Out of body religious experiences

[TomOfSweden]

So they've cracked this baby.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/6960612.stm

This is so disappointing. I thought it was going to be something linked to oxygen deprivation of the brain or something exciting. It turned out to be extraordinarily banal.

It's just vision and sensory information sending conflicting info. Sometimes science can be such a kill joy.

[Rhabbi]

Interesting Tom, but it does not crack anything as OBE's were reported by people who could not see themselves. Not that I personally believe the reporst, but this does not explain them, just replicates them in a different way.

[TomOfSweden]

Interesting Tom, but it does not crack anything as OBE's were reported by people who could not see themselves. Not that I personally believe the reporst, but this does not explain them, just replicates them in a different way.

It's actually covered. Even when we're blind the eyes send messages to the vision cortex. Our brain isn't a pretty set up.

But, erm... yeah. That's one way to look at it. I'd call it a desperate attempt at grabbing for straws. But hey! What ever makes you happy.

[Ozme52]

It explains one type of OBE... or at the very least emulates it. There is no "proof" here that this is in any way the sole explanation. (and maybe they didn't claim such, I'll admit to merely scanning the article.)

I used to have a nightmare dream that spiders were hanging over my bed and descending onto my face. I later came to realize that this was my brain "interpreting" attempts to contact me by astral projection... something I am apparently not willing to allow.

How do I know this? Someone who claims to be adept at astral projection once tried to contact me one night when I was visiting. The next morning his wife commented on how I must have had a nightmare because I woke her with my scream. He said no... that was me just rejecting his attempt to contact me.

And I had had the spider dream. (None of this was prediscussed. I didn't know he ever projected, it had never come up, I didn't know he intended to contact me.)

It all came together. Now the visits no longer bother me, though I still do not allow them in. But I do believe in astral projection. I believe in OBE's though I'm not a practioner.

And as a side note, with my usual need to project humor, I only practice IBE's... if she's cute.

[Alex Bragi]

Interesting article Tom.

Well, I’ve had a couple of inexplicable OBEs. I’m an agnostic so I don’t really feel as if it was any kind of religious experience, but then it wasn’t like the “Beam me up Scotty” variety either, just a few minutes worth of feeling myself floating above my own body.

Personally, I like to try keep an open mind about things like this that I don't understand.

As, physicist, Oliver Heaviside once said: Shall I refuse my dinner because I do not fully understand the process of digestion?

[John56{vg}]

Alex,

I agree with you totally. I believe there are still mysteries we don't understand. And I hate to discount them out of hand.

[TomOfSweden]

Alex,

I agree with you totally. I believe there are still mysteries we don't understand. And I hate to discount them out of hand.

But you don't value every theory at equal merit do you? It's a very important distinction. A person saying that they believe that there might exist something supernatural but judges it as 99% unlikely is still by definition agnostic. But pretty far from religious and ever further away from any particular faith.

I try to avoid the use of the term "agnostic" since it really says very little. In my experience, usually people use the term because they're just trying to avoid having to think about and justify religious theories. It takes very little poking for the whole intellectual construct to come crashing down.

I'm an atheist because that's the theory that I think is most likely explanation. I don't deny the possibility of an existence of a supernatural force. But I don't consider myself agnostic. Not even almost.

[Alex Bragi]

...

I try to avoid the use of the term "agnostic" since it really says very little. In my experience, usually people use the term because they're just trying to avoid having to think about and justify religious theories. It takes very little poking for the whole intellectual construct to come crashing down.

...

Yes, you're correct, Tom, it does say "very little" about me but that exactly how I like it. I have a lot of dear thiest friends whose beliefs I don't necessarily agree with or fully understand but I will most certainly always respect.

Ok, let me be more specific and evassive at the same time then and say I'm a non-theist. At least I think that's what I am. *ss* I say that not because I don't fully understand the definition of the word but, more simply because with regard to religion, no matter how much I hear, read, debate, and think about it, I really and truly still don't know what I believe.

[TomOfSweden]

I really and truly still don't know what I believe.

Or maybe you know what you believe. You just aren't sure if it's the truth, right?

