Science & Spirituality - Should they go hand in hand? - General

I hate it when people claim to know the truth 100%, either atheists or spiritual people, we have no proof at all for either. Any belief is based on faith so idk why people try to claim their backed up by science or whatever, makes me laugh. [editline]26th October 2013[/editline] [QUOTE=Quark:;42647706]Fact and Fiction shouldn't go together. It's an oxymoron. Promote science and leave religion alone, let it die out. It doesn't help anything anymore.[/QUOTE] Hows 10th grade going bud?

[QUOTE=Faz;42655645]Hows 10th grade going bud?[/QUOTE] excellent zing, i am most insulted. by the way i'm 27. perhaps i misunderstood what the OP meant when he made the title [I]Science and Spirituality - Should they go hand in hand?"[/I]. It's quite easy to take that as "Should religion and science to together?" (which is an obvious [U]no[/U].) but to be honest, the OP isn't really asking any actual question. there's no real content or sustenance to his question so it's quite difficult to even understand.

[QUOTE=Quark:;42656304] perhaps i misunderstood what the OP meant[/QUOTE] Well you're the one who brought up "religion". The thread is a lot more broad than a specific path. It's pretty clear when you think about it.. Scientific practice, can be a spiritual experience for people. Should someone's personal way of life, be a part of their practice and can it be advocated? Medicine is something where I think humility and personal connections has a great importance. It's all related yet people still feel the need to shy away from their personal feelings when it comes to science.

[QUOTE=Rangergxi;42655628]Is spirituality dogmatic religion?[/QUOTE] I said he made science sound like religion, I didn't say anything about the nature of spirituality or whatever And I know basically nothing about the beliefs of non-religious "spiritual" people, but it certainly seems to be as delusional as any other belief Sure you can point out the psychology or other legitimate elements to it, but it still implies some leap of faith bullshit if I'm not mistaken so what's the difference in the end, there's still dogma

I believe spirituality is an unknown Science that we do not understand yet. Physics was the same thing back before it was widely accepted.

Physics has been more or less accepted since the Greeks.

Go further back to the point where we didn't even know what a physics is, was or were.

I don't see why they couldn't. See: Baha'i faith

[QUOTE=Dakiin Dovah;42660411]Go further back to the point where we didn't even know what a physics is, was or were.[/QUOTE] Okay I'm there. Now what do I do?

[QUOTE=Dakiin Dovah;42659257]I believe spirituality is an unknown Science that we do not understand yet. Physics was the same thing back before it was widely accepted.[/QUOTE] Um, physics can be applied and demonstrated. It's called engineering and it was a common study in ancient Greece and Rome. Spirituality can't because it offers no solution to problems we want to solve. If you want to go back in time, the ancient Greeks started the discovery into math and physics to understand natural phenomena without supernatural explanations.

I might get some grief for posting this, but it's very relevant and I think some people here could learn from it. [url]http://www.samharris.org/blog/item/a-plea-for-spirituality[/url]

The "supernatural" is bullshit to me. We can make spirituality a Science when we figure out how it works.

[QUOTE=Dakiin Dovah;42662623]The "supernatural" is bullshit to me. We can make spirituality a Science when we figure out how it works.[/QUOTE] We can make it a Science when we can actually prove it exists.

Crap, I voted incorrectly out of misunderstanding of how "spirituality" was used. Even so... Science, in all aspects, should be a solely secular matter. Religion that contradicts science, simply shouldn't be practiced with science. It creates delusions and warps priorities into validity arguments that wouldn't occur in a completely secular field. But spirituality--the context of that word is incredibly significant in this argument. Because we need to clarify what is [I]spiritual[/I], and what is [I]philosophical[/I]. Spirituality, in the sense of deities, afterlife, and supernatural forces, should be left out of science, make no mistake. But it's important not to mistake spirituality with philosophy. When we discover more about our universe, our questions grow greater. Broader. We wonder about what we can't answer, as unsolvable questions become the center of our focus, while solvable ones shift to the side as matters of non-importance. Science, in itself, is about learning our place in the universe. Discovering more about our surroundings, and answering questions pertaining to how life works, and why it exists. And because of that, it's almost impossible to work in a scientific field without being philosophical. Questioning your place in the universe, and asking the deepest of questions, sometimes about your own existence. But it's important not to confuse that with outright SPIRITUALITY. Dedicating your work to a god, a religion, or a spirit of some kind. What I'm talking about in a deep sense, is philosophy. So should religion, a belief in god, superstition and supernatural force go hand in hand with science? [B]No.[/B] Should philosophy, having a greater deepness, understanding, questioning, and acceptance of the universe, as well as your place in it, be embraced by the use of science? [B]Yes.[/B] You can be [I]spiritual[/I] with science. Just not [I]supernatural[/I] with science. Distinguish the difference, and be careful with context.

[QUOTE=Quark:;42662799]We can make it a Science when we can actually prove it exists.[/QUOTE] Not every aspect of life is a proven scientific method. Spirituality at its basis is far from what science is, in the OP I focused more on the [i]practice[/i] of science, which can be connected to spiritual practice.

Science is a method and nothing else. People keep comparing it to religion.

[QUOTE=Roll_Program;42665927]Science is a method and nothing else. [/QUOTE] Its purpose is.. to serve and gain. Is this just a coincidence?

