Wednesday, February 12, 2020

Science Showman Neil DeGrasse Tyson Pro-Spiritual?

Based on the youtube video of Russell Brand interviewing Neil deGrasse Tyson: NM yt 2-12-20 you misunderstood him (Nel DeGrasse Tyson), especially on his point about consciousness. They both (NGT and Russell Brand) were talking about consciousness on a scientific level, Russel made the point that SCIENTISTS haven't figured it out yet, and Neil thoroughly backed up that point. Neil wasn't criticising or dismissing the spiritual viewpoint of consciousness at all, he was literally criticizing science's lack of advancement in that particular field. OP was right, Neil was awfully respectful and as someone who loves science as much as spirituality that made me happy
Me: Neil was respectful? Because he´s a polished showman and not overtly rabid like Dawkins in this exchange with Brand? . You love spirituality and science? I have loved them for decades, and have been studying the likes of Templeton prize winners so that now I have already developed an understanding worthy of SJ Gould´s "Magesteria" and F Capra´s General System´s Theory. You like Tyson´s likeable style, and want to believe that he wouldn´t say something poorly informed and crassly uninformed? His reducing spirituality to "scientific knowledge" in this exchange is naive at best, and a quick search turns up confirmation of his deeper Scientism. He has said things like, "If you believe the Christian story of Jesus, you can´t call Scientology crazy" and "When I look at the universe and all the ways the universe wants to kill us, I find it hard to reconcile that with statements of beneficence." So you know, "Crazy" is not an adequate term for Jesus, nor is it dicreetly made for careful analysis of much relevant information about anything like shamanic and religious experience. "Wants to kill us" personifies the Universe non-scientifically, and Science itself has arisen through elements of that "beneficence" embodied in Jesus´ life, mission, and message. Tyson is a showman and Scientism ideologue who has no appropriate knowledge of even the scientifically measured benefits of meditation. As for you, who "loves science and spirituality," your "love" is not quite that well-informed, you need to know. Here´s a good clue for your path, Science needs to be understood as a form of Philosophy, Religion needs to be understood more widely through Philosophy, General Systems Theory puts all forms of modern Philosophy in perspective, and Religion´s underlying spirituality and basis for modern Philosophy more widely laid out. That´s what I can do. You try to make sense of that. ***
SR What's your actual argument? All I'm reading is you boasting about knowing stuff, but I don't see any actual argument with substance. What did Neil said here that was wrong?
​me@ S R Tyson begins to show some respect for "spirituality", but it´s backhanded and inadequate. He refers to "diverse notions of spirituality," not a scholar like Huston Smith or Karen Armstrong, teacher/author like Buddhist/Psychologist Jack Kornfield, holistic medical doctor Lewis Mehl-Medrona, and yet contrasts his own interest in Scientific study of physical objects as if it´s the same pursuit. As for my argument, I laid out the terms of my position quite clearly to nayrad as follows, "Science needs to be understood as a form of Philosophy, Religion needs to be understood more widely through Philosophy (and its forms), General Systems Theory puts all forms of modern Philosophy in perspective, and Religion´s underlying spirituality and basis for modern Philosophy (needs to be) more widely laid out. " I also mention other elements that you simply didn´t grasp. Studies of the benefits of meditation, for one, SJ Gould´s "magisteria," which requires adequate and better terminology, being basically the "academic disciplines," but more precisely epistemological knowledge domains studying phenomenological systems and their interrelationships. That is what Fritjof Capra has focused on that von Bertanaffly called General Systems Theory. As for what you term "boasting," I´m not primarily boasting, bro, and the points I raise initially show that. I´m dealing with simplistic and aggressive commentators who often take presumptuous, junior league, and dead-end potshots. They need to demonstrate their ability to individuate and think logically about things, and not ideologically, as nayarad did to a basic level. I gave him a basic argument framework that you missed. Let´s see if intellectual curiosity burgeons in you. ***
