Dr. Chris White Optimistic About Science Spirituality Crossover |402|

[Wormwood]

Wormwood,
Ah! You and I are pretty much coming from the same place.

It was difficult once upon a time to get the powers that be to accept that the sun did not revolve around the earth. That same struggle is where most are at with regards to all these things we discuss. They can't accept that this material world most of us are used to is NOT a base reality or the main thing. Blaise (on this thread) seems to also be coming from the place.

This is fantastic! I thought I was largely alone in my thinking.

I think the influence of Abrahamic religions is so deep in our thinking that it colors all we perceive - even atheists - but we don't see it.

There is a SMALL movement towards what I call “evidence based spirituality” that is beginning to accept these ideas. There are lots of good communities around online where this idea sort of generally prevails. Hopefully it keeps growing. The sooner we can leave dogma behind, the better. And the sooner we can leave behind the idea that we are in some
sort of unique and “living” system whereas all the other ones are spiritual and contain dead people, the better.

I think it’s extraordinarily likely that many of us have died here on Earth before. Some might come back, some might take up residence in a different dimension, but they are always alive. There is only life.

“There is no afterlife, there is only constant life”-Jurgen Ziewe

 

[Eric Newhill]

I asked Dean Radin question as well (I think it's actually recorded on one of my previous interviews) but I remember his answer differently. I remember him saying there are different research questions to the situation you describe. First, is there a reality to the phenomenon? for that, Superstars are best. Radin, told me that he felt this question had been answered to his satisfaction within the enormous body of psi research. the second question is whether psi is an innate human capability measurable across the population at large.

Alex,
Yes. That is pretty much what he told me. Like I said, he told me that he was convinced psi is real. He was already past that question. He was interested in psi as an innate ability by the time I had made my suggestion. ...same answer to both of us, just slightly different angle.

 

[Dan_LastName]

Abrahamic religion is the biggest spell of all time. It's slowly cracking though very very slowly imo. "paganism" is on the rise, but I'm afraid most of humanity does not have the emotional intelligence to understand it in a way that intellect won't interfere and dominate

I would add classical Aristotelian logic as a powerful spell as well. Classical logic works very well, indeed, and it's very powerful in most realms of human life. Classical logic is even very important in how we are trained in humanities education. When you write a term paper in English lit class, for example, that has a hypothesis and supporting arguments, you are being trained in Aristotelian logic, so it's not just powerful in the sciences or engineering.

But Aristotelian logic does not work well for processing ALL aspects of human life, at least at our present moment in history. Aristotle codified the three main rules of classical logic--the law of non-contradiction, the law of the excluded middle, and the law of identity. In my view, Aristotle was as close as the big ancient philosopher's got to atheism, and Moody's reading is that Aristotle had an obsessive personality. Perhaps we can view he can view Aristotle as a historical version of Richard Dawkins. Aristotle hypothesized an impersonal Prime Mover, but that's as close to spiritual as he got. If Richard Dawkins tried to shove some written rules of logic down our throats today, non-atheists wouldn't stand for it. So I think it's important to look at Aristotle's version with a skeptical eye. It may be that there's nothing wrong with the rules, but it may be that there needs to be a strong effort to specify boundaries for those rules. And/or to specify mundane aspects of human experience that don't seem to be outside the boundaries of classical logic.

I think the spell aspect of classical logic is that it supports the aggressive quest to slot all experience into non-contradictory categories. In my view, it's the power of logic itself and the natural human obsessiveness for answers that threatens to "interfere and dominate." The trouble is, some aspects of human life ARE contradictory. Some aspects may become less contradictory as science continues to evolve, some aspects may ALWAYS remain contradictory.

Edited for accuracy.

 

[Alex]

Alex,
Yes. That is pretty much what he told me. Like I said, he told me that he was convinced psi is real. He was already past that question. He was interested in psi as an innate ability by the time I had made my suggestion. ...same answer to both of us, just slightly different angle.

got it

 

[Alex]

I would add classical Aristotelian logic as a powerful spell as well. Classical logic works very well, indeed, and it's very powerful in most realms of human life. Classical logic is even very important in how we are trained in humanities education. When you write a term paper in English lit class, for example, that has a hypothesis and supporting arguments, you are being trained in Aristotelian logic, so it's not just powerful in the sciences or engineering.

But Aristotelian logic does not work well for processing ALL aspects of human life, at least at our present moment in history. Aristotle codified the three main rules of classical logic--the law of non-contradiction, the law of the excluded middle, and the law of identity. Moody says that Aristotle himself was basically an obsessive materialist, he can be seen as a historical version of Richard Dawkins in his obsessive atheism. Aristotle hypothesized an impersonal Prime Mover, but that's as close to spiritual as he got. If Richard Dawkins tried to shove some written rules of logic down our throats today, non-atheists wouldn't stand for it. So I think it's important to look at Aristotle's version with a skeptical eye. It may be that there's nothing wrong with the rules, but it may be that there needs to be a strong effort to specify boundaries for those rules. And/or to specify mundane aspects of human experience that don't seem to be outside the boundaries of classical logic.

