Posted on 01/08/2007 2:16:07 PM PST by Sopater
"PS: You misspelled 'possessing'"
And you misspelled "accreditations."
Well, I agree with what you say about supernatural vs. science. By definition, science cannot be used too investigate something outside its limitations.
That is why it MUST be silent regarding human consciousness, which is supernatural and untestable. Only each persons personal experience with it even suggests it exists. Which is why so many of us, sometime in grade school, questioned if we were the only one and everyone else is merely a figment of our imagination.
I am using the strict definition of "SUPER"-natural - outside of nature. And it is exciting to think we experience it all day, every day, yet it cannot be weighed, measured or explained in any scientific way. It is outside of science, yet there it is! Cool stuff.
Science is merely a system used to acquire knowledge about nature. It does not even pretend to assert causes to all events.
You have an event in which there is no known natural explanation -- the start of the universe, the existence of energy/matter, the existence of life. If you should say there is a natural explanation you are not practicing science. What you are doing is practicing faith.
While it may appear as a 'semantic obsession', it is actually a foundational assumption that is often overlooked.
Since science *requires* a natural explanation, we should not be surprised that is generates them. This actually places 'science' on a lower plane than religion because, in science, reason is subservient to the 'a priori' assumption of naturalism.
The oft-claimed 'superiority' of science as an explanatory methodology is actually an inferiority if understood correctly.
"PS: You misspelled 'possessing'" And you misspelled "accreditations."
I know; actually, as written, that isn't even a legitimate word. Also in that post are a few grammar/usage and punctuation errors, planted there for the pedagogic entertainment of the terminally punctilious. Enjoy.
What do you know? How do you know? How do you know that you know? Ever heard of Bernard Haise?
What I know is from personal experience. Everything else is just believing what someone else says or writes down.
How do you KNOW Washington was the first president?
I KNOW that the force we label "gravity" results in what we call "falling". I BELIEVE it is what causes planetary orbits. But whether it pulls or pushes is pure speculation, since we can only observe its effect and have no knowledge whatsoever how it works. We only know that it does, and htat it's effect can be measured and predicted to a large degree.
I posed four questions. I am interested in the answer to the fourth only since the first three are thousands of years old and have yet to be answered to everybody's satisfaction even though some claim their personal revelation is somehow public rather than merely subjective. Has anybody heard of Bernard Haise?
"Ever heard of Bernard Haise?"
No. Do you mean Bernard Haisch?
Yes, have you heard of him?
Um. Yes, that was implied in my response.
Have you had a chance to read his short book--The God Theory?
No, but am aware of it. I personally fall into the "matrix" theory. I think mass is basically like coagulated light. Nothing really exists because as we break down the parts, we find each part (like an atom) is basically mostly "nothing". I know this is nothing new, but I like presenting it to teenagers like that. They get a kick out of it and it is something they can wrap their brains around.
It will be interesting if we ever can prove that the "Dick Tracy" gravity drive would be possible.
I believe he also wrote music.
I may have to read that book. I read a review and saw this paragraph:
"Esoteric traditions of many religions claim that light and consciousness are the basis of the material world. Drawing upon his government-funded, published research into the physics of the electromagnetic zero-point field, Haisch posits that there may be a deep truth in such ideas. He also suggests that eventually science will discover that consciousness is not simply an epiphenomenon emerging from brain chemistry, but rather that we are, indeed, immortal conscious beings sharing in God's own infinite consciousness."
That is one of my biggies - that human consciousness is not the brain, but the immortal spirit, etc...
That appears to be the essence of his position. However, the paragraph might mean little to nothing to one who has not been exposed to his definitions and reasoning. He is not a dynamic writer and his speaking is likewise low-key and not memorable. He has a PhD in physics (astronomy), but even more important for this he has extensive schooling in academic religious matters. His book mentioned above might be compared to an outline of his topic, which will do for those who have read extensively but will be less than useful for those who have not yet begun reading widely.
I find little in that book that I have not found elsewhere written long ago. He appears to be in the ballpark of the main meanings of many of his terms, but does not present all the common alternatives. He might be right in his main thesis yet it cannot be objectively proven at present--perhaps never. Still, as far as he goes, he does serve the purpose of widening our horizon a little.
I was mildly interested in his book when I first heard of it. I researched it a little deeper and came to the conclusion that I really need to read it.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.