Science and Mysticism?

Is there any way or method whereby science can study mystical experiences? Or are mystical experiences beyond the ability of science to study them?

By definition, mystical experiences are beyond your senses and intelligence -- heh, one dictionary definition for mysticism is actually "Vague, groundless speculation."

In spite of that, science has been used to examine SUPPOSED mystical experiences, by monitoring physiological characteristics in the body, and comparing this data to data from non-mystical experiences... Eg., near-death experiences share characteristics with high-G blackouts amongst pilots.

So I'd say science can be used to determine whether something ISN'T a mystical experience -- but by definition, there is nothing to be examined in a genuine mystical experience.

By definition, mystical experiences are beyond your senses and intelligence -- heh, one dictionary definition for mysticism is actually "Vague, groundless speculation."

In spite of that, science has been used to examine SUPPOSED mystical experiences, by monitoring physiological characteristics in the body, and comparing this data to data from non-mystical experiences... Eg., near-death experiences share characteristics with high-G blackouts amongst pilots.

So I'd say science can be used to determine whether something ISN'T a mystical experience -- but by definition, there is nothing to be examined in a genuine mystical experience.

Click to expand...

I agree with Voxton. Something which is mystical is beyond the realms of science and cannot be tested through scientific method. Magnetism, for example, was considered magickal until science was able to understand it. The same thing will likely happen with at least some of the things which we consider mystical today. But as soon as that happens, they are no longer mystical.

I think the author of this site might well think differently (his C.V 'sounds impressive) - whatever that means;

http://www.cassiopaea.org/

And here's another http://www.sciencenews.org/articles/20010217/bob7.asp

(Please note that I am not responsible for the content of these sites ; may contain nuts )

Some would wonder if there were mystical means to know how IT gets judged for in us to be assured of mystical talents. Instead the question must be solved by psychology or rigorous scientific philosophical approaches. Science is sometimes like a pseudo-science, but that's the approach to rathere be wanton for true science and the tendency to be reserved and uninnate to understanding our own higher-consciouseness's.:162:

Sun, go check out "Quantum Questions" ed Ken Wilber. It has writtings by eight of the greatest scientists of the last century, including Heisenberg and Einstein, in which they discuss the relationship of science and mysticism. Very good stuff, especially Heisenberg, who has the longest, and, in my opinion, best section in the book.

When comparing the concepts of 'mysticism' and 'science,' the line separating the two needs to be defined before your question can be answered. What do you mean by 'mystical' as opposed to 'scientific'?

Perhaps you mean 'claims unrelated to the natural world; supernatural claims.' Science is wholly a component of the natural world; all of its conclusions are based on empirical observation drawn from the five senses. Science cannot be applied to mystical claims of this type, by definition.

Perhaps you mean 'claims about the natural world that are not yet fully understood.' This is a logical absurdity -- how can one make a claim about something that one doesn't understand? Science does not recognize claims that are not fully grounded on a foundation of logical observation, and recognized claims never go further than the scientific understanding behind them allows. Thus, any claim made about something that 'is not yet fully understood' is hopelessly unscientific. This is where pseudoscientific claims of UFO abductions, ESP or modern miracles fall -- science can observe the evidence on which these claims have been hung, but it takes an unscientific leap of mysticism to draw the supernatural conclusions listed above.

In all cases, the line between mysticism and science is sharply drawn; i.e. where mysticism begins, science ends. To answer your question, science is inapplicable to mystical claims except indirectly -- by supporting scientific claims that contradict mystical claims, such as the scientific age of the Earth vs. the nonsense espoused by Creationists.

scitsofreaky said:

It has writtings by eight of the greatest scientists of the last century, including Heisenberg and Einstein

Click to expand...

Greatest, perhaps, and also the most ideologically destructive. Their discoveries are undeniable. However, the absurdly illogical explanations for their discoveries amount to little more than hand-waving that has been blindly accepted by everyone who came later. They've led us to an anti-Rennaissance that plagues quantum mechanics to this day, where 'God of the Gaps' fallacies trump logical absolutes. Think of a primitive who figures out how to use a VCR, then tells the rest of his tribe that evil spirits living inside are responsible. The tribe, blown away by this primitive's monumental achievement, accepts his explanation for it as if the two were inseparable.

