The European Tribune is a forum for thoughtful dialogue of European and international issues. You are invited to post comments and your own articles.
Please REGISTER to post.
find it amazing that you sincerely contest the existence of a spiritual dimension
I just want you to provide some actual evidence that I need to take it seriously. I do not confirm or deny the existence of fairies either, but that does not cause me to throw salt over my shoulder whenever I spill something to chase away fairies.
there exists a branch in the Sciences called "Contemplative Science"
No, that's a branch of the pseudo-sciences where the language of neurobiology is abused to provide justification for religious dogma, in much the same way that you abuse quantum mechanics in your immediately following paragraph.
More generally, "contemplative science" is scholasticism, not science. Sitting around on your ass and contemplating does not science make. Science requires data and predictions. You have to make non-trivial predictions, ahead of time, that are distinguishable from existing theory and which come true more often than would be expected from random chance.
while I don't know/understand - quantum physics, it's an area often cited to scientifically back or explain certain spiritual phenomena.
I do understand quantum physics, and it doesn't.
quantum physicists are probably less interested in showing where their findings border on the spiritual.
That's because quantum physicists usually don't like misrepresenting their results. (As an aside, very nearly every physicist in this day and age is a quantum physicist. You simply can't do modern physics in most areas of enquiry without a reasonable understanding of quantum mechanics.)
It is such a pity (for yourself and the debate) that you cannot even move away from your formed beliefs by one inch.
I can and I regularly do. But only when presented with a model of the world that makes superior predictions or makes the same predictions but is more parsimonious.
You provide neither here.
Can it be by accident that all birds beasts & men have their right side & left side alike shaped
No, that is not by accident. Bilateral symmetry was established very early in animal evolution (it wasn't inevitable, though. There were perfectly viable species at the time that displayed trilateral symmetry, so apart from an accident of evolution, you would be wondering why all beasts and men have their back, right and left sides alike shaped.
Whence arises this uniformity in all their outward shapes
Evolution from a common ancestor.
If Newton's reflections are true, it does indeed change the understanding of science.
Newton's reflections reflect mostly Newton's ignorance of biology and his failure to understand the weak anthropic principle. The former is forgivable for Newton (somewhat less so for you), since he lived a couple of centuries before biology existed as a coherent scientific pursuit. The latter is just sloppy.
Friends come and go. Enemies accumulate.
by IdiotSavant - Oct 14 4 comments
by IdiotSavant - Oct 14 7 comments
by Frank Schnittger - Oct 10 68 comments
by Oui - Oct 11 31 comments
by Oui - Oct 15 15 comments
by Frank Schnittger - Oct 8 75 comments
by ARGeezer - Oct 11 11 comments
by Oui - Oct 8 22 comments
by Oui - Oct 1515 comments
by IdiotSavant - Oct 15
by Oui - Oct 147 comments
by IdiotSavant - Oct 147 comments
by IdiotSavant - Oct 144 comments
by Oui - Oct 1131 comments
by ARGeezer - Oct 1111 comments
by Frank Schnittger - Oct 1068 comments
by Oui - Oct 822 comments
by Frank Schnittger - Oct 875 comments
by Oui - Oct 329 comments
by Frank Schnittger - Oct 223 comments
by Oui - Oct 25 comments
by Oui - Oct 1
by Oui - Sep 2872 comments
by ARGeezer - Sep 2729 comments
by gmoke - Sep 26
by Oui - Sep 263 comments
by Frank Schnittger - Sep 2626 comments
by Oui - Sep 2538 comments