Scientific Quotes That Blur the Boundaries Between Mysticism and Science
arsspiritus.com
arsspiritus.com
If some person were to discover the explanation for dark matter in the universe with substantial evidence and then later in life turn around saying fairies were also real, it would not make fairies real.
Mysticism seems like a process of wonder & appreciation of Existence. The unified whole where some parts are explained and some unexplained. A journey, not a destination. The phenomena beyond the reach of current understanding. The process of expanding consciousness.
If the concept of mysticism motivates people to explore Existence, then it sounds like it would have a positive impact, no?
Please note the differences between esoteric mysticism (spirituality) vs exoteric religion. One involves the process of inner exploration and the other involves the process of social coercion.
I.e. there was nothing extra sciency in Eintein's sneeze, a cobbler does not excrement shoes nor is Usain Bolt practicing sports when he sleeps.
> That a scientist says something mystical does not validate the mystical approach.
Actually it does validate the mystical approach for that particular scientist. YMMV, however that's how that person gained inspiration & approached the problem.
Well, yes. But the headline was a bit more generalizing than that which I found too silly not to comment upon. Richard Feynman played the bongos - but I don't think that blurs the boundary between drumming and science.
They are not "scientific quotes" they are "quotes by some scientists". From a Christian scientist we have I have found there is a wonderful harmony in the complementary truths of science and faith. The God of the Bible is also the God of the genome. God can be found in the cathedral or in the laboratory. By investigating God's majestic and awesome creation, science can actually be a means of worship. -- Francis Collins
The transcendent theme is oneness of consciousness and matter, and the inseparability of the "parts" of nature or the universe.
Not that this is an especially recent point of view. After all, it seems reminiscent of Moses' commentaries on the immanent oneness of God, of course translated to a current-day mode of expression. I assume such experience keeps recurring because it is some way embedded in human nature.
BTW, Einstein also spoke of having this kind of "spiritual" experience. (Confer Einstein's conversations with Martin Buber.) Einstein also made a point of crediting Spinoza as the source of his spiritual leanings. Interestingly, Spinoza's "Ethics" (~1677) elaborates a view of the universe uncannily similar to that of the quoted scientists, and that seems unlikely to be merely coincidental.
Perhaps our consciousnesses being shaped by evolution has essentially betrayed us at scale, by letting us adopt/inherit nearly any behavior or belief, and on a societal level we ought to make up by not letting just any irrational bullshit that gets spread around persist.
The judgement of what is irrational is often irrational, subjective, & fraught with externalities. Love can be considered "irrational".
> Perhaps our consciousnesses being shaped by evolution has essentially betrayed us at scale, by letting us adopt/inherit nearly any behavior or belief, and on a societal level we ought to make up by not letting just any irrational bullshit that gets spread around persist.
Our consciousness is flexible. We can have logical systems in spite of unexplained phenomena. We also have a drive understand more & expand consciousness. Some people perceive this as esoteric spirituality (or mystiscism).
> by letting us adopt/inherit nearly any behavior or belief
I'm confused. Would you prefer that we have less novelty & think with less variation?
> …I regard consciousness as fundamental
> Science cannot solve the ultimate mystery of nature. And that is because, in the last analysis, we ourselves are part of nature and therefore part of the mystery that we are trying to solve.
> Deep down the consciousness of mankind is one.
> The notion that all these fragments are separately existent is evidently an illusion, and this illusion cannot do other than lead to endless conflict and confusion.
Reading these quotes, it seems like they are all in an abstract, or mind, domain.
I mean, maybe you just don't see what they see or understand what they understand. It happens.
Let me put it another way.
You are asserting the conventional view.
Being a genius generally means contradicting the conventional view in useful ways.
Actually, considering that something like 95% of people on earth are religious, I'd say believing in mysticism is the conventional view.
But that argument is flawed anyway; both the argumentum ad antiquitatem and argumentum ad novitatem are logical fallacies. Just because something is or is not a traditional belief has no bearing on its truthfulness.
What's important is whether or not something is supported by empirical evidence, which the mystical view(s) of consciousness mentioned in the article certainly are not.
The game of valid evidence and demonstrable models, tho effective for weeding out the bullshit, is, when you come down to it, damn stupid. Effective, but stupid. Like an insect is effective but stupid. Crude, myopic and simplistic even. And yes, darn good for building termite mounds of logically consistent explanations.
This game sheds a very small circle of very bright light in the midst of a vast shadow.
Let's not pretend that the shadow does not exist. And let's also not pretend that a society of thinkers governed by the scientific method is up to the task of modeling the shadow. The observer's perspective will always be infinitely subtler than any map that he can craft. The map will always be just a crude cartoon compared to the reality. Moreso with our geniuses.
So if there is an apparent contradiction between what the genius says and what our favorite maps (maps that the genius may have helped draw) assert, then blame the map. It is just a tiny limited thing after all. And when you put your faith in the map, or in our modern scientific mapmaking processes, you fail.
The views of smart people matter. Our games of epistemological accounting, less so.
>So if there is an apparent contradiction between what the genius says and what our favorite maps (maps that the genius may have helped draw) assert, then blame the map.
Really? So every time two smart people reach contradictory conclusions, we should presume that science is incorrect and logic is inconsistent?
No, that's just the insect talking. What you do is step back and reconsider your working assumptions. Respect the limits of your models and of the modeling process. Stuff like that
But the views of a single "initiate" (What do you mean by that? It seems a strange word to use in this context.) don't trump the entirety of science and logic.
>Respect the limits of your models and of the modeling process.
I do; the limits of our models are substantially more impressive than the limits of a single (fallible) person, no matter how impressive they may be.
"Trump" is not the operative term here. More like "extend" or "augment". If science illuminates like a laser then the alternative, the squishy human approach, or whatever you want to call it, illuminates like a floodlight. Dimmer but wider.
If you respect the limits of your models and of the modeling process, then beyond those limits you put aside the science tool and pick up another. Maybe that which Feynman etc use. It certainly works for them.