How to be more scientifically neutral across the religions and sciences

[tvaeli]

My intellectual pursuit is about a theory, which would hold not regarding on whether there is reincarnation or heaven or not, or whether we could have advanced psychic abilities or not. If the theory of life, karma and ethics, also the logic is not becoming inefficient with some combinations of variables, and you can always use more or less the same language, it's kind of scientific. Especially, it's communicative - science is shared -, and it allows people with different abilities and perceptions of truth to understand each others based on the same model. I do have a strong personal opinion and experience about whether I believe one or another of such claims, but for me a more important point is understanding and safe feelings with diverse world views, also the ability to point out the same mistakes.

I have the most important points:

Psychic Powers: Spiritual views do not specifically address that psychic powers, or deep consciousness about things like love and compassion (which have a taste of a miracle, when you experience them, even when they are basically quite simple to scientifically explain up to certain degree), would somehow require attributes of physics, which are not easy to find out or link with humans. More easy theory is that whether you have those abilities or not, your brain is still probable to develop a model of perception, which feels like real telepathy or magic power; our brain is multitasked, and when it reacts to all kinds of things, it finally creates our "virtual reality". It can be mixed - I have perceptions, which I call telepathy, but those are much more detailed and clear when I am also in material contacts with people; those can be very strong, but rather chaotic perceptions, but I can create models of brain functioning, which could reach similar occurrences without any radio contact or non-locality. I am very sure that telepathy utilizes such processes, and gains advantage of conscious and subconscious material inflow of information and processing of facts. Spiritually, this is philosophical case - it's not very important in terms of how we help the humankind and our friends, whether the psychic power is somehow "unnatural" or hard to explain; it's rather the spiritual, practical case, that it either works or does not. I would say we have many perceptions of other people, even perceptions of their emotions in more or less the same time when they are happening in the distance, and this skill can be developed further - in terms of spiritual growth, we want this human contribution and it's a side-effect if we can provide some new interesting details to science about the functioning or possibilities of humans, or about specific genes or strengths of soul, or phases of development.

Enlightenment: As explained by Buddha, we do not need any mystery at all to explain why good karma, and cultivation of virtues of Buddhism and other religions, would eventually help to get to more meaningful and deeper stages of life. Indeed, clear consciousness of certain truths with a strength of a theorem, which is told to be a prerequisite to be a non-returner, leads us to best consequence. Attributes, which are similar to described psychic powers, would also appear in natural world by people simply supporting us in ways, which resemble those powers; for example we get more information as we handle it more carefully and responsibly, and our emotions affect other people more, when we are emotionally more beneficial. We could mean very material things by those terms about the powers, and this could possibly benefit the people, who understand the theorems in enlightenment, but do not have any prerequisites of psychic powers, if such are possible, or who do not want to break the philosophy of materialism - they would fulfill those ideals with material or scientific means and bring the same karmic consequence with people, who are capable of something harder to explain. To be neutral, we need to be very social with those people, who are atheists, but ethical, and create technologies or techniques equivalent to good magic. For example, by becoming more sensitive without becoming sensitives.

Ethics: Equivalent models appear, whether the ethics is applied to our interactions with people and physical matter, or any kind of entities with higher consciousness or other powers; karmic or ethical principles of energy, doing good and bad, rewards and punishments - they happen all around, follow the same patterns, and eventually lead to same decisions. We can see a vision in a dream, but we cannot find out, how the brain or mind creates this - are we aware of every psychological, physical and biological factor or not. In religion, for example Buddhism, I think this is completely irrelevant; it's questionable, whether this is very important in terms of efficiency, whether we have explained it all or not. Eventually, as we measure it, we explain it and our spiritual theories would not have such exceptions or anomalies for long time - theories of magic, about how to apply will by creating a subconscious intent, is simply a psychology; those things could have been unresearched centuries ago, but today it's only a question, how many forces of nature are involved - theoretically, the magic works anyway, i.e. you can create a subconscious intent somehow and it would seem to create small meaningful random events in your life, with butterfly effects of some kind etc.

Logic: Also, very similar attributes of logic, like lack of resources, management of time etc., are there in all those potential spheres.

To be scientifically neutral, we have to consider the following:

Not claim that something must break the physics, and atheists or skeptics should also not be so sure in this; I mean something we really experience. Alternative theories exist, which are not too demanding and imply the effects of some kind. The mind, it alters the matter anyway, even if it does use our bodies and all kinds of signals between people or people and the nature. We should not be sensational or give people very high, unrealistic promises, as we experience deeper, more subtle things. There are also a probability that some people are, for example, as sensitive as we are, but in a way which can be more or less *completely* explained; for them, they use the standard terms to talk about those topics.

Having a common language, so that all those different people, who have built different models in their brains, can use the same language about things, which have a real impact. For example, someone might have hypersensory perception, but it's not so easy to verify this - it's much more easy to see, if they have any benefit in communication with people, finding objects, creating something etc. These real effects, which affect our lives, should be expressed in same terms as we use when we are sure someone could do the same with only the known attributes of human body and mind. For example, a telepathic experience might be unreliable to verify or very vague, but we can measure the people on basis of their effective communication, and the benefit from this communication. If they are able to benefit from their abilities, it would naturally affect their score, but also you can create more effective communication based on more introspection about the language and it's possibilities. It's rather philosophical, how you do it, and practical, what you are doing - so, the philosophy of others is not so much disturbing us, but the practical sides should be measured and standardized between models, like approaches of psychology, which explain certain factors with something hypersensory, or approaches, which explain them materialistically. Those are useful models and we need a common language, which would not confuse people about what you are actually able to do with all what you are.

But still, there are differences ..I think we still need freedom of religion. It's currently assumed that all companies follow the same laws and thus hire people with all religious backgrounds - but rather, we should bring this freedom to another level, where companies can be different, valuating traits coming from religions or atheism, but the ecosystem is diverse, so that it's assured that all the different companies exist (in different areas of life); also that we do not check the spirituality, but the exact strengths coming from it, and appreciate when atheists have same kind of ethics, and materialist solutions to same problems.