• Philosophy and Spirituality
    Welcome Guest
    Posting Rules Bluelight Rules
    Threads of Note Socialize
  • P&S Moderators: JackARoe | Cheshire_Kat

Explain Judaism

Hey, the 7th ray mentions "Radioactivity" as an expression.

I know it stands for direct God-connection, and that's funny, as the last time I really connected with God I felt radioactive. It's hard to explain but it felt like I was radiating a strange, strong energy for a while. Though I didn't have that on my mind then.

Sometimes I think I'm on the verge of what is called "Kundalini psychosis" in Hinduism. Or what occurs when a spiritual student have activated their higher energy centers and started communicating with spiritual energues and are overwhelmed by it.
 
^But the world and reality doesn't appear to be entirely rational

How so? Just because science hasn't yet explained something doesn't mean it won't be explained, nor does it mean science is "wrong." Science is knowingly, happily incomplete. The joy of science is found in unexplained areas. The overwhelming evidence (in fact all evidence that currently exists) indicates that the scientific method is the only system that furthers knowledge and the application of that knowledge.

Science can do incredible things reliably and repeatably. All other systems have only led to progress when they unintentionally or imperfectly used the scientific method. No fully nonscientific method of thought has ever provably achieved anything repeatable and useful beyond arational animal capability.

(Maybe, just maybe, "what you're saying" isn't very clear.)

What I meant, and what I carefully explained, is that the concept is an invented problem used to try and discredit science. It is neither widespread nor relevant to a discussion of science. It is a fallacy because it pretends that a) it is consistent with scientific thought, and b) it is true of the majority of followers of scientific thought. Neither are true.

The majority of religious people (literally 100 % ) accept and act on concepts that are unproven, unprovable, or disproven. The majority of scientific thinkers believe only what available information indicates is the likeliest possibility. Then, in a third camp, are these nonreligious people who believe in science blindly (which means they fundamentally fail to understand scientific thought and therefore are not scientists). Bringing up this third group is a completely irrelevant fallacy when discussing the differences between scientific thought and religious thought.
 
Last edited:
Just because science hasn't yet explained something doesn't mean it won't be explained, nor does it mean science is "wrong."

But there's also a higher science, or a scientific description of spiritual realities, since there's a science to everything that exists. It's only that learning this isn't so straight-forward.

You can also draw parallels between it and religious themes, not because any religion is accurate, but it can touch upon some of these things.

I don't really understand why you feel you have to choose or why you believe everyone who believes in God are 100% inspired by blind faith.
 
How so? Just because science hasn't yet explained something doesn't mean it won't be explained, nor does it mean science is "wrong." Science is knowingly, happily incomplete. The joy of science is found in unexplained areas. The overwhelming evidence (in fact all evidence that currently exists) indicates that the scientific method is the only system that furthers knowledge and the application of that knowledge.

I didn't say any of that. I think that a lot of human experience defies rationality. I doubt that science will ever be able to quanitify thought for example. I don't know if science will ever be able to truly explain the beginning of the unverse, because there is no means to gather concrete evidence.

Science is one of the best tool we have for deeply understanding reality, but it is incomplete and imperfect. In saying this, I am not claiming the existence of divinity, I am merely trying to be reasonable. In truth, mathematics is able to describe more of the world then just the scientific method.

Religion shoudn't seek to describe the physical world, because it does not take place there. It exists inside individuals and is only useful when it stays internal.
 
^I want it to explain thought, memory, impulse, the nuance of idea's, creation of art, love... I want it to quanitify the existence of the self, to mathematically describe my relationship with my girlfriend, my experiences with paranormal, my resonance with minor chords... I think I am asking of science unfair things, that it cannot answer. In that sense, as a way of describing reality, science is lacking. This is not even a criticism. Its the idea that there actually are other means with which to describe experience, or that no means exist all. Just as religion lacks empirical evidence in its claims about the external world and existence of god, science lacks the ability to examine and describe processes of the inner world that are verifiable and objective. In the realm of subjectivity, science is at a loss. Just as religion can often fail to be objective.

