Is science overrated?

[Swami]

I am often told that science is the greatest tool for knowledge. Then I notice that scientists admit not having a consensus when it comes to the origin of the Universe, origin of life, origin of consciousness, and if there is life after death.

Why can't scientists answer these questions?

Please feel free to provide any book references that provide clarity on these topics. Thank you. Cheers

[mgb]

There is no spiritual explanation until there is evidence that irrefutably demonstrates that the spiritual is something more than just an imaginative creation of the human mind.

For some there is. Subjective evidence is not diminished simply by being subjective.

[brunumb]

There is no spiritual explanation until there is evidence that irrefutably demonstrates that the spiritual is something more than just an imaginative creation of the human mind.

For some there is. Subjective evidence is not diminished simply by being subjective.

For some, alien abductions are real. For some, Bigfoot is real. For some, Elvis is alive and well. They all have their own personal evidence for their convictions. Unfortunately, evidence doesn't work that way. It all qualifies as woo no matter how sincerely the belief is held. Spiritual is just one of those nebulous terms used to describe things that have no basis in reality.

[Swami]

Are you suggesting I should immerse myself at some level in all of the religions that mankind has invented ... at a level that you deem to satisfy your definition of "experience", and until that is done it is not valid to comment on any aspects of these religions?

I know that we all have limited time and resources so I would not expect for you to get into all religions. In fact, religion is secondary for me. What I'm recommending is to use an experiential approach to discover the nature of consciousness. I've borrowed practices from Eastern religions that help isolate consciousness which in turn opens the door to higher states of consciousness. This then opened the door to a level of existence where only consciousness exists, a Universal or unindividuated consciousness. This is not too different from Max Planck's observation,

"I regard consciousness as fundamental. I regard matter as derivative from consciousness. We cannot get behind consciousness. Everything that we talk about, everything that we regard as existing, postulates consciousness."

I can check off one of those boxes (Christianity), and that experience led to a clear conclusion in my own mind. It is easy to extrapolate that experience to any other religion that involves a "god" being, given that no such beings have ever been shown to exist. Why would I waste time "experiencing" (whatever that actually means as you are using the word) other god-based religions when there is no reason to expect a different result (ie. the central god being is man-made along with all of its characteristics, and most likely does not exist).

I can not speak much for Western concepts and approaches to God. I've spent years learning about and practicing the Eastern way. The Eastern approach doesn't involve waiting for revelation or your prayers to be answered, but rather it involves using yourself to get the answers through experience. In this sense, the Eastern way is much more accessible pathway to the Divine.

I am not "unwilling to experience", but without a very good reason to make the substantial effort I don't see the point. If I were searching for something that religion might could provide then maybe it would make sense. But I'm not, and I don't have any particular holes in my existence that need filling with belief in imaginary gods and hope for an afterlife.

And it is here that we get right back to the topic of our discussion - the important questions that science can not answer. If science can't answer these questions then doesn't it seem reasonable to try other means? I propose experience and I've laid out a reasonable case for that approach in various posts.

Science fails on the BIG questions:
"Despite its lofty goals, twentieth-century psychology has not solved the questions which motivated its inception. Twentieth-century psychology has failed because it was based on a limited understanding of consciousness. It studied active processes of knowing—perceptions, thoughts, or feelings—and lacked awareness of deeper levels of the mind underlying active mental processes. Because its understanding of consciousness has been incomplete, psychology has remained a fragmented study of more superficial expressed aspects of the individual and has spawned only isolated areas of investigation, rather than successful grand theories. Working from fragmented models, the complex and multi-dimensional problems facing the individual and society have not been adequately addressed."

In fact, understanding the nature of consciousness sheds light on the origin of life and Universe:

"The contemporary view in neuroscience is that consciousness is produced by the functioning of the nervous system (e.g., Gazzaniga, 1997). In contrast, Maharishi Vedic Psychology proposes that consciousness is a fundamental universal field that underlies and gives rise to all individual nervous systems and psyches (Maharishi Mahesh Yogi, 1963, p. 61–63)

The highest state of development is described by Maharishi as unity consciousness, a state in which one experiences every object as an expression of the Self. The unified field of consciousness, which was experienced only within oneself in cosmic conscious-ness, comes to be experienced as underlying and permeating all of objective as well as subjective existence"
Maharishi Vedic Psychology Brings Fulfillment to the Aspirations of Twentieth-Century Psychology
Charles Alexander, Frederick Travis, B. Mawiyah Clayborne, and Dori Rector

article pdf: https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q ... ajklalr5kb[/

[brunumb]

[Replying to post 171 by Razorsedge]

Twentieth-century psychology has failed because it was based on a limited understanding of consciousness. It studied active processes of knowing—perceptions, thoughts, or feelings—and lacked awareness of deeper levels of the mind underlying active mental processes.

