So who's eywa?

[Raptor]

Originally Posted by Niri Te

So then "The big bang" just HAPPENED by a chance accident? The Math and Science that we DO know about what happened at that moment argues very strongly against that. The statistical probabilities of that happening are beyond comprehension. There HAD to be a design. There was an intelligence involved.

Want to give some sources to back that up?

[Clarke]

Originally Posted by auroraglacialis

just because we have some knowledge on the physical or chemical processes that are connected to things we see in the natural world does not have to minimize the wonder and awe we can feel (in part though only if we temporarily let go of the thinking mind which tries to minimize these experiences as "it is just this and that chemical phenomenon")

If your analysis and study of the natural world reduces, rather than enhances the wonder and awe behind it, you're doing it wrong IM(NS)HO as a computing scientist. Although my field of study is more abstract and mathematical, the properties and interconnections - both the intrinsic and the "practical" applications - of what I'm studying are fascinating and beautiful.

What do you mean, it isn't —ing awesome than the entire natural world is built out of nanotech robotics? (Not to mention the elegance of not only those robots, but the entirety of the human-scale world being defined by laws of physics short enough to write on one side of one sheet of paper.)

Richard Feynman - Ode To A Flower - YouTube

Originally Posted by Niri Te

I studied Aerospace Engineering and Physics in College, and BECAUSE I studied these things, I get a great Appreciation for HOW God went about CREATING the entire Universe by using the "Laws of Science" that God brought into being to RUN the universe by. Science does NOT disprove the existence of God, Rather it does the opposite. One of the very first things that I will do when I see God face to face, is ask, "Please teach me the Science that you created to form what we call the Big Bang. Please show me what happened just before the explosion that brought time and space into being".

You studied aerospace engineering, and that's the question you want to ask? Be prepared for a very long explanation.

[Raptor]

Originally Posted by auroraglacialis

I think it probably is part the times we live in - or the place you live in, but maybe also willful blindness. Of course it is individual experience, but I am pretty sure that it is a lot harder to experience any feeling of unity, of light or connectedness (you may call it a "spiritual experience")...

First off, I can appreciate the beauty of the wilderness, and I can understand why some people would find it to be a unique and fascinating experience (I certainly do) but I don't believe it's anything "sacred" or "magical" beyond our realm of comprehension, nor should we hold back in trying to find scientific/materialistic explanations for what we don't know.

...if you are in a city or in the middle of corn fields or in a forest that is just a managed tree farm as opposed to a wild forest or wide untouched spaces with at least largely free animals.

Does a 3-day backpacking excursion in the Sierras qualify?

I also imagine that it is a lot harder to experience such a feeling if the thinking mind keeps jumping in with attempts of scientific explanations for everything.

Again, appreciating the unique experience of the wilderness does not preclude simultaneously approaching it with a scientific mindset or with a sense of curiosity about how it all works. I can certainly attest to that.

This is why often people seeking such experiences do meditate or trances to minimize the influence of the thinking and reasoning mind on the experience and be open for other forms of knowledge. That is of course never a state to stay in - it is always a journey but the experiences stay. The explanation that people always just were too damn stupid or lacked science to explain something and thus invented deities and spirituality to explain these things is a very simplistic one.

There is absolutely nothing wrong with trying to experience the wilderness without a scientific mindset. I never suggested that people were stupid and had to invent deities to explain unknown phenomena. People in ancient civilizations didn't have our scientific understanding, and devising anecdotes of supernatural beings was their method of coping and finding reason with the unknown. It's not a knock on them and it's understandable given the circumstances.

It does not explain at all why there is such an emotional response

We may very well be able to explain it as our knowledge in the field of neuroscience expands.

neither does it explain why many scientists in these days still are spiritual or religious

I don't know what your point is with this statement.

- just because we have some knowledge on the physical or chemical processes that are connected to things we see in the natural world does not have to minimize the wonder and awe we can feel

And I never suggested that. I am at awe at some of the natural wonders and what nature can do and shape of the course of billions of years. Yet I am still aware of the physical, chemical, and biological processes that are responsible for the creation of these phenomena.

(in part though only if we temporarily let go of the thinking mind which tries to minimize these experiences as "it is just this and that chemical phenomenon").

