[quote author=orlando123 link=1186155634/15#24 date=1186241947]Hi

While "western materialistic science" may sometimes be stuck in its ways an not open enough to new possibilities I disagree with the idea it is just a "belief system" - science is a system of seeking rational proof and repeatable experiements etc so people can agree between themselves that certain things about the world are facts (or the best hypothesis currently available). Science has given us modern medicine so mothers rarely risk dying in childbirth and children rarely die in infancy, both commonplace 100 years ago, and , for example , we have cheap air travel and computers and the internet. If we had continued to base everything just on traditions and dogmas, or just personal beliefs,  instead of studying and seeking factual information we would have none of this.

I agree with all of that   and no doubt science and technology have enriched our material lives but at the same time, the search for spiritual understanding in the greater part of the world has become more marginalised.

But my main point was that it is a system just like religions that likes to present itself as an absolute authority on truth, neglecting counter acting arguments. So in that way it is a belief system because so many scientists 'believe' that scientific explanations are the only valid ones. The fundamental argument in any of this all comes back to an understanding of 'consciousness' the western materialist mind does not know much about this and the general public knows so little about all the research in psi and all the evidence of psychics and remote viewing projects which seem to suggest that consciousness is more than just a brain phenomena.

I am neither religious nor materialist. I do not believe that science and spirituality are so divided. When I read about things like sub-atomic phenomena and quantum physics I am seeing more and more links. I agree that if a phenomena exists it should have some 'rational' way of being understood. That's why I dedicated much of my spiritual exploration to following the work of 'spiritual scientists' for lack of a better term.

Good points, Vajra and Never Say Die. I am glad neither of you are the sort of people who insist of science as some sort of enemy to "real truth" anyway. yes, it is a shame if some scientists fear they cxan;t investigate certain areas without fear of ridicule and yes, I am sure "reductionistic"thinking can;t produce all the answers. But at the same time it is laudable to seek verifiable informatin about the universe and how it works. The problem with subjective experiences is just that - that they are subjective and can;t easily be repeated/copied/understood/verified by anyone else. That's not to say they don;t have validity and might not sometimes point to genuine "factual"truths, but they are hard to pin down. I don;t hold to the "science sand spirituality are two different kinds of truth"argument. Either something exists and is true or it doesn;t and isn;t. Or some things might only be true in as much as they give the experiencer entertainment or pleasure or affect his outlook in some way without them having any factual bearing on common experience or the world "out there". I think it's important then to try and find factual evidence for something like life after death and/or the possibility of existence outside the body which would be so tranformative for everyone if it was forthcoming, rather than hopes and anecdotes or even strongly held "beliefs" or assertions. I don;t need to "believe" that the sun will rise tomorrow, I can be very sure it will. It would be nice to have that sort of knowledge about surviving death. Most scientists are very skeptical about a soul becasue they have no hard evidence for one. If anyone could come forward and prove factually that they can go out of their body and bring back some information they could not have known or, for example, consistently and accurately communicate with the dead with no hit and misses and waffle and "cold reading" then honourable scientsits would have to say "OK here is something we don;t understand and that we have to investigate and take seriously". once the possibility that consciousness is seperate from flesh and blood is taken seriously then the rest should fall into place (ie considering the factual reality of other worlds and God and other intangible concepts). But if someone just says "I had this great vision where I went to the other world and did this and that" then scientists will not be very interested.

Welcome to the boards, Orlando. I can't help you much with anything, as I'm new here myself, and a skeptic to boot. Actually, these past couple of days I've been wondering about two things:

1. Considering that infants die all the time around the world, what can reincarnated "spirits" possibly gain from such an experience?

2. Since some people experience a whole heap is crazyness, and others experience nothing when it comes to the supernatural, could it be that not everyone are immortal?

3. If we live on after death, and it's true that we're here to develop ourselves in the physical world...why do we seek spirituality at all? One would think it might detract from what we're supposed to do?

Yeah, my mind is troubled as usual. So feel free to put me to re...er..I mean, put my mind at ease!

"Actually, these past couple of days I've been wondering about two things:"

"1. Considering that infants die all the time around the world, what can reincarnated "spirits" possibly gain from such an experience?"
_____________________________________

One of the many factors that expose the implausibility of the reincarnation doctrine.  Other factors include the spurious nature of past life regression and the flaws in appeals the alleged past life recall of young children (Dr. Ian Stevenson's flawed research, etc.).  It is for good reason that the professional societies of hypnotism disdain the legitimacy of past life regression.  A couple of Stevenson's cases later proved to be cases in which the alleged past life was still alive AFTER the birth of the presumed "next life!"

2. "Since some people experience a whole heap is crazyness, and others experience nothing when it comes to the supernatural, could it be that not everyone are immortal?"
____________________________________________________________________

The Bible, atheist Howard Storm's NDE, and Bruce Moen's astral explorations all independently confirm that insight that soul annihilation can be the ultimate fate of some, who persistently spurn the spiritual path, and yet, cannot tolerate postmortem hellish planes.  Where these sources differ is in their preconceptions about how many choose the annihilation option.

3. "If we live on after death, and it's true that we're here to develop ourselves in the physical world...why do we seek spirituality at all? One would think it might detract from what we're supposed to do?"
___________________

But "what we're supposed to do" to seek intimate communion with God and then channel the love that flows from that communion towards others who may or may not God.  All other goals are ego-driven and contrary to our ultimate purpose.

Don

Hi orlando, I'm just curious as to how you came about this site. I recall recommending this site to someone called orlando098 at youtube.com

Never say die wrote on Aug 6^th, 2007 at 11:44pm:


Yes, that was me . Hi!

Just theorising but it seems to me that in order to understand the possible point of very short stays in this life that you have to look at the situation from the total or integrated perspective as well as that of the new arrival.

Quite apart from the fact that there may be a lesson for the arrival to learn even in that short stay, the point of the arrival may also be to teach something to the others concerned like the Mother, the family, and maybe even the broader society.

I suspect that short duration doesn't necessarily mean much - think of cause and consequence effects where tiny factors can trigger enormous consequences. The butterfly effect....