Science and Physics in Religion

[Jakara]

I was reading a post the other day that reminded me of so many recent articles using scientific terminology to explain religious practice. Most of us do not have an education in quantum physics (the new buzzword in explaining religious experience) and therefore I’d like to help shed some light on the matter as a physicist.

 

So why do people use science to try to explain religious practice? Well since the decline of the religious institution as a powerful authority over society, we turn to science to explain events. Why? Because scientists can prove without a doubt those events studied with reproducible experiments or a set of mathematical formulae which cannot be flawed. From these proofs we have things like modern technology and medicine.

 

The problem is that these proofs are sometimes out of reach of the average person, and therefore we are told to “believe” that science works just like we would any religion. This creates a multitude of problems. People can pass anything off under some fancy words like “quantum physics” and we buy it because we don’t know any better after “believing” in science. This is called “blinding with science”. The people that do this know the recipient knows nothing of the technical things they talk about and the recipient believes its true as to not look stupid.

 

You may have noticed how shampoo and cosmetic advertisements do this, blasting us with scientific terminology and certain “proofs” to get us to buy their products. If you are a scientist and you do understand the terms they are putting forward, you can’t help but a) laugh at the ridiculous fluff they put forward for what is essentially liquid soap, and feel sorry for those who fall for it. They put forward this pseudo-science because we are taught it is flawless and therefore believe in it without question.

 

So in a world where we believe what we are told, and we are told to believe in science, anyone affiliated with science will be given credit. But this is against the whole point of scientific investigation.

 

Science is not a belief system. It is a set of tools used to prove what the truth is. It is heavily dependent on having “the right tools for the job”. Science does not yet have the necessary tools to investigate religious practices as a whole, hence, for example, we cannot “prove” god does or does not exist.

 

However we can use repeatable experiment to prove the claims of some people. If a person publicly claims they can do something, they better be able to do it repeatedly and be able to prove it. If we don’t ask for proof we are just following like sheep because we are told to do so. If the person claims we should have faith that they can do it without proof, then we are following a belief and not a proven subject.

 

This does not mean we should be rude in our pursuits giving discredit to anyone who does not wish to prove anything, by all means not everybody cares about proof, it does not mean they can’t do the things they claim. But we should be weary of such claims and accept that without proof we are following a belief, which may cost you your time and money if it is not true.

 

Since quantum physics is used so much - here is what it is! Quantum physics is a set of tools used to explain the behaviour of very small, fundamental particles/waves in nature. It is necessary because at these levels, common sense (Newtonian Physics) does not apply coherently. The word “Quantum” or “Quanta” means “the smallest possible amount”. For example, a “photon” is one “quanta” of light, you cannot have a half, or indeed anything less than one quantum of anything. This non-divisibility gives rise to various behaviours in particles and waves which are modelled with quantum physics.

 

Quantum physics therefore does not lend credit to any set of practices. The only thing it does do is create an interesting phenomenon called the “Heisenberg uncertainty principle”, (Wiki it if you’re interested) It also explains that a particle can be in two states at the same time, when classically it is impossible and should only be in one state or the other. It only decides to be in one state when someone measures or observes it. It’s like saying a person is both dead and alive at the same time, but they only are alive when we see them. Or saying the moon does not exist unless we look at it.

 

These analogies are flawed due to them being a composite of many particles, which breaks down the quantum effect into classical mechanics.

These philosophical interpretations however are relished by religions eager to jump on the science bandwagon.

 

So, if you see scientific terms used to explain religious practice, don't be afriad to ask "how" they explain them, even if you can't understand the answer, you can check it later by asking someone who does, or watch as that person cannot infact justify using science as an explanation.

 

Now, if you didn't get anything else from reading this, atleast you can now laugh at commercials claiming to have a “Quantum Leap” in performance, as that does denote the smallest possible leap forward in performance available.

 

Thanks,

Jak

Edited December 5, 2007 by Jakara

[sheng zhen]

Yes, I agree. People who use quentum physics to explain their world view or healing power dosent really know what they are talking about. Like "quantum healing"! Its just crazy to claim such a thing when you use a machine running on electricity! Frequency healing would be fair, but calling it "quantum" is just for the commercial effect.

