Go ahead and read it first and then come back here.
So I really like this article because it speaks to how I see science and religion. A lot of the world thinks that you are either believe in religion or you believe in science. I find this incredibly stupid. I don't care if you lean towards one or the other but just don't discount the others' beliefs. I believe there is a scientific explanation for everything but that science was set up by some powerful being (aka God). Intelligent design just makes sense to me. It solves the argument of entropy. (Which is explained via science fiction here. I love Asimov.)
There are events that have happened and will happen that we can't explain. Yet. But I don't attribute these to supernatural, mystical, or magical origins. I think God is someone who built the rules of the universe to guide it's creation to where it is today. I think He or His agents still play within those rules. We just don't know all of the rules yet.
But that's why we find the unknown so terrifying and fascinating. We are obviously playing the game but we don't know all of the rules. We are slowly discovering them and then turning around and doing amazing things with them.
Anyways, I am getting away from the article. The part that really stuck me the most in the article was "When Tiralosi woke up, he told nurses that he had a profound
experience and wanted to talk about it. That’s how we met. He told me that he
felt incredibly peaceful, and saw this perfect being, full of love and
compassion. This is not uncommon. People tend to interpret what they see based on their
background: A Hindu describes a Hindu god, an atheist doesn’t see a Hindu god or
a Christian god, but some being. Different cultures see the same thing, but
their interpretation depends on what they believe."
What's interesting is that an atheist has also seen someone. There could be more that we just can't see, that we don't know about yet. So how can someone cast off the idea of someone, something beyond what we see? Yes, it does take faith to get to that conclusion but that's the point. We have to have faith in something until we use science to flesh out the rules that govern the concept. I absolutely adore the idea of faith/religion working with science to explore the world that we live in. This Consciousness After Death concept is a perfect example. The researcher, Parnia, doesn't use his findings to promote or dismiss faith but to elaborate the concept that we just don't know. Maybe one day we will. But right now it's terrifyingly unknown.
But from the article it's cool to know that medical research is making advances into saving people at the end as well as taking the opportunity to look at the possibilities surrounding death. It's a good look into a shared field of psychology and theology. The question of whether reactions in the brain cause thoughts or if thoughts cause reaction is an interesting angle that I've never seen before. It's an obvious connection but again there is a question of cause and effect. I've been led to assume that it is a causation between the two, that humans operate under electrical and chemical impulses, which really puts a hamper on questions about meaning of life, destiny, free will, love, but when you reverse the causation, it opens those ideas up again.
I wish we taught more unknowns in school. Like brought up topics like this in the classroom to get kids thinking about it, to get them interested, to get them invested in the answer. Like evolution versus creation in classrooms, why not teach both? Or encourage students to come up with their own theories or versions. Because we don't know yet but no one can admit it. No one wants to admit that we don't know everything, that our theories could be just wrong enough to pass as right until the right answer comes along. I mean, that's the principle I get from lessons on the history of physic research. That the previous model was considered good enough to use until the next one was proven better. But it seems like we always treat the latest model as Law, something that can't be argued against even though when you look at history, the chances are that there is another equation out there waiting to supersede today's.
Wow, got off track again. But that's why I like this article, it has a bunch of gems in it that I could talk about all day long. Comment with other nuggets for discussion or if you want me to elaborate on any of the ones I've already mentioned.
No comments:
Post a Comment