Out of body religious experiences

[Sir_G]

Yet on a quantum level, the laws that we live by break down. Conservation of matter and energy do not apply. Gravity does not apply. Even the speed of light is no longer an effective barrier.

Can you tell me that God, if such a being exists, is not capable of interacting with the universe on a quantum level, thus producing things which appear to us to be supernatural? Just a little thought experiment, like Schroedinger's cat. Who is to say that that cat is not both dead and alive until we observe it? Current quantum theory tells us that that subatomic particle actually waits for us to open the box to check on the cat before it decides wehter or not to kill the cat. If anything smacks of the supernatural to me, it is the idea that a subatomic particle makes a decision based on what I do, yet scientific theory backs this up.

Who are we to say that the supernatural does not exist when we do not fully understand the natural?

This is fascinating stuff Rhabbi and from what little I know about the Heisenburg principle it sounds very much like it.

From memory he says that as you say subatomic particles can only act in one of two ways and will react the way the observer expects them to act. The same particle will then act in the other way when observed again with the second expectation of the observer.

The other slightly supernatural thing that Heisenburg principle espouses is that if you are looking for results at a subatomic level you will find them where you expect to. Some one else on the other hand may find them else where.

I have to admit I find the area where science and the supernatural meet fascinating and from my point of view the two are not mutually exclusive but go hand in hand and prove the existence of each other.

Books that people may be interested in reading are "Supernature" by Lyall Watson, "The Romeo Error" by the same author. And of course the "Tao of Physics" by Capra.

[Rhabbi]

This is fascinating stuff Rhabbi and from what little I know about the Heisenburg principle it sounds very much like it.

From memory he says that as you say subatomic particles can only act in one of two ways and will react the way the observer expects them to act. The same particle will then act in the other way when observed again with the second expectation of the observer.

The other slightly supernatural thing that Heisenburg principle espouses is that if you are looking for results at a subatomic level you will find them where you expect to. Some one else on the other hand may find them else where.

I have to admit I find the area where science and the supernatural meet fascinating and from my point of view the two are not mutually exclusive but go hand in hand and prove the existence of each other.

Books that people may be interested in reading are "Supernature" by Lyall Watson, "The Romeo Error" by the same author. And of course the "Tao of Physics" by Capra.

Yes, not only does the observer affect the experiment, he actually determines the outcome of it.

The theory is that a single photon will actually pass through two holes in a paper, thus producing an interference pattern with it self when passing through a prism. Although this sounds totally impossible to us who have learned to think in the macro physicists are actively pursuing ways to make this happen. The biggest problem is that if anyone actually observes the experiment the photon will always choose to go through one hole or the other. This means that the physicists actually have to determine how to observe this phenomenon without actually observing it, thus circumventing Heisenberg and his uncertainty principle.

[Alex Bragi]

A legitimate conflict between science and religion cannot exist. Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind."
- Albert Einstein

"Science can purify religion from error and superstition; religion can purify science from idolatry and false absolutes. Each can draw the other into a wider world, a world in which both can flourish…We need each other to be what we must be, what we are called to be."
- Pope John Paul II

Isn't interesting that the greats of science and religion should think so alike?

[TomOfSweden]

A legitimate conflict between science and religion cannot exist. Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind."
- Albert Einstein

"Science can purify religion from error and superstition; religion can purify science from idolatry and false absolutes. Each can draw the other into a wider world, a world in which both can flourish…We need each other to be what we must be, what we are called to be."
- Pope John Paul II

Isn't interesting that the greats of science and religion should think so alike?

Considering all the other stuff Wojtyla said and did during his reign, I wouldn't call him a big fan of science. He's probably the most scientifically inclined pope we've had yet, but I'm not taking him off my list of religious loons just yet.

....and what Einstein meant by that is up for interpretation. I'm not so sure myself. He wasn't especially religious himself.

