Mystical Angels - science rejects fact?

science rejects fact?

Millions of people have had psychic and spiritual experiences. These people are from all walks of life, all cultures and different centuries. Yet give similar accounts to each other. Thousands have been tested and studied using modern technology and found mentally stable, physically fit, not lying or delusional. Indicating that their expereinces are what they say. Miracles have occured after faith healing, prayer or some type of experience which can not be explained by science. Yet science has often rejected these observations and test results while accepting as fact other things for which they have far less proof. Believe it or not the nature of consciousness is one such example. It can not be scientifically explained but theories about it are often presented as fact even though scientists know these theories are incomplete and flawed. The aswsumption that all scientist reject spirituality and Psychic phenomena is in error. Sir Isaac Newton, the father of modern physics is well known for his connection in researching and writing papers supporting the paranormal and oestoteric matters. Marie curie and husband, discovere of radiation also researched and were involved in the paranormal. Modern day Quantum physicists are explaining some paranormal experiences that go way beyond most newtonian science. Newton new as dd and do many scientist that there is far more unknown and unexplained than science has yet dealt with.

Public Comments

I think you're talking about luck and probability, which science cannot prove nor disprove.
Flawed statement - many scientists are people of faith. Science is based on observable data points. The nature of consciousness does not have data points that we know how to measure (yet). Science acknowledges that there is much we do not yet know - this is an acknowledgement of what we can not measure, not a rejection of fact.
1) But not a single one can prove it and open up a whole new field of science. 2) But not capable repeating the psychic powers they claim to have. 3) Nope, they haven't. Just open a medical journal instead of reading Benny Hinn's website next time. 4) No they don't. And until you present your PhD in neuroscience, I don't think we have to believe a thing you say.
All tests using the Scientific Method debunk psychic and all similar claims. As spiritual entites/forces are as nebulous as Gods, they can neither be proven nor disproven. Google: < Randi > for one. Do *you* believe in black cats, crossed fingers, Ra & the FSM? No, science does *not* reject facts! [Edit]: CITE! Re your Added *Extraordinary CLAIM*: "Quantum physicists are explaining some paranormal experiences" - (I think I would have heard *this* one... I do follow QM a bit.)
Yes, this bothers me too. You articulated that really well.
yeah i find it puzzling here is the claim that atheists use when reports of miracles happen miracle is witnessed or happens to one person- that person is crazy miracle is witnessed or happens to many people- it was mass hysteria miracle is filmed- the photos were doctored They want proof but they do not seem to accept proof
Can you provide just *one* credible example? Scientists have been debunking this bunk for centuries, but somebody keeps making gullible people
Science attempts to explain near death experiences, spiritual visitations, out of body experiences and other psychic phenomenon. I saw my deceased friend in my hallway. For some people it is hard to believe the unexplainable. I say just live and let live.
you are being very silly. would it make you happy if millions of scientists declared all these supernatural things as real even though there is no documented empirical proof? I mean, what exactly do you want? Jeez.
These experiences, as science has shown, were only in the minds of the subjects. Science has monitored several priests, monks and nuns. When they were having a "religious" experience, feelings of joy and warmth and peace, parts of the brain that controls these feelings were working in overdrive. In other words, they were having these feelings because they WANTED to have these experiences.
People used to believe that maggots used to spontaneously come to life from meat. People also used to believe tidal waves and earthquakes used to be caused by god(s). People are just very impatient with science. They want all of the answers right away. Just let science advance at it's own pace and eventually people will find explanations for those things.
What you are referring to is the scientific method. Where they go to a book and use whatever they decide to mis- interpret. If they had the Bible they would not need to misinterpret
Everybody has, at one time or another, had some type of experience in which they cannot explain. But that doesn't make these experiences psychic or spiritual. There are so many things in our universe in which we do not know, so it's wrong to jump to conclusions.
Science does not reject fact. Science just doesn't automatically assume that something it doesn't yet understand has some sort of supernatural significance. Time and time again, science has proven that things thought of as supernatural events had perfectly reasonable and reality-based causes.
millions of people eat McDonald's burgers every day, but they ain't good for you or nutritious. science isn't democracy, it works on verifiable facts not anecdotes. many,many psychics and mediums have been tested under scientific conditions and as far as i know not one has produced any results. the old soviet union poured millions into this sort of research, telepathy, psychokinesis and they produced nothing either. science hasn't rejected any evidence of psychic phenomena, because no one has produced any real verifiable evidence.
