Tao And Science

[Balance]

Studies show that the brain processes 400 Billion bits of information per second but most are only aware of 2000 of those bits per second.

 

Quantum theory suggests 11 dimensions. Imagine being suddenly exposed to another dimension, then try and imagine being exposed to Ten other dimensions instantly.

 

This movie as a series of videos supports Taoist theory and humankind's most advanced comprehension of what we experience as "Reality".

 

Beyond this is the search for the God Particle by the LHC.

 

"What The Bleep Do We Know, Down The Rabbit Hole" Part One;

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tSk51Lp-vHU&feature=player_embedded

Edited April 23, 2010 by Balance

[Balance]

Referenced in the movie above, the work of Dr. Masaru Emoto;

 

Edited November 27, 2010 by Balance

[goldisheavy]

It's very dumb to use the word "science" to try to bolster the credibility of Taoism. Taoism is not scientific and has nothing to do with science and never will.

 

Scientists themselves hate when spiritual people co-opt science for their selfish purposes. Most scientists categorically disagree with "What the bleep do we know" material. And by most I mean 99.999%. There are maybe one or two scientists that are considered "loons" that do agree.

 

Leave science be. If you want to know what science thinks, talk to real scientists. Don't use propaganda movies like "What the bleep do we know" for your information.

 

As spiritual people we should try to be intellectually honest. It is very dishonest to say that science backs Taoism. In this way we hurt both science and Taoism.

Edited April 23, 2010 by goldisheavy

[Balance]

In some cultures Spirituality and science were one.

 

Thank you for your judgment of my ignorance on this subject.

Edited April 23, 2010 by Balance

[Ramon25]

It's very dumb to use the word "science" to try to bolster the credibility of Taoism. Taoism is not scientific and has nothing to do with science and never will.

 

Scientists themselves hate when spiritual people co-opt science for their selfish purposes. Most scientists categorically disagree with "What the bleep do we know" material. And by most I mean 99.999%. There are maybe one or two scientists that are considered "loons" that do agree.

 

Leave science be. If you want to know what science thinks, talk to real scientists. Don't use propaganda movies like "What the bleep do we know" for your information.

 

As spiritual people we should try to be intellectually honest. It is very dishonest to say that science backs Taoism. In this way we hurt both science and Taoism.

 

Boy are you wrong.

[Ramon25]

damn so wrong, I just had to say it agin. Especially the 99.99 percent, and the one or two loons. Woow that stinks of wrong

[Oleg Galkin]

In some cultures Spirituality and science were one.

 

I absolutely agree with you. The examples are - Chinese astrology and numerology, Zodiac astrology. All of these are combination of natural science corresponding to an observation of celestial bodies and the laws of their interaction with earth, and spirituality (interpretation of these laws). Do you know that even Leibniz derived binary numeral system from the Chinese Book of Changes (I Ching), which is used in divinations even in our days?

[UTI]

"The Field" by Lynne McTaggart does an awesome job linking together science and religion. Everyone should read it, at least a dozen times. I'm just getting started on my second round.

 

"McTaggart, an investigative journalist, describes scientific discoveries that she believes point to a unifying concept of the universe, one that reconciles mind with matter, classic Newtonian science with quantum physics and, most importantly, science with religion. At issue is the zero point field, the so-called "dead space" of microscopic vibrations in outer space as well as within and between physical objects on earth. These fields, McTaggart asserts, are a "cobweb of energy exchange" that link everything in the universe; they control everything from cellular communication to the workings of the mind, and they could be harnessed for unlimited propulsion fuel, levitation, ESP, spiritual healing and more. Physicists have been aware of the likelihood of this field for years, McTaggart writes, but, constrained by orthodoxy, they have ignored its effects, which she likens to "subtracting out God" from their equations. But, McTaggart asserts, "tiny pockets of quiet rebellion" against scientific convention are emerging, led by Ed Mitchell, an Apollo 14 astronaut and founder of the Institute for Noetic Sciences, an alternative-science think tank. McTaggart writes well and tells a good story, but the supporting data here is somewhat sketchy. Until it materializes, McTaggart may have to settle for being a voice in the wilderness.

