Questionable spirituality

[HITESH SHAH]

Originally Posted by freebird

Will science ever accept spirituality as "truth"?

Albert Einstein was a great scientist world has ever known . Here are some of his well-known thoughts which can help u see things clearly and vividly.

"If we want to improve the world we cannot do it with scientific knowledge but with ideals. Confucius, Buddha, Jesus, and Gandhi have done more for humanity than science has done."

"We must begin with the heart of man—with his conscience—and the values of conscience can only be manifested by selfless service to mankind."

"Religion and science go together. As I’ve said before, science without religion is lame and religion without science is blind. They are interdependent and have a common goal—the search for truth."

"Hence it is absurd for religion to proscribe Galileo or Darwin or other scientists. And it is equally absurd when scientists say that there is no God. The real scientist has faith, which does not mean that he must subscribe to a creed."

"Without religion, there is no charity. The soul given to each of us is moved by the same living spirit that moves the universe."

[freebird]

Originally Posted by Busby

In my 'new book' spirituality has nothing to do with religion nor with any god.
It (the condition we call spirituality) is a part of the natural world and part of the conscious universe.

Natural laws are valid everywhere and for everything, we have to get away from a belief in a divine presence.

We are all in a constant state of feedback with the whole, mainly through our five senses - senses which we constantly underestimate.

According to science all you have is those 5 senses, if you can't see, hear, smell, taste, feel, it's not there.

[freebird]

Yes, I am aware that genes can play a major role in this, but also the upbringing environment and education of the person.
What do you mean by "darkness"?

Originally Posted by Greenslade

Spirituality is not rational even though many would say that they have applied rational thought and logic. Often Spiritual people only look for Spiritual answers, but the frameworks of Spirituality are built with what's inside their (yes, mine too) skulls and few seem to venture there. That kind of darkness is a scary place. Did you know that you're predisposed to be Spiritual due to genetics, for instance?

[freebird]

Thank you for your in depth answer.

Originally Posted by Shivani Devi

Do all of those "rational people" have a degree in psychiatry to be able to make such a diagnosis? Because that is how I look at it.

I don't know, some of them have, as they are psychiatrists and some don't.

Originally Posted by Shivani Devi

Having said that, I have been diagnosed with Schizoaffective Disorder, Schizotypal Personality Disorder but NOT Schizophrenia..they are all only LABELS anyway! I also have Avoidant Personality Disorder, Asperger's Disorder, Borderline Personality Disorder, Antisocial Personality Disorder, Conduct Disorder and Narcissistic Personality Disorder.

....and NONE of those diagnoses were based on me "hearing things" or "seeing things" or having religious convictions.

I get what you mean, but I was trying to say that when someone exposes his/her beliefs regarding spirituality they are often seen as "mad", "schizophrenic", etc.

Originally Posted by Shivani Devi

They were based on the fact that I am a total non-conformist who prefers to find my OWN answers than to just follow the herd...NOT to blindly believe what I am being told by the mass media without questioning it and to reach my own understandings and conclusions instead of just taking another's "word for it" no matter HOW educated they may be...it is like I am "anti everything".

Ok, I respect that.

Originally Posted by Shivani Devi

People with a mental illness usually hear voices telling them to kill themselves, hurt others, break the law, do bad things...their hallucinations are generally fearful and freaky and this leads to a very poor quality of life...you usually see them having loud, full-on conversations with themselves and making very weird, high pitched vocalizations at irregular intervals.

Then there are others who hear voices telling them to be kind to themselves and to others, not to eat junk food, to be patient and give others more time to come around, to take time out to play...their hallucinations are deep, bright and vivid leading to feelings of peace, love, joy, bliss...and a much happier lifestyle.

How do I know they are not hallucinations? I don't...but then again, nobody can say that they are either!


Because there are those, like Buddhists and Advaita Vedantins, who will say that the whole world and everything in it is merely a big mass-hallucination because ONLY truth #3 exists and they call everything else MAYA or Illusion.

Those who disagree with that would be the very first to call such people "insane" because that only shows just how much they disagree with them and NOTHING else! Yeah.."you must be crazy because I disagree with everything you say".