For example, take the idea of a photon being both a particle and a wave. Particles and waves are well understood, and have been scientifically defined for hundreds of years. The definitions are mutually exclusive; each possesses characteristics that the other cannot. Claiming that a photon can be both a particle and a wave at the same time is akin to claiming that some distant lifeform on an alien planet is both "all green" and "all not-green" at the same time. It is logically impossible, regardless of whether or not this lifeform (or photon) has been directly observed. Sciences has aborted this avenue of discovery when they should be collecting further evidence, considering redefinitions of key concepts (such as 'particle' or 'wave,' or even 'time') and otherwise ensuring unproven logical impossibilities are not scientifically accepted merely on the grounds that photons are really, really small.

Hi One Prime Mover, Namaste.

And Welcome!

Perhaps you could Introduce yourself on the forum by posting on :

Are you new to ReligiousForums.com?

You might like to have a look at :- Articles for New Members ; from there, there is a link to the forum rules, which you ought to see.


I Look forward to seeing you on the forum.

[Q*OTE=One Prime Mover]When *omparing the *on*epts of 'mysti*ism' and 's*ien*e,' the line separating the two needs to be defined before yo*r q*estion *an be answered. What do yo* mean by 'mysti*al' as opposed to 's*ientifi*'?

Perhaps yo* mean '*laims *nrelated to the nat*ral world; s*pernat*ral *laims.' S*ien*e is wholly a *omponent of the nat*ral world; all of its *on*l*sions are based on empiri*al observation drawn from the five senses. S*ien*e *annot be applied to mysti*al *laims of this type, by definition.

Perhaps yo* mean '*laims abo*t the nat*ral world that are not yet f*lly *nderstood.' This is a logi*al abs*rdity -- how *an one make a *laim abo*t something that one doesn't *nderstand? S*ien*e does not re*ognize *laims that are not f*lly gro*nded on a fo*ndation of logi*al observation, and re*ognized *laims never go f*rther than the s*ientifi* *nderstanding behind them allows. Th*s, any *laim made abo*t something that 'is not yet f*lly *nderstood' is hopelessly *ns*ientifi*. This is where pse*dos*ientifi* *laims of *FO abd**tions, ESP or modern mira*les fall -- s*ien*e *an observe the eviden*e on whi*h these *laims have been h*ng, b*t it takes an *ns*ientifi* leap of mysti*ism to draw the s*pernat*ral *on*l*sions listed above.

In all *ases, the line between mysti*ism and s*ien*e is sharply drawn; i.e. where mysti*ism begins, s*ien*e ends. To answer yo*r q*estion, s*ien*e is inappli*able to mysti*al *laims ex*ept indire*tly -- by s*pporting s*ientifi* *laims that *ontradi*t mysti*al *laims, s**h as the s*ientifi* age of the Earth vs. the nonsense espo*sed by *reationists.[/Q*OTE]
S*pernat*ral ? - in other words at a level higher than nat*re - or perhaps *nderstandable by nat*ral means that are available to *s, at this time ?

I wo*ld therefore answer "Is there any way or method whereby s*ien*e *an st*dy mysti*al experien*es? Or are mysti*al experien*es beyond the ability of s*ien*e to st*dy them?" with "Not with the s*ien*e that we have at this time"

Sunstone said:

Is there any way or method whereby science can study mystical experiences? Or are mystical experiences beyond the ability of science to study them?

Click to expand...

Can you clarify as to what you mean by mystical experiences? I'm not quiet sure.
In my opinion, science can study anything and everything, if not at this time, perhaps in the future with further advancements in technology. Science is an ever evolving field and some things in life such as death and the spark of life are at the time "unstudyable," if that's a word. This is not to say that we will never find out, but rather we do not have the means to find out right now at this very moment with the techonology and resources we have availbe to us.

Nothing in science is impossible, just improbable.

One Prime Mover said:

take the idea of a photon being both a particle and a wave

Click to expand...