 

Sketchy supporting data or not, it's an excellent read, and it TRULY ties Taoism to science. Not to say all other religion.

[Taomeow]

It's very dumb to use the word "science" to try to bolster the credibility of Taoism. Taoism is not scientific and has nothing to do with science and never will.

 

Scientists themselves hate when spiritual people co-opt science for their selfish purposes. Most scientists categorically disagree with "What the bleep do we know" material. And by most I mean 99.999%. There are maybe one or two scientists that are considered "loons" that do agree.

 

Leave science be. If you want to know what science thinks, talk to real scientists. Don't use propaganda movies like "What the bleep do we know" for your information.

 

As spiritual people we should try to be intellectually honest. It is very dishonest to say that science backs Taoism. In this way we hurt both science and Taoism.

 

--Moderator's warning:

 

one too many posts of yours lately calling other members' thoughts "very dumb" and "absolutely crazy" in violation of the insult policy. Please cease and desist.

 

--Moderator's sword sheathed

[That Guy]

It's very dumb to use the word "science" to try to bolster the credibility of Taoism. Taoism is not scientific and has nothing to do with science and never will.

 

Scientists themselves hate when spiritual people co-opt science for their selfish purposes. Most scientists categorically disagree with "What the bleep do we know" material. And by most I mean 99.999%. There are maybe one or two scientists that are considered "loons" that do agree.

 

Leave science be. If you want to know what science thinks, talk to real scientists. Don't use propaganda movies like "What the bleep do we know" for your information.

 

As spiritual people we should try to be intellectually honest. It is very dishonest to say that science backs Taoism. In this way we hurt both science and Taoism.

But if he believes it to be, then it will be! Thats all it takes right? just like flying

[buscon]

In some cultures Spirituality and science were one.

 

 

Actually I'd say that every culture connects spirituality with science, even ours

But since around 1600, our knowledge has been splitted in little pieces, and "real" science emerged to be more "serious", leaving behind the connections with humanistic sciences, spirituality; this lead to alienation and unconscious technical connection with the spiritual level.

 

As taoists, we should try to find this connection again, in our daily life.

[Cloudhand]

Actually I'd say that every culture connects spirituality with science, even ours

But since around 1600, our knowledge has been splitted in little pieces, and "real" science emerged to be more "serious", leaving behind the connections with humanistic sciences, spirituality; this lead to alienation and unconscious technical connection with the spiritual level.

 

As taoists, we should try to find this connection again, in our daily life.

 

 

The method of science and the practice of spirituality go together like a horse and carriage. Or shall we say Yin and Yang. Cloud

[effilang]

[Marblehead]

Hi All,

 

Okay. I am going to do something I rarely do. I am going to defend someone I have had previous personal disagreements with.

 

I understand what GiH was point to and I do agree with him to a certain degree although I do not condone the negativity connoted in the post.

 

I think GiH has taken an extreme position on this issue but in his mind his position is valid.

 

I do not accept his conclusion because I do believe that Philosophical Taoism is very consistent with the goals of science, that is, to observe and understand.

 

There is always a conflict, IMO, when we try to mutually support science and spirituality, and especially religion. If any belief system is based on faith there will be incompatibilities. They do not always support each other.

 

I will admit my bias for Philosophical Taoism. I have no problem with that. But I have found nothing in my belief system that is inconsistent with the goals of science.

 

Please, let us tread lightly on this subject because it is a sensitive subject for most here on this board.

 

Peace & Love!

[Balance]

Thank You all for your wise thoughts here, may everyone perceive this illusion as you do, I am thankful to have found a place where such progressive discourse takes place. After reading through the posts here so far and the wisdom they express, there is only one sentence that will be addressed directly.

 

Marblehead wrote; "If any belief system is based on faith there will be incompatibilities."

 

My faith in my personal belief of there being only energy as the source of everything, allows for the righteousness of everything and all other beliefs.