Science and spirituality represent a cognitive and cultural duality that is ideologically pointless. I experience awe and wonder at concepts of physics, at gazing up/down/across our universe, at the permeation of golden sunlight into everything, at the feeling of presence and potential I get from nature, knowing it (impartially) for what it is. You can utilise the human spiritual imagination AND the scientific method to disable a pointless obscure duality and gain a real, interactive, two-way connection with reality/nature/universe/multiverse/All. :)


IMO ;) <3

edit: I should add that my dark hat experience is subsiding, with hashish and poppy tea, and I see again the beautiful path of light/grace/particle. :D

edit II: summary- science is about the external world, the objective world. Spirituality is of the inner world, the planes of subjectivity. Given the arbitrary distinction between inner and outer, perhaps they represent a seamless unified whole and not two disparate paths.

Religion, on the other hand, has very little to do with anything, least of all spirituality IMO, and only stultifies growth, freedom and realisation. Again IMO. I should be careful not to use religion and spirituality as interchangeable placeholders; they are distinct.
 
Last edited:
How is science imperfect?

Um, they used to think the world was flat dude.
Science is clearly imperfect.

You repeatedly confuse/equate science with the scientific method.
(If your question was "How is the scientific method imperfect?", I might have answered like willow.)

It's pretty clear/obvious/undeniable that science is imperfect and what willow meant by his/her original statement. The fact that you keep insisting that science isn't imperfect means you think that scientists, by implication, are infallible...? Suggesting that you belong to the religion of science, which (from what I gather) you don't think exists...?

What I meant, and what I carefully explained, is that...

You directly contradicted yourself, a number of times.
 
Um, they used to think the world was flat dude.
Science is clearly imperfect.

This doesn't make any sense.

First of all, people using the scientific method never thought the earth was flat. As soon as it was approached scientifically, it was clear it wasn't flat. That was first discovered around 300 BC, when science was just being developed. Subsequent flat earthers were just poorly educated.

Second of all, pointing out an example of incorrect science (especially one that is no longer incorrect) doesn't indicate a fault of scientific thought. It demonstrates its greatest strength. Science is the only kind of thought that consistently improves by its very nature.

You repeatedly confuse/equate science with the scientific method.

They're one and the same. You misunderstand that current scientific theories cannot be judged as though they're a static belief system.

^I want it to explain thought, memory, impulse, the nuance of idea's, creation of art, love... I want it to quanitify the existence of the self, to mathematically describe my relationship with my girlfriend, my experiences with paranormal, my resonance with minor chords...

Science either already explains these things, or one day will do so. The majority of this is dealt with by psychology and neuroscience. The latter school of thought will fill in these gaps eventually. I'm not blindly hypothesizing here, these are all things that have been investigated and will be further investigated as knowledge of the brain improves.

science lacks the ability to examine and describe processes of the inner world that are verifiable and objective.

That's... not at all true? Science has done an excellent job exploring these things. Certainly there's a LOT of mystery left, but science is on the job. It's done better than any other kind of thought at understanding "the inner world."
 
As soon as it was approached scientifically, it was clear (the Earth) wasn't flat.

You can't arbitrarily pinpoint a moment in history when science began.

Science is limited to the data we have available. If there is no data suggesting that the world is spherical, the assumption would be that it is flat. And before you start jumping up and down, with your scientific method phraseology, bear with me for a moment. I'm not saying that the assumption would be that the world is flat because there is data indicating that it is flat. I'm saying that there are certain assumptions that we make, without data indicating otherwise. The scientific method, theoretically, may be "perfect". But, in practice, (science), it certainly is not. I hesitate to put so much faith in any man-made system, theoretically or practically... Everything is obvious in hindsight.

Second of all, pointing out an example of incorrect science (especially one that is no longer incorrect) doesn't indicate a fault of scientific thought. It demonstrates its greatest strength. Science is the only kind of thought that consistently improves by its very nature

No. All fields are progressive. Art, philosophy, theology, sports.
All fields also get stuck. Religion does and science does, too.

It is ignorant and counter-productive to label any field or method perfect, for the very reason you stated is the "greatest strength" of science.
You are making the same mistake as a religious fundamentalist. You're treating science as God.

Science either already explains these things, or one day will do so.

How do you know?

Science has done an excellent job exploring these things. Certainly there's a LOT of mystery left, but science is on the job.

Praise science, and - by extension - mankind.
(I'm going to go lick my asshole for a while.)
 
You keep equating science with religion. It's "my god," I have "blind faith in science." But I've already explained over and over why that's just an irrational talking point. Science works. It gets results. NO OTHER SYSTEM DOES SO.

The fields that are progressive do so with science. They don't use nonscientific means to improve. They hypothesize, test, retest, and either confirm or rehypothesize.

