Greetings Steve,
I agree with you, and would like to add (very gladly) that today there are
fairly nice new mathematical models, thanks to our high computational
abilities, simulating situations that were just recently considered
"spiritual" or "mental" - in other words today's sience IS working on
proofs of a new kind (mainly in the Interdisciplinar fields).
Regards,
Judy Tal
At 14:16 06/11/99 +0100, you wrote:
>Steve Eskow wrote:
>
>> In matters of faith, we do not insist on empirical evidence: we do not ask
>> for proof that God exists, or that the resurrection took place.
>>
>> In matters of science, we do.
>>
>> Is your belief that the "holonic structures" are same in physics and
>> spirit science or faith?
>
>Dear Steve
>
>I don't know your exact conception of faith or science, but I agree with
>you that these are related to different domains (of knowledge?) which
>should not be confused. This is also a distiction Wilber makes. So let me
>ask some questions about faith and science. Is it really possible to prove
>the existence of 'Spirit' scientifically? If it's just (!) a question of
>faith does that conclude that there could be no evidence? What about means
>of spiritual inquiry like meditation, interpretation of texts, intuitions
>or spiritual experiences or is this just things people made up? Certainly
>I could not prove the existence of Spirit or God and I don't want to.
>Reminds me of the pathologist who sliced up thousends of corpses just to
>state that there is no thing as the soul. Maybe he looked at the wrong
>place, maybe with the wrong tools, maybe not. Spiritual questions are not
>easy to answer. So should we relate to each other as scientists or as
>believers? I would enjoy both.
>
>Best wishes
>
>Dirk
--Judy Meisels Tal <judyt@mail.netvision.net.il>
Learning-org -- Hosted by Rick Karash <rkarash@karash.com> Public Dialog on Learning Organizations -- <http://www.learning-org.com>