Nature

[superluminal]

There is no supernatural. There is only nature and that which is understood and that which is not. This should be intuitively obvious to any rational adult.

For those that follow spirituality and feel that the naturalist is without richness in his life, consider that the naturalist has discovered things never even dreamt of by the spiritualist. The spiritualist can never feel the joy that comes from explaining a phenomenon, testing the explanation, and finding it to be true.

The naturalist is surrounded by the knowable world. The spiritualist is surrounded by the unknowable, and therefore destined to be at the mercy of science forever. Nevertheless I fear for our future. Naturalists must do everthing in their power to keep spiritualists in their box lest they escape and bring chaos to the world, as has been the norm for most of human history. For spiritualism has a strong attraction to the common, uneducated man. They fear what they don't understand and will try to destroy it on pure principle.

The individual spiritualist is harmless. But as a group they are the human equivalent of the ebola virus, making the body of humanity bleed internally until it collapses into chaos.

Peace.

 

[Avatar]

Sir Martin Rees (British Astronomer Royal) has said that universe is still a place of mistery and wonder.
I agree with that everything is natural, but I think you make an error where you say that natural is not spiritual. Or we have a different idea of what "spiritual" means.
For example consider atoms. Most of the atoms that Earth consists of have been there since its' "birth" ~4,5 billion years ago which themselves are nuclear waste products of exploding stars some untold billion of years ago. The same atoms that flew through the lava rivers then are the rocks and forests now, the same atoms that were the dinosaurs are now your dogs, flowers outside, your heart, bread you eat. And when you inhale you might inhale N (from coal) that was a part of some ancient forest 250 million of years ago, and it now is you.
And so these atoms held together by the laws of nature have now assembled themselves into such structures (us) which ponder on their very own origins. And billions of neitrinos each second going through our bodies and our own planet.
This is all valid science, but the reality is more beautiful than many religions portray heaven.
It's also more spiritual than many western religions envision their god.
And you are one with the universe because you naturally are the universe and when you speak our universe speaks and when you look at the night sky you are enjoying the view of yourself.
And when you shall die, your atoms will rearrange into other structures and in some time in the future will maybe form another human or alien being (here's natural reincarnation for you )
So what's less spiritual when I say you are one with the universe when I say it from a scientists' point of view than some religios lunatic person will tell from his religios point of view?

 

[Baron Max]

There is no supernatural.

Some people say that there is a supernatural. Can either of you prove either statement?

This should be intuitively obvious to any rational adult.

That's often the same thing that religious people say. Can either of you prove either statement?

Personally, I think either side should believe as they see fit .....and neither side should try to force their opinions or beliefs onto others.

Baron Max

 

[superluminal]

Baron. Don't have to prove squat. The natural world is all we see. YOU have the burden of proof if you think something other than natural processes are going on to cause things.

and neither side should try to force their opinions or beliefs onto others.

Nice sentiment. Tell that to the religious megalomaniacs throughout history. Throw out the entire mode of thinking that allows for blind acceptance and you will see the extinction of the "leaders" who prey on the ignorance and fear of people.

 

[superluminal]

Spiritual is supernatural. Invoking something not of nature. Yes, the universe is wonderous. It's not spiritual (as I take the meaning) or supernatural.

 

[Avatar]

Maybe spirituality is invoking the whole of nature in ones person?

That's my personal definition, but English is not my native language, so I might be making an error with this personal definition of mine.
And I think that your definition of spirituality is more correct when I look into the Webster's dictionary, so I give it to you, I agree with you - spiritual is supernatural in the Western understanding of the word.
I apologize for mudding the waters, I didn't mean to say that there is supernatural=spiritual in nature.

 

[one_raven]

There is no supernatural. There is only nature and that which is understood and that which is not. This should be intuitively obvious to any rational adult.

The naturalist is surrounded by the knowable world. The spiritualist is surrounded by the unknowable, and therefore destined to be at the mercy of science forever.

Have you considered, perhaps, that what some people call "spiritual" and what you call "unknowable" could be natural phenomena that is not yet understood?

The problem I have with people who fancy themselves skeptics is that many of them have their minds closed to rationality as least as tightly as many "spiritualists".

No one that consideres himself a rational person should say that something is unknowable or impossible, rather unknown.

If someone said 300 years ago that we would be able to send a ship to outerspace and communicate wirelessly with it at the speed of light they would have been dismissed by "rational" people.

If someone claims they have had a glimpse of the future, they are automatically a crackpot, but if Feynman claims the possiblity of infinite concurrent worlds, he is brilliant (because he is a "scientist" of course).

I don't believe that Abraham's God existed or exists, but I do think that anyone who simply summarily discounts any phenomena that currently unknown by science as bullshit isn't a skeptical, rational scientists. He is an irrational closed-minded person.

People say that "spiritualists" are afraid of the unknown, so they make up excuses and Gods to address it.
I say that "rational" people are theones afraid of the unknown, as simply ignore it and pretend it doesn't exist at all until some "scientist" smarter than they are comes up with a "plausible" hypothesis.

The "ghosts" of today could very well be "remnant fields" of tomorrow, just because they are not understood by science today, does not mean they do not exist.

Avatar,
I love your first post. Very eloquent and beautiful. Mush better than most who claim English as their first language could have done. And I entirely agree.

 

[superluminal]

one raven,

First, I've written posts just like Avatars. Did you not love them too? "The universe awakened to examine itself", "being humbled and awestruck by my passage from the stellar furnace and linked with the very first forms of life on earth"?

You find me to be narrow minded? Nay, even closed-minded?

If someone said 300 years ago that we would be able to send a ship to outerspace and communicate wirelessly with it at the speed of light they would have been dismissed by "rational" people.

