Will science ever accept?
 

Will science ever accept spirituality in terms of souls and afterlife?

Will science ever accept objective verified proof? It seems that science doesen't accept at all subjective proof like reincarnations, NDE, mediums communication, even if they are verified and confirmed

Why doesen't it accept reincarnation verified evidence, NDE, and mediums? Can there be a hidden reason behind not admitting this?

Hidden reason? Just that they are Left brainers...we are Right brainers.
They can't help it and we can't help it...My 2 cents.

Hmmm, interesting.

I was thinking of a hidden reason, breaking news: Imagine scientists admit that is verified that after death we continue to exist as consciousness, how would humanity react to that?

Maybe they just thinking that AI and robots will become conscious like humans

Because they have not seen any proof for themselves, that anything of a non physical nature exists.

Slowly though, some medicos and scientists etc are experiencing some proofs, that have changed their lives and beliefs.

But maybe one and all should consider that not all proof, is a truth in reality, as in the almighty one's knowledge/understanding of truth.
E.g. :- if we see or here spirit speak, and we realize it as an indisputable fact, it does not mean that what spirit says to us is a truth in the eyes of the almighty one, because after all the almighty one knows absolute truth pertaing to the almighty ones universe.

The above is for any persons considerations.

And that is why we need someone of say Jesus' caliber/potential on Earth, in order to perform incredible feats of all kinds, so that people can realize in life eternal, and to have a faith that it is all true and that they might aspire to completely alter their way of being, and to aspire to an absolutely lovingness way of being.

Totally agree with you. Imagine that this happens, breaking news everywhere, then there won't be any doubt, no more fears and doubts, things would settle

Why do you need anyone to accept?

Because at the moment there is no accepted evidence of souls and afterlife, and the acceptance would make the belief a fact

Sciencs accepts the theory of Evolution and has proof that Humans and Apes had common ancestor, hence Apes are our cousins and that we as Humans arrived here due to evolution, adaptation (to climate, i.e different skin colour) and natural selection over millions of years

Science thinks that the soul concept was invented by arhaic people to differentiate between a living being and a dead one, they reffered to it as breath. When they couldn't explain phenomena they concluded that the breath (soul) went to God (Phenomena that they couldn't explain), hence the soul-god association and continously transmitted.

Nowadays more and more people say that there is no need for a soul as the brain does everything and hence deny the soul afterlife and god existence as there is no accepted proof of their existence

Might be getting close in the work of Stuart Hameroff and Roger Penrose on quantum consciousness.

Hello all.

As a ponderer on many subjects, and through general interest only--not a "scientist" as such---

I think that scientific knowledge currently available could in some measure go along with, (yet not be able to "prove"), the proposition that existence is interconnected and interdependent process. Perhaps such a proposition itself is however not considered by science as being the stuff of scientific enquiry?--more of a scenario within which scientific laws of cause and consequence in varying forms are seen/known to function and have validity, but the proposed scenario itself is perhaps not possible to prove by scientific means--perhaps? because being "of"existence detachment to outside of existence in order to apply objectivity seems impossible.

However, I think that there is a certain logic in the proposition, even though it may not be able to be proven. If so, the proposition can be believed, perhaps even by scientists, even though it may not be able to be proven by scientific knowledge currently available, or in the way in which scientific knowledge has so far considered to be available, ie-by purely objective analysis. It may be that science is beginning to grapple with the possibility that there is a moving/moveable interface between what is currently understood as objective and what is not.

Choosing to believe the proposition, choosing to live in conscious cognisance of the proposition, with all the consequent behaviour which both imagination and logic suggest is appropriate and in harmony with living that proposition is, I think, to subscribe to what might have once been considered a spiritual life, but now becomes revealed as pragmatic and logical.

PS. I have no idea what the pinky purple figure at the top of this reply represents, nor have I any idea how it got there. Have I made a big finger/small screen blunder?--quite likely, happens a lot to me.

petex