The Empirical Argument for a Spiritual Understanding

Section selected: Empiricism is the idea that one can only be sure of what one can see, hear, touch, experience, or perceive at first hand. The logical evolution of thought based on empiricism leads to a decline in the acceptance of the supernatural realm and the acceptance of natural law.

Although the empirical arguments have denied the existence of a supernatural based on the lack of evidence supported by the five senses, this by no way is an absolute truth. There are other factors that can contribute to the human experience, and this factor carries within its limitation a different concept of understanding that can relates to how certain individual can perceive an event. That factor in which I’ll base my argument on has been recognized as ‘intuition’, a certain type of feeling which can develop from having understood certain code of conduct & historical patterns.

Natural Law:

The closest argument which I have developed to explain intuition logically is that it relates closely to the law of thermodynamics, which states, "Energy can neither be created nor destroyed; it can only be transfer from one form to the next." Likewise, Intuition could be perceived as an energy force which exists in the air, it can neither be created nor destroyed, it can only be transfer but it does not take a different form.

Although intuition may be abstract, it does not mean it hold no significance to us. If intuition (Spirit) does not exist than we can say that humans are born without a purpose in life. If we accept the idea that humans are born with a purpose in life, than they must be some imaginary force dedicated to record every step of that purpose. And that imaginary force is what I've described as the spiritual force, the transmutation process is carefully assigned, I perceive it as being a spiritual representation of the physical self which is compatible with that of the afterlife, which means there is a great possibility that we could be reliving the after life.

One in which that is very different from someone who is possessed. The difference between the two live in the mental processes of the physical & spiritual beings compare to the external (naked) spirit, where a mismatched would have resulted into a possessed person, while a match would be unaware of this manifestation.

This in essence is my fundamental belief, one that has been exemplified by many priests that the spirit exists, and cannot be asserted by anyone whom doesn’t have the gift or the training to recognize its existence. Nevertheless, the experiments that have gone in the past are sufficient enough to prove to anyone that spirits do in fact exist. Among the many cases, the most notorious have been Anneliese Michel & Robbie Doe, but these were exorcisms, which to my interpretation indicate a mismatched of spiritual connection which had resulted into a derange person not demon. The word demon is originated from the Greek word daimon. The Greeks called this “intelligent being by the name of "daimon."

The notion that we dream because we are alive is likely the truth, but I would not assert to it as a definite answer for the reason being that I do not understand the state of the naked spirit. But what I can assert to is that the spirit is the reason why we dream while we're alive, for the physical body is only a vessel which project to the world a physical representation of the spiritual self.

Thus, I believe that there can be multiple spirits manifesting within a body. Therefore, we are all spiritual people, we might not be in tune with our spiritual self because the information we have accepted as truths supreses our intelectual capabilities by way of vibrations. If the universe is one whole in which we are all part of then everything must be interconnected with nature, and every knowledge must be consistant with nature. For that reason, any knowledge that is not consistant with nature is simply not true knowledge, and therefore will not vibrate the right interpretation for the self understanding.

The Daimon of Socrates:

For instance, we know that Socrates possessed a personal daimon. "The favor of the gods," said Socrates, "has given me a marvelous gift, which has never left me since my childhood. It is a voice which, when it makes itself heard, deters me from what I am about to do and never urges me on." He spoke familiarly of this daimon, joked about it and obeyed blindly the indications it gave. Eventually, his friends never took an important step without consulting it. But the daimon had its sympathies, and when it was unfavorable to the questioner it remained absolutely silent; in that event it was quite impossible for Socrates to make it speak.”