Attempting to find a scientific explanation for our experience, or of spectacular natural phenomena, is certainly not minimizing or trivializing them. I don't know where you got that idea from.

I personally feel something special if I am at the top of a mountain, looking over all the other mountains nearby or to sit in the shade of a tree in the African savannah, watching wild animals climbing the rock wall nearby, or even taking a break during driving in a lonely valley near the spring of a river where no one else is near. I am a geologist and know how mountains are formed and rivers flow - but for these moments I do not think about plate tectonics and thrust belts and hydrological cycles, I just see and feel mountains and rivers and savannah and the absence of chatter of people (including my own).

Yes, by all means, appreciate the phenomena of this Earth. Our planet has some true natural wonders to behold. But as I said earlier, they certainly aren't something magical or beyond our realm of understanding, nor should we stop attempting to scientifically understand them.

[iron_jones]

Originally Posted by Raptor

But as I said earlier, they certainly aren't something magical or beyond our realm of understanding, nor should we stop attempting to scientifically understand them.

Man, if Aurora had her way, we'd all be in the dark ages again eating mud and worshiping the sun.

[Marvellous Chester]

What's wrong with worshipping the sun? Not much would last without it

And don't be too eager to **** on what you would call the 'dark ages'. If humans are still around in 10,000 years I'm sure they will look back at us and talk about 2013 being a dark age. We are still finding more ways to kill each other en mass, countless species are vanishing and we aren't even clever/wealthy enough to each have an intergalactic space mansion. Every generation just seems to thinks it is the best.

[auroraglacialis]

Originally Posted by Clarke

If your analysis and study of the natural world reduces, rather than enhances the wonder and awe behind it, you're doing it wrong IM(NS)HO as a computing scientist. Although my field of study is more abstract and mathematical, the properties and interconnections - both the intrinsic and the "practical" applications - of what I'm studying are fascinating and beautiful.
What do you mean, it isn't —ing awesome than the entire natural world is built out of nanotech robotics?

It is not the study of the natural world that reduces wonder and awe, but frankly analysis (literally "to take apart") does so to a degree. But mostly it is something else. If you look at a tree and look at its beauty and uniqueness, if you look at it with emotions open, love it as a living being, that has a different quality than the awe at its mechanical functioning of cells and capillaries and chemical reactions and it gives a different feeling to look at the tree with or without thinking about the science behind it. That does not mean that scientific knowledge if synthesized from different fields cannot be fascinating and awesome but I think one needs to have both ways to look at the world. One with the head and another with the heart.

Originally Posted by Raptor

First off, I can appreciate the beauty of the wilderness, and I can understand why some people would find it to be a unique and fascinating experience (I certainly do) but I don't believe it's anything "sacred" or "magical" beyond our realm of comprehension.....

I will try to answer your post in one paragraph to avoid splitting. Truely I cannot say where a three day hiking trip in the Sierras would lead you, so I cannot say much on that but as I said one can see the wilderness or Nature in two ways - one can be fascinated (as in Mr Spock saying "fascinating") with some sense of wonder (especially wonder "how does this work exactly? I have to look that up") in a head/rational mind based way. That is one quality. The other is to look at it with awe, love and wonder in an emotional sense, being basically carried away by it. Both can IMO not be in the same place and time. One can maybe switch fast between them, but hardly look at it with both views at the same time. In our society we tend to look at almost everythink from the thinking mind, look for explanations, are fascinated in a rather emotionless way (because we were told that emotions cloud our rational judgement). Past cultures or indigenous cultures seem to have a focus that at least incorporates the emotional part and I think the emotional part is very much vital for being human.

People in ancient civilizations didn't have our scientific understanding, and devising anecdotes of supernatural beings was their method of coping and finding reason with the unknown. It's not a knock on them and it's understandable given the circumstances.

This still sounds like "well, they invented some foo because the poor sods did not know any better, I cannot blame them, but of course what they thought was all pretty much nonsense and if they had the science we have now they would know better". Its a similar idea to say that the poor indians living in the amazon do not even have electricity and of course no facebook, so it is not their fault that they are stupid and try to defend the forest out of some unreasonable motivations when the forest would be much more productive if it is cut down and soy bean plantations are erected so that all the people can finally live in houses with electricity and get a cheap laptop.

