly, research indicates about 74% of all adults have had a peak experience at some point in their life (which isn't always "spiritual" --- it could simply be a "peek" at very sophisticated reasoning like network-logic). Most of these manifest as "eurekas!" and so forth.

As to your question, no they wouldn't have to "recognize" them as such. That is not how phenemonology works. They merely report the content of their experience, not the interpretation they affix onto the experience at a later time (although, as hermeneutics shows us, this isn't as clear-cut as we would like).

As to yourself, it is indeed quite possible that you had a peak experience --- but later dismissed it as something like a "hallucination", "daydream", or "wild imagination" to preserve your sense of self-continuity. I would suspect that most peak experiencers (myself included) resort to this.

Laterz.


----------



## Flatlander (Jul 19, 2004)

heretic888 said:
			
		

> *shrugs* Depends on your definition of "science". It is quite scientific by the criteria I established above (injunction, datum, fallibilism). If you have a different definition (i.e., only things we can objectively observe from the outside are "scientific", thus relegating most psychology and mathematics to the realm of speculation), then that is yours.


I think that my definition of science includes a clear delineation between objectivity and subjectivity. I do not believe that mathematics can be equated with psychology in this context. As well, the direct mystical experiences you refer to are highly subjective. When I do a mathematical calculation for you, you can witness the result of that, and show it to someone else. Your trancedence does not posess this quality.

Similarily, there needs to be an element of consistent repeatablity. Mathematics logically follows all the time. Psychology does not - there tends to be too many aberrations. Again, there is no way for you to provide a rigorous proof of your experience. The best you can do is offer me your word. To me, there is no science there.


----------



## PeachMonkey (Jul 19, 2004)

heretic888 said:
			
		

> I am simply reporting the _overwhelming_ consensus of those that have engaged the meditative exemplars, in virtually every culture we have access to (not just them wacky Easterners here). If you disagree as to the effects of meditation, then you had better have a pretty good reason as to why you --- who may or may not practice meditation --- are right, whereas those that do are wrong.


 I am still not making myself very clear, here.  I'm not disputing the meditative process, or the possibility that it can lead to "enlightenment".

 What I dispute is that said "enlightment" therefore scientifically proves whatever particular religion that said meditator pursues.  The "leap" goes from "people who practice meditation tend to have this set of responses" to "I have now communed with a skygod/a pantheon of skygods/the earth spirit/etc".  There is *nothing* scientific about the last leap.


----------



## heretic888 (Jul 20, 2004)

> I think that my definition of science includes a clear delineation between objectivity and subjectivity. I do not believe that mathematics can be equated with psychology in this context. As well, the direct mystical experiences you refer to are highly subjective.



Mathematics are also highly subjective. Notions such as a "perfect square" (as in the geometrical shape), the Pythagorean Theorem, the square root of negative 2, and a unreal number exist only within the subjective domain (i.e., your mind, dummy). Sure, they can be pragmatically applied to the "objective" world --- but so can psychology and meditation.

Besides, the entire rigid delination between "objective" and "subjective" is kind of archaic, anyway. For every subjective occassion, there are objective correlates in the organic brain. Thus, they arise spontaneously. For every objective observation, there are subjective qualifiers, filters, and background contexts that give it shape (i.e., we'd never develop the theories of quantum physics if our very intersubjective language didn't give us a way to express and understand those theories). Thus, again, they arise spontaneously.

Besides, according to the mentality in the quote above, then the theories of all sciences themselves are not themselves "scientific". They are just ideas in the minds of humans, and cannot be objectively "seen" directly. A theory has neither matter nor energy --- and yet, all of us sure seem confident that evolution exists (errr... most of us, anyway).



> When I do a mathematical calculation for you, you can witness the result of that, and show it to someone else. Your trancedence does not posess this quality.



Errr..... sorry, but not quite.

The _only way_ I can "witness the result" of a mathematical calculation is if I engage the mathematical injunction or paradigm (so to speak) and acquire the necessary datum for myself. If I do not do this, then I am basically just going on your word that your results are valid. This, again, is "faith".

