<p>you know what you feel, even if you can’t describe it, you feel it. Or you feel nothing.
I’ve taken religion classes and meditation is used to reach nirvana. Not to distance yourself from reality, but to transcend it.
I’m guessing you don’t know many propel who have done drugs. Or tripped. The experiences are incedible. Talk to people that have. Reading second hand accounts doesn’t really cut it. A large portion of my friends have gained a higher understanding of things, because it allows you to see truth. As in, you can’t lie about the way things are. It’s hard to describe, but you see things as they are, not as you percieve them to be. Really, if you don’t understand what a trip is, don’t discount it or say it’s not real.
Like I said, many cultures use hallicingents to attain religious and spiritual experiences. Because they find truth in these experiences. Like I said, you see the world without blinders. You can’t lie about things when you let go. There is a histoical place for mind altering substances allowing I individuals to see something more or to see things in their natural form. It’s not a bunch of hippie ********. Read about developing human consciousness. Some drug allow people to be completely introspectice in a way reality doesn’t allow. It’s hard to explain to people that aren’t around that type of thing. I would say at least 15 friends of mine have tripped and they have some pretty interesting things to say. It def has chaned their perspective on things and they are much more open minded than most people. Reality restricts people.
No, I’m being serious. I’ve been around a lot of hallicingents and other drugs and I will say the people who have tripped have a much healthier world view than other people. Some people just can’t understand how certain drugs expand consciousness. It’s hard to understand if you aren’t around it and just read about it online from wikipedia or whatnot. There are some crazy hallicgent roots in Africa that tribes use to achieve spiritual experiences. The whole thing about drugs allowing for these experiences is so interesting.
Regardless, if anyone wants to continue this discussion message me, this is getting really
off topic.</p>
<p>I think the overreaction currently taking place is directly proportional to the OP’s original matter.</p>
<p>^ I agree completely.</p>
<p>Everyone needs to chill out. Stop trying to argue your way to victory, because most people will not change their beliefs based on some post they read on the internet.</p>
<p>On a side note, I am agnostic, but only because I am a scientific person. One basis of science is that essentially, everything is a theory. There is no real way to prove anything, because there may be some unknown factor that we have yet to discover. Thus, there is no way to prove the existence/non existence of god(s). So while I do not believe that there is sufficient evidence to prove the existence of a god, I cannot deny that there is a possibility that one exists.</p>
<p>
How ironic that you are posting this online, on a computer, probably sitting in an air-conditioned room lit by artificial light. If society focused on spirituality instead of science, you’d be living in a tent. Actually, you’d probably be dead. Most babies would not survive their infancy without modern medicine.</p>
<p>And here you are saying that science is overrated. Hypocrite.</p>
<p>Barium, seriously?</p>
<p>Her statement was that science can only explain so much, not that it is useless. Also what you describe is engineering, not science.</p>
<p>How far do you think that engineering would get without science? Today’s technology is based on the cutting-edge useless-to-the-average-American scientific discoveries of just a few decades ago. </p>
<p>I fully agree that science cannot, by its very nature, explain everything. (Actually, science doesn’t explain anything. We are trying to create models that predict the future from our current observations, but none of those equations tell us why things happen the way they do.) </p>
<p>I very much disagree with the passages I quoted though. Statements like
demonstrate a clear lack of appreciation for how those scientific discoveries affect our everyday life. Sure, a bunch of equations may not mean much to that poster. But what about the computer that was be designed based on those formulas? Or the consciousness-enhancing drugs whose synthesis required chemical insight?</p>
<p><a href=“Actually,%20science%20doesn’t%20explain%20anything.%20We%20are%20trying%20to%20create%20models%20that%20predict%20the%20future%20from%20our%20current%20observations,%20but%20none%20of%20those%20equations%20tell%20us%20why%20things%20happen%20the%20way%20they%20do.”>quote</a>
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I wouldn’t go so far to say that science doesn’t explain ANYTHING. I mean, you ask why the apple falls to the ground, and science tells us that two objects with mass are mutually attracted to one another via gravity (well, insofar as the cosmological constant isn’t concerned), and, as such, the apple falls because it’s within earth’s gravitational field. That’s descriptive and explanatory. </p>
<p>That’s not to say, however, that science can explain EVERYTHING. I think we’re ultimately bound by our epistemological constraints when we attempt to make synthetic a priori metaphysical assertions.</p>
<p>
Gravity is a model and an outdated one for that. Unlike Newtonian physics, modern physics does not rely on the concept of force. We still use it because it’s easier to explain and easier to compute than the more complicated models, but it’s not the most accurate model that we currently have.</p>
