I see pride and hubris behind spiritual thinking, not perception.
Arthur Dent (Login ArtieDent) Posted Jul 28, 2010 5:16 PM
You claimed that spiritual thinking is observation at a deeper level than than eyes can see.
Well scientific thinking sees beyond that for sure, dont know about "spiritual sight". Medical researchers can see down to a level that spiritual experts never guess at for all their sight. Yes, sure they can talk about what insights they have AFTER they get told about it by scientists, and sure they can mimic scientific terminology when they talk about their energy flows, but their obvious ignorance does tend to make them mish mash the concepts, even as they say they understand.
As to whether spiritualists understand anything of the whys, little own more, should be provable but for some reason fails to be. I suspect its just a state of mind that spiritualists come up with a hypothesis of what they are doing but dont know how to prove it to themselves except by the same method religious people think their faith equates to knowledge. That which supports their ideas becomes a proof.
If a spiritual/religious person actually saw deeper or clearer there are ways to test that by putting their observations to the test by getting them to predict more accurately what is going on inside a persons body.
But, they make their claims, and within the bounds of statistical hit and miss are shown to be guessing. Guessing, another name faith goes by.
Medical science actually does spot the cancers, sees a lot more than faith does. Spiritualism gives it self the liberty of saying "god moves in mysterious ways, sometimes we win and sometimes we dont, (just like science) but at least science does successfully make predictions that prove to be true, rather than guesses. The difference between the two philosophies is that science can make predictions that can be used to improve the future, to drive better outcomes... spirituality just says "oh we knew that", but its ALWAYS after the fact. Spiritualists seem to have a disregard for the need to be able to prove things by repeatable tests which will work in the future on demand.
Claims are easy, backing it up with material, reliable facts only happens with science, never with gods, or crystal power. Its the material world where we insist on these things working. The spiritual word is untestable, even by the crystal power people evidently.
The universe we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil, no good, nothing but blind, pitiless indifference.
I am against religion because it teaches us to be satisfied with not understanding the world.
What has 'theology' ever said that is of the smallest use to anybody? When has 'theology' ever said anything that is demonstrably true and is not obvious? What makes you think that 'theology' is a subject at all?