It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Can Science Explain the Soul?

page: 2
2
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 22 2010 @ 03:04 PM
link   
reply to post by hippomchippo
 


Two words. Mystery religion. Religions don't always try to provide all the answers.




posted on Aug, 22 2010 @ 03:05 PM
link   
reply to post by hippomchippo
 


Who's to say the "soul" isn't generated by the brain?

[edit on 22-8-2010 by Watcher-In-The-Shadows]



posted on Aug, 22 2010 @ 03:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by Watcher-In-The-Shadows
reply to post by hippomchippo
 


Two words. Mystery religion. Religions don't always try to provide all the answers.

But the ones that do usually end up being wrong.



posted on Aug, 22 2010 @ 03:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by Watcher-In-The-Shadows
reply to post by hippomchippo
 


Who's to say the "soul" isn't generated by the brain?

[edit on 22-8-2010 by Watcher-In-The-Shadows]

Nobody, but it is pure speculation.
You need to understand I'm not against the idea of a soul, personally I like the idea of reincarnation, what with the universe being essentially all circles, but I have no evidence, therefore no reason to believe, same thing with a soul.



posted on Aug, 22 2010 @ 03:09 PM
link   
reply to post by hippomchippo
 


Though scraps of "truth" always found through-out. :p



posted on Aug, 22 2010 @ 03:11 PM
link   
reply to post by hippomchippo
 


Oh. I didn't attribute you with any beliefs either way at all. I only asked the question that is natural for me to ask when someone makes such statements. Unlike werty I do not even pretend to attempt to dictate other's beliefs to them.


[edit on 22-8-2010 by Watcher-In-The-Shadows]



posted on Aug, 22 2010 @ 03:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by Watcher-In-The-Shadows
reply to post by hippomchippo
 


Though scraps of "truth" always found through-out. :p

Debatable, but I'll give you that



posted on Aug, 22 2010 @ 03:12 PM
link   
I'm guessing the OP just ignored all of the real scientific studies regarding out of body experiences in his google search called "out of body experience science" ???

Seriously. With Google around, how can you people even believe this BS about how "science ignores this or that". This is just about as stupid as the people saying "Scientists ignore the possibility of life in the universe" when there are colleges out there today that give degrees in EXO-BIOLOGY.

It's ridiculous how you people with your agendas make stuff up by saying that science ignores this or that.

... and if you can't understand why science has nearly nothing to do with the concept of a soul, then you are beyond help and living in a pit of backwardness and stupidity.



posted on Aug, 22 2010 @ 03:12 PM
link   
reply to post by hippomchippo
 


Even if it's little "truths". A truth is a truth.



posted on Aug, 22 2010 @ 03:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by Watcher-In-The-Shadows
reply to post by hippomchippo
 


Oh. I didn't attribute you with any beliefs either way at all. I only asked the question that is natural for me to ask when someone makes such statements. Unlike werty I do not even pretend to attempt to dictate other's beliefs to them.


[edit on 22-8-2010 by Watcher-In-The-Shadows]

The only thing I could consider slight evidence of the afterlife would be dreams.
I mean, if we can dream things that mimic reality so perfectly sometimes, who's to say reality could continue after the illusion of death.
But it's only evidence through speculation.



posted on Aug, 22 2010 @ 03:12 PM
link   
reply to post by RestingInPieces
 


Read the article. Then rant.
You didn't even get the title right.

[edit on 22-8-2010 by Watcher-In-The-Shadows]



posted on Aug, 22 2010 @ 03:15 PM
link   
reply to post by hippomchippo
 


Oh there are certain other cases. At least one so called NDE case I can think of. But in the end, I suspect if we have a soul, we aren't really meant to know for sure.



posted on Aug, 22 2010 @ 03:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by Watcher-In-The-Shadows
reply to post by hippomchippo
 


Oh there are certain other cases. At least one so called NDE case I can think of. But in the end, I suspect if we have a soul, we aren't really meant to know for sure.

I'm not a fan of NDE and OBE
They are reported so differently worldwide, that it either means two things to me.
1. That WE create our own afterlife through some means
2. They are dying brain functions by people who have been told they could die imaging their own afterlife.

I would absolutely love to believe the first one, lol.



posted on Aug, 22 2010 @ 03:19 PM
link   
reply to post by hippomchippo
 


There are also other cases that mention nothing to do with a afterlife.. I created a thread for one. Basically, the woman had no real way of knowing what she knew during the procedure and a neurologist says this.



posted on Aug, 23 2010 @ 01:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by hippomchippo

Originally posted by 547000
They just assume it's impossible because many of them have a materialistic point-of-view. But strange experiences like OBEs, NDEs, and spiritual experiences do happen. They just brush it all away because it doesn't match their personal models of existence.

