No one argues concsiousness to be an 'illusion', to argue that would be asinine.

This is just wrong. Read "Consciousness Explained" by the materialist Daniel Dennett.

I can see there is no point in arguing with you.

Namaste.

1. The scientists you quoted never tried to reconcile their faith with their practice. Where they did, they apologised. I didn't say one can't be spiritual and a scientist - but the nature of science and spirituality are contradictory and thus cannot be conciled.

This is not true. Science and spirituality are not contradictory. And I do not mean exoteric religion here, I mean mysticism. Mysticism merely says that Consciousness (capital C) is transcendent -- that mind creates matter, not the other way around. And Consciousness is the Absolute or the Godhead, which emanates the cosmos. This experience of cosmic consciousness is grounded in phenomenological empiricism -- the universal mystical experience of unity. Science can neither prove nor disprove this. You may be aware of the controversies surrounding consciousness in the scientific world these days. You can read "The Conscious Mind In Search of a Fundamental Theory" by David J. Chalmers, who is a steely rationalist and has created a minor sensation by pointing out that materialism does not explain why we have conscious experience at all. He argues that consciousness has to be seen as a fundamental property of reality rather than an illusion created by our neurons. Here is a paper that summarizes these views
http//www.imprint.co.uk/chalmers.html

There is a dialogue going on between science and spirituality and it has been going on for at least the last 30 or 40 years.

As for whether these scientists tried to reconcile their faith with their practice -- they were very clear that science did not prove mysticism. But they were equally clear that science did not contradict mysticism. They understood that while science deals with the world of form, mysticism deals with the formless. Mysticism involves a psychological transformation, it requires one to alter their consciousness. There are numerous practices for this such as meditation and many types of yoga, and there is also shamanism in Africa. Again, science can neither prove nor disprove the existence of this ineffable realm. But one can try to experience it for oneself.

I do not mean we should mix science and mysticism necessarily in the way you are assuming. One of the greatest challenges is to combine the data from science (the third-person approach, objective experiment) with the data from mysticism (the first-person approach, subjective experience or phenomenology), without abusing either genuine science or genuine mysticism. I say demarcate the boundaries between science and mysticism clearly -- but why should there be a ban on combining the data obtained from these two approaches to understanding reality? Why dogmatically stick to just one way of understanding reality? There are so many ways, and science is just one of them.

Science never makes any claims of absolute certainty, in fact if you ever did any science at all you'd know that science is based around inherent uncertainty.

I did not say that, please don't mince my words. There have been and continue to be scientists who believe in scientism. Scientism is also a religion. As opposed as I am to pseudoscience, I am equally opposed to scientism. Science does not claim to have absolute knowledge of the universe but scientism claims that anything apart from the scientific method is inadequate for understanding reality, and lumps the huge body of data from cultural studies, phenomenology, mysticism and so forth into the garbage. As I keep saying, science neither proves nor disproves the Godhead. It is forced to remain agnostic.

4. God is not empirically provable.

Every mystic would disagree with you. My faith in God comes from a kundalini awakening -- that's as empirical as it gets for me. It depends on what you mean by empiricism. If you mean third-person experimentation, then, no, it can't prove God. But if you mean altering one's consciousness, experiencing higher levels of the mind, then yes you can experience God -- this is phenomenology and it is the method used in mysticism, and moreover also in psychology.

You cannot prove the existence of the unconscious mind in the same way as you can prove that air contains oxygen, but so many people report phenomena or exhibit symptoms that force us to assume the existence of an unconscious mind.

There is the within and the without. The inner realities and the outer realities. Science works great with the outer realities. But the more we go inward, the more we try to find the "I", the less experiment works, and the more we are forced to turn to experience. This is why science does not work too well with things like anthropology, sociology and psychology.

One of the fundemental attributes of godhood is infinite and eternity, both of which are beyond the grasps of empirical measurement.

Again this depends on what you mean by empiricism. The mystical position is that there is a level of mind beyond the rational mind and if one can achieve that level of growth, one can experience a cosmic consciousness which is the direct experience of the Absolute. The rational mind cannot grasp this but the transrational mind can.