The Physical Argument:

“The human brain perceives reality on a very narrow spectrum of visible light and audible sound waves, this is how external information enters into waking thought. The human brain is a biological device, and in order to “see” something there must be electrochemical stimulation in the visual cortex. If you are making the case for spirit beings or invisible landscapes that can only be seen under the influence of psychedelics, you are making a case for the human brain being a kind of radio that can detect “spirit energy” that no other camera or mechanical energy-sensing device can perceive. While this is an interesting argument, it makes no sense. If there is a spirit energy out there that the human brain can perceive, other more sensitive devices should be able to perceive this spirit energy as well, yet none exist. Invoking the clause of “only I can see it (when I’m on drugs)” makes the claims of psychonauts all the more far-fetched, and when you ascribe spirit powers to visions produced by a chemical that naturally bonds to receptors in your visual cortex, it demonstrates a fundamental misunderstanding of how neurochemical stimulation of the neocortex results in perception. The visions are from the psychoactive molecule exciting neural activity within your brain, not from spirits emitting external waves on a higher-dimensional frequency that only you can perceive.”

The Denial of the Physical Argument:

The human being is not a machine and should not have been compared with one until machines are able to experience, and interpret feelings. There is no mentioned of the six senses (feelings) in the physical argument as if human being ought to behave just like machines. Nevertheless, what we perceive as being a just statement in the physical argument is the concept of “the human brain being a kind of radio that can detect spiritual energy.”

But what we’re not saying is that this radio frequency is comparable to a machine that can either sense or express feelings. The spirits are all around us, there are the living dead influencing the world in their own cosmic ways. The subconscious mind is indeed a powerful transmitter; it can transmit any knowledge of spiritual concept if the mind antenna is long enough to propagate a signal of wisdom profound enough to convince the world of its existence. Until machines can feel and sense for the purpose of sharing emotions, I don't think any accurate result can come out of comparing machines with humans.

The Psychosis argument:

"While there has been no satisfactory objective proof demonstrating that a spirit world exists, there has been an abundance of proof demonstrating that psychosis exists, and that the human mind is perfectly capable of fabricating detailed alternate realities without the aid of drugs or spirits. There have been many models of psychosis offered, including the dopamine model of psychosis and the cholinergic model of mediating waking/dreaming states. Hallucinations, mystical experience, and delusions of grandeur are par for the course with psychosis – as is paranoia and irrational belief – yet many people who use psychedelics spiritually or recreationally are not fond of using the term “acute psychosis” to describe the effects, though this description clearly fits in high dose cases. While psychedelics may give some people insights and an expanded consciousness, they can also lead to irrational behavior and the degradation of reason. In very simple terms, there is a psychedelic use threshold that eventually leads to mental irrationality in the user. It is unknown what this precise threshold is, and it is probably different for every person, but chronic use of high-dose psychedelics can either exacerbate existing psychotic tendencies or lead to other forms of mental irrationality, such as self-professed clairvoyance or telepathic contact with aliens, spirits, deities, and the like. Are these long-term effects best termed spiritual enlightenment or chronic recurrent delusional psychosis?"

The Denial of the Psychosis argument:

The Psychosis Argument also does not hold true, first this is not a case where someone has taken psychotic drugs, and second the description of hallucination offered is closely related with someone having a vision which does occur with a normal person who is not on drug. If hallucination involve dreaming about an idea than it could also be recognized as a synonym for vision, In that instant the clarity of that vision dictates whether that person is crazy or not. And if we’re making claims such as “psychedelics may give some people insights and an expanded consciousness while at the same time lead them to irrational behavior, and the degradation of reason” than we deserve the right to ask about the consistency in that statement? It would appear to us that if psychedelics can give us insights and expand our minds to consciousness we should also be able to use that insight to alter our behaviors so that we don’t appear crazy to people.

The notion of comparing psychedelics experiences with the spiritual connection of the individual to conclude that a good use of the spiritual experience should be just as advantageous as the psychedelics experience where the information obtained from the patient is use to “diagnose and cure disease, divine the use of plants, find missing objects, and perhaps even see the future” is just ridiculous to say the least.

To assume that is the case is to concur that the spirit that has manifested in person “A” should also manifest in person “B” as if both persons mental processes are equality identical. If we think of the spirit as a finger print, which imply that it must be closely identical to the mental processes of the person who possess it, than we can begin to see that the information that is transmitted from the spirit to the recipient must be decodable by the intellectual capability of the person whom the spirit has manifested itself over, and when tis is not the reality we believe this is when we have conditions such convulsive behaviors.

