Science and Spirituality the difference beween them

[Dragonsong]

Reading quite a number of posts ,there seems to be a misconception about what is science, you all have a good grasp on spirituality and what it means to you, But a lot of you seem to misunderstand science and how it works.

Lets get down to it what is Science,
Science is all about explaining the whys and hows of the universe, from a physical point of view not a spiritual one. Scientists do this by observation and experiments.

First the scientist has a hypothesis, an idea. Then a series of experiments have to be conducted and the observations have to be recorded. Depending on the results, the hypothesis is proved wrong, or that more research is required to prove this hypothesis, if the results of the experiments are still in favor of the hypothesis then the scientific community try to reproduce these results under the same conditions at different laboratories or they get the same observations. If all goes well, the hypothesis will then become a theory, some scientific ideas can never become any more than theories, like the theory of evolution, because we can not time travel back to see if evolution actually works, (i don't believe it can progress past the theory stage.) After years of experimentation and observations some theories become what are know as scientific laws, the most famous of these are Newtons 3 laws of motion, they are laws because from 1687 to this day there has never been a single experiment to contradict these laws.

Science cannot prove or disprove anything of a spiritual nature, having said that, it doesn't mean that scientists are a lot of atheists, there have been Christian, Jewish, Muslim and Hindu scientists that have won the Noble prize for scientific endeavors, the highest accolade that a scientist can win.

[organic born]

Originally Posted by Dragonsong

Reading quite a number of posts ,there seems to be a misconception about what is science, you all have a good grasp on spirituality and what it means to you, But a lot of you seem to misunderstand science and how it works.

It seems to me that "both" are problematic. Both reflect the use of an imaginative brain applying itself to a physical environment.

Spirituality, as is commonly discussed, is our imagination, in regards to the way things "may" exist, outside the experience of our senses. The mental imagery surrounding the subject of "spirituality" is still physically-based images, projected onto a screen of mental assumptions and humanly-constructed-prototypes. We will never "be" spiritual as long as we're "thinking" spiritually. Which is totally okay, we are physically oriented at the present so this is where our attention "should" be, for deeply practical reasons.

So the idea that people have a good grasp on spirituality is mostly a reflection of humans wanting to agree with other humans as to what this "subject" may entail. Much of what passes for spirituality, religion, and ideologies are limited to what our senses are allowing us to perceive. We then use our "imagination" to extrapolate systems of belief that support this rather narrow band of physical exposure.

While science is considerably more grounded, in that it observes things as they "appear" to be and attempts to form standardized assumptions based on a repetitive poking of a perceivable interaction.

And yet science relies on a certain level of predictability in order to label something as standardized and track-able. Science needs repetition in order to establish images of stability and authoritative pronouncement.

And yet Nothing remains stationary. The human mind is forever in flux, physical matter is in various stages of motion, (some movement is constant, a running stream for instant, while other forms of motion takes millions if not billions of years to unfold). So science is relevant only to the degree that fits with the mindset of the current participants who engage in such undertakings.

Spirituality is conditional
Science is conditional

Were you to blend both, you would have a better tool to work with, but the outcome would still be limited to the imagination of those who undertake these adventures in both creative and speculative thought.

[CosmicWisdom323]

Dragonsong, that is a very good description of the scientific method. I just would like to clarify a few things.

Scientific theories can never be proven true. They can be proven false, or evidence can be gathered that strongly support the theory. However, they can never be proven true, because it is always possible that the next time an experiment is performed, the evidence contradicts the theory.

The best example of this is Newton's laws, which are not sufficient to describe the way gravity works in the universe. Newton's laws work great on Earth, but breakdown at high speeds and strong gravitational fields. Newton's laws were close, but not 100% correct. Einstein's laws are even closer, they encompass all of Newton's laws, plus they account for relativistic motion. But even Einstein's theories are not true, but approach truth. Relativity does not explain quantum gravity.

Science is a forever approaching the truth, getting closer and closer, but it will never get there, it cannot get there. This is known as the Problem of Induction, described by David Hume.

[AlanN]

I have found in recent years that more and more scientists are becoming atheist fundamentalists, rather than being true empiricists. In fact, this makes them non-scientific, but their influence is growing in the modern world.

[Gem]

Originally Posted by AlanN

I have found in recent years that more and more scientists are becoming atheist fundamentalists, rather than being true empiricists. In fact, this makes them non-scientific, but their influence is growing in the modern world.

Science necessarily dismantles religion, because the religious theory is basically, "We don't know, therefore God", whereas the scientific paradigm is "we don't know - yet"

[AlanN]

Originally Posted by Gem

Science necessarily dismantles religion, because the religious theory is basically, "We don't know, therefore God", whereas the scientific paradigm is "we don't know - yet"

Or "We don't know, therefore not God". They then sell that as the absolute truth, rather than just a lack of knowing.