Theology isn't improving because it isn't evidence based. It may be changing, but how can you say it's improving with no measuring stick available?

Art isn't really progressive anymore. When people hadn't perfected realism or certain visual effects, it was. Now it's only changing. I think it would be ridiculous to say the newer art is, the better it is.
 
You are equating God with science.
I'm just pointing it out.

You have, many times throughout this thread, indicated that you have blind faith in science.

Science either already explains these things, or one day will do so.
How do you know?

Explain to me, using the scientific method if you like, how you can possibly know this?
If you can't explain it, then what you're saying is that you have faith in science.
Therefore, you're treating science like a religion.

...

I have less faith in any religion (or any other man-made field / model / method) than you do in science.
 
You keep saying it, but that doesn't make it true.

God is some hypothetical unknowable being whose existence supposedly explains all phenomena but has exactly zero evidence supporting it.

Science is a simple, logical system which is responsible for every comfort and entertainment you enjoy, every utility that enables you to do anything other than sleep in a cave and eat raw meat and vegetables.

Every single day science demonstrates its worth, and every single day god demonstrates exactly nothing. Explain to me the similarity. From what I've just written, it seems as though they're as far apart as Opposites can be.

And if you don't believe in science as much as I do, you strike me as incredibly reckless. Why would you ever use a car? Why eat anything other than raw meat? Why ever take medicine? Why walk out the front door? If you've ever assumed what you've observed multiple times will likely continue you've done science. You have a lot more "blind faith in science" than I do, because you refuse to understand how and why it works but benefit from it daily.
 
Stop going in circles.
Stop dodging the trap.

Science either already explains these things, or one day will do so.
How do you know?

Explain how you know this, or admit that you don't... in which case proving that you have considerable faith in science.

And if you don't believe in science as much as I do, you strike me as incredibly reckless. Why would you ever use a car? Why eat anything other than raw meat? Why ever take medicine? Why walk out the front door? If you've ever assumed what you've observed multiple times will likely continue you've done science. You have a lot more "blind faith in science" than I do, because you refuse to understand how and why it works but benefit from it daily.

I don't disregard science or religion, nor do I presume that either field can explain anything (let alone everything) it has not already. I use technology, sure, but I don't have faith in science's ability to answer questions better suited to religion / philosophy, or faith in science's ability to answer all the questions we have and could possibly come up with... Nor do I have faith in religion's ability to answer questions better suited to science... I also don't have faith in the field of fluid dynamics to answer the "meaning of life" question, or the question of whether (or not) there is a God.
 
It's not a trap. I'm not going to teach you the entire history and progress of psychology, neuroscience, and evolutionary science because the result of that conversation is already predetermined. You know as well as I do that science has made great strides in understanding the mind. You either don't care to learn about it, don't understand it, or (like willow) want the answers now. I'm content to wait for them because I've seen how far we've come and where we're going. Either we'll get there or we won't (because we're all dead), but I highly doubt the latter will be ultimately true. Impatience with science is no reason to turn to pseudoscience and arationality.

My impression is you keep framing science in religious terms because it's how you think and you can't imagine thinking differently. Based on your posts in this thread you fundamentally misunderstand science at a basic level. I've been on both sides, myself, so I understand where you're coming from. But it's clear that you're not going to understand where I'm coming from, which is unfortunate in my opinion. I know people find great joy and comfort in religion, and it's instilled in us so early (in a manner indistinguishable from brain washing) that it can be difficult to let go. I realize how patronizing this sounds, but I'm not really a sugarcoater and I'm speaking from experience. In any case, I wish you the best.
 
That's three times you've dodged answering the same straight-forward question.

You keep making assumptions about how I think that are extrapolated far beyond anything that I've said.
I don't misunderstand science, that's just what people say when they don't have a sensible argument.
"You just don't understand!" or, "You just don't get it!"

You know as well as I do that science has made great strides in understanding the mind.

We know very little about the brain, let alone the mind.
We know more than we did, so looking back it might seem like we've made considerable progress, but that has always and will always be the case.
Science will never be "complete" (as you appear to be implying by suggesting that everything will be explained by science).
The universe (and beyond) is too vast to document.

Either we'll get there or we won't (because we're all dead), but I highly doubt the latter will be ultimately true.

