Her posted question:
I believe that spirituality or spiritual phonema [sic] works in tandem with science. Some believe the answer must be either strictly scientifically proven or it is only explained as spiritual or paranormal phenomena.
I will explain my theory later in this thread.
What is your theory?"
My response:
Well, I look at it this way (take a deep breath and get some coffee):
We find something unusual that happens. First, we look to science for a reasonable and rational explanation. If that cannot be found then we must look to the "paranormal" answer or rather we must class it as something that is unexplained through ordinary means.
That does not rule out that the "spiritual" or "paranormal" explanation may not one day, with time and effort, be explained through science. For this reason I consider "spirituality" a stop along the road to fuller understanding.
The two are not mutually exclusive. Some of the most intense "intent" I have ever put forth has been during surgery when I knew the odds were stacked very much against my patient. More often than not, our combined efforts as a surgical team brought them through. But, can I say that there were not other forces there as well helping to guide each decision? Nope... and sometimes it felt like it too.
But, sometimes we are so unsure of a spiritual belief that we will grab a scientific theory even if it does not fit in order to "shore up" the argument that something is real.
This can be a simple misreading of complex data or it can be intentional in some cases, but a factual error does not add weight to an argument except for those who are not aware of the full data and cannot spot the error or inconsistency.
I suppose I approach things much too logically sometimes at least for others. Lots of people read something in an article in the newspaper and then start making assumptions and leaps... if such and such has been proven by science THEN such and such could (must) be true as well.
And of course "could" becomes "must" by the third email.
I think that there are many theories in current science that may inform spiritual belief. But informing a subject and proving a subject are vastly different things.
For example, we know that some researchers suggested several years ago that particles seemed to be affected by the "expectations" of the researchers. This little tidbit was immediately hailed as "proof" of everything from "The Secret" to prayer. Unfortunately, there is no direct link. Sure, it might INFORM the latter and give us some interesting places to research in the future as we know more, but it does not PROVE those things.
And here's where I get stumped. I meet people frequently who want me to go along with them on these assumptions. When I say that I won't make the leap with them then I get the question - well, it's possible, won't you admit that? Well, it's possible. It's also possible the sun might start circling the Earth I suppose. But the smart money isn't on it. However, when people say this they are not admitting that it really is only a possibility but trying to get you to validate their logical error by another means.
So, to sum up this incredibly long composition -
I look to science first, for what science has not been able to explain I look to spirituality or whatever you want to call it. BUT, I always hope that science will be able to provide that answer as well. After all, science and spirituality ultimately seek the same answers:
Who are we?
Why are we here?
Where do we go from here?
Finis...
Now, let me further state that I saw a post on Unexplained Mysteries this morning that helps make my point. Someone ran a story stating that scientists don't know what they're talking about because they won't say definitively that metaphysics and the paranormal exist. As "proof" of that argument this person pulled out the exact example I quote above dealing with particle physics. You could almost see him doing a little dance and sticking his tongue out as he stated that this was "proof" that scientists' own theories showed metaphysicians were right all along.
But does it prove that? No, it indicates that within certain narrowly defined experiments the outcomes were statistically anomalous. It does not "prove" that some magical force is at work whether you want to call it "dark energy", "attraction", or "Zeke". What it does tell us is here is something unusual that happened and this will be an interesting area of study.
The people who make these huge leaps and assumptions are the same people who would find this logic almost unassailable:
All cats are animals. Bob is an animal. Therefore, Bob must be a cat.
And there you have it.
All content © Buck Bannister.
Buck's Ghost's and Hauntings
All Rights Reserved.
















