Religious Science or Scientific Religion?
- Login or register to post comments
- Print this page

- A physical scientist does not introduce awareness (sensation or perception) into his theories, and having thus removed the mind from nature, he cannot expect to find it there.
—Erwin Schrödinger, Mind and Matter
When a belief system ignores the problem, the fact, the miracle of human perception, it ignores life. It neglects existence. It abdicates self-awareness—the very thing which makes us human.
For any science and philosophy, the question is not whether reality is in-dependent or not of our perception. The question is why we should be perceiving at all in the first place. (And wondering about it too.)
This is the human question, the meaning of self-awareness. This is what science must now answer.
And then it will become what it has always sought to be.
Comments
I think all things
I think all things supernatural or unknown to us stuff is all scientific just not discovered yet. Like if there is a God it should be proven through science one day. etc
That is the million dollar question yellowseed!
This is the most profound question that humanity has yet to answer and it has been a question of great philosophers for a very long time. So what is consciousness, there are many theories. Personally I have been studying data from near death experiences to try to answer this question for myself. If a persons mind, or at least some part of it can exist beyond death then we know at least one thing, that the mind is not like other matter.
I really enjoyed your post many do not even consider this question before embarking on a world view. Here is a great book that I have really enjoyed.
Science and the Near Death Experience: How Consciousness Survives Death. By Chris Carter.
a guess...
I too have pondered this great (and presently unanswerable) question that you pose here, and would like to suggest a possibility that has recently intrigued me...
In no way am i trying to suggest that I have found the answer, or that i'm the first person to have this thought, or even that i will have this same idea a week from now, but here it goes...
perhaps in this reality, in this universe, ALL is consciousness. Everything. Perhaps consciousness (a vague term, i realize) is that fundamental unit of existence, that grand unified theory, from which all things are built.
That being said, perhaps all on this consciousness is connected, similarly to Jungs collective conscious idea, but that there are some points that have been constructed to tap into this consciousness at a higher level than others (EG the human brain).
SO while all things, all rocks, clouds, and ants are still very much connected to the web of consciousness, our human brains have a slightly better reception to it than they.
Kind of like the internet. We're running on 4G servers, and something like chimpanzee is still on dialup... this wireless connection that we have is perhaps what turns our bodies into living beings, connecting them to that Web, and it is only that web that gives us that faculties that allow to to metacognize and perform other abstract thoughts.
im still kinda of tinkering with this idea, so id like to hear what other people think of it?
peace
“No problem can be solved from the same level of consciousness that created it.” -Albert Einstein
absolutely!
Looking back, I should have been more clear about the fact that I was not placing any kind of judgement on the fact that I think that humans have a more developed concentration of consciousness, because, as you said, its not the spiders who are destroying this planet (which i also find to be a conscious living entity)... Its us.
We, unlike many other life-forms, have begun living with a great dependance on our egos, which has lead us to great accomplishments, and even greater atrocities. This ego acts to create an illusion of separation from the "web" that others may not experience, and so I very much agree that there is an incredible amount of wisdom that can be learned from even the smallest of insects.
It is undeniable though, the that curiosity of the human mind, and our ability to create mental schemas, abstract concepts, and metaphysical thoughts has in some ways set us apart from others (as can be seen by our veracious appetite for discovery and invention).
By no means however, would I ever try and place humans at a superior level of value from even the smallest ant, for to do so would be to forget that (as you said) we are not the weaver of the great web, but merely a strand in it.
If one were to view the earth however, as a live being (which I very much think that it is) , then what i meant to say above is that maybe humans are similar to neurons from its brain, as it is our current function to perceive and classify what we encounter (among other things). Currently however, we've been acting more like a tumor, but that is besides the point.
Drawing from the wisdom that is present in all of nature, it is clear that all species have a niche, and most of them know what it is.
Do we?
“No problem can be solved from the same level of consciousness that created it.” -Albert Einstein
Carl Sagan
Anyone who tauts Carl Sagan without knowing that he (and his wife Ann Druyan) were avid marijuana advocates is pretty dumb.
Dawkins is a philosophical materialist beyond any other I've ever known ( I actually have a PhD in evolutionary biology). He could use a few mega doses of LSD or ayahuasca...perhaps that would shift him. Worked wonders for Richard Alpert. Some great coversations/debates out there between Dawkins and Deepak Chopra
Tim 71
spot on man! Dawkin's; excellent sciencist, poor philosopher.
If people are obviously close minded about ideas than why should we try to integrate there opinion. If a refute to an idea is obviously rhetorical and a fallacy, than they might be trying holding up an idology.
I can have compassion though. I think those "arrogant athiest" (there is a forum called just that) just do not want any suprises, they are scared of the unknown. Knowledge can be come a security/defense mechanism.
Idea's should be able to hold themselves up because of the evidence that supports them, the facts should speak for themselves.
There is no reason to call others stupid for there ideas if yours is better than theirs unless someone needs to resort to psychological defense of that idea rather then evaluating the evidience.
Matt
Here here.
Well spoken.
There are many definitions of real, but it's no excuse for sloppy thinking.
Zezt, I hope you dont think
Zezt,
I hope you dont think that I was saying you were an atheist or theist. Personally I am not sure what I am. Some where between agnostic and pantheist haha. I was just saying that "such and such is why people can be so closed minded."
I hear ya man
I hear ya man, its tough to evaluate and validate subjective evidence with the scientific method and sometimes you just cant. I cannot believe that my fellow human beings are always deluding themselves because what they see in there minds eye cannot be seen with a microscope, telescope, or any other type of scope or gram, counter, meter, and etc.

Delicious
Digg
StumbleUpon
Propeller
Reddit
Magnoliacom
Newsvine
Furl
Facebook
Google
Yahoo
Technorati
Icerocket