Anybody saying that they know the truth is a loony. Sure fire faith is just stupid. Nobody knows the truth. Nobody knows what keeps the universe together. Science hasn't even begun to have a comprehensive model for how it works. It's at best qualified guesswork.

The religious debate is whether or not people think that people having epiphanies in deserts had a more accurate scientific model than cutting edge science today. I personally think that's highly unlikely.

Christians saying they "know" that they'll go to heaven are just plain deluded. None of us knows. It's all about which horse we're betting on.

I'm betting on that we're all wrong. Time and time again science have shown that the true theory was one that earlier had very few supporters. Aristotelian physics was the "bible" of all science for 2000 years and today we find all his theories laughable.

[Guest 91108]

I think it is what they admitted in the article a replication.. it doesn't explain it.
It only tells us a possible how it happens. not the why.
so it's really gotten nowhere.
they know what life is but still have yet to know the cause.
Same kind of thing.

Plus they had to use electronic hookups and manipulation. How can that be called an explanation of what happens within the body itself.

I dont assume they actually found out anything concerning the cause and meaning.

[John56{vg}]

Tom

I think you are right to some exten, we don't KNOW at all. And I do agree with the thought that the people who do say they KNOW are loony at best and scary and dangerous and destructive at worst.

I have very personal beliefs but still many doubts. I do NOT believe in organized religion because I think it leads to the fundamentalism that destroys and kills and hates.

But I also do not believe in the people that say these things do NOT exist, that there is NO supernatural events. The there are no spirtis or another plane of existence. I am not sure if I totally believe in these things, but I will not discount their existence.

I think there is an atheistic fundamentalism as well, that is just as dangerous as religious fundamentalism.

I have had experiences that I cannot explain (My grandmother visited me before she died, I am convinced of this. And I have had other "visitations" as well. AM i deluded, I don't think so. Can I explain it, NO, but I am convinced it happened.)

[TomOfSweden]

The came up with a model that explains it. Nobody else has ever done that before, so I'm going to go with this theory.

I have very personal beliefs but still many doubts. I do NOT believe in organized religion because I think it leads to the fundamentalism that destroys and kills and hates.

I don't agree at all. I think and believe that the "organised" part of "organised religion" is what's good about religion. It gives people structure, traditions and rules to organise their life around. We all need them and we all need to be part of a greater whole.

The bad part of "organised religion" is when the ethics and philosophy of a religion leaks into the scientific part. Where people take an age old moral system and keep the obsolete scientific theories that used to go with it. People who just can't accept that the Jewish/Babylonian theories in Christianity about creation and post-death where wrong. They didn't have the fine tools to measure before. Now they do.

But there's plenty of very large religions that don't make any scientific claims at all. Zoroastrianism for example. They're huge in Iran. They're organised and do a lot of good. Buddhism is another one, (unless you live in Tibet).

I think there is an atheistic fundamentalism as well, that is just as dangerous as religious fundamentalism.

I think you're wrong here to. I've recently read up a lot about atheism in USA and I haven't seen any examples of fundamentalist atheism anywhere. Apart from crater-faced 17 year olds who are against everything.

The fundamental bits in the atheist movement is that they are militant about having critical discussions. Which considering the number of religious in USA, is not a big thing over there. I can understand why they might get frustrated.

http://www.pointofinquiry.org/

These are great. It's an atheism spreading network for USA. They've got a podcast and have plenty of interesting scientists and scientific journalists talking about various subjects.

Here's Karen Armstrongs theory, which I fully support. She's a catholic nun and have written plenty of great books on religion: Fundamentalism occurs when there's a disjunction between your faith and what you know. People become fundamentalist when they know they are wrong and the external conflict are just about them trying to convince themselves.

I have had experiences that I cannot explain (My grandmother visited me before she died, I am convinced of this. And I have had other "visitations" as well. AM i deluded, I don't think so. Can I explain it, NO, but I am convinced it happened.)

I've got lots of experiences I can't explain. I like to leave the explaining to people with the education to do it rather than having a go at stupid ass guesswork which isn't ever likely to make any sense. We all know we can't trust out senses, but it's all we've got. Sucks.

