Archive for metaphysics

Spiritual Superiority and Scientific Ignorance

March 22, 2012 alan Balance Views, beliefs, brain science, closed minded, cognitive dissonance, conversations, critical thinking, dogmatic opinions, empiricism, experience, feelings, Free Will, fundamentalism, god, Good, inflexibility, is this for real, logical fallacies, logical fallacy, metaphysics, mind, mysticism, neurology, neuroscience, opinion, opinions, perception, perception bias, personal truth, psychology, rational mystic, rational mysticism, sceptic, scepticism, science, scientific literacy, scientific method, sensation, senses, Skeptic, skepticism. science, the real twilight zone

So we’re back again…

On a recent The Real Twilight Zone episode there was a presentation by a singer who was interested in the connection people had to the land. More to the point she was promoting an event in which groups of people could gather at the same time across the UK and ‘sing thanks’ to the planet.

Now, as you might expect, I immediately see the social, emotional and cultural value of such an activity. Bringing individuals together in order share an experience in which the focus is ‘gratitude’ and ‘personal connection with place’ is a vote winner in my book.

But because I accept this positive and affirmative action I need not accept some of the metaphysical constructs that my guest on the show presented.

Ley Lines. Earth Energies and the plausibility of Dowsing being areas which need not go hand in hand with a general support for the Earth Singing activity.

It was interesting to sit back and watch the debate that this interview provoked and so I thought I’d try to encapsulate some idea that allow me, as a Rational Mystic, to hold what may appear to be contradictory views.

So, lets start with Philosophy.

As a discipline this area of academic study can be considered as providing a framework which supports and encourages debate. The framework is built around logic, reasoning and the synthesis of information to extend and explore understanding.

My apologies to any Philosophers ‘out there’ who might feel I’ve oversimplified their specialism. So to make sure I’m at least getting some of this right, lets listen to a philosopher….

 

Now, Science.

Science is about asking questions, proposing hypotheses, collecting observations, conducting experiments, analysing data and sharing findings  - the scientific method. The business of science is to construct meaningful questions which set out to identify the ways in which the cosmos (in it’s broadest sense) works. The derivation of Laws and Theories, upon which further hypotheses can be tested is part and parcel of the process of science.

Again, my apologies to any Scientists ‘out there’ who feel misrepresented.

Science provides a method by which we can explore the world and the cosmos. There is often a by-product to this processes of science which results in technological innovation.

Philosophy provides a vehicle through which findings from scientific explorations, historical reflection and personal introspection can be brought together  in broader terms – such as the consideration of morals, ethics and mores.

Both approaches can be mutually supportive. One deals solely with the world of objective reality no matter how abstract that reality can become. The other deals with what the findings and innovations of science mean – their relevance to the past, present and future and what we can call ‘the human condition’.

It is also true to say that both approaches to knowing and understanding are based upon human constructs – i.e. methods, ways of questioning, ways of being.

They are also built around the ability to ‘deconstruct’ ideas and phenomena in order to question the specifics (the variables) whether they be in terms of abstract concepts, physical objects, observations and even the structure of words themselves. Defining ‘terms’ and ‘variables’ is an essential part of the philosophical and scientific debate.

So what of ‘mysticism’?

Well the branch of philosophy known as Metaphysics deals with aspects of what we know as mysticism. For me it as about personal, subjective experience that we either seek (or not) to place into our own constructs of how the cosmos works.
The same experience can happen to dozens of people all of whom will interpret it initially according to the way they feel they connect with the world – and this is a good thing.

The challenge comes when we try to share what we have experienced and what we mean by the words we use to describe experience. Now I personally enjoy metaphysical debate and provocation BUT only when the people I debate with can engage is such a personal thing without feeling their beliefs are under attack…

Our personal constructs about the world are just that – personal AND we are connected emotionally to the things we accept as being ‘real. Hence there will of course be some hesitation, or even reluctance, to consider questions which run counter to what we ‘feel to be true’.

The more dogmatic we are in our beliefs the less open we are to real debate. I would go a stage further, however, and suggest that fundamentalism is dogmatism plus fear.

If we are unable to tolerate anothers position is it because we feel threatened by their difference?

If we cannot debate our position is it because we are so insecure in our own beliefs that we cannot bear any question?

If we believe that to question spiritual ‘truths’ is wrong are we in danger of persecuting others for their understandings?

Whether there is or is not a God or are or are not Angels is not really a question for science. Behaviours which result from a belief is of interest to psychologists and sociologists and were there to be ‘physical manifestations’ of spiritual beings then sure, science would be able to ask questions.

Most of the statements and beliefs held by those on a ‘spiritual’ or ‘mystical’path and the experiences often quoted as evidence are by their very nature ‘intangible’ and not easily reducible to things science can measure. This does not mean the experiencing of them is not important or relevant to the individual or shared collective consciousness.

For me it is easy to recognise and value the different ways of interacting with the world; the different kinds of experiences we can have and the questions we can choose to ask (or not).

For me it is easy to recognise and value the limitations of each of the ‘ways of experiencing’. It is great that ‘science does not know everything’ because this allows for questions and development of new ideas as well as the redefinition of old ones.

So back to the title of this essay ..

Scientific Ignorance for me is best demonstrated by those who say things like …

“Science doesn’t know everything you know” – said with a ‘told you so’ patronising edge

“It’s only a Theory” – said as if to reduce the status of scientific theory to a ‘cute idea’.

