tetrapod.sapien,
Sorry for taking so long to get back to this thread. I have been doing some extra research preparatory to my response to your questions. In the process, it has become clear that this is all quite lengthy and complex, with Cosmology, Philosophy, Science, and Soul all entwined with each other. Hence my delay.
I am going to give you my "short responses" on this thread for now. After that, I intend to start one or two other threads that will get into the above topics at some length, which, of course, everyone here is welcome to jump in and pounce or pontificate, if they want to.
I just want to say one thing here. I do not have all the answers. I don't even know if I have ANy answers. At least, not in terms of a certainty. I am a student on the highway of life, and I am willing to take my evolving "Reality Modality" and put it under the microscope of the Skeptics and Atheists, and whatever else that is out there. This little exercise is of value for me, because if, in the end, my little "system" does not stand up to such scrutiny, then it is not worth keeping, and I am quite prepared to amend it or even abandon it in favour of something "better" or more "reasonable". But don't expect me to go down in flames without a good fight, if you know what I mean.
So here I am. Now's your chance to gain another convert! NOT!!! Seriously though, I am trying to keep an open mind, but I don't want it to be so open as to become a hole in my head, or leaking like a sieve.
Your first question had to do with my stating a willingness to concede that Evolution and Natural Selection was the process by which all life on planet earth came into being, etc. I meant this rhetorically, in that I think the evidence is pretty strong that there was a process of evolution and natural selection, but not necessarily that there was no First Cause, or God behind it all. I was saying, "for the sake of argument, let us say that....."
You went on to say "it would be logical to presume that all biological organisms have a 'soul'" plants, fungi and bacteria?" Seriously, I think a case can be made for cats and dogs and other animals, even plants as having "soul forms", but I have serious doubts about bacteria and viruses. Perhaps that is a prejudice I have. In other words, you have raised a very interesting question, and one that I have not thought about, nor have I run across anyone else discussing that question. Do bacteria and viruses have "souls"? Obviously I will have to get back to you on that one. Score "One" for the Atheists!
Actually, where I am coming from here is the stuff I have read about the "Astral Plane", where everything that is on the Earth Plane (the Physical Plane) is also there on the Astral Plane. On the Astral Plane, thoughts are things and are "creative". Everything you think on the astral plane manifests into "reality" on that plane. So if you thiink "fear, for example, you will conjure up images of demons and devils and all sorts of embodiments of fearful objects, etc.
Your next question was to do with my statement about these other planes or dimensions: "They are right here, right now, in all and thru all. They are not "out there" or "somewhere else". No, I do not claim to have some special ancient knowledge in terms that I absolutely "know" this. Rather, I am telling you about what those who do claim to have such "special knowlege" claim is the nature of this multi-dimensional universe. And the 11 dimensional hyper-space, tightly curled up universe that scientists speculate about with their string theories are not at all like the descriptions I have seen. I think these scientists are fooling around with a lot of mathematical constructs on pieces of paper and computers simulating these dimensions using computer programs. What if their mathematics and programming logic is all wrong.
Let me give you an example of why I think Science and Math could be leading us down a false trail. We have all heard of E = MCsquared. (sorry, can't do superscripts here), where "C squared" is the speed of light squared, and that is regarded as a Mathematical Constant. And what is the speed of light? A little more than 186,000 miles per second. How did they get that? It was done by certain scientific experiments where, strictly by observation, they came to the conclusion that nothing in the physical universe ever goes faster than the speed of light. (I could get into those experiments, but just not right now; but will if you want me to.) Along the way, scientists did find certain sub-atomic particles called "tachyons" that were observed to travel faster than the theoretical limit to the speed of light. (Oh, but we won't talk about that, because that might upset the theory! Besides, this was found only at the sub-atomic level, so it doesn't really impact our physical universe......B.S. on the pump handle.)
Take two flashlights and put them side-by-side, taping them together. Turn them both on, and shine them at a target (say a screen) 100 yards away. Each of these light beams will strike the same target at this 186,000 miles per second. In other words, the light from each flashlight will strike the same target at precisely the same time.
Now, untape the two flashlights. Carry one of them down to the target. Aim the target flashlight precisely at the other flashlight which is at the starting point of our experiment. The beam of light from each flashlight is travelling towards each other at the same speed (i.e. the speed of light). The light from Flashlight A is travelling in and of itself towards Flashlight B at 186M per second. The light from Flashlight B is travelling in and of itself towards Flashlight A at 186M per second. The mathematics of this to me is, when I went to school, that the relative velocity of Beam A to Beam B, travelling towards each other in exactly opposite directions, is twice that of the two velocities. In other words, the two light beams from the two flashlights pointing towards each other have to be travelling at a relative speed of 2 X 186,000 mps. = 372,000 miles per second.
But No! According to Einstein's mathematical theory, nothing in this physical universe can exceed the speed of light. So the two beams can only be travelling at the speed of light, no matter relative to what. Period. End of story. And again I have to say, B.S. on the pump handle! Don't tell me that if I point the flashlight in one direction, then the light from that flashlight travels at 186M per second, but if I point two flashlights at each other, all of a sudden and magically, mysteriously, the light from those two flashlights are now travelling towards each other at 186,000 mps. It is illogical, does not make sense, and the scientists are just playing with our heads!
