Lack of scientific evidence for spiritual

Originally Posted by fall-sky

I'm no expert on science or spirituality, but it seems like whenever spiritual or paranormal phenomena are tested scientifically they fail the test. For something to be useful it must be somewhat predictable right? For example, if there is no evidence that prayers are answered more often than random why bother? Of course praying might give some comfort, relieve stress, etc, but it appears to be useless for getting answers. The same argument applies to other types of spiritual beliefs.

So it seems to me that spiritual practices can only be justified by their natural effects on the practitioner (relaxation or whatever). Of course some of these practices might work better if the person believes in the results that science has so far failed to reveal. But in general it is better to be atheistic. If spirits exist, then they are so fickle and useless that we should ignore them.

I'm not trying to be trollish by asking this question. A few years ago I was very certain that spiritual phenomena were real, because it seemed like I was experiencing them. But gradually I've decided my experiences must have been psychological (psychosis or something similar to that).

Any thoughts?

My thoughts, for what they're worth, go back to the idea of measurement. I don't think we can accurately measure what you are asking to be measured. We have rulers to measure length, and can extend that to 3 dimensions only to get volume. We can measure light waves, sound waves, etc. We have the tool for the purpose. I don't know that we've exactly figured out what we are measuring when it comes to psychic experiences, so we don't have the tool. Not to say we won't someday, but I think that's where we are. Newton knew about light and optics, but couldn't measure them at first. What you allude to is us trying to measure light with a scale, it seems to me.

This really struck me when I read Flatland, but Edwin Abbott. It's about life in a 2-dimensional world, but one guy understands about the 3rd dimension. He can't explain it in terms of a 2-D world. I think about this for us as well. We experience a 3D world, so it's hard to explain how extra dimensions would work, even though the math exists!

[Seawolf]

Originally Posted by fall-sky

I'm no expert on science or spirituality, but it seems like whenever spiritual or paranormal phenomena are tested scientifically they fail the test. For something to be useful it must be somewhat predictable right? For example, if there is no evidence that prayers are answered more often than random why bother? Of course praying might give some comfort, relieve stress, etc, but it appears to be useless for getting answers. The same argument applies to other types of spiritual beliefs.

So it seems to me that spiritual practices can only be justified by their natural effects on the practitioner (relaxation or whatever). Of course some of these practices might work better if the person believes in the results that science has so far failed to reveal. But in general it is better to be atheistic. If spirits exist, then they are so fickle and useless that we should ignore them.

I'm not trying to be trollish by asking this question. A few years ago I was very certain that spiritual phenomena were real, because it seemed like I was experiencing them. But gradually I've decided my experiences must have been psychological (psychosis or something similar to that).

Any thoughts?

Psychology has a big affect on a person's life and everything around them. My spirituality makes no attempt to change anything but the mind. There are no beliefs in miracles, no expectations of anything changing except the mind. But I would have to say that's the most miraculous change there is.

Science and Spirituality are two different things.
Both are useful or folks wouldn't use them.
Using one to critique the other though is akin to comparing an apple to a banana.
Hope that atheism is working out for you there buddy.

[DoctorStrange]

Originally Posted by fall-sky

I'm no expert on science or spirituality, but it seems like whenever spiritual or paranormal phenomena are tested scientifically they fail the test. For something to be useful it must be somewhat predictable right? For example, if there is no evidence that prayers are answered more often than random why bother? Of course praying might give some comfort, relieve stress, etc, but it appears to be useless for getting answers. The same argument applies to other types of spiritual beliefs.

So it seems to me that spiritual practices can only be justified by their natural effects on the practitioner (relaxation or whatever). Of course some of these practices might work better if the person believes in the results that science has so far failed to reveal. But in general it is better to be atheistic. If spirits exist, then they are so fickle and useless that we should ignore them.

I'm not trying to be trollish by asking this question. A few years ago I was very certain that spiritual phenomena were real, because it seemed like I was experiencing them. But gradually I've decided my experiences must have been psychological (psychosis or something similar to that).

Any thoughts?

Check scientists like Gregg Braden and Nassiem Haramein. They are constantly working to reveal the spiritual via science.

[Belle]

It's an intersesting question. Are we all one - in which case the world between science and spirituality overlaps hugely. It is all part and parcel of the same thing.

