I didn't see any topics like this and this seemed like the right place for it, so here goes. My beliefs are strongly based on science and that is what actually led me to The Valley. Let me start, as a basis, with the following quote for a post I just made in another thread.

"I am a scientist and logician - I tend to base my beliefs on two principles - 1) the epistemic principle of rationality (which says believe (or disbelieve) only what you are forced to), and 2) Occam's Razor (when faced with a number of different possibilities, choose the simplest). "

Now, I was raised in a mixture of both Catholic and other christian church environments. The thing that drove me away was that, as my understanding grew, I found more and more things that didn't fit the above rules - many conflicted with my own common sense and intuition and some were downright contradictory with other teachings of the same church (I can discuss that later if anyone wishes).

That pushed me off the christian path. So I sat down and started forming a basic core set of beliefs of my own - ones that fit that above principles. Then I started searching for a religon (or belief philosophy) that fit those. I found nothing that fit perfectly, but three very similar ones stood out. Basic Buddism, parts of American Indian religions, and Druidism. The things that fit most from all three was the beliefs in harmony with nature and the fact that the only thing you really have true control over is yourself. I have yet to learn much about other related beliefs as I am rather new to this path.

There are some other things that I do believe. Key among these is that if something is possible then it must have a scientific explanation (although we may never know what it is). I believe the universe works according to rules the creator made along with his creation - when we discover these rules, we call it science (things like gravity and magnetism, etc...). So I don't believe in "miracles" in the sense of someone doing the impossible - it has to be scientifically possible or they wouldn't be able to do it! One may, however, view as a miracle something happening at an extremely fortunate time - i.e. something that was scientically possible, but that it happened just a the right time despite overwelming odds against it! I also believe that science has a lot to discover. To quote Shakespeare: "There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in your philosophy."

It may seem to some that, with the above views, I wouldn't fit around here. On the contrary - I am "forced" to believe many things I have no scientific explanation of. I believe in premonitions - glimpses into the future. Why? Because I have had vivid, recuring dreams in the past whose events have later happened exactly as in the dream. I can't explain it, but since I definitely experience it, I must believe it. I believe in the "power" of Tarot cards - again, due to experiences with them. I have used both pendulums and crystal balls before (with some limited success for certain things in certain circumstances).

There are also many things discussed here in The Valley that I neither believe in nor disbelieve - I simply don't have the experience or evidence to form a conclusion. As a scientist I am a major sceptic - and I think that is a good thing. I know I "hope" that certain phenomenon are true, but unfortunately, it is often hard. As an example, I know someone who has been regularly visiting a number of "pychics" for years, while I lean towards believing that there are people with such powers, I am totally convinced that every single one this person has gone to is a fraud...

So I continue to search, and as a scientist, I will conduct my own experiments. Hopefully, here in the valley, I will find ideas and methods that I can study and expand my beliefs.

Comments?

Best Regards,
Seeker

Good topic Seeker.

I tend to think along similar a vein.
Its something that peed me off about xtainity, how could they deny evolution, the stuff scientists have found out about the creation of the universe, of our own planet etc when Genesis states very clearly that God created the world in 7 days,a nd the glib come back that maybe those 7 days are metaphorical just seemed a cop out. I am prepared to be wrong of course, but it doesn't feel right to me.

I too believe that all paranormal events etc if indeed real are scientifically based, and we simply don't know the science behind it yet. I do get frustrated however, that somethings are dismissed simply because as yet science cannot prove or disprove. Science isn't the be all and end all for me, after all far as I can tell much of it is still theory and theories change, not that that invalidates at all, I would just like science to be a little more flexible at times. lol.

Hmm - the thing to remember is that science never suggested it was the be all and end all. Science doesn't try to act as a religion, even if some scientists do seem to act that way. Similarly, science doesn't have scope for flexibility. Things either meet results from experiments, in which case they're a theoretical fact, or they don't, in which case they're not. Anything unstudied is unknown - I suppose you could call that being flexible.

(On the science != religion thread, it's worth noting that even when things meet results, science won't say to you "we know exactly why that happens." Hell, even if you drop things (and hopefully see them fall to the ground) science won't tell you to the nth degree exactly why things fall the way they do.)

I'm not sure about things that get dismissed because science can/can't disprove them. Science doesn't dismiss things like this, but people who only follow known scientific facts might, I suppose. I prefer to be sceptical, but not to dismiss anything outright until it fails a test.

==
pb

Yes! Newton could tell you that if you drop your toast it'll hit the ground but he couldn't tell you why it lands butterside down on the carpet when there's no more bread left! That's someone with a nasty sense of humour that is.

As for certain things not falling into scientific explanation I'll quote my beloved, who was in turn quoting someone else -

Any science, if suffiently advanced, will seem like magic. And vice versa.

I'm a 'scientist' as well (a biologist) so I also approach everything from a logical view. I'll admit, there are aspects of Paganism that I simply can't force myself to believe because my scientific mind just won't let me 'bend the rules' enough. Without proof, it's very hard for me to accept the existance of many things. I have however seen ghosts, had prophetic dreams and seen some results of magick that would be very hard to explain as coincidence.