You doubt that we'll all be dead because of what: science, or faith in the survival of our species? Can you establish, scientifically, why you have any reason to doubt our species will expire at some point? I mean, is there any evidence - at all - to back this up? (Keep in mind that we'd have to exist for an infinite amount of time, and overcome serious hurdles preventing us from reaching the other side of the universe... which, assuming that the universe is infinite, is getting further and further away.) I don't see how a sensible person could possibly argue that the human race will one day know everything that is to know... Certainly not a man of science!

Science has it's limitations, like everything else.
(In practice, not theory.)

Saying that science will one day be complete is like saying that one day someone will sing the most beautiful song possible and no song will ever best it...

I wish you the best.

I accept your resignation.
 
And if you don't believe in science as much as I do

How come you can't seem to understand, which by now several posters have pointed out to you, that spirituality and science doesn't have to be seen as two opposing sides and you don't need to choose one (if you don't want to).

You also don't need to identify with one and make it a matter of personal pride or part of your ego-agenda. The ones trying to discuss with you in this thread happen to believe in science JUST AS MUCH as the spiritual dimension and see it more as two complimentary fields trying to describe two different sides of life.

There is no conflict besides in your head and you're arguing with the wrong kind of people. You want to argue with fundamental Christians/Creationists who are opposed to science and the theory of evolution. Then you might find the kind of debate you're looking for (although it's so boring I don't know why anyone would bother).
 
I enrolled in an Applied Science degree in Mathematics at a local university, straight out of high school.
Nobody is trying to discredit science.
 
images



"I want to know God's thoughts - the rest is not important"

"The more I study science the more I believe in God"

"Science without religion is lame. Religion without science is blind."

"Every one who is seriously involved in the pursuit of science becomes convinced that a spirit is manifest in the laws of the Universe - a spirit vastly superior to that of man, and one in the face of which we with our modest powers must feel humble."

"I want to know how God created this world. I am not interested in this or that phenomenon, in the spectrum of this or that element. I want to know His thoughts; the rest are details."

"Whoever undertakes to set himself up as a judge of Truth and Knowledge is shipwrecked by the laughter of the Gods."

"The scientists’ religious feeling takes the form of a rapturous amazement at the harmony of natural law, which reveals an intelligence of such superiority that, compared with it, all the systematic thinking and acting of human beings is an utterly insignificant reflection."

"The human mind is not capable of grasping the Universe. We are like a little child entering a huge library. The walls are covered to the ceilings with books in many different tongues. The child knows that someone must have written these books. It does not know who or how. It does not understand the languages in which they are written. But the child notes a definite plan in the arrangement of the books — a mysterious order which it does not comprehend, but only dimly suspects."

"The intuitive mind is a sacred gift and the rational mind is a faithful servant. We have created a society that honors the servant and has forgotten the gift. We should take care not to make the intellect our god; it has, of course, powerful muscles, but no personality."

"There is no logical way to the discovery of elemental laws. There is only the way of intuition, which is helped by a feeling for the order lying behind the appearance."

"When the solution is simple, God is answering. God does not play dice with the universe. God is subtle but he is not malicious."

"The finest emotion of which we are capable is the mystic emotion. Herein lies the germ of all art and all true science. Anyone to whom this feeling is alien, who is no longer capable of wonderment and lives in a state of fear, is a dead man. To know that what is impenetrable for us really exists and manifests itself as the highest wisdom and the most radiant beauty, whose gross forms alone are intelligible to our poor faculties - this knowledge, this feeling ... that is the core of the true religious sentiment. In this sense, and in this sense alone, I rank myself among profoundly religious men."

"I am a Jew, but I am entralled by the luminous figure of the Nazarene. No one can read the gospel without feeling the actual presence of Jesus. His personality pulsates in every word. No myth is filled with such life."

"My religion consists of a humble admiration of the illimitable superior spirit who reveals himself in the slight details we are able to perceive with our frail and feeble mind."

"All the world bows to me, I bow to the Master Peter Deunov of Bulgaria."

- Albert Einstein


Have you read Peter Deunov?
(to name one mystic and spiritual teacher who united science and spirituality into an impressive whole)

Or, to use your own way of arguing - is someone who was worthy of Albert Einstein's time not worthy enough of yours? Or do you see yourself as intellectually superior to Albert Enstein?

Not only irratonal/unintelligent people believe in God. Not everyone who has time for religion take it as literal truth - more as an imperfect way of trying to communicate (hard to achieve) truth.
 
Last edited:
Top