So... science and scientists don't have to exclude -- or include -- that possibility. It's a personal matter. Can't your scientific mind even grasp the concept? [you don't have to agree... but your understanding seems somewhat impoverished.]
Don't confuse "science" with "scientists". There are individual scientists who believe in some sort of supernatural god, but that's beside the point, really.
The point still stands: Why should we believe in something that is not supported by a shred of evidence? What is the value in accepting something when we have no reason whatsoever to believe that it is true, other than the fact that we really, really want it to be true?
Seers and prophets and gurus and preachers say all sorts of things, some of which are inherently contradictory and some of which are extraordinary indeed. Why should we believe any of it? What is it that makes us, as a species, so willing to accept things without the slightest hint of any sort of proof that they might have any truth at all?
History certainly shows us that whenever some religious faith disagrees with science on some matter of empirical fact, the religion is wrong and the science is right. Why, since faith can't get provable things right, should anyone believe that it gets unprovable things right?
Originally Posted By: Hal Itosis
Really?... layperson?... let's see now.
Re-read what I said. I didn't say the author of The Tao of Physics was a layperson; I said the book attempts to merge Hindu religion with a layperson's understanding of physics.
Fritjof Capra isn't a layperson; he's a fraud. The target audience for his book is laypeople.
To quote physicist Dr. Heinz R. Pagels, author of The Cosmic Code: Quantum Physics as the Language of Nature: "No qualified physicist that I know would claim to find such a connection [between Hindu mysticism and physics] without knowingly committing fraud. The claim that the fields of modern physics have anything to do with the "field of consciousness" is false. The notion that what physicists call "the vacuum state" has anything to do with consciousness is nonsense. The claim that large numbers of people meditating helps reduce crime and war by creating a unified field of consciousness is foolishness of a high order. The presentation of the ideas of modern physics side by side, and apparently supportive of, the ideas of the Maharishi about pure consciousness can only be intended to deceive those who might not know any better."
Originally Posted By: "crarko"
Yes, although we still have:
Sadly, possibly not for much longer. James Randi, who is a personal hero of mine (I met him in person for the first time last year), is currently in poor health.
He is, I think, one of the few people who has made a big difference acting as a voice of reason and sanity in a world awash with irrationality, and I feel privileged to have met him. I believe that if more people thought the way he did, we'd have fewer people willing to blow themselves up or fly airplanes into buildings in hopes of eternal life in some sort of magical hereafter.
Originally Posted By: "sandbox"
The Psychology of Grand was well understood in the early development of our species, like shock & awe. Show a sheep herder a huge building with colored glass and art they could have never imagined, fill the room with endless sounds of choirs or organs, let them touch the fine finished wood and stonework. have them smell the candles and oils and the senses will be overwhelmed causing and emotional response that some relate to spiritualism.
Just so. An internal feeling is not actually proof. Muslims have spiritual feelings of Allah; Christians have spiritual feelings of Jesus; Hindus have spiritual feelings of Vishnu; yet not all these things can be true, for they are each mutually contradictory. The presence of an internal feeling, even an overwhelming one, does not necessarily imply an external supernatural force.
