Science, spirit, and the soul
The Journal of near-death studies 1988 DOI: 10.17514/jnds-1988-6-4-p206-222. (opens in new tab)
Study at a glance
AI-extracted from the abstract| Characteristics | Theoretical or philosophical paper Peer reviewed |
|---|---|
| Citations | 1 |
| Key points | Argues that science, though indispensable and successful in fields like physics and chemistry, improperly extends its methods to consciousness, extrasensory perception, life, and evolution, and intimidates those who would testify to such phenomena. The author contends that scientists apply techniques suited to inert bodies in areas where they are not appropriate. |
Abstract
Current science is extremely bold when it comes to saying what happened nanoseconds after the Big Bang.It has invented some one hundred particles that haven't been observed to explain some 32 that have been observed, most for a brief lifetime of less than a billionth of a second.But science doesn't explain consciousness.It doesn't explain extrasensory perception.It doesn't explain life; and its explanation of evolution is far from satisfactory.And if it be excused from these difficult questions on the grounds that they are not the business of science, it still can be charged not only with neglecting an important subject, but with intimidating witnesses who would like to testify.We cannot, in this day and age, get along without science.That is because science, which started humbly to deal with aspects of nature that could be measured objectively, has contributed enormously to the understanding of the subjects it has been instrumental in developing: physics, chemistry, biology, mathematics, astronomy.In fact, it has gained a momentum, a reputation, that leads the public to expect it to do what was not in its original purview.Even scientists themselves have become so enamored of the techniques and formulations success ful with inert bodies that they do not hesitate to apply those techniques to areas where they are not appropriate.