Raja,

Your queries are many and I am unable to answer all. One thing that science has made clear is that human brain is hardwired for God naturally.  A new generation of neuroscientists is addressing those questions directly, with the ambitious goal of measuring what happens to the human brain during spiritual experiences.

As a non-believer Muslim leaning to left,  I devoted many years to a comparative study of World religions, my conclusion is that except some philosophical religions and small communities religion (whose religion is based on fear of natural element) all have in their root or deep down same human values. To my mind, it verifies the claim of Quran that Allah for the guidance of humanity had sent prophets with the same message that became complex and more comprehensive over time per development stage of civilisation.  Over time people forgot or someone else destroyed the original message and they added and modified it per their wisdom, so I believe in one God (Allah) all powerful, unique beyond all limitations of humans and has no gender.

Raja,

Your queries are many and I am unable to answer all. One thing that science has made clear is that human brain is hardwired for God naturally.  A new generation of neuroscientists is addressing those questions directly, with the ambitious goal of measuring what happens to the human brain during spiritual experiences.

As a non-believer Muslim leaning to left,  I devoted many years to a comparative study of World religions, my conclusion is that except some philosophical religions and small communities religion (whose religion is based on fear of natural element) all have in their root or deep down same human values. To my mind, it verifies the claim of Quran that Allah for the guidance of humanity had sent prophets with the same message that became complex and more comprehensive over time per development stage of civilisation.  Over time people forgot or someone else destroyed the original message and they added and modified it per their wisdom, so I believe in one God (Allah) all powerful, unique beyond all limitations of humans and has no gender.

Dear Firoz Khan

Thanks for you contribution.....can you kindly give some logical  prove in favor of your supposed concept of god allah as claimed by islamic mythology, if its beyond human mindset plz ?

Regards,

Dear NA Raja Khan

Indeed the content of this article is related to some of the answers given in the discussion forum on the concept of God, Gods and Religions.

It also stimulates my thinking about the evolution of consciousness, beliefs and creativity of human beings throughout their evolution and maturation as a species. If particularize first in the first pro-human living beings, the imperative to believe in gods related to natural phenomena, both those who caused astonishment, as he perceived as beneficial for clan or tribe or those who intimidated him by destroying his environment, make them feel pain, physically harm or "kill" their peers.

These pro-human to evolve and mature as homo sapiens, mainly in its anatomical and functional brain complexity, develops and redefine their physical, mental and emotional experiences, creating Legends, Myths and specific Gods for relevant for him aspects of nature God (a) of rain, thunder god, god of the ocean, God (a) of the earth goddess of fertility, etc.

There in antiquity, especially in the time of Roman and Greek Classical culture, speculation based on anthropological and archaeological evidence that the brains of humans makes about 10,000 to 5000 BC, was Bicameral type without great development limit and filter that modulates the sensations and perceptions of the left brain and the right, without discrimination mixing magical, intuitive and belief of the right brain, rational and logical left brain thinking thoughts.

Therefore their magical experiences and beliefs were so real to them, as they had during their dreams and experiencing in everyday waking thoughts and behavior in their social and professional role of his time (emperor, military, gladiator, legislator farmer, sailor, carpenter, craftsman, trader, etc.). Hence the need to learn to live with magical and factual thoughts, beliefs and intuitions vs objective reasoning and common sense.

In more recent times, as contemporary twentieth century to date, we still wonder how we can live with religious beliefs and thoughts and thoughts, experiences, behaviors and scientific / technological development. I think that coexistence is possible in harmony without madness and if a full spiritual and scientific creativity and technological innovation.

On the specific issue related to this article and developing in Research Gate, I will issue these thoughts and others I expressed the possibility of coexistence Science-Religion.

I remember an essay trying to explain in Greece, Rome, Egypt and other classical and ancient communities, why was common "polytheistic" religious tradition of gods of nature (rain, sun), semi-human gods (Hercules Achilles) and heavenly gods (Zeus, Mars, Venus) governing the life and culture of its people, insomuch living, dying, warring and loved to meet their designs or suit your tastes.

