Spirituality VS Science

[Gem]

[quote=Interuniversalism]

Originally Posted by Gem

Just curious about this truth which religion recognises, what might that be?

My friend life with all its complications and vastness, bearing so many secrets we have yet to discover. And the creation you think can be put in a few words as the truth?

I think you mean that you think that I think everything can be described in a few words, in which case the answer to the question is no.

It takes more than just a few formulas and ever changing theories. Science did not create the universe.

The real point behind this is science isn't a static thing, but a changing set of ideas and inquiries. It precludes religion for 2 reasons, mainly because the church persecuted what were then called 'natural philosophers' up until the mid 17th century, and secondly, because science has to be universal and regardless of sectarian belief.

It is just about relationships between the laws and categorizing and slicing things to know what has been there before. Spirituality seeks the source of it all. You may call it God or anything you like, it makes no difference. Are you (what you call me) your body? No. Your body is acomulated through consumption of food and etc. Are you your thoughts? No. Your thoughts are acomulation of your experiences and conditioning. They are yours for sometime but they are not you. Knowing the true self is just the beginning.

Exactly, science goes about explaining natures laws, and doesn't prescribe laws. What you call 'spirituality' might be a personal perspective, but when I say 'spirituality' I mean the whole range of it. We see deep fractures in this regard as sectarian beliefs become self-definitive, but if people actually want to be truthful in regard to self discovery then that's not a scientific question, and the reason is this: When the Church persecuted Descartes for speaking on self inquiry, he declared that 'natural philosophy' should only study things, and matters of the soul should remain the dominion of the Church.

[Interuniversalism]

[quote=Gem]

Originally Posted by Interuniversalism

I think you mean that you think that I think everything can be described in a few words, in which case the answer to the question is no.



The real point behind this is science isn't a static thing, but a changing set of ideas and inquiries. It precludes religion for 2 reasons, mainly because the church persecuted what were then called 'natural philosophers' up until the mid 17th century, and secondly, because science has to be universal and regardless of sectarian belief.


Exactly, science goes about explaining natures laws, and doesn't prescribe laws. What you call 'spirituality' might be a personal perspective, but when I say 'spirituality' I mean the whole range of it. We see deep fractures in this regard as sectarian beliefs become self-definitive, but if people actually want to be truthful in regard to self discovery then that's not a scientific question, and the reason is this: When the Church persecuted Descartes for speaking on self inquiry, he declared that 'natural philosophy' should only study things, and matters of the soul should remain the dominion of the Church.

I understand what you are getting at. But Spirituality is not about church or even Christianity. It is not about any religion in particular. It is not against science. In spirituality you are not told to believe in this or that.
Spirituality starts by a journey within. Some think that spirituality is the same thing as a religion. There are many spiritual and enlightened people who were not christian, like Rumi. God is not a guy sitting up there ruling over the world , sending people to hell for their sins. Angels are not human like things with wings. If you want to know more then I recommend you study about spirituality without thinking about who is against who. In spiirituality you act as an observer without prejudgments.
Spirituality is not an argument, it is about not knowing and wanting to know, wanting strongly. So if one thinks that one knows it all then it is better he or she not waste his time. If he can understand everything through his five senses then that is fine for him. At least it works for him.

[Gem]

Originally Posted by Interuniversalism

I understand what you are getting at. But Spirituality is not about church or even Christianity.

There would be many who wouldn't agree.

It is not about any religion in particular. It is not against science. In spirituality you are not told to believe in this or that.
Spirituality starts by a journey within. Some think that spirituality is the same thing as a religion. There are many spiritual and enlightened people who were not christian, like Rumi.

I thought Rumi was Muslim.

God is not a guy sitting up there ruling over the world , sending people to hell for their sins.

Many people believe that is the case.

Angels are not human like things with wings. If you want to know more then I recommend you study about spirituality without thinking about who is against who.

There is a lot of historical evidence that shows deep disagreement and conflict between spiritual sects.

In spirituality you act as an observer without prejudgments.

That's more like the scientific approach.

Spirituality is not an argument, it is about not knowing and wanting to know, wanting strongly. So if one thinks that one knows it all then it is better he or she not waste his time. If he can understand everything through his five senses then that is fine for him. At least it works for him.

Scientists don't pretend to know it all or understand everything or that everything can be understood, least of all via 5 senses.

[Baile]

Originally Posted by Gem

I don't care if you don't (or can't) answer the question.