Question what is transcendental reality? Reality, by its very definition is transcendent, so why the redundancy?

I meant with reference to materialism or physicalism, the dominant orthodox paradigm in science. Materialism denies the existence of any levels of reality or realms beyond the material (such as subtle energies like kundalini, psychic and spiritual realities).

I should mention that I would appreciate some more courtesy from you. What exactly are you doing on this forum anyway? Everyone here believes in God.

Science = proof by disassociation
Spirituality = anathema to proof

Anyone who tries to combine them is not worth my time.

Neo, try telling that to some of the greatest scientists of the 20th century, such as
Albert Einstein
Erwin Schrodinger
Werner Heisenberg
Louis de Broglie
James Jeans
Max Planck
Wolfgang Pauli
Arthur Eddington

They were all mystics in a very strict sense, and also the founders of modern physics.

Science is beautiful, but it is limited. Science is an agnostic enterprise, it can neither prove nor disprove transcendental realities. When scientists say they have absolute knowledge of the universe, you know they are no better than the religionists.

As for mysticism, it comes with its own experiments and proofs. Take up yoga or meditation with a good guide! Or spend time with shamans in Africa -- that is what I plan to do some day. My belief in God is not a matter of faith. It is a matter of empiricism.

Hi, Layth! I hope you are well.

Heheh, I can't really see why everyone is so homophobic. God can't hate me for being queer if I had a kundalini awakening, now.

I do believe in laws, I do believe in an Absolute Reality. But I don't believe the source of the Absolute is in any one scripture, especially not a scripture revealed centuries ago in a particular time and context. As the Mu'tazilites say the only thing that is uncreated and perfect is the Absolute. I equate the Godhead with the Absolute Reality, and to know the Absolute, one must know one's Self. For me self-discovery is the highest understanding of God, higher than any scripture, even. I look to my Inner Light as my guide, my source of Gnosis. This is the basic esoteric teaching. So coming out as bisexual has been very much part of my spiritual journey.

I can't accept the dictates of patriarchal scriptures -- and the condemnation of homosexuality is wholly irrational and does not make any sense. Nor does the condemnation of third genders make any sense. (Mysticism is not irrational, it is transrational.) Moreover esoteric teachings like the yogi Sri Aurobindo's are far more sophisticated, modern and relevant (pick up a copy of his Life Divine) than the Quran or Bible (I'm sorry if I've offended anyone but this is my opinion).

I think our relationship with the Divine has to evolve with the times, it cannot be rooted in any one scripture from any one time or place. And moreover I think humankind is going to enter an era when it will be possible for each individual to experience the Absolute for themselves. We have the option of manifesting the Divine . . . this is far more powerful than worshipping some external supernatural Creator-deity.

Just my $0.02.

On the old messageboard, I once posted a link to Harun Yahya's book, "The Evolution Deceit". At the time I had not done enough research on evolution and was just looking for comments from members of this messageboard.

A few interesting things have come to light since then. First of all, Harun Yahya is a bit of a ghost -- the title is a pseudonym. I remember Shahid once mentioning that Harun Yahya had studied with Edip Yuksel -- who apparently does not have a very high opinion of him (http//www.yuksel.org), but I have no way of confirming this. This article identifies him as Adnan Oktar. Note that he studied at a university of fine arts...

http//www.jamiat.org.za/whatsnew/hyahya.html

Regardless, Yahya also appears to have links with the Turkish "scientific research foundation" Bilim Arastirma Vakfi (BAV). Interestingly, BAV has links with the Christian fundamentalist organization, the Institute for Creation Research (ICR) in San Diego. In fact, it appears that Yahya's mentors are from the ICR, Henry and John Morris (cited in his book). BAV and the ICR organized conferences on the theory of evolution in Turkey in 1998, so it is probable that Yahya came into close contact with these "scientists". Point being I certainly don't see objective science happening here...Yahya's arguments appear to be a regurgitation of fundamentalist Christian pseudoscience.