<p>First we observed that disjoint masses are mutually attracted to one another. Then (and only then) did we formulate a concept of gravity that states exactly that. Gravity is a model, not an explanation.</p>
<p>^ In other words, gravity states that two disjoint masses are mutually attracted to one another, not why.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Gravity itself isn’t a model – the mechanics by which it operates are models (fields, topology, curves and warps in spacetime, etc.). Gravity, as a force, is something far more fundamental than that which a model can illustrate. And what’s more, it isn’t outdated – forces still exist in modern physics (strong nuclear force, electroweak, gravitational). You can describe them in terms of gluons or W/Z bosons or gravitons or vibrations of strings stuck on branes, but they still transmit forces and create the potential for accelerated motion. Even Verlinde’s latest theory on gravity as an entropic force still simplifies into Newton’s universal law derived from first principles in thermodynamics. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Now we’re getting into a debate about icky semantics and the nature of causation. I think the reason you argue that science doesn’t explain anything is because you perceive there to be a paradox with the first cause argument.</p>
<p>If a little girl asks you why the apple fell to the earth, you would explain it with something along the lines of “gravity predicts that two disjointed masses will be mutually attracted to one another.” </p>
<p>I think the issue with our stances is that you want science to offer FUNDAMENTAL explanations. For example, after we answer the girl’s question in terms of gravity, you’re probably thinking “but why does gravity result in mutual attraction between two disjointed masses?”</p>
<p>In which case, we’d answer something like “the Higgs boson submerged in the Higgs fields confers mass upon the two objects, and, due to graviton effects submerged in the emergent gravitational fields from these two objects, they become mutually attractive.”</p>
<p>And then you’d go on to further question, “but why does the Higgs boson confer mass upon objects? And why do gravitons in gravitational fields result in attraction?”</p>
<p>The point is, you could theoretically keep asking “why” until science runs out of answers, until you reach Leibniz’s elegant question of “why is there something instead of nothing”. But does that render the intermediary steps irrelevant? Of course not. We’ve still explained why the apple fell to the earth in terms of gravity. We’ve even explained gravity in terms of Higgs bosons and gravitons. </p>
<p>We’ve explained why certain physical phenomena behave the way they do in terms of more fundamental components. We didn’t explain the more fundamental components, we didn’t EVERYTHING, but we still explained SOMETHING.</p>
<p>I am a mathematician by training. I am very particular about the distinction between definitions and relationships. Gravity means “the force of attraction between all masses in the universe” by definition. That’s why gravity is not an explanation of why things are attracted each other.</p>
<p>Why do we believe in gravity? Because we have observed it over and over and over again without exception. The laws of gravity are merely a quantificational expression of our observations, not an explanation of why these things are happening.</p>
<p>Physics can offer explanations to the extend that we can find relationships between physical concepts and models. However, physical concepts are not reality. That’s why physics cannot and will never be able to offer definitive explanations for reality.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I agree that physics can’t provide fundamental metaphysical assertions, however, it CAN explain every day phenomena.</p>
<p>This is merely semantics now. When you say “explain,” you refer to some grand metaphysical explanation for why and how all things occur. When I refer to “explain,” I refer to the term on pragmatic grounds, that it alludes to more general principles behind the phenomena themselves.</p>
<p>So, IF we were to define gravity as, “the force of attraction between all masses in the universe,” we might ask “why” or “how does it operate?” In which case, we would offer an explanation involving Higgs bosons and gravitons and perhaps loop quantum gravity. We’ve gone and explained (insofar as answering the initially vague question) with specific, fundamental components which allude to a more general principle (that the world operates on particles). </p>
<p>That is descriptive and explanatory. At the very fundamental level, physics can’t explain why or how anything happens (at least, not right now, anyway). But we can describe a vague phenomenon, such as the attraction between two masses, in terms of more fundamental components, such as elementary particles and fields. That, if you ask me, amounts to an explanation for the initially vague phenomenon. It’s not a complete explanation, as you could always keep asking “why,” but it’s an explanation nonetheless.</p>
<p>smilodon</p>
<p>right on. finally someone who understands my posts.</p>
<p>barium-
I clearly said science is overrated. Sure, it can explain things, but it can’t explain everything, and some people are sold on science explaining everything. It has some value, but a lot of it really doesn’t explain anything. I disagree with people who put science on a pedastal. There are just things it can’t explain. So much of science is just theory, yet people give more legitimacy to the big bang theory (which can’t be proved) than to human emotion, which is real. I’m saying we undervalue human feeling.</p>
<p>I think all of you will benefit from reading God’s Debris.