From so-called scientists,

“Well my ideas is so revolutionary that the scientific community won’t even consider it” – usually from those who have an idea (which they call a Theory) that does not fit with ‘conventional wisdom’…

And, from creationists,

“Well if evolution was a true then why don’t we see monkeys having human babies” – yes this was actually said by a Creationist!

Spiritual Superiority can be summed-up when anyone with a metaphysical or spiritual point to make suggests that ‘the reason you don’t understand is because you’ve not reached the same level as we have….” or any other such hierarchical claim.

For me ….

The Rationalist wants to ask empirical questions about objective reality

The Mystic is happy to ‘talk’ about ideas which are inclusive BUT is more interested in what a personal, subjective experience means to me.

I want to be open to different ways of experiencing, relating to and being with myself in relation to the wonderful cosmos and the potential that we have as people to be more than we are…

I want to think about ‘how I know what I know’ and absorb what I can from the range of teachers, philosophers, scientists, mystics and situations I have been fortunate enough to encounter.

….I’m obviously not sure of what I don’t know and so tentative about the things I do think I know…. of course what I feel is another thing entirely.

So for those of you who like ‘videos’ here are some I found to keep you thinking. Not saying I like the style, or endorse the views – but there’s some food for thought here…

 

 

Related articles
Enhanced by Zemanta
No comments , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

So what’s left for God?

June 30, 2010 alan creation, evolution, god, god of the gaps, metaphysics, mysticism, science

In the beginning was…..

Well I guess that’s the problem – we don’t know!
Once there was “something” then science does a really good of exploring, hypothesising and theorising about the nature and form of the universe. 
High Energy Particle physics and Cosmology paint a rational picture of the seconds after the ‘Big Bang’
Physics and Mathematics can ‘model’ physical forces, matter and energy transitions
Geology, Geochemistry, Geophysics have great insights into the ‘how’ of planetary development
Biology and Evolution can explore and explain how ‘simple’ life became more and more complex
Ecology and Planetary Science can speak rationally about the interconnected nature of living systems
So what is left for God?
Evangelists will point to the fact that ‘science does not know everything’ – which is a crazy accusation in any case since science is about the process of discovery, testing claims, so in a sense ‘science shouldn’t KNOW anything’… Scientists work from testable assumptions, and hypotheses which are defined by application of what is known so they can extrapolate into areas of the ‘unknown’. 
The evangelistic claims that science does not know everything is really a call for us to consider those areas where science and scientific questioning cannot (yet) be sensibly applied… for example ‘before there was anything’, if indeed if there was a ‘before’ anything.
The same evangelists will point to the idea that ‘evolution’ does not have a complete record of how ‘humans evolved from apes’ – despite the fact that such a claim displays a basic misrepresentation of evolutionary theory – whilst accusing ‘science’ of ‘changing its mind’ far too often and far too frequently.
Argggghhhh…. ‘science’ can not have a mind – science is a process.
Scientists change their opinions based upon new evidence and new questions… which is to their credit and celebrates the scientific method. I’d like to see the same thing to be said of the plethora of ‘paranormal investigators’, ‘psychic explorers’, ‘self-proclaimed parapsychologists’ and ‘complementary therapists’.
Listening to these ‘evangelical types’ we may well come to the conclusion that they are happy with a ‘God of the Gaps’ – a supreme being who is required to fill in the spaces left by humans intellectual and scientific endeavours.
Concepts of God are many and various, but there is the ‘general’ sense that God is…
All powerful, All Knowing, All Seeing and so on.
Of real relevance to many religions is the idea that God not only ‘created the universe’ and shaped life by ‘intelligent design’ but is also ever present and behaving like a watchful ‘father’ who chooses to intervene or not; heal or not; preserve or not; answer prayers or not; show ‘his’ mercy or not depending upon some inscrutable and un-knowable ‘will’.
Even if there needed to be a supreme being to ‘kick start’ the Big Bang this does not mean that that same being needs to maintain it, watch over it, support it.
If evolution is the way that God chose to ‘design life’ then where is the evidence of ‘design’? Something that has to be addressed unless you are a ‘young earth creationist’ who believes that God created the world around 6,000 years ago and apparently left all of the conflicting geological and biological evidence to ‘mislead’ the faithless.
In the absence of certainty there is room for speculation – it often seems to me that the ‘God of the Gap’ brigade flourish when there is uncertainty – both in terms of scientific exploration and social-emotional conflict. This latter point reflects in the upsurge of interest in spiritual and paranormal events/teachings during times of political, emotional, environmental uncertainty.
Wherever scientists question and find more questions is where you might find God.
NOW, before I get too many comments from ‘theists’ and other religious folk, what I am saying is that any concept of a supreme being and discussions about any role they may have does not really belong within a scientific discussion. It is the subject of Metaphysics (great word) and Philosophy – of ideas about how the universe ‘might work’ but currently fall outside the framework of scientific enquiry. Hence the need to know if we are talking Rationally (Scientifically) or Mystically (Metaphorically, Spiritually).
In practical terms, for example…
Evolution should be taught in schools as part of the science curriculum and creationism should be as part of the religious education/comparative religion/philosophical  curriculum…
Metaphysical Ideologies need to be considered against a historical, cultural and contextual background…
Paranormal Investigations in order to be ‘investigative’ need to be placed outside of pre-exsiting spiritual ‘belief’ systems and look solely at ‘evidence’ or set out to test hypotheses.
Enough – far too much rambling again!
Alan
No comments