Are you saying that it's impossible to have objective standards for logic, induction, and epistemology by which a the justification of a belief can be determined?  Are you saying that even if such objective principles were followed diligently, the bias of an observer is so inherent that it can never be trusted?  I'm not trying to put words in your mouth... just trying to understand your objection.  If you think my definition is insufficient, is there another you would recommend instead?

Actually, this is not the same kind of situation.  "Best" is an entirely subjective judgment... in other words, the claim "My mother is the best cook in the world" is by nature an opinion rather than a fact.  Even if the claimant were to sample every dish from every cook in the entire world, "best" would still be a matter of his personal preference.  The existence or nonexistence of a phenomenon is a much more concrete, objective matter.  Also, I didn't make any assertion regarding supernatural beliefs, only spiritual beliefs.

Again, I didn't mention anything about supernatural phenomena... but clearly the cases you're referring to were not cases of people with a justified belief in an objective sense.  Now if, hypothetically, a person were to see a ghost, and then had the ghost throw a chair at him, that would be much more justification for the belief in a ghost than just that person thinking that he saw something that kind of looked like a person.

Oh, I wouldn't disagree with the statement that most ghost stories are false.  But, even if they're all false, that's only 1 possible phenomenon.  To say that no one has a justified belief in any spiritual phenomenon is a much broader claim.

I dont think the definition of spiritual is '

'Spiritual - that which exists, does not consist of any form of matter or energy currently recognized by the physics community, and has been observed by specific individuals either directly or indirectly'

Surely the definition of spiritual is that which exists that can NEVER be recognised by the physics community, not what is currently recognized.

There could easily be forces out there we don't understand but doesnt make it supernatural merely beyond currently knowledge. Maybe there is some sort of weird soul that can survive outside our bodies (not likely but still possible) but there is no evidence that this couldnt be observed, measured and studied

Your definition begs the question. How do these individuals *know* that what they observed 'does not consist of any form of matter or energy currently recognized by the physics community'? They may *believe* that what they experienced has no physical basis, but they don't *know* that.

The clear argument against believing in non-physical spirituality is Occam's Razor, the principle that we should not accept those ideas that can just as easily be done without. Spiritual *experiences* may have a physical basis, so there is no reason to assume that the experiences point to a reality beyond the physical. Have you ever seen a magic trick? Pretty convincing, eh? It *looks* like the only explanation is magic. But does that mean that magic exists? No. It doesn't. There is a physical explanation for what *appears* to be magic. Likewise with spiritual experiences.

To have a justified belief that the spiritual experience points to a *real* spiritual (as per your def'n of non-physical) phenomenon, the person would have to conclusively show that this experience can *not* be explained by physical concepts. They would essentially have to be well-versed in physics, i.e. a physicist, and they would have to have some form of evidence that the non-physical exists. Aside from the impossibility of such evidence, even if such evidence were possible, the person would also have to have followed the scientific method to establish that their conclusions were not biased. Therefore, this person would have to have a scientifically recognized theory of the non-physical. Such a theory does not exist on this planet. If it did, we would have heard about it through the scientific pulbications, which is an essential part of the scientific method. Therefore, it is not justified to believe in non-physical spirituality.

BTW: I hold that such a theory is by its nature impossible to construct, since science can only deal with the physical. But, even granting that evidence of the non-physical were possible, the lack of such a theory is justification for believing no one has a justified belief in the non-physical.

Isn't using data that doesn't have evidence for it's being true irrational though?

 

Example:

 

All cats are immortal

all immortal things are gods

Therefore the Ancient Egyptians were right and all cats are gods.

 

Completely valid logically, though the first premise is obviously false and the second isn't necessarily true. So even though it's technically valid it would be a very irrational thing to say.

Really not sure I get this thread,

 

If someone can come up with evidence that ghosts exist then the study of ghosts becomes physics and possibly biology

If someone can come up with evidence that life exists after the death of the body then that becomes biology

If someone can come up with evidence that god exists than the study of god becomes well all sciences

 

Science is the methology in obtaining information about the universe it isnt the actual facts themselves. The the whole material/non material thing just doesnt make any real sense.