 

The quantum physics equations dosent explained anything else than what is happening to very very few particles. I think the bigges particle they have observed quantum abilities is about 50 particles, if I remember correctly. And if it is used to explain behaviours of billions of particles, like in a tennisball moving along a given path, the Shroedingers equation gives the same result as Newtons equations.

 

I went head strong into the university with spiritual fundament only to get all these models of explanation crushed. Its really funny to watch great masters explain these thing just from their so called "amazing" ability to tune in to the reality behind quantum physics. Its no more substantial than shampoo commercials.

 

I heard one master explain the reason rivers grow bigger downstream... it was because the water molecules quantum-mechanically duplicated themselves all the time. He could see it with his inner eye. And he was serious!

 

BUT! Still! The scientific language gives us a way to try to explain these spiritual things to the modern mind. Scince we dont speak chinese or tibetian we try to explain these things in english. Then the scientific language comes in handy.

 

But we should keep the different consepts separated. Those speaking of quantum physics should know, and admit to themselves, that it has nothing to do with the quantum physics in science. Those speaking of energy should be clear about it not meaning scientific concepts of potential or kinetic energy.

 

These are just word we use to explain our worldview. And we should know that it is just words, not the whole and nothing-but-the-whole truth.

Edited December 5, 2007 by sheng zhen

[Jakara]

Excellent yes. Those who choose words like "magnetic", "quantum", "energy" should perhaps choose carefully before using them to explain experiences.

 

In my opinion religious practice is amazing enough without the need to add pseudo-science to make it more palletable for the general public.

 

Perhaps when science has the right tools for the job we can explain all religious experience, but until then we should probably refrain from throwing around physics terms.

 

Infact ill start a new thread for debunking....

 

Thanks,

Jak

[Wayfarer64]

So what, now the quantum that can be spoken of is not the quantum that can be experienced ... or is it that with greater knowledge some wisdom may be forthcomming and shared with some sort of cosmic insight...!?

 

Taoism was once said to be the precurser of modern science -in as much as the study of natural forces has long been a basic part of Taoist tradition.

So no matter what you study in the natural world we are still just discecting the Tao...

 

Scientists do this in a way that may be new or pehaps not so new...

In any case i think all insight leading to a greater understanding of how this universe works can be construed as studying the Tao...

 

What we don't know can't help us - and even meager understanding can sometimes lead to insights that those who are more emmersed in a sytem of thought or even just a problem within that system can fathom...I've seen that happen time and again when outside thinkers solved issues that those in the midst of things didn't see clearly...

 

I say enjoy the explorations as yr able...

[Djshorty]

Hey Jakara,

Thanks for your insights. I just watched the Enemies of Reason right before I read your thread. It's a documentary carried out by Richard Dawkins that attempts to show how illogical ppl are by turning to alternative medicine (at least this is what I got from it). Although I disagree with a lot of what he says, I find that he also provides some interesting things on which to think. You can watch it here http://video.google.co.uk/videoplay?docid=...837385783230047.

 

Let me know what you think

Peace

 

So what, now the quantum that can be spoken of is not the quantum that can be experienced ... or is it that with greater knowledge some wisdom may be forthcomming and shared with some sort of cosmic insight...!?

 

Taoism was once said to be the precurser of modern science -in as much as the study of natural forces has long been a basic part of Taoist tradition.

So no matter what you study in the natural world we are still just discecting the Tao...

 

Scientists do this in a way that may be new or pehaps not so new...

In any case i think all insight leading to a greater understanding of how this universe works can be construed as studying the Tao...

 

What we don't know can't help us - and even meager understanding can sometimes lead to insights that those who are more emmersed in a sytem of thought or even just a problem within that system can fathom...I've seen that happen time and again when outside thinkers solved issues that those in the midst of things didn't see clearly...

 

I say enjoy the explorations as yr able...

[sheng zhen]

Hey Jakara,

Thanks for your insights. I just watched the Enemies of Reason right before I read your thread. It's a documentary carried out by Richard Dawkins that attempts to show how illogical ppl are by turning to alternative medicine (at least this is what I got from it). Although I disagree with a lot of what he says, I find that he also provides some interesting things on which to think. You can watch it here http://video.google.co.uk/videoplay?docid=...837385783230047.