[Rhabbi]

Ok, truth. All methods of finding the truth aren't equally as good. When people say that science can't find all the answers and that just because nobody can fit god into a beaker doesn't invalidate it.

I have to agree with you here Tom. Science has been working on the holy grail of a unified field theory for a long time, yet are further away from it now than when they started because our understanding of the universe is more complex.

A major problem in science is that you often don't know what you're looking for until you've allready found it. People seldom find what they hoped they would. And often they think they find it and then 150 years later somebody turns the model the right way up. As they did with the now extinct creature Hallicinogensis.

That is one of the amazing things about science, so much progress is made through accidental discoveries.

Isn't the plain and painful truth is that we have no better method than science? We can't trust our senses or common sense. We can't trust our feelings either.

Why can"t we?

A problem that religious research faces is off-course that it's impossible for anybody to verify. So the Bible says that god and the angels communicates with to people. What is that based on? How do we know that the people who had these visions weren't just plain crazy or hallucinated? What I don't understand is under these circumstances anybody can take the leap of faith? I can understand if somebody wonders about freaky shit they've seen and can't explain. But that's all it is. Things that can't be explained. To extrapolate from this the extremely complex system of belief that Christianity is, is extremely far fetched.

I understand that we like seeing meaning in things happening. We all have the compulsion to create narratives for everything happening around us. So we like to be able to explain things. But that doesn't mean we really can.

If I hear my now dead grandmothers voice calling out to me in my head and telling me stuff I can from that draw very little conclusions This has actually happened to me.

It may indicate that somehow her spirit survived and is floating around and is trying to tell me things. Maybe. It may also be that she's become an angel and is communicating with me from heaven. Maybe. It may also be that she was reincarnated as a fly on the wall and because of our close connection she can somehow communicate with me. Maybe. She may have entered a dimensional rift and can speak to me through a rip in the space time continuum. Maybe. It may not be a supernatural occurrence at all. Maybe.

There really is no point for me to try to come up with my own scientific theory for how this happend since I'm not half as good at neuro science or psychology to come up with an explanation. I haven't asked any religious authority figure about it, but I doubt they could say anything convincing. How did they come to their insights? How do they know that what they're saying is the truth? My point is that I don't see any fault in admitting that I don't know. And I'm also totally open to the fact that it could be a third possibility, and whole paradigm of thought that hasn't sprung into existence yet.

The major problem with all the religions is that there's really no reason to believe any of their theories. And if there's no reason to adapt a theory then why do it? If it's only guesswork then why? Why have faith in something when it is blind faith?

Here is where you are making a mistake Tom. You are focusing on objective truth. You admit that you are unable to explain that you heard your dead grandmother's voice, and I admit that I cannot. But I do not try to convince you that it did not happen. This is because I recognize that there is subjective truth also.

Just because I would do everything in my power to prove that any manifestation of a ghost is an absolute hoax does not mean that I do not recognize that, for some people, they are real. You call this blind faith.

Let me explain the difference to you between blind faith and faith.

Blind faith is what you do use every time you eat food that you did not see prepared, or it was not prepared by someone you trust implicitly. You trust that everyone who had contact with that food followed all the proper procedures for handling food, that they are healthy, and that they do not have any reason whatsoever to do you harm. this would include just being pissed off at the world in general and not deciding to take it out on some random customer, or just not liking the way you look. That is blind faith.

My faith is based on study and questioning everything that I come across. I believe in God not because someone told me too, but because after years of study and research I determined to my satisfaction that He exists. This does not mean that I claim to have the answers, because I do not. My faith is not blind.

I will admit that most people who believe in God did not go through the process I did, but I can show you a number of people through history that did. Blind faith is out there, but not all faith is blind faith.

Isn't interesting that the greats of science and religion should think so alike?

Amen Alex!

[TomOfSweden]

I have to agree with you here Tom. Science has been working on the holy grail of a unified field theory for a long time, yet are further away from it now than when they started because our understanding of the universe is more complex.

