I would argue that the great disconnect between faith and science is not the fault of science but the scientists.
As the author states,
"He thinks that there are things that “normal science” calls “pseudoscience,” and there are things scientists tend to ignore or ridicule because they are inconvenient data points."
It is the very narrow and rigid straight jacket of modern scientific presuppositions, i.e. mechanistic materialism--which in their ignorance and narrowness they would not call baseless presuppositions, but proven scientific facts, and in saying so destroy the meaning of the word "science"-- that forces a disconnect with religion. As if all that could possibly exist is what we can in some way observe! As if the current state of our knowledge is complete! Yet in their misplaced self-confidence the broader scientific community would discredit and ridicule adherents of religion, or at best require they jettison or modify certain tenets to accommodate their so-called "science".
Nevertheless, wisdom is justified by her children. The thinking religious person has no problem with science, but with bias. Our problem is not with data, but data skewed by inherent bias.
Why is there something instead of nothing? Where have we ever observed something arising spontaneously from nothing?
Why is there order instead of disorder? Where have we ever observed order arising spontaneously from disorder?
What other conclusion can we draw other than that there is an eternal (and genius) conscious mind in back of it all? We do not need to be able to observe or measure such a mind in order to see the clear evidence for it everywhere. Any competing conclusion reeks of bias--show me where my reasoning is flawed.
Can our esteemed scientists even see the contradiction between their presuppositions and their observations? I always relish the scientist who is willing to admit his/her ignorance, for truly the growth of our humility must correlate with the pace of scientific discovery.
I can hear them shouting me down even as I type. Long live the truly liberated mind.
When a message is hidden by a cipher and you succeed in breaking the cipher, you know both the hidden message and the cipher. You do this all on your own.
Knowledge does not come about purely because of observation.
Why are ciphers breakable?
Because hidden messages have structures. And ciphers themselves have structures.
Simple ciphers are easy to break because easy to invent. To break a cipher, we have to invent it first.
Since there is no end to how complex a cipher can be, our knowledge is for ever limited to what is humanly breakable. That is to say, however much we know, it is always very little.
Ever since I borrowed a few books about quantum physics years ago and started reading more, I have to say that it opened my mind to thinking well beyond the borders of what I was "taught" was scientific thinking. For example, I'm very curious about the idea of water having memory and the sort of pattern memory/conciousness of water questions which I think has emerged from Masaru Emoto/Jacques Benveniste work - and others now pursuing this. It's just interesting and seems to hold some excellent questions that I don't know the answer to. These days I am not seeing much wrong with being a person doing a science PhD and having an interest in more sort of arcane questions and topics. Maybe the binary idea of 'scientific thinking' vs 'non-scientific thinking' could loosen up a bit and allow for our thinking to be much more expansive on what is a fascinating contniuum of wonder, learning and possibility.
Sheldrake's supposition (it is such) is an expanded version of the Gaia model, which proposes that the Earth as a whole is a cohesive living thing beyond its separate parts. Part mystical, part spiritual and part mumbo jumbo, but unlikely to define the undefinable. Fun to speculate though. Even funnier to postulate as if he is on the road to a truth.
The terms of science self-define its studies as public observation rather than private experience. On the other hand, consciousness is considered to be inherently private.
Rupert Sheldrake proposes, via a chain of suppositions, that stars could have consciousness. I am willing to accept that possibility, and I even believe that humans are not the only beings that experience consciousness (have a soul). After all I have experienced, very privately, God.
The difficult problem is how one soul communicates to another. If my premise is that consciousness is private, how can it become public? How can it become an object of public scientific communication?
Neuroscience suggests that consciousness may be an epiphenomenon. While this is an intriguing line of inquiry and may help us understand how we process our experiences, it is similar to how science has mapped the neural pathways involved in visual perception in great detail. This mapping process, encompassing both neurochemical and physical aspects, occurs in the objective realm and does not capture the nuances of private experience.
Science and consciousness for the foreseeable future will not overlap.
My "charity" work has changed over my lifetime numerous times, but I've always sought it out. It started within a church, where I helped to recycle items long before we had curbside recycling. I helped with community events and the daycare. I helped neighbors out regularly, mostly the elderly, whether just chatting, cleaning up, running errands, etc...