A historical, linguistic and anthropological explanation is that the "man" of that time had a "Bicameral Brain"; that is, a brain divided into two chambers or brains with little or no communication, given the low development and maturation of neuronal connections in the left brain to the right, via the neuro-anatomical structure known as the corpus callosum.

It is argued that in the left brain residence of rational cognitive skills, ligüísticas and mathematics, the intellectual thoughts goals, rational, logical and pragmatic scientists developed; while the right brain, perceptions, thoughts and idealizations of emotional, sensitive, spiritual, moral and artistic life developed. In other words, the right brain was the neuro-anatomical and functional seat of subjective thoughts, intuition and religion.

In the same sense of speech, if perceptions and thoughts of the subjective on the right side were generated, they could not properly communicate with the nerve centers of the left side, which subjects mingled both thoughts and had great difficulty in separating, analyzing and 'evaluate separately perceptions and then synthesize them into a common thought.

Also, subjective, sensory and emotional perceptions of the right brain, "heard inside" as if they were commands or dictated by external supernatural beings to him and felt obliged to comply, despite the irrational thereof, as make war on an ally people for alleged treason or kill a family member or loved one for "alleged damage to his person or jealousy."

This type of "split brain or dual chamber" worked in the manner of a dysfunctional brain or ill, with hallucinations and delusions unfounded, similar to pathological functioning of people with schizophrenia. It is assumed that real events that happened in the sentimental and emotional life of certain historical figures of that time, was the basis for the creation of several literary works as "The Greek Tragedies"

Today, fortunately, I think our Central Nervous System (brain included) is much more developed and sufficiently inter-contectado among its various vital neurological centers, which enables us to associate and integrate perceptions, feelings, emotions and thoughts both objective and subjective and weigh each of them, their relevance, originality, feasibility and playback level both at the level of mental spiritual life to transcendence, as a theoretical and practical level of tangible experience of the scientific world.

Is there room for religious thoughts in a scientific mind? - ResearchGate. Available from: https://www.researchgate.net/post/Is_there_room_for_religious_thoughts_in_a_scientific_mind [accessed Sep 7, 2016].

regards

Dr. Jose Luis Garcia Vigil

Estimado Raja NA Khan

Efectivamente el contenido de este artículo tiene relación con algunas de las respuestas emitidas en el foro de discusión respecto del Concepto de Dios, Dioses y Religiones.

También estimula mi reflexión respecto de la evolución de´la consciencia, creencias y creatividad del ser humano a lo largo de su evolución y maduración como especie. Si particularizamos primero en los primeros seres vivos pro-humanos, el imperativo de creer en dioses relacionados con los fenómenos naturales, tanto los que le causaban asombro, como los que percibía como benéficos para su clan o tribu o aquellos que le intimidaban por destruir su entorno, hacerlos sentir dolor, dañar físicamente o "matar" a sus semejantes.

Estos pro-humanos al evolucionar y madurar como homo-sapiens, principalmente en su complejidad anatómica y funcional del cerebro, elabora y reelaboran sus experiencias físicas, mentales y emocionales, creando Leyendas, Mitos y Dioses específicos para aspectos relevantes para él, de la naturaleza: Dios(a) de la lluvia, Dios del trueno, Dios del Oceano, Dios(a) de la tierra, Diosa de la fertilidad, etc.

Existe en la Antigüedad, principalmente en la época de la cultura Romana y Griega Clásicas, la especulación con base en evidencias antropológicas y arqueológicas, que el cerebro de los humanos de hace aproximadamente 10,000 a 5000 años A.C, era de tipo Bicameral, sin gran desarrollo del límite y filtro que modula las sensaciones y percepciones del hemisferio cerebral izquierdo y el derecho, mezclando sin discriminar los pensamientos mágicos, intuitivos y de creencias del cerebro derecho, con los pensamientos racionales y lógicos del cerebro izquierdo.

