proving or disproving God .... or not - part 5: using science on God

The scientific methods of experimentation, disseminating results, and replication by independent experimenters, has been around a really really long time. We didn't just invent this in the twentieth century, or even the seventeenth century, or even in euro-american cultures.

The scientific method as such, which uses verifiable, replicable experimentation to reach conclusions, has been in use for thousands of years. However, there are some radical differences when this method is applied to that which is in essence non-material.

First, that which we have called "God" cannot be observed as external phenomena. There is nothing outside yourself on which you can conduct the experiments. Yes, you got it, the only experiments you can do are within yourself. You've got to be your own guinea pig.

Second, although there are a number of reliably replicated processes, it is completely dependent on each individual as to which method will work. There are enough individuals - across a wide diversity of cultures, locations, and periods of time - who have successfully employed each of the methods to verify the validity of each. But for any one particular person there is no way of knowing which method will work for them and which won't. So every person setting out on this journey of exploration will more likely encounter methods that don't work than methods that do. Which is one reason these individuals are exceedingly rare.

Third, what one achieves at the end of the process is not an intellectual conceptual understanding that can be explained, diagramed, or presented in a PowerPoint. It is not even something that can be expressed in words. It is utterly and exclusively experiential, transcending the verbal, rational, intellectual process of the mind. All the extant records of those who have made this journey are in agreement. The experience is real, it is replicable, it is consistent across cultures, societies, and millennia of time, irrespective of the different religions. And it is inherently inexpressible; no one else can comprehend it unless they've been there themselves.

All of those who have conducted these experiments on themselves are in agreement. To make it across that last barrier, you have to leave the intellect behind and jump in wearing only your heart. So there can be no intellectual explanation, definition, or report of results.

Clearly, this is not something that can be examined through impersonal, clinical, rational methods. It is, however, empirical and it is replicable. It's just like the quantum particle/wave experiments where the results you are able to get are contingent on the variables you select to test. The variables are all inextricably linked so you have to test for one set or for the other; the results will vary accordingly.


So can we at least talk to someone who's successfully completed the internal experimentation process? It depends - see the next blog.