[John56{vg}]

I don't agree at all. I think and believe that the "organised" part of "organised religion" is what's good about religion. It gives people structure, traditions and rules to organise their life around. We all need them and we all need to be part of a greater whole.

Organizing Religion into political (The pope, Divine Right of Kings, the Ayatollahs, etc) forces gives one man or a group of men the right to tell me what I must believe and not allowing me to believe what I want to. If you have one man or woman believing that I must kill you because you don't belive what I do, mean you have 1 or 2 fanatics. But one or woamn telling me to believe that thing, means I have a whole society telling me that you are an enemy fornot believing what I do.

Organizing religion is what has set religion against science. Again, if I am one person I have the right to look at evolution as a gift from my God. But if I am told by one stupid individual who wants power that It is a sin to believe in something that has so much proof behind it, then I have organized stupidity into science.

So I disagree totally that organization has made religion into a force for good, quite the contrary.

I think you're wrong here to. I've recently read up a lot about atheism in USA and I haven't seen any examples of fundamentalist atheism anywhere. Apart from crater-faced 17 year olds who are against everything.

Dawkins is just as much a fundamentalist (and to me, just as much an idiot) as Pat Robertson or that Falwell was. He is fanatical about claiming that there is no God, as those claiming there is only one way to look at God.

O'Hare was the same way. Wanting to make atheism as much a State sponsored "religion" as the fundamentalistic CHristians want to make born-again CHristianity. And they are again, people who want to make their way the only way.

If I am allowed to look at the evidence, look at what we have learned and filter it through my own experiences I can have a view that fits for me and I can allow for what fits for you. I have the personal belief that God speaks to us in the way we are best able to hear the message (The bible, the Koran, Meditation, Nature, movies, good books). Now that works for me.

It may not work for you, you like a liitle more structure or organization, fine. But that doesn't mean I am wrong, nor does it mean you are wrong. But we both can find the common ground of what we have learned to be true to us and we can be friends.

At least that is what I believe. And you can believe I am wrong, but it does NOT mean that you (and I am talking to all-encompassing you here) can get enough people together to tell me I am wrong and kill me for what I believe.

I've got lots of experiences I can't explain. I like to leave the explaining to people with the education to do it rather than having a go at stupid ass guesswork which isn't ever likely to make any sense. We all know we can't trust out senses, but it's all we've got. Sucks.

Stupid-Ass guesswork (as you call it) is what got us that knowledge in the first place. A lot of our chemical concoctions came from Alchemist trying to turn lead into gold. Boy, that was a stupid-ass theory. But out of it came a lot of great knowledge about chemistry.

Aristotle (Still a very brilliant man) had the stupid-ass belief that maggot spontaneously generated from rotten meat. But he experiementd and came up with a foundation for science and our methods of belief.

So I wouldn't be so quick to eliminate "stupid-ass guess work," It is the foundation for what we have discovered. And do you think we know everything we could possibly know? Certainly not, but we act as if we do. Fundamentalist Christians think we knew everything we needed to know 2000 years ago.

Fundamentalist MUslims believe we knew everything we are allowed to know, what, a thousand some odd years ago. And I think the one of the problems with today's people. A lot of us, and I think our edicational system teaches that we KNOW what is impossible and what is not.

And the great discoveries were made at a time when NOTHING was impossible.

Again, my humble opinion only, but it works for me.

[Guest 91108]

Kudos John .

[tessa]

~walks through, flashing my quote~

"Treat the other man's truth gently; it is all he has to believe with. His mind was created for his own thoughts, not yours or mine." ~Henry S. Haskins

I saw an article about this elsewhere and found it fascinating. It's a bit more fascinating here. Lots more, in fact.

[TomOfSweden]

Organizing Religion into political (The pope, Divine Right of Kings, the Ayatollahs, etc) forces gives one man or a group of men the right to tell me what I must believe and not allowing me to believe what I want to. If you have one man or woman believing that I must kill you because you don't belive what I do, mean you have 1 or 2 fanatics. But one or woamn telling me to believe that thing, means I have a whole society telling me that you are an enemy fornot believing what I do.

