Re: "Measuring" the spiritual with science.

Dear Mike3-
The late Dan Jordan once said this in a talk to a university.
"- reality has two forms: material and immaterial, or actual and

non-actual. The material form of reality is subject to the various
laws of material existence such as those dealing with gravitation,
radiation, and chemico-electric phenomena. The immaterial form of
reality concerns a category of items not subject to such laws. This
category includes such “things” as ideas, ideals, virtues, abstract

form, purpose, plans, objectives, the future, etc. None of these
things can be weighed, burned, or propelled through three dimensional

space because they are immaterial. Yet, they have consequences or
effects in the material world (to be sure, largely through the minds
of human beings), but they cannot be explained by the laws of
chemistry or physics."

He went on to say-

"Up to the present time, modern science has concentrated entirely

on understanding material reality, the assumption being that this is
the only reality. Hence, scientific attempts to understand man have
reflected the same assumption, with limited results. Modern Western
medicine, for instance, is now confronting the evidence of successful

forms of healing not dependent on the cause and effect relationships
explicable by the laws of chemistry and physics. It is evident that
belief, faith, trust, and hope have an effect on patients."

All we can know about anything is the effects. So don't spiritual
realities have effects? Our beliefs have effects in our behaviors.
We can observe these effects. The social sciences such as psychology,

sociology etc. all observe and make conclusions about behaviors
(effects). Are we not now seeing the negative effects of a grossly
materialistic society? If we can observe, name, and study negative
effects such as crime, addictions, war, etc. then why not their
opposites that result from the acquisition of virtues?

Our basic assumptions and beliefs, our overall conditioning from
growing up, our discoveries and experiences about self, others and the

world in general have an effect we call behavior. We can observe and

study behaviors.

From my perspective the main reason we have not applied our reasoning

power to the study of spiritual realities is because of a belief that

it is not possible because those who believe this are restricting
their thinking to that of our current methods, "believing" this is the

only method we need.



regards

doug



















On Dec 26, 2008, at 3:03 PM, mike3 wrote:

On Dec 25, 8:11 am, compx2 <com...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Hi guys,

Just thought I would weigh in on this subject as I do on most others.
I know dissenting opinions are almost never welcomed, especially
among
the people who seem most vocal here. As you know I agree with almost
none of what is said around here, although I am a Baha'i, I wear my
differences with the vast majority of Baha'is as a badge of honor,

and
hope that will allow that majority to consider what they consider to
be non-Baha'i opinions (which could be Baha'i opinions if the
religion
were not so homogenous).

You guys talk about "spiritual" things, and even name some of them
(love, faith and prayer) but neglect a great many other spiritual
things that would be much more easily verified scientifically. How
about justice? Is that spiritual? Can it be measured? I have
maintained through my years here that the science of sociology can
prove scientific equations such as justice is good for society.


I'd guess it could be measured. Not everything that can be "measured"
is
"physical".

But then you go off on spiritual "worlds" and "realities" and talk
about psychic investigation as if that is related to 'Abdu'l-Baha's
idea of the spiritual which was referred to above (love, prayer,
faith). It seems to me you have two very different definitions of

the
same word, spiritual, and are trying to apply valid claims about one
to another merely because the word, spiritual, is used with another
definition (a loosely defined group of psychic phenomena).


What is this about psychic investigation? That's not related to this
particular discussion, at least I didn't think it was. That was about
something
else I read, I was wondering if it _was_ a "psychic" thing or not. I
wasn't
_saying_ it was.

So, are you talking about scientifically proving justice is good for
humanity, or psychokenesis can move my coffee cup? Do you think
those
two things are the same thing?

In either case the word "spiritual existence" does not have a good
enough definition so that anyone could make a blanket statement about
its precise meaning in relation to science. I prefer the terms "non-
physical", "rational" or "conceptual" existences. At least then we
have a point of reference. No one can deny the existence of virtue,
but you cannot hold it in your hand, so it is not a physical
existence.

Virtue can be shown to exist, however. What kind of existence does
virtue have? Perhaps the best reference for this discussion is to
admit that spiritual principles have an undeniable conceptual
existence, and from that point we can talk about how they relate to
science.


I suppose one could admit it, yes.

If you read the above, thank you. --Kent

On Dec 22, 2:14 am, mike3 <mike4...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

Hi.

I saw
this:http://groups.google.com/group/soc.religion.bahai/msg/d0baa4
40
897de8e...

"I am not prepared to live with restricting God to the gaps in
what we
know,
working only through the hidden variables. Instead, I will stand

wit
h
Abdu'l-Baha that love, and faith, and prayer are forces which one

day
scientists will measure, that science and religion agree and that
science
will find the mechanisms, the "handles" by which God grasps
realisty.

This however, is purely a mechanism of faith. No evidence."

What quote from 'Abdu'l-Baha says this? As it seems to suggest that
science
could measure "spiritual" things (which love, faith, prayer, etc.

are)
if it develops
the right tools, definitions, etc. Also, would it be _bad_ or
_wrong_
to try and
investigate this stuff scientifically and so help bring that "day"
about? Surely
a scientific proof of the spiritual, and not just the material,
would
be a great thing,
no? But it would seem that to do this, one would have to remove one
assumption
of modern "science": the assumption of naturalism.

And as for "restricting God to the gaps in what we know", I'm not

sure
where he's
getting that from. Why couldn't God work through both known _and_
unknown
mechanisms, not just unknown ones only? So no restriction.




.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: are we the reflection of a hologram
    ... They're an illusion that seems to be real, but the reality is just ... of years but science is finally beginning to figure out, ... scientists all of this physics stuff. ... So your entire existence is just a hologram K. How about that? ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Universality as warrant for relative truth value
    ... Science depends on scientists, but I wouldn't call that "presuppositions". ... Independent of reality. ... it is never explained where that correspondence comes from. ...
    (sci.philosophy.meta)
  • Re: where theistic evolution leads
    ... how we examine reality. ... but when they come on this public newsgroup and assert to the ... SCIENCE SCIENCE SCIENCE. ... of scientists that has been able to do that? ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Hammond sees the obvious
    ... Why, then, is that NOT what dictionaries (or science dictionaries) state? ... attempt to support your fraudulent claims? ... > back on the moon it will blink out of existence. ... Why is there nothing IN science, or from scientists, that supports your ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: The pedantic calumnies of Gwar
    ... Conventional Science supports your statement. ... I know of no religion which even addresses the matter. ... If you show it to scientists, and it has any merit at all, they will ... > reality" is the only reality we actually see... ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
Loading