If its exists its material in one form or the other

 

 

 

 

 

But somehow supernatural claims are objective?

could only be considered objective to those who agree on their individual subjective beliefs. Objective may be the wrong word. Maybe axiomatic is a better word. Or just "agreed upon terms" is better. "  Supernatural events are always subjective to the person who experienced them.  Some may call it "scientific" or logical to try to rule out all natural possibilities. At best I might call it abductive logic. But there is no way to deduce any supernatural claims as being true.

Sorry.  I should have put a smiley or something to indicate humor.

 

What do you have against the correct ones?

All you have to do is adjust your statement slightly, and you're right, and philosophers the world over will be happy.  There can be a rational and untrue belief because bad data can yield valid and false conclusions.  So, there's no such thing as knowledge of or justified belief in the spiritual or supernatural.  However, there are people who are being rational by holding such beliefs.

 

The way I'm thinking of this problem, the individual doesn't need to know that a phenomenon meets any definition of spiritual, they simply need to have some knowledge of a phenomenon that actually does meet a relevant definition.  That said, I acknowledge that the definition of spiritual I've suggested may not be the best that's possible, and am open to suggestions for modification or replacement.

'Supernatural' (and 'immaterial') are broken concepts

 "Spirit" is equally incoherent

Spiritual phenomenon do not exist, nay, cannot exist.  I challenge you to provide me with evidence that something that's not either matter nor energy can exist.  I challenge you to provide me with any scientific evidence of 'spirit'.  Spirit is in exactly the same category as supernatural; it is something that by its very definition cannot exist in this universe.

Spirit implies a disembodied consciousness unless you are using a special definition and a 'natural, spiritual phenomenon' is a complete oxymoron.  Consciousnesses do not exist disembodied from the very things that contain consciousness (brains).  To believe otherwise is to subject yourself to dumbfounded looks and unanswerable questions about your contradiction when you turn around and deny the existence of the ultimate disembodied consciousness (god).  It's just stupid.  Further, your special definition of supernatural is unnecessary and dishonest.  Supernatural is not something that does not follow natural laws, it is something that is not natural; it cannot exist.  Likewise, any 'spiritual phenomenon' in order to be natural would have to be natural, which would make it anything but a spiritual phenomenon.  Can you tell us exactly what you mean by spiritual phenomenon?  If you mean ghosts, you're crazy.  If you really mean something more akin to spirituality, then there was no need for this thread.  In fact, there is no need for this thread as the broken concept of 'spiritual' has been dealt with before ad nauseam.

Just to be clear, we did not show that it is unjustified to believe in a natural 'spiritual' phenomenon. We showed that your definition of spiritual as being non-physical is unjustified. As an example to show the distinction I'm making, it is possible that spiritual phenomena exist as physical events/entities, and are merely misinterpreted by people as being non-physical. I'm not talking about ghosts and whatnot. I'm talking about hallucinations and experiences that people mistake for ghosts and whatnot. There is a physical explanation for that, and so it is justified to say that all experiences of spirituality are physical in nature. Physical is a subset of natural. So, we did not deny that spiritual phenomena can be natural, we denied that it is justifiable to believe that they can be non-physical.

Umm...

So... I'm right, but you don't like it, so you'd like to change the definition so that your statement can be true?  I don't get it.

First, I didn't say they had to know how the phenomenon worked.  I said they would have to have knowledge of it, which is impossible.  To have knowledge of it, which (whether you like it or not) is justified true belief, the following must be true:

1) Something spiritual exists

2) It is empirically verifiable and falsifiable

3) It has been verified and falsified

4) The person claiming knowledge can attest to 1-3 with scientific certainty.