Organizing religion is what has set religion against science. Again, if I am one person I have the right to look at evolution as a gift from my God. But if I am told by one stupid individual who wants power that It is a sin to believe in something that has so much proof behind it, then I have organized stupidity into science.

So I disagree totally that organization has made religion into a force for good, quite the contrary.

So by taking a couple of very extreme and abnormal examples of what organised religion can be you discount all of it. I personally think that we have most of our modern world to thank for scientific work made possible by religious institutions. In the olden days having time to do anything but survive was highly unusual.

Dawkins is just as much a fundamentalist (and to me, just as much an idiot) as Pat Robertson or that Falwell was. He is fanatical about claiming that there is no God, as those claiming there is only one way to look at God.

This proves to me that you haven't bothered listening to the man. So there's not much more for me to say. Fundamentalism to me means some sort of faith in spite of evidence.

O'hare I hadn't heard of and couldn't find anything on. Beside these I can't think of a single example of an atheist "fundamentalist".

Stupid-Ass guesswork (as you call it) is what got us that knowledge in the first place. A lot of our chemical concoctions came from Alchemist trying to turn lead into gold. Boy, that was a stupid-ass theory. But out of it came a lot of great knowledge about chemistry.

Either I misread you or you're confusing theory with faith.

It's a big difference going out on a limb if you're a scientist and it's within your field or if you're just a random dude. The last time a person who hadn't dedicated his entire life to science had a major break through was more than a 200 years ago. I can't think of a single specific example actually. The age of the gentleman scientist is definitely over.

The philosopher Thomas Kuhn dedicated his life to exploring this. Worth a read. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Kuhn

[Ozme52]

Another theological conversation...

I think I'm experiencing an OBE right now.

[Rhabbi]

Tom, you seem to be falling into what, for lack of a better term, I would call Atheistic Fundamentalism. I am not sure that this is the same thing that John is speaking of, but it does exist.

Let us define fundamentalism. According to Merriam Webster the definition is.

a movement or attitude stressing strict and literal adherence to a set of basic principles

An atheistic fundamentalism would be a movement would be an adherence to the basic principle that any religious theory is automatically wrong. This rather simple basic principle allows people to lump Christianity and Wicca into the same boat and not appreciate the differences between them. Here is an example of something an Atheistic Fundamentalist would say.

The difference between science and religion is the difference between a willingness to dispassionately consider new evidence and new arguments, and a passionate unwillingness to do so….The difference between science and religion is the difference between a genuine openness to fruits of human inquiry in the 21st century, and a premature closure to such inquiry as a matter of principle.

This attitude ignores the great Scientific advances of history were brought about through a religious study of creation. At one time this was from the Muslim world, from which we have the root of our arithmetic, astronomy, and medical science. And at a later date from the Christian world, which gave us our current understanding of astronomy and physics. trying to tell me that my believing in God precludes me looking at His creation with any ability to understand it ignores the history of science and religion. Plus, it shows that the person speaking has no real idea of who I am or what I am capable of.

Yes, Atheistic Fundamentalism exist, and maybe the reason you cannot see it is because you are standing inside of it looking out.

[John56{vg}]

My friend Rhabbi,

I agree wholeheartedly with everything you are saying and you put it VERY well, thank you for your insights.

Tom,

Madelynn Murray O'Hare was THE evangelist for political atheism in this country. IMHO, she wanted to make Atheism the official religion of this country, just like Robertson, andFalwell, and their ilk want to make fundamentalist Christianity the official religion of the U.S.

Fundamentalists of any stripe seem to me to show extreme doubt in their own beliefs. They don't seem to be able to justify their own beliefs unless everybody in the world believes exactly as they do.


And in regards to Dawkins, he is as much an evangelist as Falwell and Robertson. I read a debate between him and an evangelical Scientist (Gosh I wish I could remember this guys name, I respected him so much). Dawkins sounded like the nutcase and this scientist was very calm and made his points with debatable points and not with dogma.

