Are Spirits Scientifically Possible?

[crowonsnow]

Are spirits scientifically possible?

There have been a few discussions lately about whether gods and faeries exist, and we can add a host of other names to that list, but all these entities are different spirits. So are spirits scientifically possible? Yes? No? And please explain.

 

[Le_Chiot_Noir]

No.

The strictest definition of spirit precludes all things natural-- i.e., empricially or ‘scientifically’ verifiable. However, the spiritual world does interact with the physical world, and these instances CAN be verified scientifically-- most notable in the union of soul and body in any living human being. This is, of course, unacceptable as a scientifc premise, because the involvement of the spiritual world cannot be submitted for scrutiny.

There are phenomena termed ‘paranormal’-- apparitions, poltergeists, hauntings, etcetera, but these are not well-documented, and besides the exceptions do not make the scientific rule. Besides, I suspect that, should they so choose, spiritual activity need not violate any physical or scientific principle to achieve their goals in this world.

 

[crowonsnow]

No. …However, the spiritual world does interact with the physical world, and these instances CAN be verified scientifically–

Isn’t that like the ether and the propogation of light?

How can something be real if you cannot directly verify its existence?

 

[Le_Chiot_Noir]

Isn’t that like the ether and the propogation of light?

Perhaps. It is tempting to say yes, but I think I’ll wait until they run some definitive tests in the Large Hadron Collider before saying anything in that regard, hehe. I’m only sorry I don’t have the mind to grasp the intricacies of quantum physics-- there are things going on there that are too hilarious to miss.

How can something be real if you cannot directly verify its existence?

A very good question. The short answer is that reality is not contingent on verification.

The long answer is that this is a question I’m not certain I-- or anyone else here-- is qualified to answer definitively. This has been the pursuit of Metaphysics and Epistemology for a great long time. I will be the last to pretend that millenia of pursuit can be summarized with justice in one or two forum posts.

I’m sorry if I seem to be copping out, but I’m just curious about how far you’re willing to take this.

 

[Rulkiewicz]

Are spirits scientifically possible?

There have been a few discussions lately about whether gods and faeries exist, and we can add a host of other names to that list, but all these entities are different spirits. So are spirits scientifically possible? Yes? No? And please explain.

It’s scientifically impossible for bee’s to fly, yet they do.

 

[crowonsnow]

It’s scientifically impossible for bee’s to fly, yet they do.

If you are saying that it is scientifically impossible for bees to fly just as it is scientifically impossible for spirits to exist, I need to know how it is scientifically impossible for bees to fly and then I can respond without making any presumptions. So tell me how it is scientifically impossible for bees to fly.

 

[crowonsnow]

A very good question. The short answer is that reality is not contingent on verification…I’m sorry if I seem to be copping out, but I’m just curious about how far you’re willing to take this.

How far? I’m just hoping that other posters will respond and that we can have a discussion. Most posters say that spirits are beyond science. I maintain that this is a copout. But if they’ll assert as you do that spirits are scientifically impossible but real nonetheless, I’ll at least understand their methodology.

 

[sfl]

Everything that makes up a human being is energy. Energy cannot be created or destroyed.

 

[tobias]

Since science is concerned with the natural, and spirits are supernatural (outside the natural), then science is impotent on the matter. This is not a cop out, just a recentering of terms.
It’s like asking if its religiouslly possible for the theory of relativity to be accurate?
If a question is outside the realm of a discipline, then ask the proper discipline/s.

 

[Neil_Anthony]

Are spirits scientifically possible?

There have been a few discussions lately about whether gods and faeries exist, and we can add a host of other names to that list, but all these entities are different spirits. So are spirits scientifically possible? Yes? No? And please explain.

Yes, they can even interact with physical things, by influencing the probabilities of quantum events. That’s how the soul controls the brain and thus the body. And presumably that’s how God does miracles.

 

[Sam_Maloney]

Can science verify the existence of Joy? It can interview people who believe in joy, who claim to have seen it; but can it confirm their belief in tangible terms, tell us the color of joy, it’s smell, its native habitat?

Can science verify my sorrow, weigh it, compare it to yours, so that we can know which is heavier, whose burden greater?

Can science verify the existence of Love? Distinguish the pure from the counterfit, tell us where to find it, how to make it last?

Science is a marvelous tool. But a life lived without the things that science cannot verify would be a very poor life, hardly worthy of the word.

In fact, given the choice between living without science or living by science alone, I’d go without.

