Theres nothing to argue about folks. Lets put this puzzle together shall we? How do the two fit, side by side?




prometheuspan
3/28/2001 4:24 PM 2 out of 23

1. Hiesenbergs uncertainty principle, schroedingers cat,
and other phenomenon suggest that at least the principle of pantheism is scientifically supported. Consciousness is an underlying ofrce in the universe.

2. Kirlian Or Electrolysis photography prove that we have at the very least electrical subtle energy bodies.

3. Brain science has demonstrated that there are four states of consciousness. This is the same as what the shamans have said for millenia, including Christian Shamans or Judaic Shamans or Native American Shamans.

(AND)
One of these States of consciousness,
(Theta) is associated with spiritual experiences.




peace_and_justice
3/28/2001 10:14 PM 3 out of 23

What do you think about Process Theology? I am just beginning to research it. It would appear from the initial concepts I have heard, that physics experiments can indicate some sort of supernatural power. A professor mentioned in passing to me that it is a way of "proving" god through science. Process theology sounds like it encompasses Panantheism and all world religions to me. I plan on learning more about Process Theology. I believe Carl Sagan eventually came to believe in Process Theology (not sure). Any comments?



prometheuspan
3/28/2001 10:16 PM 4 out of 23

I don't know anything about it.
Does anybody else?



peace_and_justice
3/28/2001 10:40 PM 5 out of 23

Well, I am just beginning to study process theology. The term was created by mathmetician and philosopher Alfred North Whitehead, (1861-1947). It is basically the idea that god is in everything and everyone (like panentheism), and this "god" is evolving...hence the name process theology. It is the belief that all religions are manifestations of humankind's search for god.

Recently quantum theory is being used to prove process theology and the presence of a supernatural power or force (god). I recall Deepak Chopra alluding to this in his latest book "How to Know God".

I hope some others here may have more knowledge of process theology as applied to quantum physics. That part is over my head.



urantia6
3/28/2001 10:40 PM 6 out of 23

Pan:

People have been trying to prove the reality of God by looking at science for the last 300 years.

My reading of the Urantia Book says that it cannot and will not be done. Some things are material and others are spiritual.

Doug





peace_and_justice
3/28/2001 10:50 PM 7 out of 23

Doug,

Understanding of Quantum physics has not been around for 300 years. hmmmm. I am not saying process theology is "the way". In fact it dictates no way. It is simply science on the verge of proving a supernatural force through quantum theory. Some quantum physisists say they have already proven the existence of a supernatural power through quantum theory...but most of us couldn't understand it :-)



urantia6
3/28/2001 11:00 PM 8 out of 23

Peace:

Physists say a lot of things and people like to think they speak for 'God'.

When they talk about things like 'the big bang' and the creation of our solar system they usually leave out one very important word: Theory.

I have no argument against your post above.

Doug



faeriegoddaughter
3/29/2001 12:39 AM 9 out of 23

PrometheusPan,

WARNING: I am about to play Devil's Advocate and ask some questions which you may see as silly, but I don't have the time or resources to do thorough research into these topics on my own.

I'm afraid I don't quite understand how you draw your conclusions.

"1. Hiesenbergs uncertainty principle, schroedingers cat, and other phenomenon suggest that at least the principle of pantheism is scientifically supported. Consciousness is an underlying ofrce in the universe."

I know enough about Heisenberg's Uncertaintly Principle and a bit about Schroedinger's Cat, but I don't see how either of those supports pantheism. The idea that it's impossible to know exactly where an electron is at the same moment as we know its momentum? What has that to do with pantheism? Schroedinger's Cat I can see a beter argument for: knowing that something is both alive and dead at the same moment... that contrary states to indeed exist in the same moment.... But please explain.

"2. Kirlian Or Electrolysis photography prove that we have at the very least electrical subtle energy bodies."

Once again, I'm lost. Electrolysis photography? That's a new one by me.

"3. Brain science has demonstrated that there are four states of consciousness. This is the same as what the shamans have said for millenia, including Christian Shamans or Judaic Shamans or Native American Shamans.

"(AND)
One of these States of consciousness,
(Theta) is associated with spiritual experiences."

Heard this one. BUT the fact that Shamans were aware that there are four states of consciousness and that people feel religious when in one of those states does NOT make any of that supernatural. It just means that humans don't need instruments to conceive of everything in the world. And that we're hard-wired to have spiritual experiences. There could, if I was to reach far enough, be an evolutionary reason for that.

But right now, that's all I have to say. Looking forward to what you have to say!