Exactly, referring to your last paragraph, the "rational people" will jump in refuting all experiences of the person who claimed them, labeling him/her as "delusional"

Originally Posted by Shivani Devi

In regards to life after death, scientists like Eben Alexander, Robert Lanza (Beyond Biocentrism), Nassim Haramein etc have a different philosophy altogether than the one you are presenting, however, these scientists are seen as "pseudoscientists" or "fake scientists" by those who disagree with them..yeah, "you are fake because I disagree with you".

There is no general consensus here.

Yes, I heard of the above mentioned authors, and also about Rupert Sheldrake, Dean Radin, Peter Fenwick, Charles Tart, Gary Schwartz and other open minded scientists.

The problem is that, as you say, whatever those open minded scientists claim, is regarded as pseudoscience, now Rupert Sheldrake is regarded a hoax like Deepak Chopra.

It's just frustrating that those open minded scientists who are conducting research on spirituality can't come up with a proof of spirituality.
As far as I know, Dean Radin has been conducting research on remote viewing, Rupert Sheldrake on telepathy, yet they are just beliefs, not even theories, zilch of evidence.

Originally Posted by Shivani Devi

You go to a country like India..see many who believe in cryptid deities...so, according to the Western DSM V, there would be over a billion people who are ALL "insane" isn't it?

If you really look into the DSM V...the diagnostic manual for mental illness...you will notice there are thousands of diagnostic criteria and you could pigeonhole every living person on this planet into one criteria or another, so there really is no such thing as "normality" anyway.

How do I know that I am not delusional, hallucinating, fooling myself etc? I just know it yet I cannot prove that to YOU and if you don't believe me, that is not my problem, it is yours...and that is how I look at it.

Thanks again for your answer, yes, there is no right or wrong, there is no normality, just different perceptions I suppose. You don't have to prove anything to me, it's just that I am disappointed by the open minded scientists who claim that materialism is a dead end, but don't come up with actual proof, unfortunately materialism still stands and has the lead as majority.

[freebird]

Originally Posted by HITESH SHAH

Science observes phenomenon in and around the world , establishes the cause and effect relationships and avers axioms many a time quantifying or giving numerical representation in such laws. This holds true for all material / natural sciences .

Yeah, true. If you can't hear/see/smell/taste/feel anything then it's not there according to materialism. If you do, guess what, you are being labeled "delusional" or "hoaxer"

Originally Posted by HITESH SHAH

For social sciences such as politics / economics / psychology / anthropology etc numeric representation of axioms / laws is not required (as it is not possible also) . Still people believe these sciences as there are some visible / identifiable cause effect relationships . People were very late to recognise psychology as science as the cause effect relationships therein are very subtle and behavioural which only a person with knowledge of psychology can observe.

Yes, it's more a matter of concept, the proof is not so much required as for hard sciences, but, people still believe in those social sciences, so I agree on that.

Originally Posted by HITESH SHAH

In case of spirituality , it is even more subtle than psychology. The cause effect relationship is spread over period of time / spread over group of people and not quantifiable and predictable with precise accuracy. So it is no surprise that people even now discard it as mere belief system.But all these difficulty still do not mean there is no cause effect and there can be no spiritual laws.

Yeah, I agree on that as well.

Originally Posted by HITESH SHAH

This kind of opinions have historic background . Due to phenomenal success of material sciences and inability of spiritualists to keep pace with them , many people like Karl Marx , Sigmund Freud , Adam Smith ,Darwin and many more social thinkers have shaken the foundations of spirituality (knowingly or unknowingly ) . Even irrational ignorant selfish spiritualists too are to be blamed for this sorry state of affairs . Due to this , it is not taught at any level to current generation of people . With this background , I am even happy that some people like you are even talking about spirituality (even for mocking as mentally ill ) .

Yes, the thing is that what we call material sciences, seem to have the upper hand as they come up with proof, that we can observe (see/hear/smell/feel/taste), other than that, according to them it's just hallucination, a wishful thinking and a zilch of proof.

Originally Posted by HITESH SHAH

Truth and facts are never swayed by majority beliefs . It is absolute . Even if all the people in the world come and say fire is cold , it will not turn it into cold . Earth was round and revolving around sun even before Galileo / Copernicus discovered the same (despite brutal majority against them persecuting them with their nose bleeding ....) .

With the laws and tests methods of material science , science will not be able to accept spirituality as truth . With methods of social sciences , more acute observations , it can accept it definitely.

I get what you mean, this is what I was trying to say when I was referring to a person jumping in a freezing cold lake. Regardless of his/her belief, that person's body temperature will still drop, regardless of his/her belief. So, there are some laws in nature that don't care about one's individual beliefs.