 

[Starwynd]

Except emotions can have physical effects that can be measured. For example, high heart rate can be caused by anxiety. Lie detector tests measure the body’s reactions to questions and that’s how a lie can be determined or not.

So yes, science can confirm the existence of emotions like joy and hatred.

 

[The_Barbarian]

So tell me how it is scientifically impossible for bees to fly.

Actually, it’s not. The guy who calculated that, neglected to apply the correct Reynolds number, and didn’t consider the resylin pads under the wing levers in the bee’s body.

Those two factors make it clear that bees can fly.

 

[crowonsnow]

Actually, it’s not. The guy who calculated that, neglected to apply the correct Reynolds number, and didn’t consider the resylin pads under the wing levers in the bee’s body.

Those two factors make it clear that bees can fly.

Yes, and other factors. That whole subject has become a bit of an urban myth.

 

[crowonsnow]

Yes, they can even interact with physical things, by influencing the probabilities of quantum events. That’s how the soul controls the brain and thus the body. And presumably that’s how God does miracles.

I think that would mean it’s logically possible, but not scientifically possible. I can construct a logical argument with a weak premise that still makes sense strictly on logical terms. For example I can say that whenever I see the color red there is a gremlin doing a tap dance. But that would hardly have made gremlins scientifically possible.

 

[Oakleaf]

Theologically, angels and demons are preternatural. That means they interface with nature but are not limited by it. Science deals only with the natural world, so would theoretically could at best only partially describe angelic or demonic phenomena.

Modern science has lots of little “wierd spots” of phenomena that are outside our ordinary human senses. Black holes are one. The extra dimensions “curled up” inside our own 3-D world theorized by String Theory are another. Problem is that insofar these things are described by science, they are natural.

Nothing wrong with that. Religion deals with the spiritual domain, which transcends the physical. Scientists can describe a human being in great mechanical, chemical, even energetic detail, but cannot describe the spiritual “spark” that is itself life or consciousness.

 

[crowonsnow]

Can science verify the existence of Joy? It can interview people who believe in joy, who claim to have seen it; but can it confirm their belief in tangible terms, tell us the color of joy, it’s smell, its native habitat?

Can science verify my sorrow, weigh it, compare it to yours, so that we can know which is heavier, whose burden greater?

Can science verify the existence of Love? Distinguish the pure from the counterfit, tell us where to find it, how to make it last?

Science is a marvelous tool. But a life lived without the things that science cannot verify would be a very poor life, hardly worthy of the word.

In fact, given the choice between living without science or living by science alone, I’d go without.

Love, joy, sorrow, stress - those are physical states. Yes, science can verify their existence because of physical changes. We can give those specific states whatever label we wish, but they are still verifiable as physiological changes. We can see those states in other species as well as in ourselves.

 

[Neil_Anthony]

I think that would mean it’s logically possible, but not scientifically possible. I can construct a logical argument with a weak premise that still makes sense strictly on logical terms. For example I can say that whenever I see the color red there is a gremlin doing a tap dance. But that would hardly have made gremlins scientifically possible.

Why would you compare how the soul interacts with the brain with your strange gremlin argument? The brain seems to be designed to make it very susceptible to random outcomes of quantum events. Most of us have subjective experience with our soul that we can talk about and compare. What makes it unscientific to talk about how the soul would interact with the brain?

 

[Neil_Anthony]

Love, joy, sorrow, stress - those are physical states. Yes, science can verify their existence because of physical changes. We can give those specific states whatever label we wish, but they are still verifiable as physiological changes. We can see those states in other species as well as in ourselves.

You can only say that joy is a physical state if you ignore the subjective feelings associated with those states. Of course, the only way we have to measure the subjective feeling is by experiencing it, which is by definition subjective, and therefore can’t be measured by science. But that is a limitation of science. You can’t just pretend that subjective feelings don’t exist because your favourite investigative method doesn’t work on it.

 

[crowonsnow]

Why would you compare how the soul interacts with the brain with your strange gremlin argument? The brain seems to be designed to make it very susceptible to random outcomes of quantum events. Most of us have subjective experience with our soul that we can talk about and compare. What makes it unscientific to talk about how the soul would interact with the brain?

“Strange” is in the eye of the beholder. A soul is a strange concept, same as a gremlin. How would you verify the existence of souls that is different than how I verify the existence of tap-dancing gremlins?

You’ve simply stated that whenever there is a human there is a soul. I’ve simply stated that whenever there is the color red there is a tap dancing gremlin.