Can Scientists & Mystics Work Together?

[parmalee]

"Actually science and creation are the same thing."

Trolling again. They are NOT the same thing except in your persistently ignorant little mind.

heh. the title of the thread with respect to the OP completely confounds me--what the hell does mysticism have to do with creationism? moreover, i simply do not understand what is intended by "work together."

 

[hay_you]

that said, real mysticism is by no means anti-scientific, but it is certainly un-scientific.

How could any spiritual reasoning be un-scientific? If that were the case you know you are not correct in your understanding. To have a real belief, in something evidence has to support it. Granted many people do not base their thinking that way. For instance many people are in religion because their parents are, or friends. Same in science, you are taught science has the answers in school and you get work as a scientist, you tend to believe that. Most people just need the surface to support them, they don't want to dig down and find out what it is really about.

 

[Dywyddyr]

by examples do you mean some names? (you've got to learn american english!)

Well it was actually examples of mystics being empirical, but names will do.

i would start with meister eckhart, for one.

Okay, starting there.
Which also adds another dispute.
Heliocentric said "mystics arent positing anything that you dont already perceive to be there" and Eckhart has "god" in there
Most definitely NOT something I perceive to be there. (And even if I did I'd want corroboration ;
Or maybe especially if I did.

 

[spidergoat]

..that evolution actually happens where one animal over many years becomes something else..

Yes, they can prove that, and did.

 

[Dywyddyr]

How could any spiritual reasoning be un-scientific?

Because "spirit" itself is unscientific, get a clue.

If that were the case you know you are not correct in your understanding.

Nope, it's your understanding that's incorrect.

To have a real belief, in something evidence has to support it.

Exactly: there is no evidence to support "spirit".
And once there's evidence belief isn't required.

Most people just need the surface to support them, they don't want to dig down and find out what it is really about.

The same way you stick to creationism?

 

[parmalee]

Okay, starting there.
Which also adds another dispute.
Heliocentric said "mystics arent positing anything that you dont already perceive to be there" and Eckhart has "god" in there
Most definitely NOT something I perceive to be there. (And even if I did I'd want corroboration ;
Or maybe especially if I did.

ah, but eckhart is speaking metaphorically (and he was excommunicated for heresy--give me time and i shall find a few specific passages).

again though, "mysticism" is a rather broad term--there is no "god" (necessarily) within buddhism.

 

[Dywyddyr]

heh. the title of the thread with respect to the OP completely confounds me--what the hell does mysticism have to do with creationism? moreover, i simply do not understand what is intended by "work together."

Oh the troll (hay_you) claims it's possible because, according to him, science and creation are the same thing and mystics can lead science to the "correct" path.

 

[parmalee]

How could any spiritual reasoning be un-scientific?

what do you mean by "spiritual" and by "reasoning"? science has nothing to do with "spirit" (although, sometimes that's not entirely clear) and mysticism has nothing to do with "reasoning."

If that were the case you know you are not correct in your understanding. To have a real belief, in something evidence has to support it. Granted many people do not base their thinking that way. For instance many people are in religion because their parents are, or friends. Same in science, you are taught science has the answers in school and you get work as a scientist, you tend to believe that. Most people just need the surface to support them, they don't want to dig down and find out what it is really about.

belief in what? what must a mystic "believe" in?

 

[heliocentric]

rather, just the opposite: mysticism "strives" towards pure perception, without abstraction--or assignation of name or value.

Id agree with that. The general point i wanted to make was that it seems alot easier to be a 'valuing mystic' than it does to be a 'valuing scientist'.

I think this is because non-dualism has a tenancy to produce valuing as a natural reflex (if 'i' am simply 'that', then all the more reason to be kind to the world around me). Whereas in science the opposite tendency - to categorise and segregate reality, very often leads to value being 'shut out' of certain domains of reality altogether.

 

[Pipes75]

Science can make some DNA but you still have to put the instructions in it for it to be any good. Also science is making the DNA , which is creation. It maybe that at some time science will create life in a lab. If that happens, it shows that scientists created life in the lab. It doesn't show that it happened on it's own or did.

Your confusion is evident in your choice of words!
First off, the DNA is just a part of life evolving. Life is not created, it is converted outta of other life. Science is testing particles of life, and observing what causes make the particle clusters convert to a DNA form of life. DNA life has been converted in labs, it is already been tested. Life itself is not created. And yes, if conditions are simulated to show how something can happen naturally, the testing in a lab is to recreate a smaller module of the natural conditions that once were. Lab testing most certainly does prove what is the most logical explaination, ignoring the evidence is just as blind as believing every unproven theory! Find some balance my friend.

It is nice to at least have some admit where they really stand on this. And are not just blindly believing everything science says.
So that means when some scientists are claiming it is a fact that that is not true, there are still many questions about that are not answered. Science has tries and claimed a missing link many times only to have these fall by the way side.

No. Science using as much known information as they have available, they then have theories that incorprate the factual information into a bigger picture. When their is a lack of evidence, assumptions are made, based on the most logical and/or most absurd possibilities. The different assumptions need to be further investigated until testable evidence gives conclussive results. It's an on going process. Science doesn't claim theories are completely true, that is why they are theories. They will support the evidence and draw their own conclussions on the parts that have holes. The evidence can not be disputed, but the places with missing pieces can have many possibilities, and most scientists look for the most rational explaination first - so until the most rational explaination is proven false, not too many scientists explore the absurdities. I enjoy absurd possibilities, however I don't ignore the evidence. You seem to ignore the evidence. Evolution is factual, their is plenty of evidence of evolving species from many different eras. Whether all of it was natural or not is a completely different question.