There are also times when science makes me believe even more in the Goddess. I was studying immunology last semister and the way the human body works is absolutely mind blowing. I believe in evolution of course, but the thought of such a complex system arising from chance alone is very hard to accept. It stuck me while reading my text book that the Goddess has to exist, because life itself is so amazing and so improbable, yet it does exist and it's very complex in a lot of organisms.

Sunny

I agree with you there. I'm have a very logical and scientific view on life and magick. My beliefs have meant that I see magick as a person using lesser known (or unknown) Laws of Nature. We thought gravity was magick till we understood it better, and yes, we call it science know.




Don't worry one day we will understand premonitions as a science. You not along here on UKP, many residents here are precogs (precognitives) myself included (one of my favourite subjects actually).

If your interested in learning more just ask around or put up a post. Your sure to get lots of friendly advice of everyone.

Exactly. I think that the rift between science and religion, our kind of religion anyway, is due to a misperception of science. When our modern sciences were formed in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries mainly they had to defend themselves from Christinaity and set themselves apart from it. This was due to an aggresive position the churches were taking in fear of a logical apporach to the world. Either you believe in god or you believe in science, either your soul is saved or you can do your little calculations while demons are poking your butt with hot iron.

Left with this choice it is understandable that many scientists saw their work as some sort of anti-religion and never tried to integrate their findings in a more wholistic concept of the world. And by doing this they created a cold, godless, mechanic universe rather than seeing the universe as something organic where the scientific laws still work.

But what is science if not the desire to understand the world we are living in? This would also mean that a scientific person can believe in premonitions for example and aim to understand them. Otherwise early scientists wouldn't have been able to "believe" in lightning as they had had no concept of electricity.

Science does not have a belief of its own but solely looks at facts. Rejecting science would be short sighted as science is true and brings you the proof of each claim it makes minutely.

I think it is more a matter of incorporating science into the belief system, creating harmony between the cold facts and the lightful, loving gods of the universe.

Heil Odin!

S.

Something it's worth remembering in all this:

Scientists are looking for How? rather than Why? (although we do like to know why something happens, we aren't really looking for "Why are we here?")

We leave finding The Truth to the philosophers. We're just after the facts.

T

Very good point! I remember hearing about one of the physicist who developed the "big Bang" theory being slammed by the xtian religious community and he shot back saying that he was very religious, the theory tryes to explain how, but does not, and could not answer the questions of "Where the matter for the bang came from?", "Why did it go bang?", and "What was there before?".
He thought the first two questions especially were unanswerable by science and the answer lay with the divine...

Regards,
Seeker

Weren't there battles going on in some US states years back ( or maybe certain counties within certain states ) with regards to refusing to teach evolutionary theory because it goes against religious principles ?

a friend of mine sent me this link this morning, somewhat relevant, I thought it was interesting anyway : http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...5050700606.html

LadyCatCrimson,
Yes, these battles have been going on for years. Especailly with Bush's support, conservative christians have been on the attack. There are other nagging things as well - where we live, despite laws against it, every school PTA meeting starts with a christian invocation. My children, whose beliefs vary, all have come to believe in some form of divinely inspired evolution. Due to this they have each been ridiculed and told numerous times that they were going to hell because of it. The local population is to a vast majority creationist. Also fairly anti-science in general as well.
I also just read in the news today that in North Carolina a Baptist Pastor kicked 9 people out of the congregation because they supported Kerry rather than Bush in the last election...

Sigh,
Seeker

Nice track.

As a scientist, I cannot understand why certain religions want to deny scientific progress. Science does not contridict any of their beliefs, perhaps only some of their mythodology.

Being a logician, I love the suttle differences between knowledge and belief.
I am perfectly discussing conflicting beliefs. I cannot understand the concept of
conflicing knowledge, as knowledge comes from proof.


I can agree with Thunarr's comment that scientist are looking for How of things and the Why of things. Although the How bit can up to some degree explain the Why bit.


I am not so sure about Thunarr's second comment that we leaving finding The Thruth to philosophors, unless of course we all are philisophors.
In are own little way, every human is looking for his or her interpretation of The Truth or their truth if one wishes to believe there is not a single one

I'm a physicist, and a pagan, and I don't know which one I'm more of I take a logical view, and truly believe that, given enough time, physics can explain everything. But then I would say that

I think that magic is some aspect of the world we just haven't examined close enough yet. I have my own theories of course I can say why particles behave in a certain manner, I can attempt to explain what happened at the big bang (give me enough vodka and I'll talk about it all night) I can explain special relativity and all that jazz. I can't say why the world is the way it is, no-one will ever be able to.

Thunarr is a microbiologist and Biology teacher, when he said we he meant Scientists, not all of us in general.

Ah excellent Kat, when I start reading up on physics, there's a resident expert on hand for me to say "Um, don't understand" hehehehehe.

Hmmm, just to interject some sillyness, the talk of the relation between science and philosophy reminds me of a little joke...