Of course some of the superstitions in the past are totally crazy (just as some of the present day ones), but I try to also see the positive aspects of it. Especially in the past couple of hundred years, I think much harm was done by deliberatly closing the eye that views the world in a materialistic way. But also much harm is done by only using that eye. Without a balance and opening both eyes, we cannot see and feel all multidimensional aspects of the world we live in.

Attempting to find a scientific explanation for our experience, or of spectacular natural phenomena, is certainly not minimizing or trivializing them. I don't know where you got that idea from.

Well, its not hard to get. If someone talks about the Earth as a living being that nourishes us all and gives us a place to live and water and food and all we need and that that person loves her for that and someone comes along and talks about how Earth is merely one in a billion similar planets in our galaxy alone and that it is all about processes and mechanisms and systems and how we humans can control or replace these to survive - I must say that this does in a way minimize the aspects of the first part. It replaces a thankful, loving, emotional message with a mechanistic, cold, systems theory message. It replaces "living" with "survival".

Originally Posted by iron_jones

Man, if Aurora had her way, we'd all be in the dark ages again eating mud and worshiping the sun.

I severely doubt that mud was a staple food for anyone except some weird present day esoterics. But I dont see much wrong with showing love and respect and thankfulness for the sun. We dont have to sacrifice animals for the sun for that reason of course, if that is what you mean.

My idea is that humans will protect and care for something they love and respect and they will not care in the same way about something that is seen as a mechanical thing, as a system or a machine that can be tweaked, broken and maybe fixed again. I think that because many humans nowadays have lost their love for the natural world or maybe "all of gods creation" if that is what it was called in the near past - this is the reason humans now can do quite horrible things to Nature. If you would love the trees and the animals in the forest and regard them as beautiful (maybe divine or wondrous) beings, you would be incapable of clearcutting a forest and planting Roundup Ready soy beans in place. Only by using the rational thinking that centers about managing, controlling and changing the natural world by understanding and tweaking its mechanisms to make it productive, to make money - only by that thinking can a human being willingly do such a thing.

Originally Posted by The Silver Stag

And don't be too eager to **** on what you would call the 'dark ages'. If humans are still around in 10,000 years I'm sure they will look back at us and talk about 2013 being a dark age. We are still finding more ways to kill each other en mass, countless species are vanishing and we aren't even clever/wealthy enough to each have an intergalactic space mansion.

Indeed my friend, Indeed. Future generations will think of us not really in a great way I believe. Look at how we think of the people of the atomic age or the chemical age, just some decades ago. We think how crazy they must have been to invent atomic bombs, drop them on beautiful pacific islands and on cities with people, how stupid of people to think that DDT is harmless and how we still suffer from chlorinated compounds that ate the ozone layer because some people wanted to have weird 1960ies hairsprayed hairstyles. Or how we look at the people at the "industrial revolution" which quite unquestionably was one of the worst times in human history for a majority of people. I often wonder what it will be about our age that future generations will think of as the darkest. Our remote controlled wars? That we lost the ideal of democracy and freedom? That our age invented GMOs and nanoparticles whichspread uncontrollably and will be around for generations with unknown effects? That we destroyed the last cultures outside of our own?

I dont know and because this is a spirituality forum, I would say that actually we are getting off topic here now because this discussion seems to turn into a discussion on "spirituality versus science", which explicitly is not the topic of this subforum. The purpose of this subforum is to talk freely about spiritual concepts without having to deal with allegations that because of having spiritual thoughts we would certainly all want to "eat mud".

[Clarke]

Originally Posted by Niri Te

So then "The big bang" just HAPPENED by a chance accident? The Math and Science that we DO know about what happened at that moment argues very strongly against that.

That would be very impressive, considering that the exact mechanics behind the Big Bang are still an open problem.

[Niri Te]

Clarke wrote: You studied aerospace engineering, and that's the question you want to ask? Be prepared for a very long explanation.

WELL, ma tsmukan, I believe that I will have all of Eternity for Him to explain it to me.