 

Let me know what you think

Peace

HAhaha! "the enemies of reason"... ooooo, scary! We relly need to take them down before its too late! I guess this is what Bush is going after when his done with the "enemies of democracy"!

 

Joking aside, I didnt whatch the whole clip. Looks like it has some very interesting things. Science is a lot of fun, and alternative medicine has a lot of crap, and vice versa. But none of them represents the truth. Its just like the war going on between religions. None of them represents God. They only represent their own powerstruggles.

 

Thanks for posting this clip!

[Jakara]

My point was that religious organizations are extremley quick to assert their religious dogma where there are currently gaps in scientific understanding, or where the average person has no means to verify their claim. For example, I once heard a qi gong master describe qi as the potential energy stored in the gap between electrons and nuclei in atoms. Which is absolute rubbish.

 

I think the romantic notion of knowing something that goes against establishment and proving the skeptics wrong is a strong one. Einstein for example had to do this, but he had excellent mathematical proof, it was just at the time there were only a handful of people capable of understanding the proof.

This is a long shot from some of the crackpots trying to put forward romantic theories today.

 

Richard Dawkins is amusing, he had great arguements that debunk a lot of the fluff, but like all extremists (he is an extreme atheist) he takes his ideas and applies them so widely that they are applied out of proper context.

For example one can dispute that god made the world 6000 years ago because there is undeniable evidence of things to the contrary, like dinosaurs to name just one. But Dawkins goes further to say "there is no god" which is inappropriate as there is no proper evidence to completely support this. True scientists can only goes on what is scientifically proven, otherwise its personal belief.

[Wayfarer64]

Dawkins may be brillient, but I think he has become an extremist as he creates back-lash against the creationists and their ignorant ilk...I understand his outrage at the religiosity that claims myth as fact- but he goes much too far in refuting the spiritual componant of our shared reality.

 

Some of us have had experiences that can be discussed and even documented but may also be trublesome to explain in sensible "scientific" terminology. The realm of spiritual questing may in fact, be troublesome to some scientists -just because there are so few ways to "measure" our experiences...

 

I for one have an inkling that when science points to mind as being an active componant in "creating our reality"-vis-a-vis matter having a different form when observed or not observed etc...this is where we can come together as seekers of truth under various and seemingly contradicting disciplines...

 

Truth is not always a matter of perspective- sometimes it is just the way things are...

But every mind has a different set of values that weigh our truths and make them our own...Science for some has become a sort of religion that offers a world-view and cosmology that rings true to many of us. But for some there are greater truths that may be harder to catagorize, label and explain.

 

I for one believe science will one day find ways to explain what now seems extraordinary...

Onlythe future will tell...

[Jakara]

On a very small scale our reality in terms of physics is already shaped by our perception. Small particles behave differently after they have been observed. This creates the whole Schrodinger's cat paradox. Wikipedia Schrodinger's cat, its a great mind experiment :-)

 

Though in the end I get the feeling that this limitation is due to the limitations of the human senses. In order to observe very small particles we must reflect light off them so our eyes can receive the light to perceive them.

The problem is once we hit them with light, they gain energy! So their state is not the same as when we first wanted to observe them.

 

Observation therefore effects the outcome of the physical reality (on a very small scale!)

Edited December 9, 2007 by Jakara

[Wayfarer64]

On a very small scale our reality in terms of physics is already shaped by our perception. Small particles behave differently after they have been observed. This creates the whole Schrodinger's cat paradox. Wikipedia Schrodinger's cat, its a great mind experiment :-)

 

Though in the end I get the feeling that this limitation is due to the limitations of the human senses. In order to observe very small particles we must reflect light off them so our eyes can receive the light to perceive them.

The problem is once we hit them with light, they gain energy! So their state is not the same as when we first wanted to observe them.

 

Observation therefore effects the outcome of the physical reality (on a very small scale!)

 

This is a sensible explanation. But I for one do not negate the possibility that much of what we are -particularly on the molecular level ...is a shared experience, perhaps even a construct created from within ourselves at some level - or consciousness -or that which notes our own mind - whatever we wish to call the inner observer that can watch mind and matter both - but holds itself apart and is ascending in its' nature...as "heaven" or some realm apart from the mundane reality and its' scientific reasoning.

