Science vs. Mysticism

[Veritatis cupitor]

I have read a lot of material written by Carl Sagan. One of my favorites was "The Demon-Haunted World" where he "debunks" many different things from Astrology-UFOs and I can't help but feel it's a little unfair in a sense to other experimental ideas. Terence McKenna describes something of a "Great Attractor" pulling us, the apex of novelty, towards a point in time where unimaginable changes will take place. He also believes that we are a collective-conscience, other than that of the scientific POV. I was wandering if anyone had a thought or opinion on it. I, personally, am on the fence. Any advice? Peace.

 

[Eliyahu]

Hello,

I can't claim to have the answers for you but I know that DMT went a long way towards helping me to solve the puzzle for myself...

I personally believe that true mysticism just represents what science has been yet unable to prove. Sort of how we all know dreams are mysterious and there is something more to dreams than current scientific explanations are able satisfactorily explain.

just my take on it.

 

[ChaoticMethod]

Two sides of the same coin.

UFOs have nothing to do with mysticism though...

I am a firm believer in science as a method to study the material reality. Anything that has an impact, that interacts with the material plane, can be submitted to the scientific method. Saying otherwise would be absurd.

I don't see why it wouldn't be fair to study UFO or astrology scientifically. If the claims about those are true, then they are supposed to interact with material reality on some level and it should be possible to observe it.

Mysticism shouldn't be used as a reason to believe in anything. That's called naivety, not mysticism.

 

[zombicyckel]

Whats even the point of reading about some dude debunking stuff, its easy being a hater. Not saying he his, know nothing about him. But from what I gather, people that mostly debatte other people and debunking is glass half empty types. Seeking some thrill by pushing some people hoping it will crush their beliefs

 

[orchidsrviolet]

Reading Carl Sagan books and Richard Dawkins turned me into a militant atheist, I was coming from a religious catholic family I have also experienced seeing ghosts as a child. So one day I decided to throw all away my faith, faith in god and souls etc. I became angry with religion and wanted to rebel against my family.

Anyways my point is that i am going to try ayahuasca for psychological reasons, I have done quite a bit of research on it and hopefully it can help me come into terms with my past, solve some puzzling and heal some emotional issues.

I really hope we have souls because my biggest fear is death, afraid of missing the ones I love such as my children.
I also hope I can find a time for this experiment since I am a full time mother I have a month old baby so I can't really leave her out of my sight and help from family is limited.

 

[Parshvik Chintan]

UFOs have nothing to do with mysticism though...

are you so sure?
ancient astronaut theory seems to explain mythologies that could of been the origin of many forms of mysticism.
most notably thoth/hermes/hermod/lugh/mercury.

it seems odd to me that multiple cultures can say "hey we saw these beings come from the heavens (at this time meaning sky/space), with the ability to fly and change weather.. we couldn't understand how this could be done, so they thought they were gods."

and we say "silly primitive human, you are mistaken, making stories up to try and explain a world you don't understand. also thank you for all foundations for geometry, philosophy, and science, which we have used to declare you to be, more likely than not, delusional."


just my two cents (if its worth even that)

 

[r2pi]

I have read a lot of material written by Carl Sagan. One of my favorites was "The Demon-Haunted World" where he "debunks" many different things from Astrology-UFOs and I can't help but feel it's a little unfair in a sense to other experimental ideas. Terence McKenna describes something of a "Great Attractor" pulling us, the apex of novelty, towards a point in time where unimaginable changes will take place. He also believes that we are a collective-conscience, other than that of the scientific POV. I was wandering if anyone had a thought or opinion on it. I, personally, am on the fence. Any advice? Peace.

You talk about experimental ideas, but those ideas have not been tested by experiment, unlike what Sagan talks about.

To me Sagan is a great example of the scientific outlook - unlike what a lot of anti-science types would tend to think about scientists, he was one of the greatest advocates ever for SETI (Search for Extraterrestrial Intelligence).

As for McKenna... did he have any evidence for those ideas, beyond his own thought processes?

To me, mystical knowledge need not compete with scientific knowledge -- they are different domains. But proponents of both domains have an unfortunate tendency to infringe upon the other. Science pertains to "objective reality", a particular way of viewing the world based on ideas like the self, self-consciousness, individual organisms, species, etc. To a certain extent we (and other species) are genetically programmed towards this world view... "our" very existence is grounded in it, for without that view there is no "I" or "our". Mysticism is about transcending these constructs.