One flaw I must point out is that I think you are actually talking about an electron, which has the properties of both particles and waves, but is not both a particle and a wave.
One theme that runs throughout "Quantum Questions" is that with quantum mechanics, science is now having to admit that it is lacking, that it does not study reality itself, but studies the mere shadows of reality. Most, if not all, of the scientists claim that for one to study reality itself, one has to become mystical.

One thing that science can do is show whether or not the observable claims made by mystics actually occur. For example, if someone claims to be able to levitate objects several feet into the air, scientists need not be able to understand or explain the phenomenon in order to establish that the person can, indeed, levitate things. The problem with many mystic claims is not that they cannot be explained, but that they have not been shown to occur in the first place. If people really could heal others using Rieki or if they really could predict the future with great accuracy, there would be little difficulty in proving it. And yet, Randi's $1 million goes unclaimed....

scitsofreaky said:

One flaw I must point out is that I think you are actually talking about an electron,

Click to expand...

Particle/Wave duality applies both to photons and to electrons (and to anything else smaller than a certain size). Quantum weirdness for the layman is more commonly associated with the single photon double-slit experiment than with the atomic model of the electron, which is why I stuck to photons.

scitsofreaky said:

which has the properties of both particles and waves, but is not both a particle and a wave.

Click to expand...

This distinction depends on who you talk to, and how precise they're being in verbalizing their position. Regardless, all commonly accepted models of quantum mechanics won't hold back from violating fundamental, Aristotelian axioms of reality that, quite simply, are inviolable. When a quantum physicist says that a photon has the properties of both a particle and a wave, he is stating that the single particle has qualities that are absolutely contradictory. This is a position that is logically absurd by its own definition, irrespective of our lack of understanding. If having characteristic A by definition states that you do not have characteristic B, then you cannot have both A and B. If the evidence is stating otherwise, then the definition of A has to be changed (or the evidence has to be revisited).

scitsofreaky said:

One theme that runs throughout "Quantum Questions" is that with quantum mechanics, science is now having to admit that it is lacking, that it does not study reality itself, but studies the mere shadows of reality.

Click to expand...

Uh-huh. And what, pray tell, is a 'shadow of reality'? What light casts this shadow, and onto what? I admit that 'shadow' is rather lyrical, but when we're discussing matters of science we're more interested in precisely defined truth than in freedom of creative expression.

scitsofreaky said:

Most, if not all, of the scientists claim that for one to study reality itself, one has to become mystical.

Click to expand...

I would say "some" scientists claim this, but even that is far too many. It is a sign of how lost science is when it approaches the borders of its own empirical foundation -- and no, approaching those borders does not require mysticism. Passing them does, which is why doing so is impossible.

Mr_Spinkles said:

One thing that science can do is show whether or not the observable claims made by mystics actually occur.

Click to expand...

Yep, that's what I meant when I said science can be applied to mysticism indirectly, by supporting claims that contradict those of the mystics (i.e. 'no, you can't levitate objects in the air').

This distinction depends on who you talk to, and how precise they're being in verbalizing their position

Click to expand...

Anything I have read has only used "particle" and "wave" and ways to try to describe to the layman how electrons/photons act. From what I have seen, photons and electrons (and the like) really don't fit into any previously given defintion, and so to convay what they are to the layman, they are trying to use the previously given definitons, which seems to just be causing more confusion. I know it sure has caused me a good deal of confusion.

Uh-huh. And what, pray tell, is a 'shadow of reality'? What light casts this shadow, and onto what? I admit that 'shadow' is rather lyrical, but when we're discussing matters of science we're more interested in precisely defined truth than in freedom of creative expression.

Click to expand...

I believe it was Heisenberg who used this analogy, but I'm not certain of it. Basically, reality is the light, and the shadows are the effects of the light. Ergo, if science is studying the shadows in the analogy, then it is studying the effects of reality, not reality itself.

I would say "some" scientists claim this, but even that is far too many

Click to expand...

It appears I wasn't as clear as I should have been. When I said most of the scientists, I was refering to the scientists that Wilber used in "Quantum Questions," which include Einstein, Heisenberg, Eddington, Plank and Jeans. I was in no way trying to make a generalization about all scientists, which is something I could never attempt.
Oh, and thanks for the correcting my correction.