In fact that which can not be explained or catagorized at all - beyond reason and even imagination...Sacred and profound in its nature...A sort of "original" source of energy and matter...To use yr forbidden terminology...

 

I choose to call that source of being the Tao- it seems to me to be a likely aspect of my shared experience...

[Jakara]

I get the feeling that scientists are very popular. Im not sure why, its probably a media portrait, the majority of us want to help everyone and help better the world. If science wasn't around we would still be stuck under the rules and dogma of religion, burning or jailing people for having heretic opinions.

 

Physicists don't want to poke holes in everything religious and sit there laughing at anything that can't be proven with equations - contrary to the modern view. True scientists prove what they can with the tools they have available and leave the rest alone. Think how many frauds and scams there would be if we couldn't prove anything with science.

 

Ok there are some like Dawkins who perhaps go to far and unfortunately they are the ones that the media reports. Why? It sells stories! All we see is what sells stories and they are always going to be the most extreme of scientists with highly opinionated views. Its not an accurate representation of the other 99.9% of us.

 

Anyway, non-existence of proof is not proof of non-existence. Scientists can't say that Taoist theory or any other religious theory is false. But at the same time those religions shouldn't try to use science to back their point of view when it is not appropriate to do so.

 

Mundane reality? Have you looked up at the stars? :-)

Edited December 10, 2007 by Jakara

[Wayfarer64]

 

Mundane reality? Have you looked up at the stars? :-)

 

I try to spend time with the stars every night that clouds allow. I have done so for several decades... I am not saying that reality is merely mundane. I only wished to make a differentiation.

 

I see little difference between scientists and any other demographic. There are vain and silly people in all walks of life as there are also a few profound thinkers and doers of meaningful deeds.

 

My main point is that Taoism has a tradition of explaining our world/universe in terms of observed phenomina, not just the reading of lore/scripture. There is a basis of rational thought that is not dogmatic, but plyable to circumstances. The essence of understanding a conceptual " Tao " is the realization that everything will change.

 

My meager understanding of physics leads me to believe that the assumption of change is a given in most equations as well...For me this is a biggining to a more fact-based cosmology than is usual in most religions (and shouldn't be abhorant to rationalists)...

 

There is common ground that may be useful for communications between disciplines. If the use of terms gets in the way, then that is a problem of perception and mind-set for us all...

 

Defining terms is usually a good start for any discussion, but cutting off the usage of words due to some high-fallutin' notions of superior understanding of those terms will never help communications between disciplines.

 

Much of what is shared here is rather esoteric - if not obscure to many, we make allowences and try to explain ourselves as best we are able. Many of us do not have English as our first language, and math and science use terms that are perhaps more universally understood than we assume is possible between language groups.

 

If the French can make it a national policy to do-away with non-french terminology for their everyday usage, than why not go along with the scientific community banning the use of "their" terminologies by nonscientists???

 

Communication is more important than pride, thats why!!! - IMHO...

[Jakara]

Scientific terminology is not "banned" by anyone. Saying that a specific scientific theory can prove something when there is no evidence to support that claim is a no-no in my opinion, and in the opinion of most people. Its pretty much outright lying, or just plain ignorance. Neither of which should be common practice for a master of mindfulness and meditation.

 

Im not saying we cannot use scientific words to describe experience, thats not what i mean. Im saying we shouldnt claim that science supports our theory if it doesn't. I have seen many pracitioners do this. Not just use a few scientific words here and there, but actually say "Quantum physics supports this" when it clearly doesn't.

 

Its a deceitful tactic used to gain the support of the gerenal public because most people do not have the scientific knowledge to challenge the statement.

 

Im not having a go at religious people as I myself am religious. Im offering to help explain away any scientific terms that some teachers use that aren't understandable to anyone who hasn't studied physics at degree level. That way its easy to weed out any bogus claims and help show the way to safe and proven practices.

 

It saves time and money for all.

[Wayfarer64]

 

Im not saying we cannot use scientific words to describe experience, thats not what i mean. Im saying we shouldnt claim that science supports our theory if it doesn't. I have seen many pracitioners do this. Not just use a few scientific words here and there, but actually say "Quantum physics supports this" when it clearly doesn't.

 

Its a deceitful tactic used to gain the support of the gerenal public because most people do not have the scientific knowledge to challenge the statement.