If a spirit should convey to a living person any information of future occurrences, than the living person should also know how to interpret the future, a skill which resides in the hands of an Astronomer (the Dogon People), for everything is relative; I couldn’t understand the human body without having studied Anatomy & Physiology.

Natural Law:

We live in a multi dimensional world, and whatever happens to us in this dimension is all part of the cosmos. Therefore, do to others as you would like done to you is not just a divine law, but also a natural law. In that sense if we would like evil done to us so that we can do evil to someone else does not satisfy the logic sense we’re the one attracting evil. Anyone who wishes evil on themselves is cheating life, removing themselves from the spiritual & social responsibilities that help shape their purpose and that of the world.

There are those who would disagree, and contest that science has no place in spirituality. Perhaps they may be looking at it through the short sighted lens when they should consider using different lenses, the farsighted lens. As we know there are different lenses for different views, if a photographer cannot capture the effect of an image with a regular lens, he or she may want to try a wide angle lens so that they see the surroundings of the target in focus.

Likewise, science has provided us with information that can be proven via experiences, but similarly not all information that is surrounded by a target can be understood by everyone. We live in a mystical world, and therefore not every concept that we come across can be proven through science. But science can help us understand what is or not mystical. If a person knows science you cannot trick him to have him confuse spirituality for that which is scientific. Therefore, science should not be viewed apart from religion, but instead different lenses that help us understand the concept of spirituality. Just as chemistry is clearly recognize as science, it is just as meaningful when chemicals are used to symbolize spiritual concepts.

Looking at spirituality through the lens of science:

“These results have intriguing philosophical implications, he notes, especially for the spiritually inclined. “You could say the experiment shows that space-time does not contain all the intelligent entities acting in the world because something outside of time is coordinating the photons’ results,” Suarez says. “Physics experiments cannot demonstrate the existence of God, but this test shows that today’s physics is compatible with all major religious traditions. There is strong experimental evidence for accepting that nonmaterial beings act in the world.”

Now, as you can see so far all of my efforts have been placed in demonstrating to my readers that there are in fact empirical evidences that have shown the criteria by which the spiritual world is understood. That in effect is the academic understanding of the spiritual world, for the real knowledge that is hidden behind the spiritual life is experimental rather than literal. It is not a knowledge that is explained neither for contest nor to prove a point. Those who possess spiritual knowledge more often than that do not care to prove to anyone the power of the supernatural. It is a secret that the society wishes to keep among their respective members.

The debate over the initial cause:

Although the argument for the existence of God cannot be proven from the cosmological explanation, a great deal of skepticism rest within the nature of the initial cause. The atheist argued that just because the initial cause which created the universe is different from the limited causes does not make the initial cause an outcome of a creator; it could just be another cause. From this analogy we understand the atheist rational for not believing in a creator.

However, we cannot say for certain that just because the Christian, Muslim, the Jewish & the Voodoo person believe in a creator means that they’re delusional or psychedelics. It should be equally accepted that if the atheist believe that the first cause is just another cause rather than a cause initiated by a creator than there is no reason why the religious person should not believe that the first cause was initiated by a creator. After all, we are both clueless as to what initiated the first cause.

The Historical Example:

Is it possible to prove on planet earth an initial cause that is different than other causes which we could not have explained rationally? As an example if we were to consider the Dinosaur Extinction caused by the Meteorite impact we can add a significant point to the argument. Although the initial cause started in space after careful studies of the impact no scientific evidence have yet to prove the event that might have caused such a world- wide wipeout. Knowing very well that we do not know anything about the initial cause of the Meteorite could we say it was God's work or simply another cause we do not understand?

Another example is that some of us saw the movie ‘The Devil Inside’ which may have triggered the atheist to ask does spirit exists, and if it does how come he has never seen one? These are all rational questions to ask, but keep in mind that just because we do not understand something doesn’t make it untrue. We do not understand the initial cause of the universe nor do we understand what caused the Meteorite; all we know is that something must have caused them because both causes have created an impact.