I think the spell aspect of classical logic is that it supports the aggressive quest to slot all experience into non-contradictory categories. In my view, it's the power of logic itself and the natural human obsessiveness for answers that threatens to "interfere and dominate." The trouble is, some aspects of human life ARE contradictory. Some aspects may become less contradictory as science continues to evolve, some aspects may ALWAYS remain contradictory.

great post. thx. BTW where did Moody say this?

Nice Insight re the materialistic nature of this... shut up and deduce

 

[Dan_LastName]

great post. thx. BTW where did Moody say this?

Nice Insight re the materialistic nature of this... shut up and deduce

Thanks, Alex. I thought Moody said that Aristotle was an obsessional atheist on Skeptiko #174. I went back and looked at the transcript and what he actually says is that Aristotle had an obsessional personality. I've been doing some reading on Aristotle lately and most commentators agree that he was very much an empiricit and he wasn't on-board with Plato's transcendant realms, so I suppose that may have gotten mixed up with my memory of that Moody interview. Here's a link to that kind of thing from britannica.com. They talk about a famous painting where Plato is pointing up to the sky and Aristotle is pointing out at the world.

The Dawkins comparison is just my thought, I didn't mean for that piece to be part of what Moody said in that sentence of my post. Chalk that up to sloppy writing on my part.

 

[Baccarat]

 

[Christopher White]

Why do we fall for the trap of thinking that science is the arbiter of truth about the nature of reality? If we properly distinguish between 'real' science and the opinions of scientists we can see that what 'Science' provides is not the same thing as what scientists think or claim. I learned long ago not to defer to 'scientific' notions of my paranormal experiences. To 'science' I was mad and to 'religion' I was bad. I decided I was neither. I was right.

I do not think it is fair to see either 'religion' or 'science' as cogent wholes. Each is a complex set of disciplines. Was it Dewey who said that there was no such thing as Religion, only religions and the religious? I likewise do not think there is any such thing as Science - only sciences and scientists. All else are political and cultural constructs.

Long ago sciences and religions were fused together. We labour under the legacy of atheistic materialism and struggle to reunite them in our personal discourses. We are conditioned to accept the premise of materialism - which gives us Science (good and rational) and Religion (bad and irrational). Neither exist independent of the cultural forces of materialism. If we remember that, we can start to think more sensibly.

While the sciences have come to play powerful roles in our lives they are only beginning to have a potent impact on our psyches - and there is considerable alignment between some forms of psychology, mysticism and deep spiritual practices and interpretations of reality that are metaphysical in character. Obviously the presently patently materialistic sciences will have to catch up - they are excited about the dung while the mystic is riding the horse. So while I do appreciate the impact on my physical existence of the materialistic sciences, it is the sciences that impact my subjective experience of reality that matter most to me. And still, they have to catch up with the deep wisdom of the mystical traditions.

The one thing that materialism has done has been to send us back to the mystical with a new awareness, new way of thinking and new language. I have an acquired disability that has imposed upon me profound change for which I am deeply grateful - and which may not have come with such power without the illness that struck me down. But that does not mean that I praise the illness. In a way materialism is a sickness of spirit, and it is wrong to see the cause as just the failure of religion. It was more a crisis of the human psyche across the board of cultural forces. Siedentop's Inventing the Individual offers a useful insight into the complexity of it all.

Finally, Chris, your book is way too expensive. It looks as though it has been priced as a work by an academic not expected to be popular beyond the campus. Even the Kindle price is cruel. I will probably have to pay the price, but I have to register my protest as a matter of principle.

Thanks for the comment. I agree: the book is too expensive and I complained when the book came out. Unfortunately I have no control over those matters. I'd love to see the book in paperback and thus cheaper. And I have no idea why they price the Kindle version so high. Seems odd -- sorry about this!

 

[Alex]

Thanks, Alex. I thought Moody said that Aristotle was an obsessional atheist on Skeptiko #174. I went back and looked at the transcript and what he actually says is that Aristotle had an obsessional personality. I've been doing some reading on Aristotle lately and most commentators agree that he was very much an empiricit and he wasn't on-board with Plato's transcendant realms, so I suppose that may have gotten mixed up with my memory of that Moody interview. Here's a link to that kind of thing from britannica.com. They talk about a famous painting where Plato is pointing up to the sky and Aristotle is pointing out at the world.

The Dawkins comparison is just my thought, I didn't mean for that piece to be part of what Moody said in that sentence of my post. Chalk that up to sloppy writing on my part.

I actually think what you're saying perfectly consistent with Moody's position. I was just hoping to get a better reference

 

[Michael Patterson]

Thanks for the comment. I agree: the book is too expensive and I complained when the book came out. Unfortunately I have no control over those matters. I'd love to see the book in paperback and thus cheaper. And I have no idea why they price the Kindle version so high. Seems odd -- sorry about this!

Work on them. I get that academic books are high priced if the intended readership is academic, but that supposes a low volume of sales to mostly libraries. I don't think you can have a hybrid - academic price and popular sales. I can't see the merit in the idiot kindle price, unless the book will be discounted to a decent price later. At the moment it is around twice a decent Kindle price at US$32.13 (AUD$45.03) for me.

If I am discourage on a comparatively decent income, many others will, be as well. I think a lot depends on who your publisher sees are customers for the book - versus who might actually be. I have put a diary note to check the Kindle situation in 3 months, which is a pity.