M M - N A To R This is quite a limiting belief: “The human senses are demonstrably ill equipped to take measure of the totality of the physical universe... Your senses had no access to those places in the universe until I came up with those instruments.” I’d disagree entirely with this statement. This is only true for those whose senses are restricted by the mind, because of the belief in BEING the body. As a result of this belief, their senses are narrowed to focus on only certain information, and disregard so much more that could otherwise be available to sense. Our senses are focused on what we think is essential for our survival. Without this idea of being the body, then the senses are free to explore much further out, and can encompass the entirety of the universe and even further. These instruments of the microscope and telescope are of use to those who are restricted, but are not needed for one who is not restricted by such a limiting belief. This is why beliefs can be so limiting and the destruction of them freeing, because they actually effect our visceral experience. me I think you begin to make a good point, although "destruction" of limiting beliefs is rather a harsh and impulsive approach. Science has made important strides, and allowed Moral Philosophers to develop the Social Sciences, not least of all Psychology and Anthropology, and in society, modern human rights and ecologically aware democratic society to develop social movements against tyranny and degradation. Spiritual practice and education led Martin Luther to his revolutionary acts, followed by the Enlightenment and the British and US Freedom of Religion as a pioneering Civil and Human Right. In turn, that has allowed Spiritual Metaphysical and Moral Philosophy and spiritual-religious innovation, like George Fox´s founding the Quaker Friends, their Anti-Slavery Society for Christian dissidents, FDR´s UN, and Unitarian Universalism. The role of spiritual teachers like Swami Vivekenanda´s Autobiography of a Yogi, Gandhi, Alan Watts, and Carlos Casteneda are other important examples. They appeared alongside the development of Therapeutic Psychology by Freud, Jung, Adler, and so on. The reality of mental health in contrast to Freud´s adequate categories of neuroses and character disorders, and then in relation to spiritual Transpersonal practice as Jung began to lay out make Therapeutic Psychology more complete. Limiting beliefs are better transformed, like Al Gore´s environmentalism that expanded the influence of the UN´s IPCC on the moral issues of the science of Climate Change. Gore also left his original S Baptist association because of their turn to Fundamentalism. Mental health in terms of emotional awareness, self-esteem, empathy, tolerance, and social responsibility are part of personal growth and its next stage with spiritual wisdom, spiritual growth. It´s why Barack Obama could refer to himself as "the kid with the funny name" and appoint a Green Jobs Czar, among other capacities. Therapeutic and Transpersonal Psychology and spiritual practices and traditions help guide us in the use of our familiar five senses, to even have patience and trust our instincts with scientific instruments and using scientific understanding to make a sustainable world, and not facing catastrophic unsustainability from profiteering and materialistic obliviousness. ***
S R @me Tyson might have been referring to the layman's definition or conception of spirituality in its various forms such as: general orthodox religious beliefs, but also new age understandings (The law of attraction, crystal healing, quantic woo woo, etc). It is undeniable that people have different understandings about what spirituality means; there's a plethora of worldviews, pantheons, philosophies, and it would be too hard to narrow it to what one would think is the "best" representation of the spiritual, whatever that is. Now, I agree with you that Tyson's definition of spirituality is not very adequate even for the "normal" definitions of it. He could have gone more into depth, and entertain some philosophical ideas.
A scientist, however, when doing his/her work, cares about the scientific method and using it to undertsand the world; physics specifically used to figure out the fundamental laws behind it. So far, this method's scope does not include spirituality, simply because its claims are unfalsifiable and lacks empirical data. How does one study the "soul" if it is "beyond" matter? With the mind? But what do we do about biases, the inherent unreliability of the mind, lying, subjectivity, etc? It's interesting to discuss it philosophically, but not scientifically, unless one day someone invents a tool that is able to show us a soul, or anything spiritual -- but that hasn't happened yet.
“Too hard to narrow (spirituality) to what one would think is the "best" representation”? Comparative Religion and the Philosophy of Religion are longstanding academic disciplines. They are, moreover, interdisciplinary. In college, I found an excellent basis that is little known in Bio Anthropologist E Chapple´s work (begun in the 1940s) on religious symbols and ritual, that he basically categorizes as Rites of Passage or Intensification. More standard scholar Mircae Eliade talks about the Sacred and the Profane. Rudolf Otto talks about the numinous. Neuroscientist A Newberg has been looking at brainscans. D Zohar and Marshall developed the concept of Spiritual Intelligence by 2001 in which “synchronous processing” is discussed, for example. For another, Kjaer 2002 has been cited for studies about dopamine levels in meditation. NDT, and you, are talking in terms of your laymans´ perceptions as if Religion scholars, psychologists, and even neurologists, have never done any studies, work, or thinking. That´s poorly informed at best, and functionally illiterate at worst. If you understand the existence of more depth and philosophical ideas, you are underemphasizing how his comments betray the woeful ignorance and undervaluing of spirituality in a hyper-sci-technophile society.