Rhabbi is right, until the fundamentalists took over the muslim world, the muslims were the premier thinkers and techers and scientists of the world. The Christians were in the dark ages and somewhat becasue of organized religious thinking. The monks though kept the knowledge alive during this time.

The truth is there is not ONE way of thinking or believing. Science needs faith and faith need science. IT is when one or the to other forgets this that we get into trouble, I think.

I AM some random dude, but random dudes have created a lot of great thought and discoveries. And saying that yourgreat learned scientists know the answers, is JUST like saying the Pope is infallible, and that the Bible, or the Koran or The Secret is the only book to show you the way.

[John56{vg}]

Kudos John .

Sorry Wolf, I didn't see this before now.

Thank you I appreciate it,

John

[Alex Bragi]

Or maybe you know what you believe. You just aren't sure if it's the truth, right?

I don't know, that sounds kind of paradoxical to me, Tom. I mean, if I knew what "the truth" was then I wouldn't believe it because I would know it rather than believe that it actually was "the truth".

I know (not just believe) that a lot of atheists view agnostics in the same way as gays view bisexuals--"bi today gay tomorrow". That is, agnostics are actually atheist that just haven't quite come to the conclusion for themselves yet, but I don't see myself that way at all.

And, Tom, check out Internet Infidels debate site some time, you will love it!

And in regards to Dawkins, he is as much an evangelist as Falwell and Robertson. I read a debate between him and an evangelical Scientist (Gosh I wish I could remember this guys name, I respected him so much). Dawkins sounded like the nutcase and this scientist was very calm and made his points with debatable points and not with dogma.

I think the evangelical scientist you're thinking of is, Doctor Robert Winston. He's also one of my favourite people to read or listen to, along with Richard Dawkins who I've always found to be very openminded and respectful of other people beliefs--most congenial, actually. Unlike the likes of the loud and obnoxious Madelynn Murray O'Hair who, I believe, (know?) did more harm than good for the atheist movement.

[John56{vg}]

Alex,

Thank you for the info about Robert Wilson, he is fascinating. I am always happy to learn of such people. However, this scientist I am speaking of was an American. I feel so stupid when I cna't remember these things, LOL.

Also, I haven;t read a LOT of Dawkins, but in this interview he was just as rancorous as O'Hair (I spelled the name wrong above). He was not listening to any other point of view and sounded JUST like Falwell or Robertson did about their beliefs. I will have to read more of him I guess, but i was completely turned off from his views when I read this interview.

I am certainly willing to give him the benefit of the doubt, LOL.

[Alex Bragi]

...

Also, I haven;t read a LOT of Dawkins, but in this interview he was just as rancorous as O'Hair (I spelled the name wrong above). He was not listening to any other point of view and sounded JUST like Falwell or Robertson did about their beliefs. I will have to read more of him I guess, but i was completely turned off from his views when I read this interview.

I am certainly willing to give him the benefit of the doubt, LOL.

Well, certainly, I understand how his views could be miscontrued in the written word but in, for instance, television interviews he come across as much less arrogant. And Madelynn Murray O'Hair--I've often seen her name spelt O'Hare, which is course is how most people would spell it. Yep, she was a odd woman with an odd way of spelling her name. *ss*

[Sir_G]

Science seems to be the new religion of the new millennium. Even late last century is was getting that way. If you didn't/don't believe what science says or are either an ignorant fool, uneducated moron and so the list goes on.

I think there are fanatics on both sides of the fence. Me? I live somewhere in the middle. Live and let live, respect all beliefs no matter what you believe. Too many wars, inquisitions, purges etc etc have been carried out in the name of something, is science next on the list.

May the guys in the white lab coats not carry out biological warfare research, the saffron robed priests feel like they don't have to burst into flames, the collared priests not feel so deprived that they molest young children, the tv ministers so fulfilled they don't commit adultery and the list goes on and on.

The world is in enough trouble when all it would take is a little love and understanding to get over our differences and find things we agree on rather than finding things we differ on, "imagine all the people living life in peace yoohoo....you may say I'm a dreamer but I'm not the only one, I hope some day you'll join us and the world will be as one."

I'm not having a poke at anyone just stating my preference is for tolerance. Everyone has their version of the "TRUTH", often that is absolute. So respect it, even facts depend on your point of view.