Por tanto sus vivencias mágicas y creencias eran tan reales para ellos, como las que tenían durante sus sueños y las que experimentaban en la vigilia cotidiana de sus pensamientos y conductas en su rol social y laboral de su época (emperador, militar, gladiador, legislador, agricultor, marino, carpintero, artesano, comerciante, etc.). De ahí la necesidad de aprender a convivir con pensamientos mágicos y fácticos, con creencias e intuiciones vs raciocinio y sentido común objetivo.

En épocas más recientes, como la contemporánea del siglo XX a la fecha, todavía nos preguntamos como podemos convivir con creencias y pensamientos religiosos y con pensamientos, experiencias, conductas y desarrollo científico/tecnológico. Creo que es factible dicha convivencia en forma armónica sin llegar a la locura y si a una plena espiritualidad y creatividad científica e innovación tecnológica.

En la cuestión específica relacionada con este artículo y en desarrollo en Research Gate, emitiré estas reflexiones y otras que expresé de la posibilidad de convivencia Ciencia-Religión.

Recuerdo un ensayo que trataba de explicar en la Grecia, Roma, Egipto y otras comunidades clásicas y  antiguas, porqué era común la tradición religiosa "politeísta" de dioses de la naturaleza (de la lluvia, del sol), dioses semi-humanos (Hércules, Aquiles)  y dioses celestiales (Zeus, Marte, Venus) que regían la vida y cultura de sus pobladores, a tal grado que vivían, morían, guerreaban y amaban para cumplir sus designios o satisfacer sus gustos.

Una explicación histórica, lingüística y antropológica es la de que el "Hombre" de aquella época tenía un "Cerebro Bicameral"; es decir, un cerebro dividido en dos cámaras o cerebros con poca o nula comunicación, dado el poco desarrollo y maduración de las conexiones neuronales del cerebro izquierdo con el derecho, vía la estructura neuro-anatómica conocida como cuerpo calloso.

Se argumenta que en el cerebro izquierdo residencia de las habilidades cognitivas racionales, ligüísticas y matemáticas, se desarrollaban los pensamientos intelectuales objetivos, racionales, lógicos y científicos pragmáticos; mientras que en el cerebro derecho, se desarrollaban las percepciones, pensamientos e idealizaciones de la vida emocional, sensitiva, espiritual, moral y artística. En otros términos, el hemisferio cerebral derecho era el asiento neuro-anatómico y funcional de los pensamientos subjetivos, la intuición y la religión.

En el mismo sentido del discurso, si se generaban percepciones y pensamientos del subjetivos del lado derecho, éstos no se podían comunicar adecuadamente con los centros nerviosos del lado izquierdo, por lo cual los sujetos mezclaban ambos pensamientos y tenían gran dificultad en separar, analizar y´evaluar por separado las percepciones y luego sintetizarlas en un pensamiento común.

Asimismo, las percepciones subjetivas, sensitivas y emotivas del cerebro derecho, las "oían en su interior" como si fueran mandatos o dictados por entes sobrenaturales externos a su persona y se sentían obligados a cumplirlos, a pesar de lo irracional de los mismos, como hacer la guerra a un pueblo aliado por una supuesta traición o matar a un familiar o ser amado por un "supuesto daño a su persona o celotipia".

Este tipo de "cerebro dividido o bicameral" funcionaba a la manera de un cerebro disfuncional o enfermo, con alucinaciones e ilusiones sin fundamento, similar al funcionamiento patológico de personas con esquizofrenia. Se supone que hechos reales que sucedieron en la vida sentimental y emocional de ciertos personajes históricos de aquella época, fue la base para la creación de varias obras literarias como "Las Tragedias Griegas"

Hoy por fortuna, creo que nuestro Sistema Nervioso Central (cerebro incluido) está mucho más desarrollado y suficientemente inter-contectado entre sus diferentes centros neurológicos vitales, lo que nos faculta asociar e integrar percepciones, sentimientos, emociones y pensamientos tanto objetivos como subjetivos y ponderar cada uno de ellos, su pertinencia, originalidad, factibilidad y nivel de reproducción tanto en el nivel de la vida mental espiritual para la trascendencia, como a nivel teórico y tangible de la vivencia práctica del mundo científico.