You yourself then go on to make mistaken statements about science and spirituality that I have already debunked. However, “synchronous processing” and “dopamine” are not the beginning of the academic study of spirituality, as I also already pointed out. Your resorting to terms and judgments like “unfalsifiable” and “lacks empirical data” are pure reflex judgmentalism that you have picked up from other prejudiced, and Scientism ideological, sources. Science itself is originally a University-based form of academic study, and a form of philosophy, all forms of which involve the recognition of phenomena and the forming of hypotheses about them. The first scientific philosopher, the ancient Greek Thalus of Miletus tried to make non-anthropomorphized explanations about empirical physical phenomena, not accuse others of “unfalsifiability.”
Getting clear then that you, I, and we are talking about Philosophy and its various forms means that “soul” and “matter” have to be informed adequately through all the Social Sciences, not some astronomer layman outside his field who can´t even name a relevant book. Start talking about Freud, Jung, and só on, and then Ian Stevenson MD at UVA and their Dept of Perceptual Studies including NDEs and reincarnation. “What do we do about biases, … that hasn´t happened yet?” Is NDT or Dawkins paying you to close your mind and lick their boots? Philosophical investigation requires research and reflection, not wallowing in antithetical ideological denialism. Russell Brand is sharp, but not that scholarly, yet, anyway. Gandhi led a non-violent independence movement against an empire with soldier and guns, and didn´t cave in because it looked too hard, or there weren´t any beer sponsors. Better do some research and learn to ask constructive questions, not get paralyzed because you´ve listened to too many knuckleheaded conformist Scientism ideologues. ***
yt RB NDT S R @me I will accept that I was not aware of the books you mentioned. Back when I was exploring spirituality I opted to go into the heart of it, meaning right into the ancient scriptures, especifically Hindu scriptures such as the Upanishads, Vedas, Puranas, although I also researched other religions including Christianity, Islam, Buddhism and Taoism. I practiced various forms of meditation, among other practices. I am definately not even close to being what they called a "master", but I am not ignorant of what they were teaching, and I certainly wasn't superficial nor merely an orthodox. I do lack academic knowledge on this topic, though, and I will check out the books you mentioned; but, I am not licking anybody's boots nor closing my mind. That's the part where you are mistaken and, must I say, rather condescending. All you've mentioned regarding NDE's and reincarnation (perhaps based on Ian Stevenson's work?), are not even close to being rigorous enough to be considered scientific. I can name you many problems with both of those cases. Moreover, indeed Thalus of Miletus did not accuse anyone of unfalsifiability, but like you yourself said he was one of the first scientific philosophers. The concept of unfalsifiability came later with Karl Popper, who wanted to develop a better scientific process. Even Jung acknowledged this work. I am pretty sure we can make a good argument in favor of religion in terms of how it affected human psychology, or how it is used with symbols and stories to, perhaps, make us better humans (since it informs us of morals and archetypes). But I haven't seen any good argument in favor of the ACTUAL existance of a God, a soul, ghosts, spiritual energy, life after death in a heaven or a hell, or reincarnation. This is the part that is of greater interest for me. But, in case I'm ignoring some important facts, I will read the works you've mentioned in your comment as to have an even better perspective and understanding.