This happens now and we take it for granted that these things do this. But where did they get this ability from? If scientists make a cell, how will they get it to do that? The reasons these work is that they were planned to be like that.

The ability is just from the opposites that are attracted to eachother. If a balanced cell becomes unbalanced, it can find balance in another unbalanced cell of opposite porportions. It comes from finding balance between 2 extremes. It always has been\always will be this way. If your looking for when the life cycle began, and how - thats a question that science is not close to answering. If your looking for a starting point within the cycle - the cycle is not a line, it goes on to +/- infinity, so you will never find a single starting point for all of life, life is bigger then our tiny universe and smaller then the smallest particle we can observe!!!!
Planned, lol - does it take a rocket scientist to see negative is attracted to positive (use a magnet, study some forces) or male is attracted to female (that's how offspring is reproduced). Why does it need to be planned?
Balance getting knocked out of balance and refinding new balance - seems pretty natural to me.

The life we generally talk about is carbon based. Carbon is like the glue that holds cells together (all life we understand is carbon based). Carbon holding other particles together was a crucial ingredient for DNA life to evolve.

I'm not sure if you're talking about all of life in general (many of which is venturing into the unknowns) or if you are sticking to the life on earth that we do know of. But either way you seem confused. Their are plenty of holes in science that you can dream of unimaginable things without the need to contradict the evidence!!!!!

 

[Dywyddyr]

The ability is just from the opposites that are attracted to eachother.

No it isn't.

It always has been\always will be this way.

Supposition.

If your looking for a starting point within the cycle - the cycle is not a line, it goes on to +/- infinity, so you will never find a single starting point for all of life, life is bigger then our tiny universe and smaller then the smallest particle we can observe!!!!

Unsupportable supposition.

 

[hay_you]

what do you mean by "spiritual" and by "reasoning"? science has nothing to do with "spirit" (although, sometimes that's not entirely clear) and mysticism has nothing to do with "reasoning."

belief in what? what must a mystic "believe" in?

What I mean about spiritual, is the cause of it all. The reason why everything is here, that includes physical and unseen.
If any of this is unscientific then none of it is real.

 

[heliocentric]

Well it was actually examples of mystics being
Okay, starting there.
Which also adds another dispute.
Heliocentric said "mystics arent positing anything that you dont already perceive to be there" and Eckhart has "god" in there
Most definitely NOT something I perceive to be there. (And even if I did I'd want corroboration ;
Or maybe especially if I did.

God is a tricky concept in mysticism though. Sometimes theyre just talking about the totality of things - brahman, tao, logos, whatever, whereas sometimes they are talking about a personal God. But even if they are positing something you dont personally hold to be 'real' is that necessarily a problem? Do you believe in all the things that science posits - 'super-strings'? 'parallel universes'?

'The Perennial Philosophy' by Aldous Huxley is a cracking anthology of mysticism btw. I wouldnt bother unless youre really interested though. Can get abit dense at times.

 

[Dywyddyr]

What I mean about spiritual, is the cause of it all. The reason why everything is here, that includes physical and unseen.
If any of this is unscientific then none of it is real.

And once more you display poor understanding.
The approach is unscientific.
Spirituality IS NOT scientific.

 

[parmalee]

Id agree with that. The general point i wanted to make was that it seems alot easier to be a 'valuing mystic' than it does to be a 'valuing scientist'.

I think this is because non-dualism has a tenancy to produce valuing as a natural reflex (if 'i' am simply 'that', then all the more reason to be kind to the world around me). Whereas in science the opposite tendency - to categorise and segregate reality, very often leads to value being 'shut out' of certain domains of reality altogether.

yeah, i do think science has a tendency to, well, "create" or imagine "distance" where it is not, and much philosophy has a tendency to discourage miscegenation. still, the idea of non-dualism producing valuation as a reflex seems odd (not that i necessarily disagree): i think the difficulty lies with the term "valuation." i mean, that seems an abstraction which would seem counter to non-dualism.

 

[spidergoat]

Science can address anything that can be observed, even spirituality.

 

[Dywyddyr]

But even if they are positing something you dont personally hold to be 'real' is that necessarily a problem?

I was commenting on YOUR phrase "mystics arent positing anything that you dont already perceive to be there".

Do you believe in all the things that science posits - 'super-strings' and 'parallel universes'?

Belief isn't required once evidence is available. Until then it's a "non-issue".

'The Perennial Philosophy' by Aldous Huxley is a cracking anthology of mysticism btw. I wouldnt bother unless youre really interested though cos it can get abit dense at times.

Thanks, I'll see if my local library will let me back in soon.

 

[parmalee]

What I mean about spiritual, is the cause of it all.

this does not make sense--spirit, cause? i do not see the correlation.

The reason why everything is here, that includes physical and unseen.
If any of this is unscientific then none of it is real.

huh? by "unseen" do you intend "non-physical"? there is plenty which is "unseen" which is quite physical.

 

[heliocentric]

@parmalee - Im quite interested in whether values 'goes with' perception, or whether its a judgment about perception. Ive not decided yet, what do you think?

 

[parmalee]

@parmalee - Im quite interested in whether values 'goes with' perception, or whether its a judgment about perception. Ive not decided yet, what do you think?

heh, i'm undecided about that as well, although in ordinary usage it certain seems to imply (well, denote) the former.