Likewise, the Muslim, Christian, Jewish and the Voodoo person may not be able to explain how the spirit manifests itself on them or others, but they do experience the affect, and the evidence is sometimes noticeable by others. In essence, this is just like the domino example attributed from the infamous cause argument where we understand the effects experienced by the limiting properties of the dominos, but we cannot comprehend the initial cause of things that have unlimited properties. As explained by Muslims scholars this happen simply because we ourselves are limited agents, and thus we cannot comprehend anything with infinite characteristic.

We do not know for sure that the spirit has infinite characteristic, and being that it can be manifested on a person we have concluded that the spirit must be limited within its realm of existence just like we humans are limited. We do not know how the universe begins; all we know is the effect that has occurred within our limited space.

The Characteristic of the Naked Spirit:

We presumed that the characteristic of the naked spirit when the spirit is not being occupied by a person also has limited properties for the reason being that it could manifest itself on a person, but we do not know anything about the characteristic of the naked spirit when it's not being manifested on a person. Therefore, the spiritual nature of a manifestation is comprehensible because it has been transmitted into a limiting agent with limited properties, the person, but once depart it is no longer understood because of it naked characteristic which cannot be determined without an agent.

We’ve come to understand that every event that is understood by the human mind as being scientific, to some level possess a spiritual nature if we were to consider all the living organisms that this event has affected. Events that are not understood by the human mind, although may be a scientific to some, but a spiritual one to most. Thus, the level in which we understand spirituality is attributed into everything we know about life.

A person may practice spirituality but yet do not understand the scientific aspect of it. We have noticed that there is different levels of scientific knowledge which are available according to one's mental & physical capacity as well as a person ability to keep secrecy, for not all Scientific knowledge are for public domain. We have Asthrophysics, Sacred Science (Mysticism), Scientology & Social Science.

Whatever event that a person cannot rationalize becomes spirituality to that person, but that doesn't mean all rational events possess no attributes of spiritual consideration. If sacred science is to be considered spiritual knowledge in the sense that it is practice and proven true, than just because we understand the fundamentals of that science wouldn't dismissed any event understood by that science as being a none spiritual occurrence. It may not be true for abstract theories of life, but when considering the physicality of things, certain event may appear irrational to some and yet recognized as a sacred science.

From this reason we have derived to the conclusion that the human mind is the limited agent, and if the spirit can manifest itself in the physical body of a being than the spirit also possess limited attributes which may not be understood by most people. But if such understanding exist, it must remain a secret offered only to those who are worthy and capable of safeguarding this knowledge.

Therefore, the more knowledge the physical mind of the person acquires the easier it is for the mind to understand the differences between scientific events vs. spiritual events where the different lie within our interpretation of sacred science. If we conclude that all events are scientific than what we see as spirituality is relative to our scientific understanding of the world. Thus, the connection between the Naked spirit and the physical mind of the living person is directly proportional to the type of spirit that can manifest in that person without convulsive reactions.

We can conclude that if everything is scientific than anything that the mind cannot comprehend from the rational sense become known as spirituality to that person, but not for all. Thus, the initial cause which created the universe can very well be a scientific event, but since the mind cannot understand that event, it is within the right of every spiritual person to acknowledge that event as being the work of a creator if the religious person wishes to address it as such, for no scientific discoveries have been able to prove undoubtedly that an explosion created the Universe. And if they were able to prove it, what initiated the explosion how it happen would still leaves us with doubts. Therefore, spirituality is incomprehensible science which even if become understood as sacred science will not denote the faith of the believer.

Recommended Readings:

The Nature of Daimon

Natural Law Theory

The History & Psychology of Possession

The Scientific Theory of Thomas Kuhn has been Proven Invalid

The Priest Physicist who Would Marry Science to Religion

The Case Against the Spirit World Model of Psychedelic Action