I wouldn't say further away. Knowing something doesn't work is also knowledge and therefore a step forward. But any solution does seem to still be pretty far off.

Why can"t we?

Can you? I can't. I get upset about stuff that I later found out I'd missunderstood. I'd say that the fact that I'm sad isn't proof for anything at all outside our bodies.

Here is where you are making a mistake Tom. You are focusing on objective truth. You admit that you are unable to explain that you heard your dead grandmother's voice, and I admit that I cannot. But I do not try to convince you that it did not happen. This is because I recognize that there is subjective truth also.

Just because I would do everything in my power to prove that any manifestation of a ghost is an absolute hoax does not mean that I do not recognize that, for some people, they are real. You call this blind faith.

Let me explain the difference to you between blind faith and faith.

Blind faith is what you do use every time you eat food that you did not see prepared, or it was not prepared by someone you trust implicitly. You trust that everyone who had contact with that food followed all the proper procedures for handling food, that they are healthy, and that they do not have any reason whatsoever to do you harm. this would include just being pissed off at the world in general and not deciding to take it out on some random customer, or just not liking the way you look. That is blind faith.

My faith is based on study and questioning everything that I come across. I believe in God not because someone told me too, but because after years of study and research I determined to my satisfaction that He exists. This does not mean that I claim to have the answers, because I do not. My faith is not blind.

I will admit that most people who believe in God did not go through the process I did, but I can show you a number of people through history that did. Blind faith is out there, but not all faith is blind faith.

When we're discussing objectivity and relativity in truth it quickly gets hairy. I think you'll have to explain what you mean by subjective/objective truth. If truth is subjective in every case we all live in seperate dimensions. I think that's highly unlikely. I do believe that outside the world our minds create there is a reality. It may be adulterated by our opinions and filtered through our senses. But I do believe it is there. Which denies that truth can be subjective.

Truth can be different between people if we have different interpretations of the subject matter. But that doesn't actually change the level of objective truth, does it? "Truth" is another one of my many philosophical obsessions.

It's very interesting now with the post modernist school often trying to make all truth relative to cultural interpretation. But I doubt we'll get much further than Nietzsche. You'll need to make a pretty solid case for subjective truth in such a concrete issue as whether or not the voice of my granny is of supernatural origin.

I'll admit that when I heard my grannies voice my first leap of faith was, "that was cool I wonder why I heard her voice". In other words, I assumed it was of non-supernatural origin and left it at that. I had no basis for making this leap of faith other than that I'd never at any other time seen anything supernatural. But that doesn't discount this as a supernatural occurence. But where can I take it from here? Now I know that I have a case of possible supernatural occurence. Can I draw any conclusions of the nature of this possible supernatural force?

We live in a world of very few answers.

I understand that you have questioned your faith, but you do agree that the act of questioning your faith alone doesn't necesarily add to it's level of truth? How we do this questioning is just as important. I have yet to see any valid line of reasoning that would bring anybody to the christian faith. Even if we accept the existence of the supernatural and miracles, we still have nothing to work with.

[Rhabbi]

Although you made some good points Tom, and I do want to address them, I also want to take some time to make sure my answers are well though out. I am therfore going to limit my answer here to one thing you said.

I understand that you have questioned your faith, but you do agree that the act of questioning your faith alone doesn't necesarily add to it's level of truth? How we do this questioning is just as important. I have yet to see any valid line of reasoning that would bring anybody to the christian faith. Even if we accept the existence of the supernatural and miracles, we still have nothing to work with.

I am curious, since you have read Aquinas, have you read anyone else who talks about they journey of faith? Aquinas was more of a philosopher than anything, and trying to use philosophy to prove religion is worse than trying to use science to do it.

There are a few people who set down to prove that god does not exist and ended up believing. One of them is Lew Wallace, the author of Ben Hur. Another is the British author C. S. Lewis. These men were well educated atheists who wanted to disprove God's ver existance, yet ended up serving Him.