[freebird]

Originally Posted by HITESH SHAH

Albert Einstein was a great scientist world has ever known . Here are some of his well-known thoughts which can help u see things clearly and vividly.

"If we want to improve the world we cannot do it with scientific knowledge but with ideals. Confucius, Buddha, Jesus, and Gandhi have done more for humanity than science has done."

"We must begin with the heart of man—with his conscience—and the values of conscience can only be manifested by selfless service to mankind."

"Religion and science go together. As I’ve said before, science without religion is lame and religion without science is blind. They are interdependent and have a common goal—the search for truth."

"Hence it is absurd for religion to proscribe Galileo or Darwin or other scientists. And it is equally absurd when scientists say that there is no God. The real scientist has faith, which does not mean that he must subscribe to a creed."

"Without religion, there is no charity. The soul given to each of us is moved by the same living spirit that moves the universe."

Interesting food for thought.
I always thought that Einstein was materialist, whereas Planck was the one believing in something "further"

[Shivani Devi]

Originally Posted by freebird

Thank you for your in depth answer.


I don't know, some of them have, as they are psychiatrists and some don't.


I get what you mean, but I was trying to say that when someone exposes his/her beliefs regarding spirituality they are often seen as "mad", "schizophrenic", etc.


Ok, I respect that.


Exactly, referring to your last paragraph, the "rational people" will jump in refuting all experiences of the person who claimed them, labeling him/her as "delusional"


Yes, I heard of the above mentioned authors, and also about Rupert Sheldrake, Dean Radin, Peter Fenwick, Charles Tart, Gary Schwartz and other open minded scientists.

The problem is that, as you say, whatever those open minded scientists claim, is regarded as pseudoscience, now Rupert Sheldrake is regarded a hoax like Deepak Chopra.

It's just frustrating that those open minded scientists who are conducting research on spirituality can't come up with a proof of spirituality.
As far as I know, Dean Radin has been conducting research on remote viewing, Rupert Sheldrake on telepathy, yet they are just beliefs, not even theories, zilch of evidence.



Thanks again for your answer, yes, there is no right or wrong, there is no normality, just different perceptions I suppose. You don't have to prove anything to me, it's just that I am disappointed by the open minded scientists who claim that materialism is a dead end, but don't come up with actual proof, unfortunately materialism still stands and has the lead as majority.

All I am getting at, in a nutshell, is just because somebody is "seen" as being something due to a difference of opinion or agenda, it doesn't stand to reason that they ARE that...and nothing more.

[Dargor]

Most of the time it's just feel-good quackery that avoids the harsh realities of the universe.

The kind of people who claim you and I have ''chosen'' our life before birth aren't any better than religious fundamentalists trying to shove their beliefs down the throat of others. Just because they think they have chosen their own life doesn't mean others did. In the long run if you think deeply enough about it, it makes indeed no sense at all.

Of course I can't say for sure, but I think a lot of 'spiritual experiences' are just dreams or hallucinations. Otherwise it would be a little bit unfair for some people to have the right to know while others don't. The very few questionable experiences I've had (if at all) raises a lot of doubt in my mind. Sure, if I succumb to wishul thinking, I'd call them spiritual experiences.

I am studying NDEs and what I noticed is that many of them are different and contradictive. Some are religious based, while others aren't. Does that mean there's some kind of higher force messing with us? Appears to be so.

Is there truly something out there? I don't know. Maybe there is, but I disagree with the way everything is organised. So much to the point I'd rather hold on to atheistic views for now.

[markings]

The questions and confusion arise from having the wrong starting point, which is "we are spiritual beings having a human experience." Very popular with many if not most modern day spiritual teachers. It is part of elevating the spiritual way above the physical, almost denigrating and belittling the latter.

If I look at my life I have *never* experienced myself as a 'spiritual being' but I have had many experiences as a 'human being having a spiritual experience'.

The body is primary. It gives rise to mental, emotional and spiritual aspects, but they all depend on the body-brain mechanism. Therefore that is the point to start out from.

Like Zen master Seung Sahn says 'always return to and start from the zero point'. This is a point of not knowing. From there one can see that all the fancy theories and beliefs are made up on the go. This is not a problem if it helps one to make sense and progress but always keep in mind that it is not out there as an independent thing.

[markings]

Duplicate posting