Yahya's claims about his mentors are absolutely preposterous. In his book, he mentions Duane Gish as a "world-reknowned evolution expert." I have no idea where he got this from. I searched, and I couldn't find a single article published by this man in a peer-reviewed journal (although he does get published in Christian journals). He is also a biochemist, and not a paleontologist. Empty rhetoric does not make up for lack of factual evidence.

Henry Morris is not a biologist or a paeleontologist. He is a hydraulic engineer. I believe he even thought that Muhammad was possessed by Satan.

John Morris is the director of the ICR. Yahya calls him a "geologist" but he is a geological engineer. Like his father, he claims that the age of the earth is less than 10,000 years, as per the Biblical claim that the earth is thousands of years old. You've got to be kidding me here!

Further, he makes some absolutely sensationalist statements in his book. Check this out

Not a single "transitional form", creatures which are supposed to show the gradual evolution of advanced organisms from more primitive ones as neo-Darwinist theory claims, has ever been found anywhere in the world despite the most diligent and prolonged search in the fossil record.

Hmm, let me think.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think there are thousands of examples of evolution in the fossil record. We have found fossils of intermediate forms of man. Here's a quote taken from a website

The Australopithecus fossils is one example, and there are many others. There are also examples of transitional forms between other species, such as Arch?opteryx (between dinosaur and bird, discovered in 1862) or Amphioxus (between invertebrate and vertebrate). Since Darwin's time we have increased our knowledge of the Tertiary period more than tenfold, and the unbroken chain of life is so clear now that no one in the entire paleontological community has seriously doubted evolution theory for the past century. In fact, it's been said that if the biologists hadn't invented evolution theory, the paleontologists would have eventually had to do it for them, otherwise none of their findings would have made any sense.

http//www.stardestroyer.net/Creationism/Arguments/Lies.shtml

So where does Yahya get off with such ridiculously unsubstantiated claims?

Even funnier, the references Yahya cites in his book are usually in support of evolution. He just picks one sentence out of context and cites it to prove his ideas. I mean, come on, how can you be citing Stephen Jay Gould to attack the theory of evolution!

If all this wasn't enough, the man appears to be a hypocrite, too, and one with fascist tendencies. He has very benevolently set up a site entitled "Islam Denounces Antisemitism", in which he plainly states that the Holocaust happened and was a great tragedy (while at the same time pointing out that it is exploited by Zionists). Strangely enough, he has also published a book in Turkish, "Soykirim Yalani" which is translated as "Holocaust Deception", in which he proceeds to explain that the Holocaust was a myth perpetrated by the Jews. Certainly one might argue that the Holocaust has been exploited by Zionists, but to underrate the tragedy is a mistake.

Also note that the CODOH ("Committee for Open Debate on the Holocaust"), an anti-semetic group dedicated to "proving" the Holocaust never happened, supports this book. When the book was published, it received great praise from Turkey's Islamist Welfare Party. I smell politics here. Could someone like this be an objective scientist?

Summary Unless someone comprehensively refutes the above findings, I'm quite convinced that Harun Yahya, whoever he is, is something of a fraud, and should not be taken seriously.

Peace to all.

Since my spiritual journey began at Free-Minds, I thought I should come back here and inform some of the folks of where I'm at spiritually. I think Layth might remember me, I'm not sure about the others. I hope you are all doing well.

The background I was a Sunni Muslim studying in Lahore, Pakistan, when I first joined Free-Minds. I wore hijab and followed all the exoteric aspects of Islam. I started reading the Quran on my own and found that most of the things people said about it were lies. This greatly shocked me and I was motivated to study Islam in detail on my own.

I found one instruction occurring in the Quran repeatedly, and I believe it changed my life. The Quran repeatedly instructed its readers to think. With time I came to the conclusion that rational thinking was the highest ideal and ultimately organized religion placed limits on my ability to think rationally. I became a rationalist agnostic and skeptic, and science became my religion. I was respectful toward exoteric religion but did not place much intellectual value on it. I was ignorant of mysticism and esoteric religion.