This is where the principle of Popperian fallibilism comes into play. Mathematical formulations, like all properly scientific phenomena, must be tested communally by a group of the adequate --- meaning, those that have similarly engaged in the mathematical injunction (i.e., if you're gonna tell Galileo he is wrong, you had better look through the damn telescope and see for yourself).

What does all this mean?? It means, that if I am going to test the results of your mathematical formulations, I have to engage a similar injunction and see which particular mathematical datum I come up with. This is the basis of communal falsifiability --- for, in that instance, I myself become one of the "adequate" (i.e., those adequately qualified to make a judgment about your datum/results). Then, and _only then_ can the results of any mathematical formulation ever be "witnessed".

All of the above holds true for contemplative practice, as well --- even if you don't particularly like the answer (my guess is because it really puts kinks in the armor of the science/religion dilineation). 

To test the results of any meditator's claims, one has to become one of the "adequate" --- meaning, you have to engage the meditative injunction, and see if you acquire similar results (you may, in fact, acquire completely different results which would invalidate the meditator's claims, or at least put them into question). Furthemore, you would have to then communally "check" your datum with those that have also engaged in the particular injunction (and, remember, there are different "types" of meditation).

Whether it is meditation or mathematics --- the ONLY WAY to test any claim is to engage the injunction for oneself, and then to communally check your results with others that have done likewise. I can't just "show you" the results if you haven't engaged the practice, the injunction, the paradigm --- it just doesn't work that way.

If I were to venture a guess, my intuition why many people don't like this "meditation is science" answer is because it requires YEARS of discipline and hard work to validate the results of meditators --- something not to appealable in the microwavable, quick 'n' easy, fix-em-up-in-a-jiffy, commercial West. Actually, that could go for the "science" of martial arts, too. Hrmm....

.... I mean, sure, you could be referring to the "practical applications" of mathematics --- but, so what?? There are "practical applications" of meditation, as well. In either event, it doesn't "prove" that the claims made in the name of their respective theories are true, only that they can be beneficially implemented by humans (i.e., idealism versus pragmatism).

Laterz.  :asian:


----------



## heretic888 (Jul 20, 2004)

> What I dispute is that said "enlightment" therefore scientifically proves whatever particular religion that said meditator pursues.



Whoa, whoa....  I never said it "proves" that religion. I only said that the ONLY WAY to test the claims of a meditator is to engage the injunction and see the results for oneself. If there is no injunction to engage, if the claim cannot be possibly falsified, then you know that you are in the presence of _dogma_.

Now, you are free to dispute the claims of that meditator all you want --- but, if you don't engage in the injunction and test their results for yourself, then you're really just doing it out of blind faith (i.e., more dogma). Not all that different from the Church leaders that denied Galileo's claims, yet refused to look through the telescope.

Of course, then again.... "I don't know" is a perfectly valid answer, as well.



> The "leap" goes from "people who practice meditation tend to have this set of responses" to "I have now communed with a skygod/a pantheon of skygods/the earth spirit/etc". There is *nothing* scientific about the last leap.



Sure there is. You just may not particularly like their response.

Again, the ONLY WAY to test what you are saying is to engage the particular meditative practices/injunctions/paradigms/exemplars that they have, and aquire the datum/illuminations/results for yourself. Then, you must communally check your datum with others that have performed the injunction --- is it similar?? Is it different?? If so, how is it different?? I'm not talking about the interpretation you give to the datum, but the phenomenological report of the datum itself. This is what is liable to Popperian fallibilism.

All of the above is pure science, even if you don't particularly like it.

Of course, barring that, you could go for a more hermeuntical account and go at the actual _interpretations_ of meditators themselves. This doesn't require meditation, per se. But, instead, you collate the claims and phenomenological data of various meditators and contemplative practitioners in various cultures, and test them against one another. Do we see any common threads?? Any commanalities at all?? What are their differences, if any??

That would actually make a pretty interesting paper, now that I think of it....

