I've been spending the past year and a half studying the small
space of conscious awareness; the "space" where songs loop
around, where memories get pulled in from the deep and interact
with incoming stimuli; and trying to get a good, strong mental
picture and understanding of the mechanism and interplay.
One interesting thing I have noticed, while going through the
journals (Google Scholar is my buddy here) - is how often, in
the published papers, when it gets to the realm of the
experiential; either: a) Buddhism or b) Transcendental
Medication or c) Yoga comes in.
These appear to be the only three that find favor within the
journals at least.
Perhaps they are the most scientific-like in their
methodologies; and their absence of strong dieties makes it more
palatable to utilize their writings and concepts in scientific
journals than similar traditions found within other religious
contexts.
But I believe there is a lot of data that's being dismissed; a
"throw the baby out with the bathwater" phenomenon due to a
prejudice within much of what is currently acceptable source
materials in Science.
I don't think the Scientific Method, in its current form, is
robust enough to entirely tackle human experience; the room for
subjectivity is limited to the hypothesis and the
interpretations within the conclusions (and the choices of
methodology specific to each discipline);
The only way that the Scientific Method could replace all
religions would be if it tapped into those things which draw
people into Religions in the first place; that is, those who
join by choice and not as an accident of Geography or Family
preferences.
And, it seems to me, those are things that are subjective and
not objective. That is where NOMA shines as an answer that is
practical and reasonable; in my estimation. Until there is
something within Science that can serve the same functions
served by Religions, the Atheists dream of a Religion-Free world
won't happen.
I'm Agnostic, so I manage to annoy both 'sides fo the fence'
simultaneously