It states that science and religion are both belief systems. Its a good read and it’ll get you thinking about how you feel about both.</p>
<p>[Andrews</a> McMeel Publishing: Humor, Cartoon, General Trade and Gift Books, Calendars, and Toys: Humor, Cartoon, General Trade and Gift Books, Calendars, and Toys - God’s Debris](<a href=“http://www.andrewsmcmeel.com/godsdebris/]Andrews”>http://www.andrewsmcmeel.com/godsdebris/)
the .pdf is free for download.</p>
<p>
Yes, science is theory. Yes, human emotions are as real to us as it gets. I don’t see why science and emotions are mutually exclusive. How does the pursuit of science undervalue human emotions?</p>
<p>
I think we are operating with very different assumptions about the philosophy of physics. For me, theoretical physics and experimental physics are two fundamentally distinct approaches, which may complement each other for practical purposes but need to be kept separate in philosophical pursuits.</p>
<p>I will consider the observable effects of gravity experimental physics. That is “real.” As soon as we start talking about forces and energy and write down equations, we are doing theoretical physics. Force, mass, energy, Higgs Bosons, and their relationships (“the laws of physics”), are all theoretical concepts. They may or may not correspond to quantities and their relationships in the “real” world, but as soon as we start making assumptions we are dealing with theoretical models, not “reality.” </p>
<p>Theoretical physics is a huge block of “if-then” statements, as is all of mathematics. If the fundamental laws of physics are true, if we assume the standard model of particle physics, if gravity operates a certain way, if we make all of the nice assumptions that underlie the mathematical equations we are using, if… THEN there exists a certain relationship between Higgs Bosons and gravitational force on a macro scale. However, it is all a theoretical model and it can only offer explanations within the model. Philosophically speaking, the framework of physics cannot offer explanations for reality because they are two fundamentally different objects.</p>
<p>I absolutely positively hate it when people assume I’m a Christian. I live the South, where a lot of people pretty much assume you believe in God. People send you cards with Bible verses in them without thought. I remember once someone I worked with lost one of her siblings, and they had us all sign this card with some verse in it. I was thinking…do you even know if she’s religious? I mean, maybe they did but still. </p>
<p>I’m sure most people I know would be crushed to find out I’m not a Christian- even though, ironically enough, a lot of people I know aren’t too much die hard Christians themselves.</p>
<p>Once one of my friends interrogated me about how I wasn’t a Christian. How can I not have any faith? What happened to me? Aren’t I afraid of death? Don’t you know about this and this and this? Funny, for people who say they’re supposedly open to others opinions they sure do get defensive and angry real quick.</p>
<p>Another time I went on a date with this guy and he somehow got it out of me that I wasn’t a Christian. I asked him if that was okay with him, and he said “Yeah, but I would rather you be one” And I’m thinking, how offensive!! I really can’t believe I didn’t break it off right then. People just don’t stop and think how saying these things make people feel. The very few people who know want to dissect me like I’m some patient who has to be diagnosed with some simple, nice, answer that everyone can understand. </p>
<p>Sorry to rant, but I don’t talk about this a lot because not many people know this about me. It’s sad that we have to hide so much about ourselves, even to people who supposedly accept you no matter what.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>How offensive that this guy wanted to date a Christian? Get over yourself!</p>
<p>When did I say science and emotion are mutualy exclusive? Read it again, my point is I think science is sometimes overrated at the expense of human emotion and experiences.</p>
<p>It’s fine if he wants to date a Christian- it’s definitely not okay to say that to a non-Christian’s face like he thinks they’re dirt now that he knows! It was very clear that this wasn’t okay and definitely wouldn’t be with his family, who he said were all big religious people and would probably not like that. </p>
<p>And I have definitely gotten over him 
I still just think that part was a little bit rude ;)</p>
<p>
I find plenty of variations of this statement in your previous posts but I don’t understand what you mean. How does the pursuit of science undervalue the importance of emotions? Why do you think that we are pursing sciences at the expense of emotions?</p>
<p>You said the following:
</p>
<p>I would like to emphasize the difference between an appreciation of emotions, spirituality and religion. I consider myself agnostic and a scientist. I also believe that my emotions are the most important aspect of my life. I understand that most people are longing for feelings of hope, acceptance, purpose and security. I personally choose to pursue these things outside of the realm of religion. That does not mean that I don’t think that religion has something valuable to offer us; I just prefer to draw my inspirations from society and nature rather than a belief in God.</p>