While your experiential approach relies on nothing more than perceptions, thoughts, and feelings of these alleged deeper levels of the mind. It's indistinguishable from self-delusion.

[DrNoGods]

[Replying to post 171 by Razorsedge]

In fact, religion is secondary for me. What I'm recommending is to use an experiential approach to discover the nature of consciousness. I've borrowed practices from Eastern religions that help isolate consciousness which in turn opens the door to higher states of consciousness. This then opened the door to a level of existence where only consciousness exists, a Universal or unindividuated consciousness.

I guess that is where you have some motivation and I do not. I believe that consciousness is nothing special, or anything to be sought out as some deeper understanding of life and the universe, and is simply the manifestation of a working brain (ie. an emergent property).

There is no reason that I can see to assume anything different from this, or to believe that there is anything beyond this worth pursuing. So I could not justify spending any time searching for some hidden meaning of consciousness when I don't believe there is any.

However, plenty of people in the present time, and historically, have considered consciousness something magical and ascribed all kinds of meaning to it, and analyses of it, with mostly psychological musings and pontifications as the end result of their efforts.

[DeMotts]

There is no spiritual explanation until there is evidence that irrefutably demonstrates that the spiritual is something more than just an imaginative creation of the human mind.

For some there is. Subjective evidence is not diminished simply by being subjective.

Subjectivity is literally the exact reason that some evidence is considered less reliable than other more objective evidence. What kind of nonsense is this? Are we to value a drunk man's eyewitness account more than a DNA result? Should we quibble about the half life of an isotope because one of the researchers has the blues?

Honestly you guys, you post this stuff but I don't think you're considering the ramifications of what you're saying. Would you want to be on trial where subjective evidence is considered equal to the objective? Would you want a policeman's prejudices to have the same weight as a video recording?

[kcplusdc@yahoo.com]

Science is great. Just slow, prone to errors, and not bulletproof.
Anyone old enough to remember the great egg debate? Took decades to figure out whether eggs were good for you or not.
One week the were the dietary equivalent of eating a hang grenade, next week health food.
Emotional rollercoaster over eggs and what the science says about them.
What a yolk!

[brunumb]

[Replying to post 175 by kcplusdc@yahoo.com]

Science is great. Just slow, prone to errors, and not bulletproof.

Yet look at how much progress we have made and how much knowledge we have gained, not just in the last couple of centuries, but in the last couple of decades. To pick on something as trivial as the egg debate surely indicates a hint of desperation if one is trying to challenge the strength of the scientific method.

[Clownboat]

Science is great. Just slow, prone to errors, and not bulletproof.
Anyone old enough to remember the great egg debate? Took decades to figure out whether eggs were good for you or not.
One week the were the dietary equivalent of eating a hang grenade, next week health food.
Emotional rollercoaster over eggs and what the science says about them.
What a yolk!

Just curious. Can you name a different method, other than the scientific method that is better at arriving at truthful claims?

[bluethread]

Science is great. Just slow, prone to errors, and not bulletproof.
Anyone old enough to remember the great egg debate? Took decades to figure out whether eggs were good for you or not.
One week the were the dietary equivalent of eating a hang grenade, next week health food.
Emotional rollercoaster over eggs and what the science says about them.
What a yolk!

Just curious. Can you name a different method, other than the scientific method that is better at arriving at truthful claims?

I can't speak for kc, but that depends on what "truthful claims" you are talking about. When it comes to claims regarding morality and values, I think the test of time is better. For example, I am convinced that it is true that National Communism leads to totalitarianism, not because it has been tested in a controlled environment, but because that has always been the result historically. If something has occurred repeatedly in the past, it is likely it will occur in the same way in the future. Many things in life, like national economies, can not be tested scientifically, but must be tested in the laboratory of life.