If so, I'm not sure I really buy it. The unconscious mind is so very powerful and there are many possibilities of it evolving some day. There has got to be a better way of seeing the universe then through these primative, underevolved animal sense organs!
I'd never thought I'd say this but maybe those who say they can know truth through spiritual communion (faith as it is sometimes called) have some validity to their claim (so long as it is unconscious and/or non-egoist). Could this be so?
2007-01-19 05:48:50 · 14 answers · asked by Zeek 3 in Society & Culture ➔ Religion & Spirituality
There haven't been an sufficient answers here yet. The possibility of an evolving mind is still a scientific possibility as far as I know. It is also possible that some people are mutants have this capacity. We just don't have any experiments yet to properly test it.
It is important a s atheists to keep our minds open to knew ideas or even some old, incomprehensible ones.
2007-01-19 06:00:03 · update #1
nondescript,
If the new sense of awareness involves the unconscious than evidence is a non-issue. Even if there is real evidence it cannot be shared with anyone. That is downer for us, not them!
2007-01-19 06:03:46 · update #2
bocasbeachbum,
I think you just hit the nail on the head so to speak. We need to discover all these things for ourselves and keep our minds healthy and open. If it happens it happens, if it doesn't happen, it doesn't happen. That's all that can be hoped for.
2007-01-19 06:06:03 · update #3
J.P,
There must be a possibility of something better even though it hasn't been seen yet. Things are always changing, that is all the evidence needed.
2007-01-19 06:08:08 · update #4
Mind works with your sense organs and the brain to cultivate labels. Mind itself isn't full of so much junk. Scientific reasoning is simply an approach to thinking about something... not any form of "awareness" per se.
In order to dig at the nature of the mind, one must sit down and try to WATCH the mind... first you have to learn how to calm down the things that the sense organs are always feeding the mind, and see how fleeting thoughts, emotions, etc. are. Then you use analytical meditation to get towards the highest form of awareness... which, according to Buddhism is "emptiness" (not the nihilistic definition either). This can be done "consciously"... it just takes work and practice.
Books that might help are Buddhist books on meditation, Buddhist psychology, science and Buddhism's dialogues on the mind and science, etc. My favorite source (but by no means the ONLY source) of buying such books is www.snowlionpub.com
Also, you might understand B. Alan Wallace. He's a lay-Buddhist who's got a DEEP mind who delves into that which you're toying with... he has his own website www.alanwallace.org where you can read some of his articles and papers.
Hope you enjoy what you find.
_()_
2007-01-19 06:03:48 · answer #1 · answered by vinslave 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
There are large parts of the human brain that appear to never be used. So there is presumably more to work with.
The human being percieves this world through its 5 senses and processes those observations (hopefully) through logic and reason. The processes of scientific reasoning are the best we are capable of right now...until these other "powerful" possibilities of the "unconscious mind" evolve.
Those who claim to know truth through "spiritual communion" have no validity to their claim because this cannot be differentiated from pure immagination. While the regions of their brian, or their unconscious or subconscious may be real, that with which they claim to be communicating with cannot be measured or observed, so therefore, we can only see this claim as a product of their own mind, not as evidence of higher awareness.
--edit--
J P, who said anything about the 10% myth, jack-a-s-s?
as little as 5% could be all thats being used at 1 time. It is possible that if humans would consistantly use larger % at once, through evolution we'd eventually develop newer or higher awareness....or develop new or higher awareness which then requires more steady-state brain activity (whichever scenario has a better selective advantage)... Its generally a given that we have higher awareness than lower animals, and at least to those in the scientific community (that uses logic and reason), this was accoplished via evolution...not some gift from God. Equally possible we could just simply evolve larger or more efficient brains, but the probability of that decreases when we keep our minds closed.
This is obviously a theoretical question...but next time I'll Pubmed some references to support my proposal and maybe I can get an NIH grant out of it. Douche.