Later, as a teacher, I continued to do "charity" work for my students and community. We created "empty bowls" to raise money to feed the poor and hungry. We created murals of all types to be connected to our school and community. I regularly stayed after hours to assist a few students in academics, school functions, and had many at my home to assist in their pursuits, creating art, working on my hobby farm, etc... all to give them purpose, a place to feel safe, and an adult to talk to (as many don't have).
In retirement, I had to look a bit harder to volunteer. I started with a wildlife rescue, birding census, teaching various disciplines to kids for free (mainly homeschooled kids), like painting, birding, dog obedience and care, etc... I've created works of art for donation to various organizations, typically nature-oriented, over my lifetime thus far. Now, my "charity" work is as an ambassador for conservation of invertebrates, as they are the backbone that holds life for all, and are disappearing quickly due to humans destroying them in so many ways (habitat loss, pesticides, climate change). My "charity" work changes due to my recognition of real needs, and the acceptance of these groups. As an atheist, and a fairly liberal person, in an area of majority Christian republicans, doing "charity" work can be difficult as many discriminate against those who are different, and "don't fit in."
Of course, the sun and solar system are conscious! But that doesn't change anything because they are already fulfilling their purpose and intention. Why would cosmology and physics be any different? They were always conscious, and the result has been playing out for billions of years. The galactic mind IS doing its thing.
Consciousness will explain consciousness will it not.. Can the current state of our science explain itself? To begin - What is the nature of consciousness unto itself? How does it manifest in the human? And I think this is a problem that continues to be wrestled with in multiple ways.. One obvious thing about consciousness is that it continues to grow.. There appears to be a human multi-wave-band internet of it.. So a second observation is that it is immanent... pervasive.. An arcing of consciousness that spreads from human to human.. And thirdly it relies upon human development and refinement to manifest at different levels of power.. A riot as distinct from musicians collectively establishing a genre not knowing directly of each others work.. It is a lovely subject to investigate...
I think science is neither all or a portion of our knowledge, but rather a process through which knowledge can be derived. We do ourselves a disservice by conflating the knowledge gained from using the scientific method and the process itself.
I would argue that the great disconnect between faith and science is not the fault of science but the scientists.
As the author states,
"He thinks that there are things that “normal science” calls “pseudoscience,” and there are things scientists tend to ignore or ridicule because they are inconvenient data points."
It is the very narrow and rigid straight jacket of modern scientific presuppositions, i.e. mechanistic materialism--which in their ignorance and narrowness they would not call baseless presuppositions, but proven scientific facts, and in saying so destroy the meaning of the word "science"-- that forces a disconnect with religion. As if all that could possibly exist is what we can in some way observe! As if the current state of our knowledge is complete! Yet in their misplaced self-confidence the broader scientific community would discredit and ridicule adherents of religion, or at best require they jettison or modify certain tenets to accommodate their so-called "science".
Nevertheless, wisdom is justified by her children. The thinking religious person has no problem with science, but with bias. Our problem is not with data, but data skewed by inherent bias.
Why is there something instead of nothing? Where have we ever observed something arising spontaneously from nothing?
Why is there order instead of disorder? Where have we ever observed order arising spontaneously from disorder?
What other conclusion can we draw other than that there is an eternal (and genius) conscious mind in back of it all? We do not need to be able to observe or measure such a mind in order to see the clear evidence for it everywhere. Any competing conclusion reeks of bias--show me where my reasoning is flawed.
Can our esteemed scientists even see the contradiction between their presuppositions and their observations? I always relish the scientist who is willing to admit his/her ignorance, for truly the growth of our humility must correlate with the pace of scientific discovery.
I can hear them shouting me down even as I type. Long live the truly liberated mind.
When a message is hidden by a cipher and you succeed in breaking the cipher, you know both the hidden message and the cipher. You do this all on your own.
Knowledge does not come about purely because of observation.
Why are ciphers breakable?
Because hidden messages have structures. And ciphers themselves have structures.
Simple ciphers are easy to break because easy to invent. To break a cipher, we have to invent it first.
Since there is no end to how complex a cipher can be, our knowledge is for ever limited to what is humanly breakable. That is to say, however much we know, it is always very little.