 

Now, if you want to talk about understanding of a spiritual event, you're going to run into a similar problem.  I can tell you that I understand glumbelfarb, but if glumbelfarb is not a real thing, my sentence means nothing.  Since the word "spiritual" literally refers to nothing, having knowledge of it is having knowledge of nothing.

Heh.  I'm glad it's helping, Quasar.  I think I'm more confused than I was at the beginning, but I am glad that you're getting it straight.  Are you at a point where you could do a set of definitions and bullet points so that I can grasp what you're trying to call irrational?  If you want more help, I think I'll need a cheat sheet.  To my reading, all of your questions have been answered, which means either I don't understand the question or you don't understand the answers.  It would help me to know which it is.

 

Okay, I think I see now where I went wrong with my original definition of spiritual.  The definition I came up with doesn't properly include a lot of ideas which I consider to be irrational but which are commonly considered spiritual, and it does include a lot of ideas which I consider rational and are not commonly considered spiritual.  Also, my original definition is dependent on a criteria which is not constant over time (specifically, our body of scientific knowledge which is continually being updated).  So, I've entirely reworked it not in terms of where I think it "fits" philosophically but instead focusing on the commonality that all spiritual ideas seem to share.  Also, to properly define all of the views expressed so far in this thread, I think we need to define more terms as well, and I'm trying to define them formally so that they can be used to develop logical conclusions.  So, here's what I've come up with:

Nouns:

Existence (no plural) - the set of everything that objectively exists

Phenomenon (pl. phenomena) - a descriptor of one or more aspects of existence

Belief (pl. beliefs) - an opinion about which of the following adjectives accurately describe a phenomenon or a belief

Adjectives:

Real - consistent with existence.  Opposite: unreal.  Describes: phenomena.

Natural - constrained by laws inherent to the nature of existence.  Opposite: supernatural.  Describes: phenomena.

Substantive - consisting of or being composed of something (anything).  Opposite: not substantive.  Describes: phenomena.

Physical - represented by the current body of knowledge encapsulated by the physical sciences (physics, chemistry, biology, geology, etc.).  Opposite: nonphysical.  Describes: phenomena.

Spiritual - having the quality of being a component of life or a form of life which is not biochemical, electrical, or thermal.  Opposite: nonspiritual.  Describes: phenomena.

True - correct and accurate always.  Opposite: false.  Describes: beliefs.

Justified - either shown to be necessarily correct by a solid logical proof (either formal or informal) or all of the following: epistemologically shown to have a 90% or higher likelihood of being true by valid use of induction; shown to have a basis in objective reality by accounts from other first-hand witnesses which verify that the experiences were not simply imagined; and validated by the careful consideration and falsification of any reasonable alternative hypotheses, including any possibility for dishonesty/deception.  [The point has been raised that justification is subjective, in other words, people sometimes disagree about what constitutes valid logic, valid inductive reasoning, and valid epistemology.  This is a rather involved issue to get into, so I would hope that we can assume that a form of argument or line of reasoning is valid if it produces a correct conclusion for any correct assumptions to which it is applied.  If it can be shown to produce an incorrect conclusion for any correct assumptions, it is fallacious and invalid, and so it cannot be used as to show that a belief is justified.]  Opposite: unjustified.  Describes: beliefs.

Justifiable - capable of being justified.  Opposite: unjustifiable.  Describes: beliefs.

I'm presuming that existence is objective and consistent in its nature, so any phenomenon, then, must be either real or unreal, natural or supernatural, substantive or not substantive, physical or nonphysical, and spiritual or nonspiritual.  Beliefs, however, are subjective, and though some of them will target objective phenomena, others target subjective beliefs.  For this reason, it's possible to have logically contradicting beliefs, such as: A) Belief B is true B) Belief A is false.  In this case, neither belief can be said to be true.  Also, while we can have specific and categorical beliefs about phenomena, for example, the belief that any phenomena which is supernatural must also be unreal, it's possible that the belief will be justified by one person and not justified by another, although a belief which is justifiable is always justifiable regardless of who believes it.  This makes the issue a bit more complicated, but I see it as an unavoidable complication due to the inherent nature of beliefs.