 

Im not having a go at religious people as I myself am religious. Im offering to help explain away any scientific terms that some teachers use that aren't understandable to anyone who hasn't studied physics at degree level. That way its easy to weed out any bogus claims and help show the way to safe and proven practices.

 

It saves time and money for all.

 

I for one have many problems with religious people. They tend to be dogmatic and ignorant. I do not, however equate seekers of truthwith religious people. When scientists -who I generally trust as seekers after truth, disparage the use of any form of communication it is antithetical to my ideas of open-minded discourse.

 

There are several people from many disciplines who find parralles of thought in quantum theory and Taoist theory of how aspects of the universe work through time and space. That many of us do not have a working command of the scientific lingo of theze concepts does not mean there is no grasping of the concepts...

 

There should indeed be some room for much speculation as quantum itself is not accepted by all scientists - and the string theorists are tagging along with their own takes on these smallest of minutia...

 

If what you do to reach for truth is "invest" time and money then save both for better uses...

 

Our paths can not be bought -they may be recognized when we are most comfortible being ourselves or striving through hours of meditation... Satori-whatever...

 

If I have learned anything here at the Taobums -it is that we each need to find our own truths and their connections to consciousness and thus our world-views. Each is different and profoundly sacred in my estimation.

 

Imperical knowledge can be trusted far more than intuitive knowledge in many cases but not all...

 

Jakara-

My world view encludes both Scientific researching and Taoist practices plus other sources, I think it is very useful to have scientific terms to help explain our experiences, if you find fault with interpretations and deffinitions then please help define them as you have, but I may not agree with yr deffinitions or interpretations and that is just something we'll be able to discuss as well...

[doc benway]

A few cool things to check out regarding science vs religion:

- Any of the collaborative works between Jiddu Krishnamurti and David Bohm are an interesting example of interplay between a philosopher and scientist in discussing the nature of reality

- There have been a few books capturing discussions between the Dalai Lama and a variety of scientists - worthwhile reading.

- Time's Arrow and Archimedes' Point: New Directions for the Physics of Time by Huw Price - this is a really interesting treatise on the nature of time and how scientists make all sorts of unrecognized assumptions based on their own conditioning when it comes to time's effects on a variety of scientific settings. This results in sometimes inaccurate conclusions. Highly recommended but not easy reading.

 

"So why do people use science to try to explain religious practice?"

Scientific evidence or the scientific method is currently the standard against which our knowledge and assertions are judged. People use science or scientific concepts (often incorrectly) in advancing their products or arguments in an effort to lend credibility to what is really nothing more than a gratuitous assertion, much of the time. All regligious doctrines are gratuitous assertions. Daoism and Buddhism attempt to apply philosophical and spiritual principles to the study of the mind and the physical world in a systemitized and rational fashion. Unfortunately (or fortunately, depending on your view), the "stuff" they are dealing with is not measurable or tangible in such a way as to allow correct application of the scientific method.

[Jakara]

I really must say this again, that I was really talking in a specific context, not in generality. Im saying people who say their theory is definitely supported by quantum physics when it isn't, is misleading.

 

Theres a huge difference is saying "this is similar to a concept in quantum physics" and saying "this is proven and supported by quantum physics".

The first one is fine, it is interesting to compare religion and science, they are both meant to find the truth. The second one is simply a false statement aimed at lending credibility under the guise of scientific fact.

 

Yes infact all scientists do accept quantum physics, its a proven and solid framework that is used day in and day out, it explains how the Sun works for example, its not a matter of opinion. Not all scientists accept string theory, but string theory is out of my field so I couldn't comment why.

 

Some of the thought experiments that arise from quantum physics have similar context to religious doctrine, but they are not real experiments, they are designed to help the human brain understand. They are mostly just analogies. If a practitioner grasps at one of these analogies and says "See! this is just like our religion, and therefore quantum physics supports it!" its not correct.

 

Its like saying "Whats Taoism?" - "Oh well its like Christianity except they worship Lao Tzu and the Tao Te Ching is their bible". Its just not correct, its interpreted from a Christian viewpoint. We can't just look for parallels in other systems and say "Thats the same as ours so yours supports ours!". They may have similar concepts but its inappropriate to say one supports the other.