[engellstein]

http://www.livescience.com/21457-wha...tific-law.html
This is a better description of theories and laws. They are not writ in stone.

I believe that much of what we consider spiritual can be scrutinized scientifically. Take the aura and energy bodies. They can be measured and their effects on the physical body can be discerned.

However, many don't realize that science is subject to supply and demand just like any other product or service. If the people footing the money for scientific research don't care about what you're researching they simply take the money away and research comes to a halt. It doesn't matter how valid on invalid that research is. It's all about money.

And then, as has been noted, scientists aren't always the cream of the crop. They are human just like the rest of us and have human base emotions and drives. Some of those drives move them to put pride ahead of accuracy. Hence, they will quickly dismiss anything that supports anything "spiritual" if they don't agree with it, regardless of if it makes scientific sense.

I believe we are living in a time of change where humanity is trying to get out from under the ruthless thumb of religion, and out of necessity they shoot for the other end of spectrum: atheism. It's what happens in any system when it's trying to normalize, or rebalance itself. After religion is brought down to its proper place then people will be more reasonable about spiritual science and there will be more and more discoveries about how that all works.

Right now you can find people who will teach you how to be psychic and how to heal yourself and many other spiritual things that "aren't scientifically proven". Obviously they work otherwise they couldn't be taught. The fact that "science" hasn't caught up with what these legit teachers are doing has nothing to do with whether it works or not, or whether it can be taught or not, or whether it can be rigorously, scientifically scrutinized or not.

[Rokon]

Originally Posted by Dragonsong

Reading quite a number of posts ,there seems to be a misconception about what is science, you all have a good grasp on spirituality and what it means to you, But a lot of you seem to misunderstand science and how it works.

Lets get down to it what is Science,
Science is all about explaining the whys and hows of the universe, from a physical point of view not a spiritual one. Scientists do this by observation and experiments.

First the scientist has a hypothesis, an idea. Then a series of experiments have to be conducted and the observations have to be recorded. Depending on the results, the hypothesis is proved wrong, or that more research is required to prove this hypothesis, if the results of the experiments are still in favor of the hypothesis then the scientific community try to reproduce these results under the same conditions at different laboratories or they get the same observations. If all goes well, the hypothesis will then become a theory, some scientific ideas can never become any more than theories, like the theory of evolution, because we can not time travel back to see if evolution actually works, (i don't believe it can progress past the theory stage.) After years of experimentation and observations some theories become what are know as scientific laws, the most famous of these are Newtons 3 laws of motion, they are laws because from 1687 to this day there has never been a single experiment to contradict these laws.

Science cannot prove or disprove anything of a spiritual nature, having said that, it doesn't mean that scientists are a lot of atheists, there have been Christian, Jewish, Muslim and Hindu scientists that have won the Noble prize for scientific endeavors, the highest accolade that a scientist can win.

This above, is what we learn in High School. That science is this pure, just and noble affair that is guided by solid principles. But as we get older and see where the money for research is, see the agendas, observe how certain phenomena is completely ignored or distorted because it is not congenial, broad sweeping connections are made etc etc.

After awhile it looks like dirty politics yet still it remains a sacred cow. Not all bad but certainly not the noblest institution.

[engellstein]

http://www.spiritualforums.com/vb/sh...ad.php?t=93936

You may have already seen it but this is the link to a thread I started about the expanding Earth theory. What's notable about it is that it flies in the face of plate tectonic theory, which states that all the continents are drifting about willy nilly because the ocean floor is moving them like a conveyor belt.

Scientists have been saying that since the 1950s. Plate tectonics is a proposed mechanism for the theory of continental drift that was first postulated in 1596.

If you look at any of the continental drift models of ancient earth you'll see enormous land masses floating around like soap bubbles. This is absolutely ridiculous and it raises more questions than it answers.

The expanding earth model shows very quickly and easily, using data from NASA, that the continents don't have to move at all and at the same time fit perfectly together if you just decrease the radius of the planet.

That being said, mainstream science still accepts plate tectonics and continental drift as their theories of choice in this matter and say that an expanding earth model is preposterous because they don't know what would have made the earth expand.

I bring this up because it shows how limited science is to bring us true answers because the primary component of science isn't experiments nor observations - but scientists, who have the same prejudices, opinions, quirks, lies, stubbornness, and limitations as the rest of us.

Science is great but has to be looked at very objectively, just like spirituality does. Today there are scientists and others that have observed and experimented on the "spiritual" and have come to certain conclusions. Most don't know about this because it isn't mainstream. That doesn't make it not scientific, it just makes it unknown to many.

[Gem]

Originally Posted by AlanN

Or "We don't know, therefore not God". They then sell that as the absolute truth, rather than just a lack of knowing.

That's basically the religious structure. "Word of God" etc. Science has never has a Word. It continually has new things to say.