Is this fair?  Are these definitions clear and sufficient?  Are the terms which these definitions reference sufficiently understood and agreed upon that we can have a meaningful discussion?  As always, constructive criticism is welcome and appreciated.

Ah, I see... I meant 'objectively' to distinguish from 'subjectively', in other words to imply that it should be all that genuinely exists and should be uncolored by our perceptions.  But, I guess you're saying by applying the adjective 'objectively', it implies that it must be thought about, and so must fall within the known universe?  Fair enough; the term 'objectively' can certainly be removed if it's causing confusion.

I consider nuclear forces and subatomic particles which are an inherent part of biochemical processes as being included in the category of biochemical, whereas any nuclear forces and subatomic particles which are not part of a biochemical process yet were part of life would be spiritual.  I don't think that a spiritual phenomena, if real, would be beyond the reach of eventual scientific discovery, so to try to define them using a transient definition of physical would be problematic.  I see your point, though... by attempting to enumerate the properties that define a physical body, I run the risk of leaving something out, which would then fall into the category of a spiritual phenomenon under this definition.  But, to try to use a blanket definition of physical runs into the original problems of time dependency and, now that I think about it, differences in subjective knowledge of scientific discoveries.  Ideally, the definition would not refer to physical knowledge at all, but how does one formally define a category of unknown phenomena when the underlying nature of those phenomena is not known without making use of that which is known as a reference?

Essentially the idea which I'm trying to convey is that a phenomenon would be considered spiritual if and only if it demonstrated that life extended beyond the boundaries of physical bodies.  It works for all of the following: souls, ghosts, and prescience, because those involve spiritual life extending beyond physical death in terms of time; qi/ki/chi, telepathy, telekinesis, and clairvoyance, which involve influence or awareness extending beyond the body in terms of space; and even levitation, which would necessitate an external physical force to offset the pull of gravity.

As for the definition of life... now that you mention it, I do recall my biology teacher saying that even within the field of biology, there's disagreement about what should be included in the definition of life, and what shouldn't.  I'll get back to you on that one, since I'm already falling asleep.

You're using fuzzy logic?  I suppose in that context, physicalism seems somewhat more reasonable, though I still have a major complaint with it.  However, here are a few examples of beliefs that I have recently formed which are true always:

* In typing this forum post, I pressed keys on a keyboard.

* During the time span in which I was typing this post, there was at least 1 cup in the same room that I was in.

* I did not change which shirt I was wearing during the time span in which I was typing this post.

You see, these beliefs are correct and accurate always because they are constrained in scope by conditional qualifiers, so at any point in time and space, the beliefs are still logically true in terms of predicate logic.  The beliefs don't make any claim about any point in time and space outside those in which the beliefs are bounded, so they are true vacuously in those cases.  That is, for [If A then B], when and where A is false, the statement is logically true regardless of the truth value of B.  In the absence of such qualifiers, specifically limiting it to myself and this forum post, those beliefs would be modified to look like this:

* Typing forum posts involves pressing keys on a keyboard.

* There is a cup in the same room as any given person.

* No one changes shirts between starting and finish forum posts.

Any of these beliefs might be false in some cases, which means they're not reliably predictive and therefore shouldn't be considered true beliefs.  The statement 'taking homeopathic remedies leads to improved health' is certainly true in some specific cases (by coincidence or the placebo effect), but it's not true reliably, and so it shouldn't be considered a true belief.  Someone might use a speech recognition program or an input device designed for someone paralyzed from the neck down.  Someone might be in a room that doesn't have a cup in it.  Someone might change clothes at some point before starting and finishing a forum post.  Now, I understand that it seems useful to have a way to distinguish between something that's always true, something that's never true, and something that is true in some cases and false in others.  However, this can be done quite easily without resorting to fuzzy logic:

* Typing in forum posts involves pressing keys on a keyboard in the majority of cases.