Is there room for religious thoughts in a scientific mind? - ResearchGate. Available from: https://www.researchgate.net/post/Is_there_room_for_religious_thoughts_in_a_scientific_mind [accessed Sep 7, 2016].

Saludos

Dr. José Luis García Vigil

Dear All

Thanks for kind input. There is a further addition;

14) Can self awareness and understanding of human mind, body, interaction with environment be a vital frame of reference during investigative and comparative research between mythologies and sciences ?

Regards,

“Isn't it enough to see that a garden is beautiful without having to believe that there are fairies at the bottom of it too?”

― Douglas Adams, The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy

A variety of traditions, including Christian mysticism and modern existentialist theology, have spoken of the “God beyond God.” This is the very ancient idea that, beyond any sort of anthropomorphic deity that we may think of and tell stories about, there must be an even greater reality that transcends our ability to comprehend and describe. For many atheists, that question is often pushed aside or that ultimate reality is said to simply be the laws of physics. For ancient Gnostics, the anthropomorphic god is viewed as a real but inferior deity who created the physical cosmos. For mystics, the anthropomorphic depictions are linguistic symbolic pointers to the one God who transcends description.

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/religionprof/2013/12/the-god-beyond-god.html

https://www.quora.com/Is-there-anything-beyond-God

Regarding the question No. 14. subordinate paraphrasing which follows:

It can be awareness, understanding of the human mind, total body perception and interaction with the social and natural environment, a frame of reference for vital research and comparison of mythologies and sciences?

I make the following considerations

On the other hand, I understand the variability in opinions, beliefs and views expressed so far by the participants, experts in this rare forum for discussion and argument on scientific and religious themes, and intellectual effort, in addition to faith and spiritual strength to bring together both perspectives and fields of human knowledge.

In the following link, proposed by Subhash C. Kundu, which I consider very important, you can find a discussion network and similar argument in this dynamic and subject to RG:

Is there anything beyond God?

https://www.quora.com/Is-there-anything-beyond-God

regards

Dr. Jose Luis Garcia Vigil

Respecto de la pregunta subordinada No. 14. la cual parafraseo de la siguiente forma: 

¿Puede ser la conciencia, la comprensión de la mente humana, la percepción corporal total y la interacción con el entorno social y natural,  un marco de referencia vital durante la investigación y comparación entre mitologías y ciencias?

Hago las siguientes consideraciones

Por otro lado, entiendo la variabilidad en opiniones, creencias y concepciones vertidas hasta este momento, por los participantes, expertos en este poco común foro de discusión y argumentación sobre temática científica y religiosa, y el esfuerzo intelectual, amén de la Fe y fortaleza espiritual, para poner en común ambas perspectivas y campos de conocimiento humano.

En el siguiente vínculo, que propone Subhash C. Kundu, y que yo considero muy importante,  podrán encontrar una red de discusión y argumentación similar en dinámica y temática a esta de RG:

Is there anything beyond God? 