Blessings, B

[Marblehead]

Marblehead wrote; "If any belief system is based on faith there will be incompatibilities."

 

My faith in my personal belief of there being only energy as the source of everything, allows for the righteousness of everything and all other beliefs.

Blessings, B

 

But Balance, you do not need faith in order to hold to that understanding. That energy is the source of everything, if you accept the "Big Bang" theory and all that science has presented as fact to this point in time, is a given.

 

Faith, IMO, is only needed if we believe in something we cannot prove with sufficient confidence.

 

Peace & Love!

[Ramon25]

The field- lynn mctaggert- award winning investigative journalsit

The spiritual universe- fred alfred wolf- theortical physicist and college professor

The divine matrix- gregg braden -Computer Geologist

Hands of light- Barbara Brennan - former physicist for NASA

Science and the akashic field- ervin Lazlo- systems theorist, has won the japanese nobel peace prize and bin nominated for the regular won several times

The biology of belief- bruce lipton- Won the japansese peace prize, award winning cellular biologist, A pioneer in the science of epigenetics

Physics of the soul- amit goswami, PHD quantum mechanics college proffesor

 

Thats just A FEW, We you like me to continue?

Edited April 23, 2010 by Ramon25

[Balance]

But Balance, you do not need faith in order to hold to that understanding. That energy is the source of everything, if you accept the "Big Bang" theory and all that science has presented as fact to this point in time, is a given.

 

Faith, IMO, is only needed if we believe in something we cannot prove with sufficient confidence.

 

Peace & Love!

 

Mh, Faith does not require me to hold or stand under anything! My belief allows you to be correct in yours, even if you believe in the "Big Bang" or anything else.

 

Faith provides confidence so there is no need to accept or prove anything.

Edited April 23, 2010 by Balance

[Marblehead]

Faith provides confidence so there is no need to accept or prove anything.

 

You said that better than I have.

 

Can you tell I don't care too much for the word 'faith'? Hehehe.

 

Peace & Love!

[Ramon25]

I like evidence based faith.

Edited April 23, 2010 by Ramon25

[Marblehead]

I like evidence based faith.

 

Hehehe. Okay. You did good too.

 

Peace & Love!

[~jK~]

[Samuel]

And by most I mean 99.999%. There are maybe one or two scientists that are considered "loons" that do agree.

 

I liked this, I found it very entertaining. As a Taoist and a biologist, (I have a week left before the first year of my degree ends), I have to say that science seems to provide more and more evidence for the existence for the Tao, (though I gather that the majority of you need no proof of its existence ). The more I study biology the more I see a nearly perfect world that functions without the intervention of any man. Everything works perfectly and it is only when man begins to play about with bits and pieces of it, and perceive himself to be apart from it, does it begin to fall apart, (Chapter 39 of the TTC illustrates this for me, when taken literally). It is such a shame, that our societies take an affected view of themselves, to assume they are above the plants and animals, and thus are content to watch them perish. Shame on them.

 

On a happier note...

Hope y'all have a good day.

 

Sam

[gendao]

It's very dumb to use the word "science" to try to bolster the credibility of Taoism. Taoism is not scientific and has nothing to do with science and never will.

Spoken like a true materialist Marxist...lol.

 

Have you ever heard of Niels Bohr, though? He was a well-known quantum mechanics physicist of the Copenhagen School who was heavily-influenced by Taoism. And thus chose the Taiji as the centerpiece for his coat-of-arms:

Edited April 27, 2010 by vortex

[Cueball]

I wonder if relevant to this topic is the difference between overriding paradigms vs individual research programmes and peer reviewed evidence. Bohr and others showed a deep feel for the esoteric. But what takes root personally isn't what counts to the professional community in most cases. Such is the backbone of scientific empiricism, for better or for worse.

 

Inspiration or personal conclusion is one thing, but in a Kuhnian sense, the dominant paradigm is only likely to budge with a development of both theoretical structure and a body of evidence. Both of which have to go someway beyond what is taken as 'normal' science these days.

 

It's interesting to see what will happen.