* There are sometimes cups in the same room as people.

* People change shirts between starting and finishing forum posts in less than 25% of cases.

In the case of Newton's laws, the predictions are never completely accurate.  They're close, and the difference may be too small to notice, but it's there.  Newton's laws are certainly useful... they have a lot of value, in fact... but the complaint I'm making doesn't deal with usefulness, it deals with assumptions about truth.

Assuming that this means a single truth value, which doesn't change depending on who the believer is, for each specific belief then this is what I'm trying to define.  It's okay if it can't be known to us... I still think it needs to be included in the definitions, even if it's just so that point can be made.

Congratulations QuasarX, and thank you for introducing this idea.  As I read this topic, I see you've had some similar thoughts like me (and a heap of yours) and much better said. My stomach is too sensitive for axiomatic and formal definitions.  You don't have to agree with me, but from my perspective I see your thinking as a progress in welcomed direction, towards what I know. I'm not here to force you to believe what I know, it's not possible nor right. Everyone's own, original insight is valuable here.

I will sometimes use a term of 'frequency', to differ more "spiritual" and less "spiritual" things. It's probably a jargon therm, not invented by me, but it fits well. You know, when an object vibrates or moves, it becomes blurry. When it starts to move faster, it's less visible. In a certain speed, it may be almost invisible, like an air propeller. It's an optical phenomenon (and  how fast an eye can perceive, which is 25 fps) but if you imagine this change in visibility as an equivalent change in solidity, materiality of the object, you will get a provisorily accurate idea, what are the spiritual "frequencies". This is just my opinion how to metaphorically explain this term to those who never heard it before, whole theory is, for now, a bit too complicated me. Fortunately it's just a technical detail, which is not an obstacle with a work with spiritual phenomena.

I have a remark to your latter definition of the word 'spiritual':
Spiritual - having the quality of being a component of life or a form of life which is not biochemical, electrical, or thermal. 
Energy, like electricity (or heat in different cases) is a lower aspect of a certain spiritual phenomenon. Higher aspects of this can be considered 'spiritual'. Nikola Tesla discovered higher aspects of electric energy, which doesn't seem like a classic electricity. Capacitors can, at certain circumstances, produce special effects, which could be best described as a 'spiritual' phenomena, powered enough to be manifested in a physical reality. For example, as extraordinarily big purely white lightning, seeming more like an atmospheric plasma jolts, not heating the room, but creating a cold breeze instead. Other Tesla's inventions works extremely well, out of bounds of contemporary science. The point is, that spiritual phenomena are a part of reality and under some circumstances can more than visibly interact with physical reality. This is, why we want to know them, not just to dwell in spiritual worlds, but to bring this knowledge into a physical existence.
Material world is a part of a spiritual world. It's like a frequency spectrum, the low end is matter, and it goes up through specific spiritual "frequencies" in which human life is also active, to very high, where it's currently unknowable. It's one spectrum. "Spirit" is superior to matter, it's higher on the spectrum, by understanding the "spirit" we become superior, just as early people by discovering a fire became superior to wild animals, darkness and cold.

I claim, that certain spiritual phenomena are real and must be studied in order to achieve a greater scientific understanding of the world. Such a discovery would give us a great vistas of new inventions and technical solutions. Etheric-material and spiritual levels of existence are subtle and not obvious to notice at first, but the more of possibilities they provide. For example, etheric matter is not necessarily limited by gravity, kinematics and the speed of light! (unless it's made to do so) Even better, solid matter is convertible on etheric matter, and etheric on solid. And we're still in a material area of existence, there are more to discover, with their own sets of qualities. In that direction of development we're on the very beginning.
Whatever scientific enlightment we have today, it's more like a tinderbox, compared to what expects us, if we will research spiritual phenomena seriously, without sarcasm, negativistic -prove it- attitude (which is sometimes even a "first do my work for me and then I will get all the glory as an inventor of etheric matter" - attitude), and rigid ways of thinking. The concept (or in fact, whole n) of spiritual phenomena is as abstract for a scientist, as a 'smell' of neutrinos or 'spin' of elementary particles is for a laic. We, laics, understand it rather intuitively, but there must be eventually estabilished an exact understanding of these phenomena by a serious, systematic research.
But the good message is, that even these phenomena obeys a law of resonance, of action and result, energy preservation, and so on. Once you get the basics, it's workable as any other area of science.
I would be fascinated to read about properties of etheric matter in textbooks, about how matter behaves in this state, how it interacts with non-etheric physical matter, and how to make it interact.