[Raptor]

Originally Posted by auroraglacialis

It is not the study of the natural world that reduces wonder and awe, but frankly analysis (literally "to take apart") does so to a degree. But mostly it is something else. If you look at a tree and look at its beauty and uniqueness, if you look at it with emotions open, love it as a living being, that has a different quality than the awe at its mechanical functioning of cells and capillaries and chemical reactions and it gives a different feeling to look at the tree with or without thinking about the science behind it. That does not mean that scientific knowledge if synthesized from different fields cannot be fascinating and awesome but I think one needs to have both ways to look at the world. One with the head and another with the heart.

Why not look at it both ways simultaneously? And why are you trying to argue that that can't happen?

...one can see the wilderness or Nature in two ways - one can be fascinated (as in Mr Spock saying "fascinating") with some sense of wonder (especially wonder "how does this work exactly? I have to look that up") in a head/rational mind based way. That is one quality. The other is to look at it with awe, love and wonder in an emotional sense, being basically carried away by it. Both can IMO not be in the same place and time.

Speak for yourself, as I don't believe it applies to everyone, like me.

This still sounds like "well, they invented some foo because the poor sods did not know any better, I cannot blame them, but of course what they thought was all pretty much nonsense and if they had the science we have now they would know better". Its a similar idea to say that the poor indians living in the amazon do not even have electricity and of course no facebook, so it is not their fault that they are stupid and try to defend the forest out of some unreasonable motivations when the forest would be much more productive if it is cut down and soy bean plantations are erected so that all the people can finally live in houses with electricity and get a cheap laptop.

Textbook use of straw man right there. My statement that "humans historically have a tendency of creating deities or supernatural beings to cope with the unknown" is somehow morphed into an apparent disregard for the environment. Cute.

Of course some of the superstitions in the past are totally crazy (just as some of the present day ones), but I try to also see the positive aspects of it. Especially in the past couple of hundred years, I think much harm was done by deliberatly closing the eye that views the world in a materialistic way. But also much harm is done by only using that eye. Without a balance and opening both eyes, we cannot see and feel all multidimensional aspects of the world we live in.

As long as "opening both eyes" doesn't involve things like pseudoscience, spirituality, or religion overruling rational thinking, I'm cool with that.

Well, its not hard to get. If someone talks about the Earth as a living being that nourishes us all and gives us a place to live and water and food and all we need and that that person loves her for that and someone comes along and talks about how Earth is merely one in a billion similar planets in our galaxy alone and that it is all about processes and mechanisms and systems and how we humans can control or replace these to survive - I must say that this does in a way minimize the aspects of the first part. It replaces a thankful, loving, emotional message with a mechanistic, cold, systems theory message. It replaces "living" with "survival".

I sincerely fail to understand how seeing this Earth in a mechanical manner is somehow cold and devoid of emotion. And yes, some of the scientific realities of nature will come across as cold, but I think that understanding it may be the best way to prevent us from demonizing some of these realities. In fact, I don't understand why you're seemingly trying to create a false dichotomy. If anything, better understanding of the mechanisms of this Earth can allow us to better appreciate what it has done for us and for all life on Earth.

By the way, it's fine to be grateful to our Earth for being our home and supporting our existence, but there are many natural things on this Earth that can also kill us, so don't forget that. Any civilization or society will take measures to increase our safety.

My idea is that humans will protect and care for something they love and respect and they will not care in the same way about something that is seen as a mechanical thing, as a system or a machine that can be tweaked, broken and maybe fixed again.

Again, speak for yourself.

I think that because many humans nowadays have lost their love for the natural world or maybe "all of gods creation" if that is what it was called in the near past - this is the reason humans now can do quite horrible things to Nature. If you would love the trees and the animals in the forest and regard them as beautiful (maybe divine or wondrous) beings, you would be incapable of clearcutting a forest and planting Roundup Ready soy beans in place.

Best word I can use to describe this line of thinking is "deluded." I don't think people historically loved the natural world nearly as much as you would like to think. Many cultures in the past, going back to ancient times, have practiced deforestation. Like this.

http://www.wsl.ch/staff/niklaus.zimm...aplan_2009.pdf

Granted, it's certainly not to the scale we're seeing today, but that has nothing to do with your supposed reasoning. And yes, many indigenous/aboriginal tribes may have more respect for the natural world than we do, but trying to contrast that with rational thinking is just nonsense.