Next, when I talked about things that happen to be manifesting on this "physical plain", I mean that there are things going on on this planet that science has absolutely no credible explanation for, yet there it is. If this is not discernible as originating from some natural event, or the "physical plane", then we need to look elsewhere, such as perhaps it is coming from another level or plane and then is dipping down (ie. lower vibrations) into the physical plane. That does not seem all that unreasonable or impossible or miraculous to me, if you see everything multi-dimensional as part of a continuum, within which science has technically only become aware of, or is only willing to accept that which can be explained in terms of this physical plane. I am by no means, trying to make this all too convenient.
In terms of weirdos and hoaxsters, I am trying to get across the point, that if you were to study certain "paranormal" topics, espcecially when it comes to testimonials by certain individuals, the first thing to take note of are the ones who are in a game of deceiving the public, for personal gain, such as selling books, starting a new religion or cult, or just fooling you and I for the sake of "See, I got away with it, you gullible fools"- Kind of like those computer hackers who try to get into secure sights just to see if they can, or just because they can. It's the sport of the challenge).
The second thing I must mention is that there may well be some perfectly logical and natural explanation for what is behind the phenomenon that could lay the matter to rest, instead of attributing it to something supernatural. And so I say, by all means, we must exhaust all means to see if this "thing" that is being reported can plausibly and reasonably be explained by natural means.
Now, you have asked the question, "How do you draw the line between what can be dismissed out of hand, and what cannot just be "explained away", and who has the right to do this?" My answer is that this cannot be determined by any one person or group. I would not immediately dismiss the "lay folk", for they may have experiences and insights, in spite of their amateurish explanations, that could help shed light on the subject, or even lead to new clues, moving the investigation forward. I would not limit this to the "paranormal investigators" without at least checking their credentials and reputation. By the way, there are a number of Universities who have departments or faculties that are not afraid to tackle the unknown and the paranormal, and they are not all a bunch of kinks and kooks. Some of them are downright bores in terms of their technical jargon and empirical data surrounding experiments trying to fit into the schemata of empiricism and scientific methodology. (I have fallen asleep more than once reading this chloroform in print."
As for leaving this up to the Scientists, the answer is also NO, in and of themselves. The reason is, they are still human beings. As such, scientific method notwithstanding, they are still capable of a predisposition to prejudice AGAINST a question, just as much as the Believers are prejudicially apologists FOR the same question, without any proofs, relying strictly on Faith. I have seen too many things done in the name of Sience over the years, that makes me every bit as suspicious. I have seen many a scientist who abandoned their profession simply because their own evidences, experimental data and consquent theories simply did not fit into the pattern or mould of prevailing opinions of their colleagues and professors. And if they proved unwilling to abandon their platforms, they would be discredited, reputations would become tainted, damaged or destroyed, and all avenues of grants and research funding would be cut off. These would become victims of the system, or the establishment. So don't tell me about this wonderful, unbiased, unprejudiced thing we call Science (which I hasten to add, has become the "Sacred Cow" these days). I have seen too much!
The "Truth" lies somewhere in the middle, where we need to stop labelling and categorizing and condemning one another just because we happen to fall into different camps at the present time. It is time we all cooperated with one another. It is not Right or Wrong, Good or Bad, Valid or Invalid, Truth or Fiction. Instead, IMHO, we would all get further ahead more effectively and more quickly if we all decided to make a concerted effort to cooperate with one another, with logic and reasoning, and yes, even sprinkled with a little faith here and there, as a kind of universal axiom. To demand Scientific Proof for everything that is observed is, perhaps, a little too presumptuous, because it presumes that science has all the answers, or that the only possible explanation on anything in this universe is something that can be Scientifically proven, notwithstanding that science still has a lot to learn and discover. Who do Scientists think they are, anyway? God? The New Religion! They dismiss religion and belief systems outright because they can't measure it and make it fit into their paradigms and models. There is more to the Universe than that!
Now I also know and acknowledge that Religion has a very poor track record. But not all things Religious, or more precisely, Spiritual, are mythical or out-of-hand. The big problem in this whole area is that a lot of Power Hungry A-holes got right in the middle of it all, and used this as a tool for power and control over the masses, using "Might is Right" philosophies, fear tactics and teachings, and justifications and rationalizations for the despicable things they did. It may be presumptuous of me, but I sometimes wonder if that has something to do with why people become Atheists. They have been so hurt or vicitmized by bad religions, that when they finally turned on it, they became crusaders against God and Faith and any and all things Spiritual. They became this impenetrable fortress of logic and evidence, and you can't get me on that one, because I am more logical and reasonable on this argument than you, and all that kind of stuff. And so, in one sense, I feel a kind of regret, wondering what it was that hurt you Atheists so much, that it drove you to such a missionary dedication to the cause of opposing anything Spiritual. Just get any idea of a God out of the equation, and then I can just sit back and relax in my smug freedom, accountable to no-one but myself. Kind of a "comfortable pew"- this Church of the "Self".
Finally, I assure you, I am not trying to come across as a Pseudo-Scientist, which is, for me, another term for Quack or Superstitious Fanatist. Rather, I am more the Agnostic (in some respects), searching for the answers to questions I still have. At the same time, I am highly suspicious of the professed Scientists, who come across more like Religionists, whose preconceved notions of the Paranormal make them all too ready to dismiss anything paranormal with prejudicial dispositions that rival the Religionists.
To be continued on future threads.............
Rod P.
p.s. tetra, I used to live in Calgary back in the 1960's and 1970's for about 13 - 14 years. I miss that old Cow Town. I'm an Alberta boy, born and raised, from Medicine Hat.