https://www.quora.com/Is-there-anything-beyond-God

Saludos

Dr. José Luis García Vigil

Dear Raja,

To my response, you asked. “some logical  prove [proof] in favor of your supposed concept of god allah [Allah] as claimed by islamic [Islamic] mythology, if its [It’s] beyond human mindset.” Primarily my argument was based on the unity of religions in their roots that explains itself that source of all major religion is one, i.e. Allah (The Deity). First, I would like to add further, I recall an essay in which a very interesting event was narrated. An English priest took English translation of Surah Al-Fatiha (The Opening), the first Surah and re-wrote in the style of Testaments (Old [Torah] and New [Bible]). One day, during prayers in a Church, he also recited his translation of Surah Al-Fatiha and asked those present there, “From where I have recited the last prayer”. People differed, some said from Old Testament and in the opinion of some it was from the Bible, but they could not recall from which part. The priest laughed and said, “It was from Qur’an.” To some extent it is not a surprise as the three scriptures are from Abraham’s family or of Semitic origin. But, my experience is quite different. When long ago, I read English translation of Vedas at few places it had strike to me that those passages had been from Qur’an. There is a lot of difference between Semitic and Aryan language and further, if a translation of scriptures in Sanskrit into English could create such an experience, then certainly all scriptures owe their origin to a single source. Of course, all except Qur’an are corrupted and compromised, but some passages are still intact. What is that single source of these scripture? Though it is a fact that those to whom Vedas belong have turned into idolaters out of their primitive instinct, while Jews and Christians ascribe characteristics to God which cannot be of an existence that is Noor (light/energy) and beyond space-time dimension.

This was my logical argument for the claim of a surprising unity of major world religions which bears testimony to a chain of Prophets from Adam to Mohammad (Peace be on All of Them) sent by Allah to every community for their guidance and to tell them the truth. By logical, if you mean scientific, there is some evidence in Islam. Do you know that expansion (latter acceleration) of the universe was discovered by scientists in the nineteenth century and Einstein was hard to be convinced of the fact? Bu, fourteen century ago, it is mentioned in Qur’an. [Surah 51, verse 47: "The heaven, We have built it with power. Verily, We are expanding it." http://corpus.quran.com/translation.jsp?chapter=51&verse=47 ; http://www.councilofexmuslims.com/index.php?PHPSESSID=962254e7d6133679b9114eaba53f9c0e&topic=16572.msg460747#msg460747].

If it is not enough then read following and answer ensuing questions:

Several centuries of enormously successful physical science have given us a version of reality unsurpassed in the entire history of intellectual endeavour. With a very few exception, it explains every observation we have ever made and every experiment we have ever devised.  In 1919, mathematician and physicist Hermann Weyl puzzled why the ratio of the electromagnetic force to the gravitational force between two electrons is such a huge number, N1= 10^39. Weyl wondered why this should be the case, Why not 10^57 or 10^-123? In 1923, astronomer Arthur Erdington agreed: "It is difficult to account for the occurrence of a pure number (of order greatly different from unity) in the scheme of things; but this difficulty would be removed if we could connect it to the number of particles in the world—a number presumably decided by accident. He estimated that number, now called the "Eddington number," to be N =10^79. Well, N is not too far from the square of N1. In 1937, physicist Paul Dirac noticed that N1 is the same order of magnitude as another pure number N2 that gives the ratio of a typical stellar lifetime of the time for light to traverse the radius of a proton. That is, he found two seemingly unconnected large numbers to be of the same order of magnitude. If one number being large is unlikely, how much more unlikely is another to come along with about the same value? In 1961, astrophysicist Robert Dicke pointed out that N2 is necessarily large in order that the lifetime of typical stars is sufficient to generate heavy chemical elements such as carbon. Furthermore, he showed that N1 must be of the same order of N2 in any universe with heavy elements.

These coincidences are not trivia, for it leads to unexpected relationships between observed quantities that appear to be unrelated! The best example is the Dicke-Wheeler relation, which gives the measured age of the universe in terms of elementary particle time scales and fundamental interaction constants. However, the coincidences above suggest some deliberate or intended design for an intelligent life, the implications of above are the most significant and worth pondering:

1. The electromagnetic force is 39 orders of magnitude stronger than the gravitational force. If they were more comparable in strength, stars would have collapsed long before life had a chance to evolve.

2. The vacuum energy density of the universe is at least 120 orders of magnitude lower than some theoretical estimates. If at any time it were as large as these calculations suggest, the universe would have quickly blown apart.

