--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "anatol_zinc" <anatol_z...@...> wrote: > > > God is objective and scientific > > according to theoretical physicist Dr Amit Goswami, PhD : > > "It's objective and it's scientific. You can call it God if you > want, but you don't have to. Quantum consciousness will do. > Nonlocality, tangled hierarchy, and discontinuity: these signatures of > quantum consciousness have been independently verified by leading > researchers worldwide. This experimental data and its conclusions inform > us that it is the mistaken materialist view that is at the center of > most of our worlds problems today. To address these problems, we now > have a science of spirituality that is fully verifiable and > objective."
Funny thing is the world he describes was discovered scient- ifically via theory and experimentation, it bears no relation to any of the ancient texts I ever read. Which is the point I've been making, received wisdom doesn't actually teach us anything meaningful about the objective (or even subjective) world you need careful experiments to do that. Just changing the name of a poorly understood level of nature to "god" doesn't prove that the ancients were right about anything *unless* they both predicted the parameters we are now discovering *and* can show that this level of nature actually has any of the traditionally associated features of a supreme being. Until then I think what they are doing is ascribing the term "god" to something they don't fully understand as a way of hopefully explaining it. Which historically has been god's job, it's just now, thanks to scientific enquiry, his job doesn't include much at all beyond controlling the trajetory of a few sub-atomic particles and making it all look random. > From : http://www.amitgoswami.org/ <http://www.amitgoswami.org/> And I recognise this guy from "what the bleep do we know?" Not what I'd call a satisfactory introduction to quantum physics. > Let me clarify that I don't know if I subscribe to Goswami POV 100% > in details, because I have not studied him thoroughly & because it is my > POV that each of us( 7billion) has a unique POV just as no two > snowflakes are alike; of course there are similarities and groups of > agreement will form etcÂ… > now for my( anatol's ) perspective: > > As in religion, so in science there is not one body of knowledge out > there with the idealistic imaginative concepts that the devotees of > science have about it. As in religion, these devotees have not really > delved into it much but rather cling to their idealistic imaginative > concepts about science, or religion. And so we have the current new > religion called science. For the very last time: The difference between science and religion is that science can and will and does change it's mind when new information comes in. We wouldn't be where we are in our understanding of nature without this fact.
