Rescued edit-war potential items from Spirituality - reverted as WP:ORIG original research. Propose that the paragraph below is more suited to Quantum_mysticism...
Backup page: User:Mediation4u/DeletedPagesArchive/Spirituality_mediation
However, the current general consensus among physical and biological scientists that there is no need for supernatural explanations to describe reality (see naturalism).[1][2][3] Certain New Age spiritualists have accepted quantum mysticism as a possible way for them to justify their spiritual beliefs,[4][5] though quantum physicists themselves on the whole reject such attempts as being pseudoscientific.[6][7]
- ^ Clarke, Steve. Naturalism, Science, and the Supernatural in Sophia From the issue entitled "Special APRA Issue" Volume 48, Number 2, 127-142, DOI: 10.1007/s11841-009-0099-2
- ^ Dawkins, R. (1986). The blind watchmaker. New York: Norton.
- ^ Stroud, B. (2004). The charm of naturalism. In M. De Caro & D. Macarthur (Eds.), Naturalism in question (pp. 21–35). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
- ^ Capra, Fritjof (1991 (1st ed. 1975)). "The Tao of Physics: an exploration of the parallels between modern physics and Eastern mysticism, 3rd ed" (Document). Boston, MA: Shambhala Publications.
{{cite document}}: Check date values in:|date=(help); Cite has empty unknown parameters:|coauthors=and|url=(help); Unknown parameter|isbn=ignored (help) - ^ Laszlo, Ervin, "CosMos:A Co-creator's Guide to the Whole World", Hay House, Inc, 2008, ISBN 1-4019-1891-3, pg. 53-58
- ^ Sheremer, Michael, Quantum Quackery in Scientific American (January 2005), 292, 34. doi:10.1038/scientificamerican0105-34
- ^ Silverman, Mark P. Quantum superposition: counterintuitive consequences of coherence, entanglement, and interference Frontiers collection. Springer, 2008 ISBN 3540718834, 9783540718833. p. 25
Pasted over from Talk:Spirituality, this discussion will be archived off that Talk page soon.
Regarding IP editor's entry and reversion 7-July-2011
editProposal (to mitigate an edit-war) that the paragraph reverted as WP:ORIG is more appropriate to be developed in article Quantum_mysticism. Interested editors could continue the discussion here. Mediation4u (talk) 10:33, 7 July 2011 (UTC) editing is fun
- I've tried to include a balanced range of perspectives on the subject.hgilbert (talk) 11:56, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
- I think that it's probably best not to get into quantum flapdoodle on this page. The current state of the article which eschews quantum mysticism altogether is, as I see it, pretty good. Hope people liked my sources. 128.59.169.46 (talk) 15:56, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
- Thanks for your understanding. I think the page looks more aesthetically pleasing without lots of tags on it. I think the content is well written with an engaging style and is currently sufficiently neutral and balanced. Yes, I liked these sources. Mediation4u (talk) 10:53, 8 July 2011 (UTC) editing is fun
- I think that it's probably best not to get into quantum flapdoodle on this page. The current state of the article which eschews quantum mysticism altogether is, as I see it, pretty good. Hope people liked my sources. 128.59.169.46 (talk) 15:56, 7 July 2011 (UTC)