Or, are they disparate issues.

Who knows. I tend to think they are one and the same thing and one proves and disproves the other, what limits the overlaps is the restrictions of the human brain.

Originally Posted by fall-sky

I'm no expert on science or spirituality, but it seems like whenever spiritual or paranormal phenomena are tested scientifically they fail the test. For something to be useful it must be somewhat predictable right? For example, if there is no evidence that prayers are answered more often than random why bother? Of course praying might give some comfort, relieve stress, etc, but it appears to be useless for getting answers. The same argument applies to other types of spiritual beliefs.

So it seems to me that spiritual practices can only be justified by their natural effects on the practitioner (relaxation or whatever). Of course some of these practices might work better if the person believes in the results that science has so far failed to reveal. But in general it is better to be atheistic. If spirits exist, then they are so fickle and useless that we should ignore them.

I'm not trying to be trollish by asking this question. A few years ago I was very certain that spiritual phenomena were real, because it seemed like I was experiencing them. But gradually I've decided my experiences must have been psychological (psychosis or something similar to that).

Any thoughts?

Nothing is more important than the emotional health and happiness that humanity experiences.

Originally Posted by fall-sky

I'm no expert on science or spirituality, but it seems like whenever spiritual or paranormal phenomena are tested scientifically they fail the test. For something to be useful it must be somewhat predictable right? For example, if there is no evidence that prayers are answered more often than random why bother? Of course praying might give some comfort, relieve stress, etc, but it appears to be useless for getting answers. The same argument applies to other types of spiritual beliefs.

So it seems to me that spiritual practices can only be justified by their natural effects on the practitioner (relaxation or whatever). Of course some of these practices might work better if the person believes in the results that science has so far failed to reveal. But in general it is better to be atheistic. If spirits exist, then they are so fickle and useless that we should ignore them.

I'm not trying to be trollish by asking this question. A few years ago I was very certain that spiritual phenomena were real, because it seemed like I was experiencing them. But gradually I've decided my experiences must have been psychological (psychosis or something similar to that).

Any thoughts?

Nothing is more important than the emotional health and happiness that humanity experiences. To the extent that spirituality serves us, it is important. Happiness is more important than scientific predictability. The fact that spirituality is fickle doesn't make it any less important.

[TruthJunkie]

Originally Posted by fall-sky

Any thoughts?

I have a extensive experience with science and spirituality. Science uses a rigid paradigm for verification. Unfortunately applying this paradigm to subjective spiritual experience is a wash. It's akin to teaching a dog who knows intuitively how to hunt to use rational logic instead because it can be verified by an observer trained in rational logic. Spiritual phenomena, psychosis, schizophrenia, are all related. What separates these into categories is the language used to frame the experience and the nature of the experience itself or to what level and dimension. I have experienced all of these states including massive downloads on a daily basis by guides I knew and trained with when they had bodies. This was a part of my training phase lasting years. All psychic phenomenon is experienced in the body. The body as it turns out is one rather amazing sense and measurement system. The skeptic discounts all experience in the body because that is expected when applying the scientific process. This is why skeptics come up empty handed and then sell it all as manifestations of the imagination. They toss the data out or rather reduce it through materialism. This ultimately is a failing on science and will remain a bottleneck for advancement of understanding of spiritual reality and the greater universe in which we live in.

[fall-sky]

Thanks, everybody, for those ideas.

Here's another I thought of this evening:

From the wikipedia article on the scientific method:

The goal of a scientific inquiry is to obtain knowledge in the form of testable explanations that can predict the results of future experiments. This allows scientists to gain an understanding of reality, and later use that understanding to intervene in its causal mechanisms (such as to cure disease).

What if we define spiritual as non-causal? This makes spirituality useless and illusory to science. This definition makes sense to me, because the idea of free will and a human spirit are intertwined. If our behavior is entirely causal then we have no free will.

[TruthJunkie]

Science is designed to validate the understanding and manipulation of the material plane. Science fails miserably when it comes to validating the subjective nature of human experience and spirituality. That may change some day however spiritual experience is best left to a mind free from science and intellectual pursuit. Science is a very complex expression but it cannot adequately cater to the moment as it unfolds.