During the last two years, I've had a very difficult personal journey and undergone a tremendous psychological and spiritual transformation while on this path of self-discovery. I was dealing with some gender and sexuality issues. I ultimately came to terms with my sexuality -- I am bisexual, and I believe that in the childlike state we are all bisexual -- and also underwent a massive change as regards my gender presentation (I became significantly androgynous in appearance as well as behaviour and began to reject gender norms).

I also survived sexual abuse which left me dealing with a lot of trauma. The journey of dealing with this trauma ultimately culminated in something called a spiritual emergency by transpersonal psychologists like Stanislav Grof. Information was emerging from my unconscious mind at an incredibly fast rate. This experience culminated in some genuine psychic effects (I experienced heighted empathy) as well as in what is called a kundalini awakening the rising of an etheric energy reservoir at the base of the spine. It was accompanied by the "I am God" realization of the mystics. (Note I do not consider this an enlightenment experience; it was just an experience of the soul and most people who do yoga long enough should be able to have a similar experience. What I mean is, I realized that this thing we call God was in fact us. God exists in deep mind. To quote Kabir "My master lives inside me.") This was the end of my agnosticism and skepticism. The experience healed me from the trauma of sexual abuse.

Since then I have been studying transpersonal psychology, traumatology, consciousness studies, mysticism and esoteric spirituality, which I find to be far more intellectually satisfying than exoteric religion ever was. Mysticism is basically transrational the idea is that higher levels of mind exist that transcend reason, and if one can alter one's consciousness, liberate one's true Divine nature from the prison of the ego-mind, one can intuit the Absolute Reality directly. This is the purpose of meditation or yoga. The mystics were able to expand their sense of self to the entire cosmos this notion of cosmic consciousness is the universal mystical experience of unity. Consciousness, it is being said, is the bridge between science and spirituality. Science says that mind is created by matter, but mysticism says that mind (the mind, there is only one mind at a higher level of reality -- the mind of God, in effect) existed before matter. Note that some of the greatest scientists of the 21st century were panentheists, such as Erwin Schrodinger, one of the founders of quantum physics, who was an out-and-out neo-Vedantist.

I believe in the transcendental unity of the world's religions and wisdom traditions. I have come to see the underlying esoteric message of all the religions is virtually identical the universe is in God and God is in the universe. Reality has levels and the material or physical level is just one. There are psychic and spiritual levels to reality. The universe is an interdependent, interconnected whole, and a manifestation of the Godhead. This position may be called monistic panentheism, and rather than seeing God as separate from the universe, it sees God as including and transcending the universe. Thus there is no concept of the supernatural here -- mystical experiences are as natural as anything else. Historically there have been two purposes to religion the exoteric aspect which is basically just social control (the "opium of the masses") and the esoteric aspect has been a profound psychological healing and transformation of individuals (which is much less-known and less practiced). This psychological aspect is what I am talking about the highest stage of self-discovery is the the liberation of one's Divine nature from the ego-mind. God is equated with one's Higher Self. The mystics were basically able to manifest God, and all of us have the same potential. Moreover I think that this is humanity's only hope for salvation -- if we do not come of age as a species and stop being self-centered, we will surely become extinct. The connection between spirituality and ecology is of paramount importance here.

This being the case, I no longer feel the need to bind myself to the dictates of any one scripture, or any scripture at all. I consider everything apart from the Supreme to be fallible, and I elevate my own conscience above all else. I believe that Truth dwells deep inside us, and the best teacher is experience.

I would humbly suggest that there is a far more sophisticated understanding of spirituality out there than any one exoteric religion, that is in no way at odds with science. I would also suggest that science and spirituality are headed, ultimately, for a synthesis, and the study of consciousness is laying the foundations for this. For one such attempt at a grand metaphysical synthesis, consider the following site
http//www.kheper.net/

It is very intellectually challenging, but extremely well-written. It is based on a philosophy known as Integral philosophy which aims to integrate all human knowledge together, including science and spirituality.

I am not sure how well this will sit down with the members of this site which is obviously monotheistic rather than panentheistic. And it is very much in the realm of exoteric rather than esoteric religion (esotericism is more or less blasphemy from the monotheistic perspective). I just thought I might offer some food for thought.