It is just as wrong for mystics to make prognostications about conventional reality (e.g. McKenna's hare-brained ideas on 'timewave', human evolution, etc) as it is for scientists to make comments about mysticism (e.g. that it is just 'hallucination' - well what the hell do they think self-consciousness is? Let alone its dissolution?).

(What get me is that most of us have "oh dude, that is such a profound idea" moments when we smoke too much pot... most of us realise the limitations of the idea next morning, but people like McKenna feel the need to go out make a career out of writing books and doing lecture tours on them.)

 

[Veritatis cupitor]

These posts are some great help! Thanks guys! I do agree that Mysticism is a very unique and interesting take on unexplained events. It is true that most events, circumstance, happenstance, etc. or what have you cannot be explained using experimental method. Like with organized religion, (In my Opinion, NO Offense)I would absolutely love to be able to place all of my faith, relinquish all of my suffering unto someone all-powerful and understanding in exchange for upholding certain virtues. Just as much as I would love to truly feel and believe the idea of a singular and universal conscience or the afterlife for that matter. I have yet to experience the effects of DMT, (And am patiently waiting for my boxes) and would hope that some disconcerting ideas would become truths in my mind once I crack that shell. Many abstract and metaphysical ideas seem so distant when one observes the world through the eyes of a diligent scientist. Just as explaining the ideas, I'm sure, would be quite a challenge seeing as how words escape me when I try to explain the feeling of love, or any emotion for that matter. I have read over materials on Reincarnation, Gaian Mind Philosophies, Afterlife and so on... What feels most comfortable of an Idea on what happens after death is the simple process of cyclical energy transference. We pass, our bodies decompose into the same constituent elements in nature, the plants, bacteria and fungi consume the products, a mother eats the apple and finally, gives birth to repeat the cycle once again. As for our perception of reality, that's where it get's tetchy. One can simply observe the ideas of science, where everything we see is simply electrical impulses firing in a recognizable fashion. Science, constantly covers it's ass by stating that science is designed to be proven wrong. That leaves the door open for Spiritualism or Mysticism. All in all, it really just boils down to the simple phrase, "To each his/her own." But all of this info is terrific and for now I'll sit on the fence about it. Let's see how this thread evolves after my extraction. Thanks again guys! Peace.

 

[Veritatis cupitor]

Actually scratch the relation of Quantum Mechanics to Metaphysics. Incorrect usage there.

 

[Citta]

Hello Veritatis cupitor!

I don't think that science and mysticism is in conflict, but I do think they are incompatible. Note that I am refering to the real stuff here, not the phony, silly mysticism such as "quantum mysticism" or "UFOlogy" or "Astrology" or something - because they clearly conflict with science. To the extent that mysticism is a purely mental experience, absent of any formation of concepts about physical reality, then it does not conflict with science.

Much of the problem with mysticism however, is that mystics tend to feel the need to interpret their experiences in meditation/hallucinogenic trips/trances, and generally do so within the framework of their individual religions, cultural traditions and personal beliefs and preferences. As a result disagreements occurs, even within all major religions, as well as disagreements with the scientific view of the world. Despite the disagreement, many mystics believe that their experiences give a knowledge of fundamental reality, they believe that the reality they experience during these mystical experiences is transcendent and the source of all existence. Such supernatural beliefs with no other basis other than personal impressions gained during these experiences are widespread.

Also, the notion mystics tend to have is that reality is a structural hierarchy with consciousness/spirit at the bottom, from which all else emerge. This mystical hierarchy is incompatible with what science infers from its data, which goes like this; matter - life - consciousness, with no spirit and perhaps no separate entity we can associate with consciousness. So, without any evidence or other rational basis, science cannot accept the notion of transcendence. In fact, much evidence indicates that the mystical experience is all happening inside the head (lots of literature on this).

 

[Eliyahu]

Hello Veritatis cupitor!

I don't think that science and mysticism is in conflict, but I do think they are incompatible. Note that I am refering to the real stuff here, not the phony, silly mysticism such as "quantum mysticism" or "UFOlogy" or "Astrology" or something - because they clearly conflict with science. To the extent that mysticism is a purely mental experience, absent of any formation of concepts about physical reality, then it does not conflict with science.

Much of the problem with mysticism however, is that mystics tend to feel the need to interpret their experiences in meditation/hallucinogenic trips/trances, and generally do so within the framework of their individual religions, cultural traditions and personal beliefs and preferences. As a result disagreements occurs, even within all major religions, as well as disagreements with the scientific view of the world. Many mystics believe that their experiences give a knowledge of fundamental reality, they believe that the reality they experience during these mystical experiences is transcendent and the source of all existence. Such supernatural beliefs with no other basis other than personal impressions gained during these experiences are widespread.