[QUOTE=AK'z;42666018]Its purpose is.. to serve and gain. Is this just a coincidence?[/QUOTE] Not really, it is literally just a method and nothing else. The word is wrongly used all the time. People say shit like "SCIENCE VS RELGION" etc. [url]http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/science?q=science[/url][

[QUOTE=Roll_Program;42666134]Not really, it is literally just a method and nothing else. The word is wrongly used all the time. [/QUOTE] still has an overall purpose though, pretty much in all fields you'll find it has a common purpose.

[QUOTE=Quark:;42662799]We can make it a Science when we can actually prove it exists.[/QUOTE] Science isn't about proving things. With a Scientific mind, nothing is ever proven absolute. there is only evidence supporting theories.

If you want to be super technical (which I guess you do), science is actually in the business of falsifying.

[QUOTE=Falubii;42662278]I might get some grief for posting this, but it's very relevant and I think some people here could learn from it. [url]http://www.samharris.org/blog/item/a-plea-for-spirituality[/url][/QUOTE] I'm sure we can find scientific explanations for things such as beauty, art and poetry without having to rely on spirituality to make those things mystical and ethereal don't you think? However I guess it's up for each individual to form his/her own understanding and relationship to such things.

Nope, spirituality is only exists when you believe it does. Science deals with actuality and the real universe. Combining the two would be like trying to make a 2 stroke engine by mixing peanut butter and graphics processors.

I have been doing a lot of Dimethyltryptamine, and it has always been an religious experience for me. Something this powerful triggered by my brain can only be explained by science. So definitively don't rule out spirituality as it is part of being a human being If anyone is interested in this subject : [url]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c4FaDMak-TQ[/url]

[QUOTE=scorpinat;42686076]doing a lot of Dimethyltryptamine[/QUOTE] this is neither a scientific or spiritual practice...

[QUOTE=AK'z;42686937]this is neither a scientific or spiritual practice...[/QUOTE] But it is! ayahuasca is very sacred for a couple of tribes, it induces some very religious experiences. we want to know how our brain works from a scientific aspect...to know what makes us human. Besides, scientific theories are just as unknown as any other thing we don't know yet... watch that video

[QUOTE=Beerminator;42674898]I'm sure we can find scientific explanations for things such as beauty, art and poetry without having to rely on spirituality to make those things mystical and ethereal don't you think? However I guess it's up for each individual to form his/her own understanding and relationship to such things.[/QUOTE] Of course we can. That's literally all he means by spirituality though. It's kind of like a class of emotion. That's not quite right but you get what I'm saying.

"Usually, even a non-Christian knows something about the earth, the heavens, and the other elements of this world, about the motion and orbit of the stars and even their size and relative positions, about the predictable eclipses of the sun and moon, the cycles of the years and the seasons, about the kinds of animals, shrubs, stones, and so forth, and this knowledge he hold to as being certain from reason and experience. Now, it is a disgraceful and dangerous thing for an infidel to hear a Christian, presumably giving the meaning of Holy Scripture, talking nonsense on these topics; and we should take all means to prevent such an embarrassing situation, in which people show up vast ignorance in a Christian and laugh it to scorn. The shame is not so much that an ignorant individual is derided, but that people outside the household of faith think our sacred writers held such opinions, and, to the great loss of those for whose salvation we toil, the writers of our Scripture are criticized and rejected as unlearned men. If they find a Christian mistaken in a field which they themselves know well and hear him maintaining his foolish opinions about our books, how are they going to believe those books in matters concerning the resurrection of the dead, the hope of eternal life, and the kingdom of heaven, when they think their pages are full of falsehoods and on facts which they themselves have learnt from experience and the light of reason? Reckless and incompetent expounders of Holy Scripture bring untold trouble and sorrow on their wiser brethren when they are caught in one of their mischievous false opinions and are taken to task by those who are not bound by the authority of our sacred books. For then, to defend their utterly foolish and obviously untrue statements, they will try to call upon Holy Scripture for proof and even recite from memory many passages which they think support their position, although they understand neither what they say nor the things about which they make assertion." - St. Augustine (around 400 AD) Religion attempts to answer questions that science can never answer. The problem is when people apply religion to places where it doesn't belong. [editline]29th October 2013[/editline] Here's another one from Augustine's [I]Confessions[/I] that really points toward the difference between science and religion: "But as he is happier who knows how to possess a tree, and for the use thereof renders thanks to You, although he may not know how many cubits high it is, or how wide it spreads, than he that measures it and counts all its branches, and neither owns it nor knows or loves its Creator;" Basically, science can tell us the exact dimensions of a tree (or the universe), but it can never tell us what it's purpose is. The man who knows it's purpose is, in the end, happier than the one who knows it's dimensions.

Religions often make scientific claims. Every religion I know of anyway. [editline]30th October 2013[/editline] I know this is a point of debate, but the claim that there is a higher power is a scientific claim.

[QUOTE=Falubii;42702196]Religions often make scientific claims. Every religion I know of anyway. [editline]30th October 2013[/editline] I know this is a point of debate, but the claim that there is a higher power is a scientific claim.[/QUOTE] but not a naturalistic claim. There's no reason to assume our form of science has anything to say about things outside of our space time.