Peace, Love and Mung Beans.

[TomOfSweden]

I apologise dearly for stirring up this and then not returning until now. I work too much right now so I'm not going to have time to log in for a while.

1) We've never ever had any reason to believe in anything supernatural. No proof has bothered to show up. Nothing measurable of verifiable. This isn't fundamentalism, it's about how we draw conclusions. Every person has seen something supernatural....We've all done it. But it's so easy to explain away, because our senses are wonky. Anybody who made it through primary school should understand that if we can't measure it in a lab, (what ever it is) we shouldn't bank on it. Just look at how often witnesses of crimes get it completely wrong. We see things we want to see. All the time. That's how humans work.

What Dawkins does is treats the scientific theories in religions as any other scientific theory. That's taboo in today's world since we seem to like to give special status to religion. We don't want to poke and prod at it. My conclusion is that the religious knows they are living a lie but like this fantasy world they've created and don't want anybody standing up in the boat.

I think the reason for this has to do with two fundamental functions that religion and especially organised religion fills.

1) It gives a purpose to life.

2) It gives a framework of rules to make life easier for everybody.

I think these two need to be replaced before anybody will even listen to reason.

I hear a lot that if everybody would follow the Bible the world would be a better place. If we only would live an honest and kind life bla bla bla. All religions and communities in the entire world have come up with the same basic rules to live by so we really don't need to care about the commandments. It'll sort itself out naturally.

These are the only unique Christian Commandments. They're a bit different depending on sect, but...
Thou shalt have no other gods before me
Thou shalt not make for thyself an idol
Thou shalt not make wrongful use of the name of thy God

All the other ones are the human commandments. We really don't need to remind ourselves to be honest. Most people are. People only break them in extreme situations but we like to remind ourselves about other peoples short comings, to make ourselves feel special. I think the world can live without these commandments without perishing.

And as far as common traditions to follow. It's just traditions. They're not intrinsically linked to the supernatural.

Next is the purpose of life. That's a trickier one. I grew up in a secular society where everybody was expected to find their own purpose. Even though my parents where religious I was told to find my own way in life. I can't really imagine living in a world where authority figures tell me that if I'm good I'll go to heaven. But I do think that people need to find a real purpose in life before taking the leap.

These two points is where Dawkins fucks it up. He's a die hard scientist and finding out stuff is his purpose in life. I think he's missed the social bit.

I've got nothing against religions or organised religion. I think it's good for the world and I think they have done and do a lot of good. But I'm against belief in the supernatural. It's retarding our world and is mideival superstition. And no, that isn't down to faith. Just the fact that evolution is at all still a debate in USA is extremely serious and proves my point.

edit: Sorry, I'm an idiot. Stressed out of my mind at the moment. My whole point was that we can be religious without being super-naturalists. With listening to reason, meant just this.

[John56{vg}]

Science seems to be the new religion of the new millennium. Even late last century is was getting that way. If you didn't/don't believe what science says or are either an ignorant fool, uneducated moron and so the list goes on.

I think there are fanatics on both sides of the fence. Me? I live somewhere in the middle. Live and let live, respect all beliefs no matter what you believe. Too many wars, inquisitions, purges etc etc have been carried out in the name of something, is science next on the list.

May the guys in the white lab coats not carry out biological warfare research, the saffron robed priests feel like they don't have to burst into flames, the collared priests not feel so deprived that they molest young children, the tv ministers so fulfilled they don't commit adultery and the list goes on and on.

The world is in enough trouble when all it would take is a little love and understanding to get over our differences and find things we agree on rather than finding things we differ on, "imagine all the people living life in peace yoohoo....you may say I'm a dreamer but I'm not the only one, I hope some day you'll join us and the world will be as one."

I'm not having a poke at anyone just stating my preference is for tolerance. Everyone has their version of the "TRUTH", often that is absolute. So respect it, even facts depend on your point of view.

Peace, Love and Mung Beans.

Sir_G great post and I am for tolerance as well, on all sides. Thank you for your wise and caring words.