What you call evidence of the soul I call the brain in dying mode.

If there is a soul, we would be absolutely nothing like we are now, because everything that is our personality is produced by the brain, but it would certainly be detectable by some means, there are plenty of things in science we can't see, but we know they are there.

[edit on 22-8-2010 by hippomchippo]


OBEs are not near death, neither are most spiritual experiences, like the experience with the light most people have, regardless of religion. Some people even have the experiences physically manifest, like stigmata, etc. If it doesn't fit with the materialistic POV people just deny it even exists, or assume it's a lie or a trick of the brain.

How do you know personality is produced by the brain and not transmitted by the brain? It's just an assumption, one assumption that scientists mostly have about the nature of reality: If you can't measure it or calculate it, it's not real. What if there are things you cannot measure or calculate which do, in fact, exist? Unlike teapots in outer-space, many people have reported contact with things like light beings or God, and not only loonies but sane people too. People simply brush it all away because it doesn't fit their paradigm of reality.



posted on Aug, 23 2010 @ 02:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by 547000

Some people even have the experiences physically manifest, like stigmata, etc.


Maybe, but such incidents are WAY more rare than, let's say, OBEs and NDEs. This whole "science is a religion"-thing is just silly. Science is just an empirical method of understanding the world around us. It has nothing to do with "belief" that pretty much defines religion. Just like atheism isn't a religion.

I view atheism as probably the most healthy way of viewing these things. Dogmatic religion just gets in the way when seeking to understand the universe. So, if a person doesn't have a first hand experience of something that he believes to be of "supernatural" origin, then I think atheism is probably the healthiest philosophy there could be. After all, it does sound pretty crazy..

One thing that's very interesting to me: How does evolution, cutting-edge cosmology, quantum physics etc. really disprove "god"? Couldn't this "creator" exist outside of time and physical dimensions?

Maybe this "force" (eternal, all knowing, all powerful) manifests itself on this physical plane? I know this has been discussed ad nauseam, but it never seizes to amaze me.



posted on Aug, 23 2010 @ 06:47 AM
link   
I suppose we can say it's outside the realm of sciences if social science is considered pure bunk. I mean, there have been many people in all sorts of religions who have encountered religious/mystical experiences. To say they're all mad, delusional, or liars is stretching it. By the research methodology of social sciences this is notable, but by the pure physical sciences this isn't proof of anything at all. But since Newton's time pure science includes the philosophy of materialism an as one of its main pillars.

Science is not necessarily a religion, but to most it is, because they have faith implicitly in materialism, one of the pillars of classical science.


[edit on 23-8-2010 by 547000]



posted on Aug, 23 2010 @ 07:01 AM
link   
To simply say that science is materilism is, realy a dmage to sceinece of the future, escpecially if you look in the realm of physics. Most of the new idea our so out there that they could be put in the bible and most people wouldnt know the difference.

I guess what I am saying is that To those scientist who believe like me in a soul and in the material, that we must use both spiritual and material to find the next discoveries and possibly take us to the next stars. We have to break the divide and truly look into the endless possiblities that religioun and science together could bring us.

I know people are smart on this site, so any history will tell you how religioun tried to destroy and supress the beginnings of modern science. Then when the enlightenment was upon the earth, scienece backlashed religion. They need to come together as one. Because truly they are one.

The mind of God is within everynew discovery and exploration that we humans take upon ourselves, If we can accept the spiritual side of thigs open our minds and recieve, we may gain much more understanding of the world around us and moe that much closer to the deseried goals that science wishes to achive.



posted on Aug, 23 2010 @ 07:07 AM
link   
Science can't even cure the diseases of the body that it can see. I highly doubt that the scientists are capable of explaining the intangible. At least not yet.



posted on Aug, 23 2010 @ 09:19 AM
link   

Originally posted by Tryptych
One thing that's very interesting to me: How does evolution, cutting-edge cosmology, quantum physics etc. really disprove "god"? Couldn't this "creator" exist outside of time and physical dimensions?


Unless one is a fundamentalist or a disbeliever, nothing in science disproves God, and the belief that God exists outside of our time and space is a cornerstone of Christianity. Those who believe that evolution is contrary to Christian theology spend too much time with certain subsets of the faith -- most mainstream Christians accept it, and the Catholic Church itself views evolution as a method of God's creation.



new topics

top topics



 
2
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join