Until then, if anyone will do such a research, I'm ready to provide both less and more detailed schematics of these main "frequencies" of reality and their "sub-frequencies", they might be helpful. Of course, such an effort will first have to find a way how to interact with etheric-material objects on a laboratory basis. Then we can speak about proving something. For it will be needed people who can less or more interact at least with etheric matter, who don't lie and are not mistaken. Among such people an interpersonal confirmation is more than possible, it makes things objective. I modestly count myself among them, but I wouldn't want to have my ass dragged around by paparazzi and printed in all media of the world. I would have to move my social life to canals, in case something would go wrong. If I'm right, in science the reputation is everything. This area must be cleaned from controversy, it's so hot that mere speaking of it publically can burn your nose and put a proverbial butter on a head*. Here, mere writing about
Theoretically, I would be just one of assistants in such a research, it would allow me to gather enough of foolishness to go battling a windmills of academic science, with people who insist on philosophic playing with words and mind exercises of logical validity. For an adequate salary, of course. Not sky high, I mean, I'm a modest guy.
I hope that at least the greed for glory and knowledge will convince enough scientists to do  another amazing discovery and eventually get a well earned glory and knowledge. I'm not a scientist, it's NOT up to me to prove my claims.
Wanting me to do it would be like a Mary Curie Sklodowski would yell at a radium to get the hell out of a heap of uranite and to get to a nearest academy to introduce itself to her scientific colleagues. Driving her in a barouche by the way.

* that's a local saying, to have 'a butter on head' it's like when reporters catches a politician secretly doing something stupid

See research and books of Robert Allan Monroe, in the Monroe Institute, Virginia.
His discoveries are similar to which many spiritual explorers and mystics claims, just performed by an atheistic, materialistic man, originally audio technician and holder of several patents. Truth is more amazing than faith and fantasy, specially the truth of the etheric-material and spiritual aspects of reality. I'd just emphasize, that Mr. Monroe skipped the etheric-material states, he describes a stuff well above that, he quite overgrew his historical period.

'Supernatural' is of course a nonsense, it's oxymoron. But the rest is VERY subjective. You don't have defined these concepts previously, so you don't automatically understand them, but I've seen many others to understand it, rational people, of course. Develop your intuition man, don't wait for the system to expand, before your mind can expand.
As for 'justified belief, know so much from my everyday experience, that it refutes any officially known explanations and a true nature of it is quite what I observe. If anyone wants to know more about it, they must know what I know and more. A minute of living in my body would convince every sceptic in the world, and I live in that body much longer. Justified belief? It sounds like a great underestimation, but yes, according to the new QuasarX's definition, it's a justified belief. I didn't once catch a glimpse of a ghosty figure in a dark hallway, I can repeat my experience anytime I want. Several times per day, no problem. It's like you can't switch off your sense of touch. I know what I perceive, I have an access to an extensive theoretical background, which is coherent with what I perceive. (which I didn't write) It's also coherent with experiences of a few of people who I met personally, and similar things described people through the internet.


Where's the problem? Do you know what is natural? That's only a question of contemporary conventions.
What you say, it's like you'd take a wire and say: "there can't go any images or sounds through there, it's all solid metal!"
For all I know, 'spiritual' definitely doesn't mean 'non-natural'.