Only by using the rational thinking that centers about managing, controlling and changing the natural world by understanding and tweaking its mechanisms to make it productive, to make money - only by that thinking can a human being willingly do such a thing.

This is frankly nonsense. What about ancient cultures and societies that practice deforestation?

Indeed my friend, Indeed. Future generations will think of us not really in a great way I believe. Look at how we think of the people of the atomic age or the chemical age, just some decades ago. We think how crazy they must have been to invent atomic bombs, drop them on beautiful pacific islands and on cities with people, how stupid of people to think that DDT is harmless and how we still suffer from chlorinated compounds that ate the ozone layer because some people wanted to have weird 1960ies hairsprayed hairstyles. Or how we look at the people at the "industrial revolution" which quite unquestionably was one of the worst times in human history for a majority of people. I often wonder what it will be about our age that future generations will think of as the darkest. Our remote controlled wars? That we lost the ideal of democracy and freedom? That our age invented GMOs and nanoparticles whichspread uncontrollably and will be around for generations with unknown effects? That we destroyed the last cultures outside of our own?

I don't get your point. As our knowledge progress, we become better aware of the effects of some of our technology, some of which may not seem apparent at the time. That's why we should be more cautious and judicious with the application of new technology. But that does not mean that we should become a stagnant culture or become so obsessed with risk aversion that we become bogged down by it.

I dont know and because this is a spirituality forum, I would say that actually we are getting off topic here now because this discussion seems to turn into a discussion on "spirituality versus science", which explicitly is not the topic of this subforum.

You're posting in a forum, and the purpose of such a forum is for discussion, even if it doesn't result in agreement. If one doesn't want discussion, or only wants comments of approval, then he/she can post in a blog, not a forum.

[Human No More]

Originally Posted by The Silver Stag

What's wrong with worshipping the sun? Not much would last without it

Do you worship your local power station too?

And don't be too eager to **** on what you would call the 'dark ages'. If humans are still around in 10,000 years I'm sure they will look back at us and talk about 2013 being a dark age. We are still finding more ways to kill each other en mass, countless species are vanishing and we aren't even clever/wealthy enough to each have an intergalactic space mansion. Every generation just seems to thinks it is the best.

No, dark age is because there was no recorded history.

Remember, more people died every day during WW1/2 than are even now.

[auroraglacialis]

Nice synchronicity again. Just as I was writing something about the topic of science and magic and why the idea that science is the only true rational way to look at the world is not the best way, there is a current podcast tha tI heard today that explains very well the topic and I have to say reflects my opinion on it. If you like to listen to it, ihere is the link: [ Episode #64 // Straw Into Gold ]
It features an interview with Morris Berman and with biologist Rupert Sheldrake as well as some soundclips from Terence McKeena. Have fun

[Clarke]

Originally Posted by Human No More

Do you worship your local power station too?

No, because human electrical and civil engineering is less impressive than romanticised plasma physics.

[iron_jones]

Originally Posted by Clarke

No, because human electrical and civil engineering is less impressive than romanticised plasma physics.

[auroraglacialis]

Raptor, you called my arguments "nonsense" a lot without really explaining why. What I am trying to say is that it is really hard to look at anything in the world at the same time from the emotional side, loving it, respecting it and feeling to be in a relationship with it - and looking at it as a mechanism, as a system, as chemical reactions and physics. If you have a loved person, do you look at that person with love and a deep emotional response of being connected - that warm feeling inside - and think about pheromones and neuroscience which explains why you react that way and why you to love each other and about how great the DNA of that other person is formed to create the pheromones that make you love that person ... dont you think if you would try to think about all these mechanistic views, you would not be able to actually feel the affection and love at the same time? At least not as intense as if you do not think about all of this? If only because the brain cannot do too many things at the same time. Its like sitting in the bathtub trying to relax but at the same time think about work, programming, cleaning the room, cooking, planning the next vacation - it simply will prevent you from really relaxing.