~Faerie



prometheuspan
3/29/2001 3:50 PM 10 out of 23

hiesenbergs uncertainty principle when explored says that the act of watching somethig changes the event.
By simply viewing something, we alter it on the quantum level. At first I thought that this was due to the fact that we were using some particles to look at others and thus we were knocking what we were looking at with how we were looking at it. But this turns out to be true only part of the time. The explanation that I have discussed with physicists is that consciousness itself effects quanta.

Shroedingers cat compliments this idea but isn't itself as strong a proof. Schroeginers cat basicly tells us that its the moment of discovery... the moment at which we open the box, that an event becomes determined.
The implication is again that without a watchter, the event has no determination.

Electrolysis photography is very expensive, requiring a lot of outlandish equipment. There are people out there who don't have the equipment but who do prey upon ignorance... in droves.

Real electrolysis photography requires a photographic plate for reception. What it is is literally a photograph using electricity instead of light.

while from a science perspective, the existence of Theta states isn't really proof of any sort of a spiritual universe, it is interesting to note that this
phenomenon more than any other has forced science to deal with the concept of spirituality in scientific research. Further, and perhaps more importantly, attainment of waking Theta conditions leaves nothing
to be denied or questioned. One who attains such a condition, while their experience may be subjective, it is also reproducable, and we can monitor changes in the brain. Once you attain it, you are forever beyond the realm of belief or disbelief... you have direct knowledge. Which Is important to me, beyond any "faith".




prometheuspan
3/29/2001 3:57 PM 11 out of 23

urantia, I am starting to be curious. Why did you join this discussion? You seem at every turn to be opposed to
harmony, to oposing views coming together and finding middle ground. Your above statement "Should" and "Shouldn't" read to me like both just so much personal bias and opinion, coupled with the fear that is inspired by ignorance and in defense of a paradigm that is doomed to die at least in the form you seem to be coming from.

Science and religion will eventually become so intertwined as to be indestinguishable from each other.
Both are descriptions of reality, and to the degree that they serve humanity to deal with reality, they are valid.

If instead, they keep humanity in a box, esp one of strife, open warfare, and the spirit of contention, then such ideas are useless, and in fact a liability to humanity, and ought to be swiftly dealt away with.

Perhaps you would care to explain why science and religion, according to you, are irreconcialable.
I don't happen to think they are, I just think that some people are afraid of what happens when religion actually becomes rational.




prometheuspan
3/29/2001 4:05 PM 12 out of 23

I read the Urantia book more than a decade ago. I found it to be an unconvincing work of new agery, in theft
of several ideas of pagan origin that it didn't really fully comprehend.

I did find the book to be well intentioned, and full of insight as a case study of one persons personal evolution. In that it did apperently put several feet foreward from Christianity toward paganism, I found the work to be a tale of one persons ego and id, daring to step out into uncharted territory, and to risk alienating the mainstream in order to seek a new direction and a sense of balance with other religions.

I wouldn't reccomend the book to any but those who are very pagan, as a way of looking at and making sense of the Christian perspective, caught in the act of breaking free of itself.

Truth will set you free.




urantia6
3/29/2001 5:49 PM 13 out of 23

Pan:

Just as I thought. Now I will add the Urantia Book to your very long and growing list of things you don't like...as I have stated before.

Now that you have dissed the Urantia Book will you be spending some topic time building it back up as you promised?

I could defend the Urantia Book but that would add balance to this discussion.

Are really sure you want balance, Pan? Or is your agendy really one of merely stating your multifacetted and negative opionions?

Your words are one thing but your actions are something else.

Doug



urantia6
3/29/2001 5:55 PM 14 out of 23

Pan:

Just for the record:

My 'above' posts do not contain the words "should' and 'should't'.

Yes, I am guilty of stating my 'opinion' but the heck is wrong with that...I sort of notice you doing it all the time.

Doug



urantia6
3/29/2001 6:03 PM 15 out of 23

Pan:

You ask a question[about science and religion] and instead of waiting for my answer you add your negative opinion and remark that (my answer) would be invalid anyway.

That is not a dialogue but a monologue with your ears, and eyes closed. You seem to be saying 'don't confuse me with other information my mind is already made up.'

I feel that you should hear a tape of yourself. You may not be aware of what you are writing.

Doug





world citizen
3/29/2001 7:52 PM 16 out of 23

I don't profess in any way to be scientifically gifted (shortchanged is closer to reality). I do know, however, that a number of scientific realities were described in the Islamic Qur'an, which was revealed 1300 years ago. The two that had a particular impact on my understanding of progressive revelations (progressively advanced Holy Books) were Muhammad's explanation of "The sun moves in a fixed place" (fixity of the sun and its movement around an axis) and "...each star moves in its own heaven" (movement of the sun, moon, earth and other bodies).