3. The electron's mass is less than the difference in the masses of the neutron and proton. Thus, a free neutron can decay into a proton, electron, and anti-neutrino. If this were not the case, the neutron would be stable and most of the protons and electrons in the early universe would have combined to form neutrons, leaving little hydrogen to act as the main component and fuel of stars.

4. The neutron is heavier than the proton, but not so much heavier that neutrons cannot be bound in nuclei, where conservation of energy prevents the neutrons from decaying. Without neutrons, we would not have the heavier elements needed for building complex systems such as life.

5. The carbon nucleus has an excited energy level at around 7.65 million electron-volts (MeV). Without this state, insufficient carbon would be manufactured in stars to form the basis for life. Using anthropic arguments, astronomer Fred Hoyle predicted this energy level before it was confirmed experimentally.

Indeed, “design” might be interpreted as a purely natural process, perhaps an evolutionary one akin to the design inherent in Darwinian natural selection or just some structure built into the universe that science has not yet explained. But, there is a question of probability. How may occur so many coincidences may occur to facilitate non-human life for the benefit of mankind? These cannot be attributed simply to chance. If conditions weren't right for us to be here, we wouldn't very well be here to remark on the fact. As scientist claim the existence of multiple universes, the question arises that why all permutations and combination lead to this universe as suitable for the evolution of a different kind of life. Alfred Russel Wallace (1903) was probably first in claiming that such a complex universe as we observe it, is not a just coincidence but absolutely necessary to allow particularly life [and perhaps humankind as evolutionists believe] to evolve.

Now, why intelligent life in a world where all facilities are available for its sustenance and procreation, an answer is given very simply in Qur’an that Allah created mankind and genie to worship Allah as the purpose of their creation. Why should one worship an unknown, unseen power? Mankind is invited to look into the sky, think of wind, rainfall, streams, day and night and other things and ponder over them with the promise there are signs (evidence) for those who have knowledge. Pondering over creation leads mankind to the realisation of grandeur, might and wisdom of creator Deity and one is compelled to fell in prostration before the creator, the sustainer, mighty and all-knowing Deity in awe realising we are a mean creature and creator is almighty.

As far as, theory of evolution is concerned, yesterday it was in newspaper that speaking at the British Science Festival in Swansea Professor Robin Crompton argued that that results of ongoing research on a 3.7 million old fossilised skeleton of an early of human indicate that story of evolution is the other way around than popular perception created by scientists. The idea of human ascent from a knuckle-dragging ape, leaving chimpanzees in Darwinian dust is questioned. According to Crompton chimpanzees and humans are both descended from something like living humans who walked upright than living chimpanzees. Whither way evolution?  [http://www.pressreader.com/india/the-times-of-india-new-delhi-edition/20160909/282359744159589]

Science that has culminated scientism and materialism leading masses to atheism in its failure to explain everything is no more than a narration of some people shared among them using an un-natural language. However, it is accorded such a sanctity that whatever scientists say is right and unorthodox and unconventional voices are suppressed. No doubt science has served humanity a lot and would continue to do so in future, but it also has eroded much of human values, ethics and spirituality.

Dear Feroz Khan

Thanks for contribution. Can you give some scientifically observable prove about "How & by which mechanisms" in favor that whom you guided to do it plz ?

If any one claim the same then what will be the frame of reference, definitely scientific observation and explanation of phenomenon as according to given procedure in claim will testifying the claim. Its another topic that based on few claims, it it justified to do believe on entire setup especially the social sides as well.

And is it easy to nullify the role of mind, body powers and its interaction with environmental factors, especially Acusto-Optical phenomenon ?

Every one claim He/She do it.......but how and by which mechanisms ?

Regards,

Basically according to broad and documented contribution of Mohammad Feroz Khan.