Ever since I borrowed a few books about quantum physics years ago and started reading more, I have to say that it opened my mind to thinking well beyond the borders of what I was "taught" was scientific thinking. For example, I'm very curious about the idea of water having memory and the sort of pattern memory/conciousness of water questions which I think has emerged from Masaru Emoto/Jacques Benveniste work - and others now pursuing this. It's just interesting and seems to hold some excellent questions that I don't know the answer to. These days I am not seeing much wrong with being a person doing a science PhD and having an interest in more sort of arcane questions and topics. Maybe the binary idea of 'scientific thinking' vs 'non-scientific thinking' could loosen up a bit and allow for our thinking to be much more expansive on what is a fascinating contniuum of wonder, learning and possibility.
Sheldrake's supposition (it is such) is an expanded version of the Gaia model, which proposes that the Earth as a whole is a cohesive living thing beyond its separate parts. Part mystical, part spiritual and part mumbo jumbo, but unlikely to define the undefinable. Fun to speculate though. Even funnier to postulate as if he is on the road to a truth.
I didn’t finish his book yet, but Ken Wilber’s “The Brief History of Everything” has a nice little theory about how it all could fit.
The terms of science self-define its studies as public observation rather than private experience. On the other hand, consciousness is considered to be inherently private.
Rupert Sheldrake proposes, via a chain of suppositions, that stars could have consciousness. I am willing to accept that possibility, and I even believe that humans are not the only beings that experience consciousness (have a soul). After all I have experienced, very privately, God.
The difficult problem is how one soul communicates to another. If my premise is that consciousness is private, how can it become public? How can it become an object of public scientific communication?
Neuroscience suggests that consciousness may be an epiphenomenon. While this is an intriguing line of inquiry and may help us understand how we process our experiences, it is similar to how science has mapped the neural pathways involved in visual perception in great detail. This mapping process, encompassing both neurochemical and physical aspects, occurs in the objective realm and does not capture the nuances of private experience.
Science and consciousness for the foreseeable future will not overlap.
What charity work, if any, do you do regularly?
My "charity" work has changed over my lifetime numerous times, but I've always sought it out. It started within a church, where I helped to recycle items long before we had curbside recycling. I helped with community events and the daycare. I helped neighbors out regularly, mostly the elderly, whether just chatting, cleaning up, running errands, etc...
Later, as a teacher, I continued to do "charity" work for my students and community. We created "empty bowls" to raise money to feed the poor and hungry. We created murals of all types to be connected to our school and community. I regularly stayed after hours to assist a few students in academics, school functions, and had many at my home to assist in their pursuits, creating art, working on my hobby farm, etc... all to give them purpose, a place to feel safe, and an adult to talk to (as many don't have).
In retirement, I had to look a bit harder to volunteer. I started with a wildlife rescue, birding census, teaching various disciplines to kids for free (mainly homeschooled kids), like painting, birding, dog obedience and care, etc... I've created works of art for donation to various organizations, typically nature-oriented, over my lifetime thus far. Now, my "charity" work is as an ambassador for conservation of invertebrates, as they are the backbone that holds life for all, and are disappearing quickly due to humans destroying them in so many ways (habitat loss, pesticides, climate change). My "charity" work changes due to my recognition of real needs, and the acceptance of these groups. As an atheist, and a fairly liberal person, in an area of majority Christian republicans, doing "charity" work can be difficult as many discriminate against those who are different, and "don't fit in."
"if we saw the whole galaxy as conscious" cosmology and physics would change but it also change much theology and religions.
Of course, the sun and solar system are conscious! But that doesn't change anything because they are already fulfilling their purpose and intention. Why would cosmology and physics be any different? They were always conscious, and the result has been playing out for billions of years. The galactic mind IS doing its thing.
"Conscious: A Brief Guide to the Fundamental Mystery of the Mind", Annaka Harris, is an interesting book.
Consciousness will explain consciousness will it not.. Can the current state of our science explain itself? To begin - What is the nature of consciousness unto itself? How does it manifest in the human? And I think this is a problem that continues to be wrestled with in multiple ways.. One obvious thing about consciousness is that it continues to grow.. There appears to be a human multi-wave-band internet of it.. So a second observation is that it is immanent... pervasive.. An arcing of consciousness that spreads from human to human.. And thirdly it relies upon human development and refinement to manifest at different levels of power.. A riot as distinct from musicians collectively establishing a genre not knowing directly of each others work.. It is a lovely subject to investigate...
I think science is neither all or a portion of our knowledge, but rather a process through which knowledge can be derived. We do ourselves a disservice by conflating the knowledge gained from using the scientific method and the process itself.