Also, the notion mystics tend to have is that reality is a structural hierarchy with consciousness/spirit at the bottom, from which all else emerge. This mystical hierarchy is incompatible with what science infers from its data, which goes like this; matter - life - consciousness, with no spirit and perhaps no separate entity we can associate with consciousness. So, without any evidence or other rational basis, science cannot accept the notion of transcendence. In fact, much evidence indicates that the mystical experience is all happening inside the head.

All very true and I agree with everything, except for of course the statement that astrology and UFO's are "silly",

I have personally chosen to not wait for conclusive and universal evidence to come out and prove to the world that there is divinity, a creator being or anything of the sort. As far as I am concerned "God" has no reason to prove his/her/it's existence to everyone outright.

I feel like I have all of the evidence that I myself need to be assured of the existence of the paranormal so I personally don't see any reason to wait for mainstream science to catch up with my observations, but I could understand why some would want ultra tangible evidence.

 

[Citta]

All very true and I agree with everything, except for of course the statement that astrology and UFO's are "silly",

I have personally chosen to not wait for conclusive and universal evidence to come out and prove to the world that there is divinity, a creator being or anything of the sort. As far as I am concerned "God" has no reason to prove his/her/it's existence to everyone outright.

I feel like I have all of the evidence that I myself need to be assured of the existence of the paranormal so I personally don't see any reason to wait for mainstream science to catch up with my observations, but I could understand why some would want ultra tangible evidence.

Yeah I feel you brother, because you know I saw this unicorn out in the field the other night and I tell you it was ultra-real! But I don't care to wait for mainstream science to confirm my observations either. Goddamn mainstream don't believe my shit! I feel like I have all the evidence needed to conclude he exists though, and he probably has no reason to confirm his existence for non-believers (they are so boring anyway!). Besides, he is hiding so no one can find him :twisted:

Also, I have a gnome in the shed, but I'll tell you about this fella some other time.

 

[timothylearysdead]

Citta - I agree with you, but:

If astrology were viewed as a description of cultural neuroses, would it seem silly then?

 

[Citta]

Citta - I agree with you, but:

If astrology were viewed as a description of cultural neuroses, would it seem silly then?

I'm not sure if I catch your drift, perhaps you can elaborate on what you mean by this? If I understood you correctly, you mean to ask if it is silly to view astrology as a description of cultural neurosis, that is cultural mental illness in some form of another? In other words that astrology is a description of bull? Well, I think you are spot on. If one man were to present these ideas alone, he would be considered mentally ill or at least not quite right, but given the condition of our mainstream society you have that shit in all kinds of bookstores, in magazines and what not. It's good money for lonely housewives too

 

[Korey]

Carl Sagan being portrayed as a bully, I've heard it all now. :roll:


The problem with mysticism is that it cannot be observed on a large scale. It seems to reveal itself to individual's who've learned how to alter their consciousness, let's face it, mainly with the psychedelics. It's all too subjective, and it cannot be taken seriously as an objective truth because not every one can observe it. Plus, mystical knowledge has never seemed deep to me really, it offers us basic morality and life lessons reminiscent of religious texts which ultimately inspire people to "be a little kinder."

Drink ayahuasca, run around yard high as a kite screaming at the top of your lungs over your ecstatic revelations. You now have compelling evidence that you are the Messiah reincarnate, that you were Elvis Presley in a past life, and that you now understand quantum mechanics better than any other human being who has lived. You have tapped into the divine source, and you now realize that you are truly an eternal being.

See why science and mysticism don't, and I doubt, will ever mix well?

 

[Eliyahu]

Wait. Citta has a unicorn?

 

[Citta]

Wait? Citta has a unicorn?

Hell yeah, and you have the paranormal! :!:

 

[rjb]

Has anyone gone as far as to make the 2 work together? (science AND mysticism)

As it seems to me, everyone is either defending one side or the other, but that's about it.

 

[Citta]

Has anyone gone as far as to make the 2 work together? (science AND mysticism)

As it seems to me, everyone is either defending one side or the other, but that's about it.

They don't.

 

[Korey]

Has anyone gone as far as to make the 2 work together? (science AND mysticism)

As it seems to me, everyone is either defending one side or the other, but that's about it.

I didn't really pick a side in my post, merely stated that the two are not, and cannot be synonymous with each other.