Approaches to the discovery of God?

wellwisher said:
If religious experiences occurred within the same neural matrix as dreams, like the details of dreams, we cannot prove this with science as we know. The scientific method was not designed for this type of data. It was designed for things outside the mind. Maybe we need to upgrade the scientific method or add a disclaimer that says certain things are beyond the current method.
Click to expand...
Suppose doctors develop drugs that trigger the religious experience... Not to mention that many people claim to have religious experiences while on drugs...
 
wlminex said:
My take? . . . . order (as well as chaos?) exists at the quantum scale. Ordering chaos creates emergent patterns within the quantum. This order may contribute to be strings, branes, etc. . . or other quantum-level products. The emergent patterns (order) weakly interact (e.g., Casimir Effect?) with, and moderate . . . and possibly . . . 'direct' or influence actions in matter. Animal (and other?)consciousness may be a product of quantum interactions (entanglements?) . . . . Google "Quantum Consciousness" for some tangible links on this.
Click to expand...

Thank you, sir.

What is this area of study called?
 
wellwisher said:
If you had a dream, this would be real in the sense of neurons firing to create an internally induced sensory experience with specific details. Everyone has had dreams so this is real. Although this is real, there would be no way you could prove the details of that dream, scientifically.

Also, since dreams come and go and constantly change, there would be no way to repeat this dream in all the same details for a repeatable scientific experiment. Therefore according to the scientific method, what was real in all its details cannot be proven. This is due to the limitation of the scientific method and not the limitation of the dream or dreamer.

If you had that dream and knew you had it, it does not matter if science can't see this internal expression. This is beyond its capacity at this time. To the outsider, your hanging onto that which cannot be proven, scientifically, would appear to be based on faith. But is was based on a real experience, beyond science to confirm.

There are things of the mind that can only be perceived within the first person, which do not perform, ideally, for the scientific third person.

If religious experiences occurred within the same neural matrix as dreams, like the details of dreams, we cannot prove this with science as we know. The scientific method was not designed for this type of data. It was designed for things outside the mind. Maybe we need to upgrade the scientific method or add a disclaimer that says certain things are beyond the current method. There is an entire frontier of data beyond the current scientific method. What would need to change is the third person scientist would need also experience in the first person; scientist and experiment at the same time.

A good analogy is studying toothache pain. You can do this from the third person, as an observer, but something would be missing. If you could have a tooth drilled so you had the pain, while also observing the phenomena in question, you would take the science further, than the safety of third person. The scientific method does not do first and third at the same time, because it is too hard. Third person is easier.
Click to expand...

That is false. A prophecy, for instance, that occurred in a dream could be easily confirmed.
 
spidergoat said:
Wouldn't an accurate and specific prophecy verify the source?
Click to expand...

Very specific, one word. A name. The most important thing, who was the messenger?

One man spoke, but I could tell he wasn't alone. His voice was soft and sweet. Certainly, a old friend of mine.
 
Not specific enough. You could have easily internalized your desire for this person which came out as a voice in your head.
 
spidergoat said:
Not specific enough. You could have easily internalized your desire for this person which came out as a voice in your head.
Click to expand...

I guess only I would know the truth? I know I stand for integrity. I understand what you mean, but if the voice were true, and I fulfilled it?

Even then, how do we verify the source?

However, the mere claim, and follow through is good for something. Yay?
 
kx000 said:
I guess only I would know the truth? I know I stand for integrity. I understand what you mean, but if the voice were true, and I fulfilled it?

Even then, how do we verify the source?

However, the mere claim, and follow through is good for something. Yay?
Click to expand...

You might have low standards for convincing, a common human trait. If the prediction only makes sense to you, what good is it in convincing others that the source was anything other than your own head. By the way, the same thing happened to me and I'm not convinced.
 
spidergoat said:
You might have low standards for convincing, a common human trait. If the prediction only makes sense to you, what good is it in convincing others that the source was anything other than your own head. By the way, the same thing happened to me and I'm not convinced.
Click to expand...

Your right.
 
Since we know how some people are, we expect the error to continue, somewhat, but also know that church attendance is on the decline.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top