Without being profound knowledge of mathematics, physics and quantum physics relativity, I agree with the arguments expressed previously. There is much ignorance about the origin of religion (or religions) also of God (or gods). If Religion and God are one (a) true (a). I myself do not know much about it, although this does not hinder my belief, faith, religion and belief and exercise my values and ethical principles. Nor obnubila the scientific part of my being.

On the other hand, I confirm my argument in favor of coming to the knowledge (belief and faith) deep things of God and Religion through the mind, emotions and spirituality, through the development and maturation of our ability and capacity introspection, with awareness and creative mind. The result of this route (if you want to call method and instrument) is the discovery of a wealth so that only you can feel the experience and who can hardly express the and talk to their peers. Corollary: Nobody believes, see or feel, what has not learned to see and feel for themselves, in their personal experiences.

As for the other track (method and tools) to get to know objectively and in physical and tangible way our mind-body dynamics, other living beings and natural phenomena, there is the Scientific Method, which no longer will elaborate more about it, because there is more consensus and less contradiction in its essence, as a generator of knowledge both of nature and of the human being; in addition to its scientific and technological innovation usefulness and benefit of quality and lifestyle of today's society

regards

Dr. Jose Luis Garcia Vigil

Básicamente de acuerdo con la amplia y documentada aportación de Mohammad Feroz Khan. 

Sin ser conocedor profundo de las matemáticas, física de la relatividad y física cuántica, concuerdo con los argumentos expresados previamente. Existe mucha ignorancia respecto del origen de la Religión (o religiones) asimismo de Dios (o dioses). Si son Religión y Dios, uno(a) verdadero(a). Yo mismo ignoro mucho de ello, aunque esto no obstaculiza mi creencia, fe, religiosidad y la convicción y ejercicio de mis valores y principios éticos. Tampoco obnubila la parte científica de mi ser.

Por otro lado, ratifico mi argumentación a favor de llegar al conocimiento (Creer y tener Fe) profundo de Dios y la Religión por medio de la Mente, las Emociones y la Espiritualidad, a través de del desarrollo y maduración de nuestra aptitud y capacidad de introspección, con la consciencia clara y la mente creativa. El resultado de esta vía (si se quiere llamar método e instrumento) es el descubrimiento de una riqueza tal que sólo la puede sentir quien la experimenta y difícilmente la puede expresar y platicar a sus semejantes. Corolario: Nadie cree, ve ni siente, lo que no ha aprendido a ver y sentir por si mismo, en sus vivencias personales.

En cuanto a la otra vía (método e instrumentos) para llegar a conocer con objetividad y en forma física y tangible nuestra dinámica mental-corporal, a los demás seres vivos y a los fenómenos naturales, existe el Método Científico, del cual ya no abundaré más al respecto, pues hay más consenso y menos contradicción en su esencia, como generador de conocimientos tanto de la naturaleza como del propio ser humano; amén de su utilidad científico-tecnológica y de innovación, en beneficio de la calidad y estilo de vida de la sociedad actual

Saludos

Dr. José Luis García Vigil

Dear Dr. Jose Luis Garcia Vigil

Thanks for again enlighten the views, I truly agree that in current era of deep consciousness and AI, it much harder to let "faith & beliefs" out of the reach and investigations by modern well developed sciences.......specifically in case when human can go deep down behind & beyond factors regarding it.......religions not need to get affraid, if they have something true and undiscover yet then that can get in discover more deeply, if religions have tge same as proposes that Acustio-optics, Thought pools, and biophonon kind of formations behind it then they will get prove, anyhow during such investigative research many aspects of human mind, body and its interaction with environment will get new clues for further research........science is way of continuous progress......its a good chance for religions and their educations to tell if still they have something better for human and prove it scientifically, I think time trend line is changing from verbal sacredness toward proven sciences........human with mind and body is vital than any supposed concept, human win the competition of evolution at cosmos, so its hard to bound human consciousness with unseen or none-present ties. Conscious have acceptability only for "cause and effect" base concepts and mechanisms.

Regards,