As for the definition of life, I think like that - does it have DNA? It's alive. It has no DNA? Then it's not alive. This approach may be practical. However, with an exploration of spiritual phenomena we may find a certain degree of life even in minerals, a certain aura of them if you want to say so, on non-material level. "There are various degrees of livingness, as there are various degrees of knowledge", that's an original quote from a certain man.
As for a physical, biologic life, the DNA is a fairly accurate definition, I think.

The Truth? It may be only a complete definition of everything, everywhere in all times. There's an axiom, that a copy of system can not be any less complicated than the system itself. All small truths relates only to a circumstances they are in, they're, as I would say it, small stones on one mount of reality. These stones may be on opposite sides of a mount, so they may appear contradictional, but they're both 'true', in their own circumstances.
For example, in discussion with theist, a theistic claim that "man is sinful, so he was cast out of the paradise". Eating the apple against God's order is a transgression of law. In greater sense of understanding, the man proved a sense of curiosity and initiative by taking the apple against the God's order, and was evaluated as capable of surviving outside, able of a further development, and was set free to a wilderness. So, if curiosity is sinful, then we're sinful, but in fact, curiosity is  intended by God and useful for us, thus not sinful. Without taking that initiative, we could live in the paradise as ignorant animals forever, or more likely, God would eliminate the unsuccesful specimens and try another prototype
So, a one statement may be differently precise, according to circumstances, and may even by evolution of understanding become too unprecise, thus false. In that past time, the original, unprecise understanding is the best we could achieve at the moment, but there's no reason to keep it forever. Unlike you can see in every church.

Trust me, the era of exact knowledge isn't over yet. In fact, the "spiritual" phenomena must be all felt, experienced, lived through, mastered, but also applied in real life, precisely described, classified, taught along with arithmetics and reading, further researched and applied into technology, which will improve the life of everyone.
This is a task for all, and you do your job by feeling these truths, to receive an energy and to spread it around, someone else's job is to explore the aspects actively, and someone other teaches the boring, but necessary details on lectures. 
 

Wait for a few years, about two or three, the world hopefully will be in AWE even more than it was for a whole week in 1995  

 

 

Many modern-day scientists possess an abiding faith in the
spiritual. However, these same scientists are caught in a pro-
found conflict between their personal and professional be-
liefs. What they say and what they feel may contradict each
other profoundly. It is difficult to be “objective” about mat-
ters of the heart and spirit. Scientists may compartmental-
ize their faith and can’t conceive of verifying or validating
their spiritual intuition. In other cases they may water down
the nature of those beliefs to maintain some consistency with
their intellectual understanding. Perhaps they simply ignore
the presence of angels and demons in essential scriptures,
or regard them as symbolic or as hallucinatory manifesta-
tions of an overactive religious imagination.

Lack of open dialogue about these issues makes it much more
difficult to even imagine enlarging our view of the reality of
nonmaterial realms using scientific methods. What would
happen to the study of spirit realms if we could access them
reliably using molecules like DMT?

In addition to questions regarding the existence of nonma-
terial or spiritual worlds, we also must consider expanding
the notion of what we may perceive in them. Can our spiri-
tual and religious structures encompass what truly resides
within these different levels of existence? The stories we’re
about to hear go beyond reasonably “straightforward” en-
counters with the Divine or angels, nor are they especially
neat, tidy, or in accordance with what we consider within
the realm of “expectable” spiritual experiences.

I’m hopeful that these reports will accelerate interest in the
nonmaterial realms, using whatever intellectual, intuitive,
and technological tools we possess. Once there is enough
interest in, and even demand for, information about them,
such phenomena might become an acceptable topic for ra-
tional inquiry. Ironically, we may have to rely more upon sci-
ence, especially the freewheeling fields of cosmology and
theoretical physics, than on our more conservative religious
traditions for satisfactory models and explanations of these
“spirit-world” experiences.  - Rick Straussman: DMT The Spirit Molecule

 

 

 

Science help us all!

-RR