In any event, there is plenty of scientific method to go around --- you just have to realize the difference between phenomenology (i.e., the direct experience itself) and hermeneutics (i.e., the interpretation given to the experience). Both are an equally important part of the puzzle.

Laterz.


----------



## michaeledward (Jul 20, 2004)

As an athiest, I was really trying to stay out of this discussion. I have read some of the posts, but not all of them. But, I am going to throw in my two pennies anyhow.



			
				heretic888 said:
			
		

> Mathematics are also highly subjective.


You're kidding, right. While there are some areas of mathematics that still are in the outer boundaries of theory, most of this information is pretty concrete (if you don't want to call it 'Objective', more power to you).

Prime numbers can not be divided by any whole number other than 1 or itself. There is nothing subective about it.



			
				heretic888 said:
			
		

> Again, the ONLY WAY to test what you are saying is to engage the particular meditative practices/injunctions/paradigms/exemplars that they have, and aquire the datum/illuminations/results for yourself.


And if I engage in the particular meditative practices / injunctions / paradigms / exemplars, am I going to have the same experience as they have? Can we construct an experiment to test this theory? Can we replicate the results of this experiment? Can we codify our results and submit them to a peer-reviewed journal?

While I agree, that from the outside, it is difficult to understand what is going on inside, I came to my athiesm through the church, and evangelical experiences.

Mike


----------



## heretic888 (Jul 20, 2004)

> You're kidding, right. While there are some areas of mathematics that still are in the outer boundaries of theory, most of this information is pretty concrete (if you don't want to call it 'Objective', more power to you).
> 
> Prime numbers can not be divided by any whole number other than 1 or itself. There is nothing subective about it.



"Concrete" is not a synonym for "objective". Many subjective phenomena/observations are also quite "concrete" and generally unquestioned.

In any event, I presented a list of mathematical elements that do not objectively exist "out there" --- meaning, I can not "point to" them with one of the five physical senses or their extensions (i.e., miscroscope, telescope, etc).

This includes the Pythagorean Theorem (all theories and hypotheses actually, since they're really just ideas), nonreal numbers, the square root of negative 2, a "perfect square" or "perfect right triangle" (a purely abstract concept), and so on. Actually, most of the more "heady" mathematics that lay the foundation of physics are asbtractions with little, if any, objective basis (although, again, they may be objectively applied in a pragmatic fashion).

All of those are completely subjective phenomena (although they may have objective correlations in the physical organism, as well as practical applications in the "real world").



> And if I engage in the particular meditative practices / injunctions / paradigms / exemplars, am I going to have the same experience as they have?



Phenomenologically speaking, one should --- this is where we would apply the Popperian principle of fallibilism (ie., see if it is really case of "if you do this, then you will get this"). Remember, however, that we are referring to the "immediate" phenomenological experience itself and not the hermeneutic interpretation an individual may have of it.



> Can we construct an experiment to test this theory?



You could, most definately --- in one of two ways.

One) You collect a group of individuals and have them actively engage in a particular meditative practice said to yield particualr results over an extended period of time. Collate the phenomenological reports of each individual, and contrast them against one another. See if there are any commonalities with the traditional reports of what said meditative injunction is supposed to unveal.

Two) You could engage in the particular meditative injunction yourself, and create a journal of your phenomenological experiences. Then, compare these results with the traditional accounts of that meditation.

In either event, it would take several years and much hard work/discipline to complete the experiment --- which is probably the _real_ reason it's not likely to be taken seriously. No microwavable pop 'n' fresh here.



> Can we codify our results and submit them to a peer-reviewed journal?



Certainly. Of course, this "peer-reviewed journal" would technically have to consist of fellow meditators. Or else, they wouldn't actually be "peers" (i.e., those involved in the same or similar injunctions).



> While I agree, that from the outside, it is difficult to understand what is going on inside, I came to my athiesm through the church, and evangelical experiences.



See. That's a good example of fallibilism at work on an individual level. Of course, it would require communal checking to be truly valid.

Laterz.