Of course they would have, and rightly so. By what sane measure would you accept such statements as even remotely plausible given the state of knowledge at the time? Stated by a story teller, they would be ideas of speculative fiction at best. Stated as fact, and in fact plausible, marks you as a fool in the 18th century.

If someone claims they have had a glimpse of the future, they are automatically a crackpot, but if Feynman claims the possiblity of infinite concurrent worlds, he is brilliant (because he is a "scientist" of course).

You are arrogant and disingenuous. The person claiming to glimpse the future claims it with zeal as being fact. They know! And they provide no repeatability or validation of their ability whatsoever. Feynman speculates on the implications of well founded science i.e. quantum mechanics and makes no claims of certainty, because he is not a fool, as is the prognosticator.

I don't believe that Abraham's God existed or exists, but I do think that anyone who simply summarily discounts any phenomena that currently unknown by science as bullshit isn't a skeptical, rational scientists. He is an irrational closed-minded person.

You build a man of straw and knock him down with great style. I stated that there is only nature and that which is known and unknown. Do I state that the unknown is bullshit? The unknown is simply unknown. Those who claim it is supernatural are fools.

People say that "spiritualists" are afraid of the unknown, so they make up excuses and Gods to address it.
I say that "rational" people are the ones afraid of the unknown, as simply ignore it and pretend it doesn't exist at all until some "scientist" smarter than they are comes up with a "plausible" hypothesis.

Then you truly are the fool. The rationalists are the scientists of the world. They are the ones who dig and explore, searching for better and better ways of understanding the universe. Spiritualists are content to shake their bead filled gourds and "wands of power" to beseech the favors of the gods and in the process learn nothing.

The "ghosts" of today could very well be "remnant fields" of tomorrow, just because they are not understood by science today, does not mean they do not exist.

And that would be a valid speculation if there were actually ghosts. There is no evidence whatsoever that a thing called a "ghost" is anything other than a manifestation of, and purely internal to, the mind. But if there were, do you think a spiritualist would learn anything more than how to be afraid of it? A scientist would learn it's nature. Discover whether it really is a "remnant field".

Spiritualism is the refuge of a mind that is unprepared to confront the true nature of the universe. One far more intricate than any spirit realm they care to imagine. I find your position to be very uninformed, immature and poorly thought out.

 

[one_raven]

I admit that it seems as though the entirety of this post was directly aimed at you and the way you think.
It was not, however, and I apologize for that.
I do not know how you think and I try to avoid presuppositions about people.

I agree that a lot of "spiritualist" are akin to the Otho character in "Bettle Juice".
They take a phenomena of unknown origin, and automatically spew out a great deal of "wisdom" and "knowledge" about these things.
Just as I am sure you have witnessed a lot of people who claim to be rational scientifically minded people, who summarily discount anything that falls outside the bounds of what they understand.

Not ALL spiritualists claim to have knowledge and "fact" regarding the things that we do not understand.
In fact, most that I have met readily accept and admit that there is much we do not understand, and they do not profess to understand it.
They will sometimes offer hypotheses (just as Feynman) but many don't even do that- they take a more cautiosly agnostic stance.

The people I was protesting against (not assuming you are one of them, though it understandably came off that way) are the ones who will not even entertain the notion that something could possible exists that we do not yet have the technology to detect, measure and quantify.
They discount possibility as quickly and closed-mindedly as the spiritualists that you call fools (and I agree) discount evidence.

If someone claims to have had an out of body experience, or had a dream (or some other "vision") that subsequently came to fruition... some flighty freaks will grasp onto that and assign meaning to it and make various claims about how it all works and what it implies... some closed-minded stubborn fools will instantly call the person a liar or deluded and not even entertain the notion that it COULD have happened.
Some people, on the other hand, will keep an open mind and consider possibilities without instantly jumping to any conclusions. THOSE are the rational ones.

(As a side note: I know this isn't the subject of this thread, but Feynman has absolutely no evidence whatsover to back up his fantastical multiple worlds.)

 

[superluminal]

one raven,

I did indeed feel attacked, and I apologize for overreacting now that you have clarified your post. Thanks.

And I know Feynman has absolutely no evidence whatsover to back up his fantastical multiple worlds. I don't think he asserted that he ever did. The "multiple worlds" interpretatation of QM was actually originated by Hugh Everett to explain the idea that particles can be in a state of superposition (all states simultaneously) and don't "collapse" to an single state until observed. What determines the state? Nothing! They all occurr in one world or another. We only observe one of them. Is it true? Who the F knows?

 

[enton]

There is no supernatural.

Then why bother to post "supernatural"?

There is only nature and that which is understood and that which is not..

So, what is the nature of nature?

This should be intuitively obvious to any rational adult.

That suns/moons/galactic bodies is not supernatural and therefore is part of nature?

For those that follow spirituality and feel that the naturalist is without richness in his life, consider that the naturalist has discovered things never even dreamt of by the spiritualist.

The spiritualist can never feel the joy that comes from explaining a phenomenon, testing the explanation, and finding it to be true.
[\QUOTE] Spiritually speaking, I feel the joy in my heart when scientists discovered billions of suns and trillions of quintile galaxies.

The naturalist is surrounded by the knowable world.

I'm never an artificialist. St. Paul, biblically speaking, is a naturalist like me.

The spiritualist is surrounded by the unknowable, and therefore destined to be at the mercy of science forever.

And how do you know that we are surrounded by the unknowable? Who fathered old and modern science?

Nevertheless I fear for our future.

Good you've made a stand. (Fear) But let me remind you my dear, that the only thing one has to fear is fear itself(F.D.Roosevelt).