2007-01-19 06:01:50 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋
Well really the definition of a miracle is the doing of the impossible. If a thing is possible....then it is not a miracle (although it could be a very unlikely fortunate event...or a "freak of nature"). It's impossible, so therefore it would not be rationale to believe in it. Do I believe for example that a man can command that a arm instantly grow where a arm was severed? Or a truly blind man be given sight by command? Etc.? No generally I do not believe that can happen. I have never seen anything even approaching that happen either. I do think however that God (and that as Christ as well) can do the impossible. It would follow that a almighty God could do that which was, to us, impossible to do. I do believe in the miracles described in Scripture. I do not think these occur today however, nor have I ever seen such a thing (yet have heard plenty of false claims that they have). I would suggest The Final Word by O. Palmer Robertson (quick and easy read) for a theological look at this.
2016-05-23 21:58:18 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
I believe scientific reasoning affords the best chance of reaching objective truth or reality about our world. Do I think it always succeeds, no. For the reasons you state and more. It does however, plan for this by admitting from the outset that they may be wrong and continuing to test their ideas over and over rejecting that which does hold true. Only in science must a truth be independently verifiable by anyone. Whereas revealed truth or truth revealed through spiritual communion is unverifiable and unique to the person recieving it. You are then forced to rely on the trustworthiness of the individual who may be honest, or a fraud, or delusional. Or maybe they just garbled the message. I'll stick with scientific reasoning as imperfect as it is. I don't discount that someone could receive spiritual truth for themselves, just that is unverifiable and not something I find useful to my own life unless it is my own experience.
2007-01-19 05:58:26 · answer #4 · answered by Zen Pirate 6 · 2⤊ 0⤋
I feel that observation of the world around me incorporates the highest form of awareness. Scientific reasoning is just a methodology for figuring out how all that observation works together and testing it.
We have better ways of seeing the universe than through just our animal sense organs. We have many devices that augment our senses to that we can see further into space and down to the smallest atoms.
"Spiritual" is really a meaningless word used by some to make their claims more authoritative. When you ask them what they are really seeing and back it up with real evidence, they balk. Faith is just wishful thinking. Neither is really a form of awareness. It if more of a form of covering one's eyes and ears and going , "Nyah, nyah, nuyah, I don't have to listen to you". They thrive on giving complex pat answers that can't be verified as a substitute for real problem solving.
2007-01-19 05:52:21 · answer #5 · answered by nondescript 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
A better form of reasoning than science? Never. Its based on reality - logic and reason. Science has the potential to embrace all that is known and understood. The reason God is not talked about in science is because science is concerned only with things that exist - not ancient primitive myths.
No it couldnt be so that people have truth through spiritual communion - then you'd have to admit that Peter Sutcliffe was indeed hearing the actual voice of Jesus when he was told to murder all those women.
2007-01-19 05:52:51 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 0⤋
1. Science only interprets our world as we experience it.
2. There may not be a "better way" of seeing the universe. I hear you saying that you feel there must be, but that doesn't necessarily make it so.
3. There's absolutely no reason why you can't be an atheist and have a deep spiritual dimension to your life.
2007-01-19 05:59:39 · answer #7 · answered by Samurai Jack 6 · 2⤊ 0⤋
No, I would say that scientific reasoning is not the highest possible form of awareness. (I know many people who feel this way after they take some LSD - who's to say they aren't more "aware"?)'
I think what scientific reasoning brings is just a way to test theories and then make a claim. This brings us to Physical Truth, if the science is correct. But it isn't the same as "awareness".
2007-01-19 05:53:40 · answer #8 · answered by Existence 3 · 1⤊ 1⤋
Atheists are the first to admit that they do not know everything or even have the capacity to know everything. But a faith based christian has ALL the answers. We have a problem with some one knowing everything and not being able to prove it or refusing to prove it.
2007-01-19 05:54:47 · answer #9 · answered by bocasbeachbum 6 · 2⤊ 0⤋
Holly ***** shitttttttttt!!!!!!! why are people so ignorant????
That's it! From now on I'm not going to waste my time trying to enlighten these ignorant freaks. WOW. They do make me feel better about myself though haha!
What's really annoying is how they completely close their minds to logic, one of the greatest tools of humanity! At least I keep my mind open to logic.
Weak minded pussssies!...you can't stand the most logical answers so you abandon logic and embrace magical fairytales that always end with a happy ending.
2007-01-19 06:01:50 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 2⤋