There are lots of studies that show that it is bunk. None of what you mention there has any control group at all, and that makes it bad data. You have to compare things like prayer in a double blind experiment with a control group. This is an example of the most comprehensive controlled study done to show the effects of prayer on a medical condition: http://www.nytimes.com/2006/03/31/health/31pray.html?ex=1301461200&en=4acf338be4900000&ei=5088&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss As you can see, the control group actually faired slightly better. These things ALWAYS break down when you do a properly controlled experiment. There is no evidence for anything supernatural like prayer helping or psychic abilities.
Science, unlike Faith requires facts to come to a conclusion. The human mind is a very unknown thing and there are things about it that we can only guess at. Look at the people who experience stigmata. They bleed from the tops of their feet, they bleed for their sides and they bleed from their palms. The Catholic church has been studying this for some time, but they refuse to come to the conclusion that these people are showing signs of being Crucified. What keeps them form declaring these miracles the fact that when the stigmata is present in the palm then it can't be real. Christ was thought to have been nailed through his palms to the cross which is how artists depicted him in many paintings, but biblical scholars have become certain that hanging a man by nailing through the palms would not have held. Science should not be used to prove the spiritual and vice versa. It isn't called "blind faith" for nothing, so why try to prove what doesn't need proving? The biggest problem here is that everyone wants to believe that what they believe cannot be taken away from them. No one wants to have one religion given more import than any other. The religions that do missionary work do so to spread the word of their faith, but in their fervor or teaching they haven't been told how to deal with rejection. In history these missionaries reacted very harshly towards those who refused to listen and people now have seen this and they don't like loosing their freedom of religion. The Christians churches that teach a radical belief are willing to fight tooth and nail to spread the word, even going as far as to deny the theories of how many years this planet is to make their time table for their religious story to work. If this planet is millions or billions of years old, then the story of God creating everything in six days doesn't sound right. No matter what, changing history or refusing to accept that science is for scientists and theology is for theologians is and should be a personal choice. I actually am somewhere in between. I hope this helps.
Please read up on the Scientific method. Testimony that can't be validated with a controlled test is just that - testimony, not fact. By following precepts of the scientific method, science has given us everything in our modern world - including the computer and Internet for this forum. The scientific method is a gift from God.
Let me just draw your attention to the Baptism of Jesus in the river Jordan ;the Gospel says there was a voice from Heaven which said "this is my beloved son listen to Him".The others who were standing by said "it has thundered"..Why is it that some people heard it clearly and others didn't?
The patronising rudeness of many of these answers ought to tell you something, really. If an intellectual giant like Ken Wilber can't get these people's ear, what chance do you and I stand? Science and spirituality, by their very nature, stand poles apart. Some people try to create bridges, but I don't think it ever works. Myself, I find it less stressful to just get on with my meditation and my work and let the arguments rattle on somewhere else. You have your truth. I have mine. Atheists have theirs and scientists ditto. Why not just let it be? I have found it much more productive to grow in my own truth and allow others to be happy in theirs rather than getting involved with arguments that usually end up as slanging matches. XX Jon C
science does in fact reject a lot of what you have mentioned. But it does this on the sound basis that the situations are not cunducted or occur in a situation which is controlled enough for the result to reliably be called fact. there are simply too many variables which makles the results unreliable. So yes while many people have near death experiences and see ghists etc there are ;abratory tests which have produced similar effects on people which discount the soul being part of the equation. sorry mate your argument doesnt hold much water as your not thinking about it from both persepctives. But you ARE RIGHT in that many many scientists do deeply believe in god. God isnt killed by science, if you believe in god then surely god is inscience, science showing us how infinitely small everything can be yet so huge should only enforce your beliefs. Stvene hawkins is a genius but if you read his books, he explains everything to the nth dgree and then when he cant explain it anymore he cimply says that it may just be down the the lords splendour.
Science doesn't yet have to tools maybe....but on a psychological level all these experiences are created by the mind for people who find it difficult to cope with life!
There is a $1,000,000 prize for anyone who can demonstrate physic abilities under test conditions. It remains unclaimed to this day.