Muhammad was an illiterate who couldn't possibly have known these things unless He was divinely inspired. When the Qur'án appeared, Muhammad was ridiculed because His statements were contrary to the accepted Ptolemaic system of the time. Nearly 900 years later following improvement of the telescope the Qur'án was proven to agree with newly found facts and the Ptolemaic system was proven imaginary.


thanks world citizen, thats a great example of the meeting place between the two!!

Doug, You are right. There isn't shoulds or shouldn't in your post, but It did feel that way to me. (also)
Perhaps there shouldn't be quotation marks.

Again, the question, are you afraid of Science and the rational mind? Is that why you think that science and religion are not compatible? FRom where I sit, that would sure make all the sense in the world to me.

You don't have anything to worry about tho. In the long run, theres nothing to fear but a little bit of shuffling around as everything, including Christianity, evolves to the next level.

Now, who can think of another way that science meets religion?

AH, I can. If you read the formulae for the big bang and if you translate the opening bit of Genesis into logic statements, you end up with the same thing.

There, now I have said good things about christianity somewhere.

Christianity predicted big bang cosmology.



urantia6
3/29/2001 11:06 PM 18 out of 23

Sati:

Spirituality and science look at the same event but each see something different.

Spiritual man sees a living cell - spirit is the spark of life.

Science says that someday I(science) will create "life".

So far science has not make one single living cell from basic elements. Why? It takes 'spirit' to create what we call 'life'.(reproductive life).

That may be just my opinion but other sources say the same thing. The "source" is that book that Pan dislikes (pssst...it is part of my screen name...but don't tell anyone.).

Doug



Sati_n37
3/29/2001 11:15 PM 19 out of 23

urantia.

All I can say is that its an interesting idea, but I wish that you would clue us in to exactly what it says so that we could look at it, and, so what? Its just an idea in abook.

Pans review seemed honest, and he did try to say some good about it.

I think that clearly, religions such as yours suffer frm living inside of a sense of duality, that physical reality is physical and spiritual spiritual and never the twain shall meet.

Theres a whole middle zone there. Have you ever studied Cabballah? Or heard the word? It predicts Einstins theorum of relativity by saying matter and energy are
the same. But just as energy underlies matter, consciousness underlies energy. So Technology so far is us describing physical reality. And the relationship between matter and energy. But what happens when we really get a handle on the relationships between consciousness and energy? We are not so far off, science has allready as much as decided that consciousness is the level that underlies energy. Some scientists can't bear to admit it, but others are relieved and overjoyed.

Science and religion will eventually become one and the same.




urantia6
3/29/2001 11:22 PM 20 out of 23

Sati:

You are a joy to dialogue with.

I loved your comment: "It's just an idea in a book".

Sati: I have a question for you.

Which is better, an idea in a book or an idea in your head?

Doug



urantia6
3/29/2001 11:26 PM 21 out of 23

Sati:

Yes, Pan did say something good about that "book". But he said it with such a snear that I would call it 'damning with faint praise'. It is a put down technique that is as old as the hills.

Doug



world citizen
3/30/2001 12:09 AM 22 out of 23

If, as a good many believe, God created the earth and its inhabitants, then it stands to reason that God also created the sciences by which we could come to understand our environment and know our world. Unlike all other life forms, we have been gifted with the capacity to reason.

When science and religion disagree on a singular point, couldn't it be reasoned that one or the other must be in error, even if only temporarily? Sorry, but again I would use the Ptolemaic System as an example, as well as the earth was once "known" to be flat, and until scientific discoveries of the last century, leeches were "known" to help all sorts of malodies, etc. Couldn't it also be conceived that certain interpretations of the scriptures by man are possibly/probably erroneous and science correct? I believe that religion should be in conformity with science and they should fortify each other. Science protects religion from becoming superstition and religion protects science from barren materialism.

If Genesis were seen to be a broad brushstroke of Creation, much as an artist would paint a forest or seascape, this shouldn't negate geologic or anthropologic proofs of the earth's or mankind's history. Time is a human construct whereas, if one believes in God, His infinite world has no such constraints. I believe in God and His creations, but I personally have no problem at all with believing that those same creations took a few million "human" years to evolve to their present states. Where is the conflict?



urantia6
3/30/2001 12:18 AM 23 out of 23

World:

You are getting right to the point.

Science and religion look at the universe from different eyes.

There is 'mystery' in both. There are vast unknowns in both. But, as you correctly say, IMO, God is intimately involved with both.

It is a good thing that God did not give us an instrucion book on the earth. It would only rot our brains. He left it all for us to figure out...and for that I thank Him.

Doug