----------



## RandomPhantom700 (Jul 21, 2004)

heretic888 said:
			
		

> Phenomenologically speaking, one should --- this is where we would apply the Popperian principle of fallibilism (ie., see if it is really case of "if you do this, then you will get this"). Remember, however, that we are referring to the "immediate" phenomenological experience itself and not the hermeneutic interpretation an individual may have of it.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


And how, in these studies, are we supposed to separate the phenomenological experience from the individual's interpretation? I believe this is a main contention point between you and michaeledward. Let's say you got 300 people to sit in a room, assume whatever Smoking Lotus position is needed, meditate for a while, and then relate their "experiences". All we would have to go by is their own subjective interpretation. There would be no measurements, or graphs, or external logic, or any type of objective means of relation--only their own subjective experience. I really can't see how the experimenter is supposed to separate the phenomenological "what's going on in his/her head" from the ego-interpretational "what's going on in his/her head" (my apologies for the improvised terminology). In short, what would be there to prove that it's not all just interpretation and that, in fact, there is no universal phenomenon occurring?


----------



## heretic888 (Jul 21, 2004)

> And how, in these studies, are we supposed to separate the phenomenological experience from the individual's interpretation?



Well, ultimately, they cannot be _completely_ separated --- there is always going to be some degree of overlap between the two (just as, for example, there will always be some degree of subjective filtration or interpretation in the natural sciences, as well). Still, it would be incorrect to reduce one to the other --- the two are ultimately inseparable, but very disinguishable phenomena.

To answer your question, phenemonology is an entire discipline unto itself. There are several different approaches one could take.



> I believe this is a main contention point between you and michaeledward.



There is no "contention" between the two of us as far as I can see.



> Let's say you got 300 people to sit in a room, assume whatever Smoking Lotus position is needed, meditate for a while, and then relate their "experiences".



Its extremely unlikely (although not impossible) that anyone would have any sort of altered state, peak experience, or whatnot within a single meditation session.



> There would be no measurements, or graphs, or external logic, or any type of objective means of relation--only their own subjective experience.



None of the things you mentioned are "objective" --- except in the rather crude sense that they can be written down on paper (as opposed to being objectively observed directly). Of course, phenemenological accounts can be written down and/or graphed, too.

Logic of any kind most definately can't be "pointed to" objectively. Its completely subjective abstraction.



> I really can't see how the experimenter is supposed to separate the phenomenological "what's going on in his/her head" from the ego-interpretational "what's going on in his/her head" (my apologies for the improvised terminology). In short, what would be there to prove that it's not all just interpretation and that, in fact, there is no universal phenomenon occurring?



You may want to familiarize yourself with psychology as a whole, then, and introspectionism and phenomenology in particular.

As before, there are several ways of approximating these sorts of things --- control samples (a group that does a different meditation or no meditation at all), cross-cultural analyses (report the accounts of different people from different cultures and religions), physiological validation (different meditative experiences have patently demonstrated particular physiological responses in the organism, most especially in brainwave patterns), and probably a few more I'm missing.

A very interesting approach, one taken by some of the TM folks, is track various levels of ego-development, moral development, cognitive developmemnt, stress-management, and so forth among meditators --- using, of course, standard tests such as Kohlberg's, Piaget's, and so forth. The research done thus far has yielded some extremely interesting results.

Again, I suggest familiarizing yourself with psychological research methodologies. Its a very vast discipline.

Laterz.


----------



## michaeledward (Jul 21, 2004)

RandomPhantom700 said:
			
		

> I believe this is a main contention point between you and michaeledward.





			
				heretic888 said:
			
		

> There is no "contention" between the two of us as far as I can see.


Hmmm, tha'ts odd ... because I do see a point of contention.

I wonder what that means?

Mike


----------



## heretic888 (Jul 21, 2004)

*shrugs*  :idunno:


----------



## RandomPhantom700 (Jul 21, 2004)

Oye....

By contention, I meant a disagreement, heretic.  You two were disagreeing about something, right?


----------



## heretic888 (Jul 21, 2004)

Oh. Sure, yeah. I guess.


----------



## Hong Kong Pooey (Oct 18, 2013)

No


----------