This is what I meant by my refernce to other cultures which do meditations in order to get the mind free of thoughts to experience a state of consciousness that allows them to be open for other impressions. I can however not really convey the matter to someone who has not experienced such a thing, so that is a bit of a hindrance here.

Of course I can appreciate and be fascinated and even wonder looking at something and thinking about it with the mind of science. It is fascinating and beautiful, but it is very different from the impression I get when I get rid of all the thinking - get into the silence - and then just let the world "speak" to me and in turn let myself "see" the world.

Originally Posted by Raptor

As long as "opening both eyes" doesn't involve things like pseudoscience, spirituality, or religion overruling rational thinking, I'm cool with that.

Not overrule, but amend it. As I said, I can look at something with a thinking mind, as an explorer of rationality, as a scientist who knows about cells and chemicals and all that. Or I can let go of all that thinking for a while and just perceive, "see", hear to what the world is saying to me and for many people what I tend to experience then would be considered spirituality maybe. That does not negate most of the mechanistic experiences - obviously these are in many ways correct - gravity works, electricity works and so on - but it is not complete, that is what I am saying. The mechanistic worldview is not wrong, it is merely incomplete.

And of course not all is rainbows and unicorns in the natural world and neither it was in the past and other cultures, preshistoric ones also made mistakes (though I have to say that the article you quote starts by saying "Humans have transformed Europe’s landscapes since the establishment of the first agricultural societies in the mid-Holocene." thus again supporting that it was agriculture and with it the mindset of controlling and owning nature that started a lot of the problems.

And yes, many indigenous/aboriginal tribes may have more respect for the natural world than we do, but trying to contrast that with rational thinking is just nonsense.

Why ist that nonsense. Obviously there is a contrast there that exists. It is quite real I think and there is certainly a reason behind that contrast. I doubt it is pure chance that indigenous cultures have this respect and love and emotional bond to the natural world while the rational thinking industrial societies dont have it (and obviously many people do not even know what the heck those people are talking about that point towards that different way to look at the world)

As our knowledge progress, we become better aware of the effects of some of our technology, some of which may not seem apparent at the time. That's why we should be more cautious and judicious with the application of new technology. But that does not mean that we should become a stagnant culture or become so obsessed with risk aversion that we become bogged down by it.

Technology always has unintended consequences, often bad ones that need more knowledge and more technology to fix them, which in turn has more unintended consequences and so on. This is the trap of the technofix. I think the precautionary principle should be much more important than it is now. Think first, then act. I think there is much to be done without becoming "stagnant", given that right now the growth in many parameters like energy and resource use, "scientific knowledge", technological development, computing power and so on moves along something like an exponential curve. If development is halved or even reduced to a fraction of what it is now because of being more cauteous, there still would be more "development" than lets say 1000 years ago. But I think we have gotten so used to this exponential growth that we perceive every diversion of that as a stagnancy. If the economy does not grow exponentially, people talk about a recession already.

You're posting in a forum, and the purpose of such a forum is for discussion, even if it doesn't result in agreement. If one doesn't want discussion, or only wants comments of approval, then he/she can post in a blog, not a forum.

This is not what I meant. I referred specifically to the subforums about Science&Reason and Spirituality. They were set up both under the rule that within them the discussion should be within the framework of that subforum. Religious or spiritual people will not go into the Science forum and try to convert the athesists to believe in god or mother Earth and people following a strictly mechanistic and scientific way of thinking will not go into the Spirituality forum and start debates on if spirituality is all humbug and try to convert members to "rationality". For such discussions, more general subforums are ok. Within this subforum, people should be able to discuss questions and topics that deal with spirituality without having to deal with questioning the spiritual mindset in general. e.g. people should be able to talk about best ways to meditate, how dreamworlds or shamanic journeys work for them and so on, while the people in the science subforum can talk about mathematics and discovering new stars or whatever. Spirituality vs. Science discussions should not be part of either subforum. This is how I understood it. This thread is bordering IMO on being off topic for this forum. It still is intersting, but I dont want to make this into a "rationality vs spirituality" debate.

[Clarke]

Originally Posted by auroraglacialis

Just as I was writing something about the topic of science and magic and why the idea that science is the only true rational way to look at the world is not the best way...

Define "best." Most accurate? Most flexible? "Happyist?"