[moptop]

Doctor Robert Winston - just to put a totally side-tracking comment in to this wonderful debate - once said, whilst looking at a scan of my insides,

"Technically, it's a mess in there."

My claim to fame, lol. Done hijacking.

[Sir_G]

Thanks John for your kind words they are very much appreciated.

Tom, have you read a book called the Tao of Physics by a fellow called Capra and is touted as an Exploration of the Parallels Between Modern Physics and Eastern Mysticism. In it he says "Physicists do not need mysticism, and mystics do not need physics, but humanity needs both. – (epilogue)"

He in turn had conversations with a chappy called Heisenburg who came up with the uncertainty principle after chatting with Capra. The book grew out of an inspirational moment Capra had while under the influence of psychedelics. Capra later discussed his ideas with Werner Heisenberg in 1972, as he mentioned in the following interview excerpt:

I had several discussions with Heisenberg. I lived in England then [circa 1972], and I visited him several times in Munich and showed him the whole manuscript chapter by chapter. He was very interested and very open, and he told me something that I think is not known publicly because he never published it. He said that he was well aware of these parallels. While he was working on quantum theory he went to India to lecture and was a guest of Tagore. He talked a lot with Tagore about Indian philosophy. Heisenberg told me that these talks had helped him a lot with his work in physics, because they showed him that all these new ideas in quantum physics were in fact not all that crazy. He realized there was, in fact, a whole culture that subscribed to very similar ideas. Heisenberg said that this was a great help for him. Niels Bohr had a similar experience when he went to China. – Fritjof Capra, interviewed by Renee Weber in the book The Holographic Paradigm (page 217–218)

As a result of those influences, Bohr adopted the yin yang symbol as part of his family coat of arms when he was knighted in 1947.

The Tao of Physics was followed by other books of the same genre like The Hidden Connection, The Turning Point and The Web of Life in which Capra extended the argument of how Eastern mysticism and todays scientific findings relate, and how Eastern mysticism might also have answers to some of the biggest scientific challenges of today.

All very interesting but still just another persons truth from their point of view.

(sections of this post are direct quotes from wikipedia, I'm honestly not that smart. *grin*)

Mung Beans

G

PS Just saw your post moptop and laughed my arse off. Cheeky thing!

[thrall]

Isn't a wonderful thing to be able to have, and express your, own opinion.

[TomOfSweden]

I feel a bit guilty for not being able to read this through properly. I'll do it when I have a chance.

Atheism is a huge family of faiths. My particular faith is called "apethiesm" which is a branch of atheism leaving it pretty much open. I don't call myself agnostic because they give credibility to today's religions. I don't. None of their supernatural theories have any evidence to back them up and their distribution on the planet seem to be pretty much random. These are the two main reasons I think they're all bogus. All the big ones are so old that people back then didn't have the tools to make a coherent case so it's not much we have to corroborate them. I think that all the ancient, (and even modern) theories of the nature of the supernatural is wrong, simply based on the fact that they have nothing to draw conclusions from. They have basically been guessing, which is nothing I will use as a basis for my faith.

The follow up question is off-course if science is better at explaining it. The answer is "no". The mathematicians Banach and Tarski found some pretty nasty holes in it.

If by supernatural we mean a force that is different than the forces we know of today I believe in the supernatural. If we call this force god I even believe in god.

To re-iterate. I don't have anything against religions. I think we need religions, (or similar constructs) to function as human beings. We need to be part of something greater to feel that we have a place in the world. I think that this need has caused us to draw unfounded conclusions. There's plenty of science that proves that atheists are more miserable than theists. They're doing something right.

I don't for a second doubt that there are people who speak to "god" and get meaningful answers. It doesn't prove that there exists god or anything supernatural, only that doing that is good for our mental well being. It proves that we don't need anybody else to feel love. And we all need love. Science can prove that humans need religion to be truly happy. At least it's a start.

I don't have problems with people saying that the idea of the Christian god is a novel one and keeping it as one of their possible theories. But as soon as an educated person says that they are convinced that it's the only one, then they've reduced themselves to the level below that which I'd thought possible for a thinking adult.