What a narrow, judgmental thing to say. I am fascinated by the advances being made by science, old fashioned science is old, I've studied it, my interest lies in what we are learning about NOW. Boring old fashioned science is a good foundation from which to spring into the future, Mr. Henry, but it is not the place for me to live.
You have the right to assume that ANYONE'S research into unfamiliar areas has no value. This strikes me as kind of a religiously oriented attitude though. One of the problems that sciences faces today is just what you have posted: before one can do the research it has to be PROVEN to have value. Pure science is done for the learning, not for the profit. I study things that interest me, I don't care whether you think they have value or not. Here you are on this thread posting about the existence of God and yet you aren't even interested enough in the question to discover whether you have the ability to lift your consciousness out of your physical body when the experiment is easy and cheap. If you already know everything you need to know, then you and I have nothing to discuss.
Religion and God are not the same thing, in fact there is no proof that there is even a connection between the two. Instead of trying to start at the ultimate end of the problem, I decided to start where I was and use the tools I had at hand. Consciousness is available in every person I meet (okay, maybe not George Bush), but in pretty much everyone else. If people discover that they are not their physical bodies, then that suggests the possibility that there may be other entities who exist without physical bodies... can you say God? What I "can't see the value in" is arguing about something for which there is no unimpeachable evidence. People have been arguing about religion for thousands of years, what will it accomplish for me to do it some more? Better for me to examine the things I have at hand than to spend my time arguing imponderables.
You are still misjudging me. Why judge me at all? Why do you feel that you know me well enough to state that I am a bored technician? How do you know the genesis of my curiousity? You come across as being very supercillious, speaking down to the "crunchy" proles. The term "objective science" certainly has more than one simple meaning, and for you to announce that I was "confused" without providing any explanation or proof seems pretty arrogant. In fact most of your post seems arrogant.
Is this to imply that my post was not sincere? How do you know that your post will be upsetting to me? You haven't done anything yet except sort of parade around with your tumescent ego sticking out in front of you like the cowcatcher on a train. Your accusations of throwing tantrums and spanners is totally without substantiation. I can see how you and Nums would bang heads, he writes kind of like you do, but he uses more bolds and underlines.