 

Perhaps its the fault of the scientists for not communicating modern science adequately to the general public. We are only left with crackpot internet conspiracy movies and the extreme opinions of some less than objective people (like Dawkins).

[sheng zhen]

Yes infact all scientists do accept quantum physics, its a proven and solid framework that is used day in and day out, it explains how the Sun works for example, its not a matter of opinion. Not all scientists accept string theory, but string theory is out of my field so I couldn't comment why.

Soon, very soon, we will maby get evidence of string theory. There is a new particle accelerator here in Europe that they just finished building. Soon theyre about to start their experiments. If they are able to see the particle that transmits gravity,dont remember what it is called, graviton maby, then string theory is prooved to be correct.

 

But we'll have to wait and see Maby we hear about some results next year.

 

And IF string theory is proved, I prophetize that the alternative new age community will go nuts saying that "my method and healing abilites has just been prooved by sting theory"! hahaha

[Wayfarer64]

Thanks Jakara,

 

Now I see where yr coming from with this and I can agree... In fact we get a lot of Buddhism = Taoism around here (from Buddhists mostly)...

 

It seems folks just want other people's ideas to support their own, however implausible the linkage may be...

I do appreciate yr input on this and the clarifications rang true for me...

 

I do however see linkages between scientific deductive reasoning and Taoist thought. It is not anything "across the board" -just some instances where observation outweighs theory/dogma as the basis for a construct...

 

The idea that we study our world to understand it - not just listen to mythology and dogma -is strong with Taoists as with scientists and there is a natural bridge that I think can be broadened between disciplines...

[joeblast]

Yes infact all scientists do accept quantum physics, its a proven and solid framework that is used day in and day out, it explains how the Sun works for example, its not a matter of opinion. Not all scientists accept string theory, but string theory is out of my field so I couldn't comment why.

I think the two biggest arguments against are background dependence and that its somewhat conjecture instead of theory at this point because its not developed enough to make testable predictions (not that this would disqualify it, imho.)

[Jakara]

 

I do however see linkages between scientific deductive reasoning and Taoist thought. It is not anything "across the board" -just some instances where observation outweighs theory/dogma as the basis for a construct...

 

The idea that we study our world to understand it - not just listen to mythology and dogma -is strong with Taoists as with scientists and there is a natural bridge that I think can be broadened between disciplines...

 

Me too, there are large parallels between Taoism, Buddhism and science, science just doesn't have the right tools for the job (yet) to see if they are the same :-)

 

I agree, Taoists and Buddhists are taught not to "believe" in stuff but to try the techniques for themselves and prove to themselves that it works.

 

Could be the Higgs Boson? Its the final piece of the puzzle to the "standard model" of particles. Its the particle that "gives mass" to all other particles. It has been predicted but not yet observed. Im out of my field here though, so i'd have to look it up.

[sheng zhen]

Could be the Higgs Boson? Its the final piece of the puzzle to the "standard model" of particles. Its the particle that "gives mass" to all other particles. It has been predicted but not yet observed. Im out of my field here though, so i'd have to look it up.

Thats right! Its the boson.

[joeblast]

Soon, very soon, we will maby get evidence of string theory. There is a new particle accelerator here in Europe that they just finished building. Soon theyre about to start their experiments. If they are able to see the particle that transmits gravity,dont remember what it is called, graviton maby, then string theory is prooved to be correct.

Definitely not the graviton...from what I understand that is going to be among the hardest of particles to detect. If you take into account a brane scenario where our 4d spacetime is embedded in a higher dimensional construct, gravitons are spin 2 closed loop strings that are not attached to our 4d brane and easily 'leak off,' perhaps accounting for the observed weakness of the gravitational force. Bosons and fermions (=known particles, electrons, protons and such as well as force particles/strings that convey electromagnetism, strong force, etc) are open ended strings and therefore 'stick' to our 4d brane.

 

Its too bad they canceled the accelerator that was supposed to go over here in the US, it was supposed to be significantly more powerful and had a better chance of detecting the higgs boson. Brian Greene wrote a good book that had a lot to do with the higgs boson, it was called The Fabric Of The Cosmos. One interesting part of it was regarding his analogies of the higgs field and how its most stable energy state was nonzero. Gives room above and below for fluctuation! yin/yang anyone?