I´m sorry to find it appropriate to use such strong language, but I´m afraid you have limited your spiritual search prematurely and judgmentally, immersing and conducting yourself in the presumptuous and haughty manner of Scientism ideologues. You don´t even question your own conduct, a basic and essential tool of psychologico-spirituality. Dawkins the biologist, Krauss the physicist like the suaver NDT have lead the way, throwing out academic rigor, and violating its norms really, according to crude anti-religious prejudice. They have been abusing and misusing their credentials in science, probably in part because they don´t realize that science actually IS philosophy and that religion actually NEEDS to be philosophized more. Dawkins et al are actually trapped in the masquerade and confuse things, then lose perspective in pop culture as Scientism celebrity chatterboxes. You express their kind of Scientism presumptions. To your credit, your decent comportment makes “bootlicking” a bit unnecessary sledgehammer term more generally. Scientism is seductive, however, as a “muscle-for-brains,” “might-makes-right” ideology, bolstered no less by various psychosocial and cultural realms like the sociology of business profiteers. Speaking in definitive terms about spirituality from hard science is in fact reductionism and anti-social sciences in general. It´s not New Age that they limit as “woo,” it´s the Social Sciences and Humanities, including Philosophy.
As for UVA´s Dept of PS and reincarnation and NDE´s, I intoduced two topics of their work to you, and you attempt to jump on it according to your Scientism ideological criteria without lifting a finger to research it, much less demonstrate the philosophical scientific method, “How do they define the phenomena, and what dynamics do they study?” You can name “many problems” with which cases? Do you know the researchers work? That´s ideological judgmentalism, and corresponds to condescending behavior, to put it politely. The dictum and its correlate “think outside the box (of ideological Scientism with philosophical Science)” and Buddha´s Four Noble Truth´s, as well as Jesus´ “Clean the cup within” in Matt are important bases towards the solution. As for falsifiability, yes, I am aware of Popper´s ideas and importance, and Kuhn´s work on paradigms, both of which have artificially been compartmentalized leaving the untenable and toxic impression of science as not being Philosophy and making the monster of “supertechnicians revealing Science as God” Scientism. Regarding Thales, my point was in fact that Thales´ work was the foundation of modern secularized Christian empirical scientific philosophy, not Popper´s falsifiability concept.
In the matter of the psychology of religion, that´s an important level to study. To grasp the philosophical foundations of interdisciplinary thinking, however, van Bertanaffly´s General Systems Theory and Fritjof Capra´s updates, is essential. As for God, etc, “good arguments in favor of the ACTUAL existance of a God, a soul, ghosts, spiritual energy, life after death in a heaven or a hell, or reincarnation,” the first issue is moving from basic empirical philosophy to metaphysical philosophy. The existence of God? Philosophically, Aristotle examined physical cause and effect as a kind of pioneer, then laid a fine basis with his First Cause reasoning. There had to be a First Cause to this physical Universe, which he formulated as the Unmoved Mover. There had to be a First Cause to this physical Universe, which he formulated as the Unmoved Mover. The history of Western education and the Anthropological Biology of Human Biocultural Evolution, however, has to be unpacked and goes through St. Thomas of Aquinas, for one, who was a landmark with arguments like the Uncaused Cause. As part of Christian historical sociology, Aquinas reflects the Judeo-Christian psychocultural thread and all the spiritual-religious visions in relation to God through Abraham, Moses, and Jesus and his legacy. That legacy includes Paul of Tarsus, St. Anthony of the Desert, Constantine the Great, St. Benedict, and St. Francis of Assisi up to Aquinas, DesCartes, and the multiple threads of Martin Luther, Galileo, George Fox, John Locke, and Joseph Priestley among the majors. That becomes a self-referential kind of philosophical “Moebius Strip,” for this conversational dialogue and its academic basis. That´s the Historical Psychosocial argument supplement to “religious experience.” WL Craig´s revival of the Kalam Cosmological argument takes the Uncaused Cause and asserts, “Anything in the observable Universe that begins to exist has a cause.” As for “soul,” I mentioned Freud, Jung, et al and would add Piaget et al, all of which can be reflected on in terms of the implications of the Anthropology of Shamanism and Transpersonal Psychology, Stevenson´s and UVA DPS scholar-scientists´ identifying reincarnation´s confirmed correspondence between scars, memories, and referent case trauma. NDE´s, restricted for rigor to medical cases, involve verifiable information gained while clinically dead. All attempts to reasonably deny legitimacy can be evaluated, and when exhausted, reveal not inevitable fraudulent phenomena, but persistent denial. That is ideological not phenomonological and finally objective. Another good foundation is Stanley Jaki´s work, like “Science and Creation,” well-treated by scholar Stacy Transacos here https://strangenotions.com/tag/fr-stanley-jaki/

No comments:

Post a Comment