"A scientist really only needs three tools: a pencil, paper, and a wastebasket. In philosophy, they only need two - they don't use the wastebasket."

Smiles,
Seeker

what do the scientists among us make of Existentialism then?

If you tell me what it is, I'll let you know

Very, feel free to pick my brains. There is some useful stuff in there, amongst the cotton wool

I disagree with you, Dave. My first inclination would be to ask "How does this happen?" followed by "What caused this to happen?" The reason, as far as a philosopher is concerned, coming from a spiritual angle wouldn't really enter into my head until much later, if at all.

Does this mean I'm not a complete being?

As for the Einstein quote, it's worth remembering that Einstein was left way behind, as far as Physics is concerned, not long after he worked out General Relativity. He didn't agree with the conclusions of the likes of Nils Bohr, and the emerging Quantum Physicists. That saw him marginalised, since he couldn't, or some might say wouldn't understand their conclusions. If anything, he'd stopped being a True Scientist. He stuck with a dogma, and nay-sayed anything that contradicted it, even if the nay-sayers had compelling evidence to support their findings.

I also disagree with the quote. Unlike Einstein, I believe the need to know and understand how things happen is the noblest driving force behind scientific research.

T

I agree with you on this one, Thunarr.

On the other hand, proving a theorem might come close to a religious experience.

Yeah, I'm with you Thunarr - there's nothing wrong with the "why" question, but I don't see it necessarily being linked to "how."

Indeed, I'd deliberately separate "how" from "why" when researching something - the "why" is far too relative to your beliefs and spirituality. The "how" is just that - how. How something happens should be fairly absolute and empirical. People are then free to tag whatever explanation of "why" they like, but the "how" can be off on it's own, and in my opinion doesn't require a "why."

Mind you, my path doesn't particularly call for a "why," so perhaps I'm biased.

I may be wrong, but I really don't think Existentialism is a form a scientific study, at least not the type of science I meant. I guess I was being somewhat bigotted in my use of the word scientist, for I was refering to sciences like, Physics, Mathematics, Chemistry, etc. where one tends to have proven theorems and experiements applying theory are repeatable. The other branch or science includes things like Political Science, Sociology, to an extent Anthropology, and maybe Psychology. I wasn't talking about those.

Regards,
Seeker

At least in university terms, poli sci, soc, and anth are all arts - they're in the arts faculties, not science. Psychology is a crossover, as it has some very empirical parts, and some very abstract almost philosophical parts, or so I'm told. As there've been no massive fights over this, the uni's probably have it right.

I don't honestly know what existentialism is - the dictionary definition of it sounds very goth. Oh this hostile and indifferent universe! (cue hand straying towards forehead)

Well Existentialism is really in the Philosophy range of things:
I'll try 2 examples a torch when its off does exist as a torch, taking it to the other extreme when its on and shining a light its then fulfilling its function.
The other example which sprang to mind is George Bush, we all agree there is something going on there and he exists. Then he gears up and catastrophe happens, now is he fulfilling his function as a human? But the answer to that is probably in another thread. (or not)
I was just wondering what scientists would make of that.

Getting back to faith and belief of religious matters and dogmas etc.
The Catholic Church and its transubstantiation, that did put me in a complete quandary I have been vegetarian for a long long time, and the idea that the host is the Body and Blood of their Divine is against my being vegetarian, its also against my humanity as I'm not a cannibal anyway. This was quite apart from all their other beliefs which I had a hard time swallowing too.
I work with animals and do a lot of hands on Healing with them, and it works, it may be the animal concerned just needs gentle handling, but I do feel Power leaving me and going to the animal. It may be the warmth in my hands just relaxing the animal and Nature also taking its course. This doesn't happen instantly, its a gradual thing but the animals do get better. I would never expect to heal a broken leg, but some things do respond.

Right Sherringham - I had some friends around recently who would classify themselves as scientific, realists and while respecting my beliefs, think they are quite frankly potty.

Doesn't stop them bringing their injuries to me though, does it? And while I'm doing healing on it, when Ingrid feels the energy into her broken wrist getting so hot it is uncomfortable we have to agree that there is "definitely something there".

And her husband's psoriasis always improves after a visit to the cottage. So what do we do? We ignore it. We don't discuss it and while I am working healing on one of them, the other is having a wonderful, factual, scientific discussion with the AM.

Rudolph Steiner talked a lot about "spiritual science". I think probably anybody who works with spiritual knowledge, as opposed to spouting dogmas, has to be scientific about it in order to get anywhere. People who cast spells have a hypothesis that a certain action will have a certain effect, and then set about proving the hypothesis, and if the spell does not have the effect they expect, their hypothesis is disproved and they start again. Or they become a con artist. But that's anbother story.

And of course being healed too!!!

Not to rez an old thread, but I was just thinking about this while reading your reply Dave, and I have to admit that I realised that the reason I don't need to ask why is because my path pretty much just answers that with "because things just happen." That might leave me unable to comment - people whose paths involve Gods with a higher purpose probably have a lot more "why" questions to sort out.