Perhaps their lines of reasoning are not valid for you, but they were for them.

[TomOfSweden]

I am curious, since you have read Aquinas, have you read anyone else who talks about they journey of faith? Aquinas was more of a philosopher than anything, and trying to use philosophy to prove religion is worse than trying to use science to do it.

There are a few people who set down to prove that god does not exist and ended up believing. One of them is Lew Wallace, the author of Ben Hur. Another is the British author C. S. Lewis. These men were well educated atheists who wanted to disprove God's ver existance, yet ended up serving Him.

Perhaps their lines of reasoning are not valid for you, but they were for them.

I'll quote Zizek here. "Philosophy isn't about finding answers. It's about finding questions". Philosophy helps us question what we know and what we think. That's why I think it is very very important to take it very very seriously. I'm pretty sure Aquinas was first and foremost a servant of god. He certainly seemed to need to say it in every second sentance. But maybe that was just to cover his ass

Ok, so smart guys converted to Christianity. I won't argue that. The interesting thing is, how did their line of reasoning go? The fact that they were famous for being smart and educated doesn't add any credibility to the religion does it? I've read Kirkegaard and his journey into faith. Wouldn't you say that he summed it up pretty well?

[Rhabbi]

When we're discussing objectivity and relativity in truth it quickly gets hairy. I think you'll have to explain what you mean by subjective/objective truth. If truth is subjective in every case we all live in seperate dimensions. I think that's highly unlikely. I do believe that outside the world our minds create there is a reality. It may be adulterated by our opinions and filtered through our senses. But I do believe it is there. Which denies that truth can be subjective.

Truth can be different between people if we have different interpretations of the subject matter. But that doesn't actually change the level of objective truth, does it? "Truth" is another one of my many philosophical obsessions.

What is truth?

Truth tells me that two people traveling at different velocities relative to the same photon will both measure that photon as traveling at 299,792.458 km/sec. (186,282.397 m/sec.) How does this make sense if we try to define truth as objective?

Taking that same photon again, if I chose to treat it like a particle, it will be a particle. If someone else takes it and chooses to treat it like a wave, it will be a wave.

Truth on a quantum scale depends on the observer, something that actually s***** over into our universe when we observe things that happen as a result of quantum interactions, like light.

Maybe we all do live in different dimensions and choose to interact in a common dimension that we created between us so that we could.

Objective truth only exists because everyone agrees that things are universal. In the realm of philosophy and religion many things are defined as being objective that may actually be subjective, and vise versa. Not having the answers to these questions only means that I am honest with myself.

[TomOfSweden]

What is truth?

Truth tells me that two people traveling at different velocities relative to the same photon will both measure that photon as traveling at 299,792.458 km/sec. (186,282.397 m/sec.) How does this make sense if we try to define truth as objective?

Taking that same photon again, if I chose to treat it like a particle, it will be a particle. If someone else takes it and chooses to treat it like a wave, it will be a wave.

Truth on a quantum scale depends on the observer, something that actually s***** over into our universe when we observe things that happen as a result of quantum interactions, like light.

Maybe we all do live in different dimensions and choose to interact in a common dimension that we created between us so that we could.

Objective truth only exists because everyone agrees that things are universal. In the realm of philosophy and religion many things are defined as being objective that may actually be subjective, and vise versa. Not having the answers to these questions only means that I am honest with myself.

Well, yeah. Maybe. This effectively makes you an agnostic and not a Christian at all, doesn't it? Truth on the quantum scale hinges a lot on knowing which is the ass end of the stick. When it comes to quantum theory we have an ass load of theories but a shortage on methods for testing them. So far it's been a bit like poking a broken stick through what we think is a haystack and from this making inferences. All we know is that we have no fucking clue. All we seem to be good at is dismissing the few plausible theories we had. Which I admit is definitely progress albeit to a crawl.