It's not about me at all. It's about authentic questions and dialogue. I don't play "Tell me your truths so I can intellectually argue." I stopped doing that back in my late 40's, like kids posturing in the playground I grew out of it. And your passive-aggressive reply here just confirms everything I am saying now. EDIT: Funny, I just checked your age in your profile. :)

[Gem]

Originally Posted by Baile

It's not about me at all. It's about authentic questions and dialogue. I don't play "Tell me your truths so I can intellectually argue." I stopped doing that back in my late 40's, like kids posturing in the playground I grew out of it. Your aggressive reply here just confirms everything I originally picked up on, and am saying now: "I don't care about you..." "I guess you CAN'T answer..." EDIT: Funny, I just checked your age in your profile. :)

I guess you don't want to, or you can't, answer my question, and I know you won't - and I don't care.

[Kisen]

Originally Posted by Gem

There would be many who wouldn't agree.

Scientists don't pretend to know it all or understand everything or that everything can be understood, least of all via 5 senses.

Not sure if I agree with this point in full.

You seem to refer to an ideal state of science where scientists are detached without any prior beliefs.

However, at least from what I observe, core scientists seem pretty sure of what reality is while calling certain phenomena "nonsense" or "fairy tales" and that in itself is a judgement.

They reject it in a similar manner as to when you oppose someone's religious beliefs.

I see a lot of ego involved where it seems to be more important not to look like a fool rather than be open to any potential truths. This can be seen in the current "atheism vs religion" wars. It's my belief versus your belief, basically.

Not to say all scientists are like this as they come in many different flavours. However, scientists are people too and they come with their own issues just like everybody else.

Being an observer without prejudgements is the scientific approach like you said but this is often forgotten.

[Baile]

Originally Posted by Kisen

Not sure if I agree with this point in full.

You seem to refer to an ideal state of science where scientists are detached without any prior beliefs.

However, at least from what I observe, core scientists seem pretty sure of what reality is while calling certain phenomena "nonsense" or "fairy tales" and that in itself is a judgement.

They reject it in a similar manner as to when you oppose someone's religious beliefs.

Exactly and precisely. Alternative scientists and writers like Michael Cremo (Forbidden Archaeology) talk at length about the many hurdles they face in their attempts to get their research taken seriously by the science establishment. There are YouTube talks where he discusses this at length.

[Gem]

Originally Posted by Kisen

Not sure if I agree with this point in full.

You seem to refer to an ideal state of science where scientists are detached without any prior beliefs.

I'm saying what a scientist believes isn't relevant to science.

However, at least from what I observe, core scientists seem pretty sure of what reality is while calling certain phenomena "nonsense" or "fairy tales" and that in itself is a judgement.

They reject it in a similar manner as to when you oppose someone's religious beliefs.

Well, some scientists are hardcore atheists, so we aren't talking about a collective of perfect people or anything.

I see a lot of ego involved where it seems to be more important not to look like a fool rather than be open to any potential truths. This can be seen in the current "atheism vs religion" wars. It's my belief versus your belief, basically.

There is thing where it's important that knowledge is sanctioned by the insitutional body so that the profession maintains credible prominence of social position - and that is a pretty complex thing to navigate - along with negotiation funding grants and so on etc... the politics of knowledge is complicated.

Not to say all scientists are like this as they come in many different flavours. However, scientists are people too and they come with their own issues just like everybody else. Being an observer without prejudgements is the scientific approach like you said but this is often forgotten.

As you point out, people have bias and no sensible researcher would deny their own biases, but the the scientific inquiry is pretty ruthless and if you're wrong, you're wrong. It's very difficult to show that you're right.

[Gem]

Originally Posted by Kisen

Not sure if I agree with this point in full.

You seem to refer to an ideal state of science where scientists are detached without any prior beliefs.

However, at least from what I observe, core scientists seem pretty sure of what reality is while calling certain phenomena "nonsense" or "fairy tales" and that in itself is a judgement.

They reject it in a similar manner as to when you oppose someone's religious beliefs.

Just to address this point separately, I am not the person who excluded religion from spirituality, nor opposed any religious beliefs. That was Interuniversalism.

So far, I only spoke of how scientific epistemology evolved out of the Church's persecution of 'natural philosophers' in the 16-1700s, and inquired as to the 'truth' in religion. Apart from that I addressed one inaccuracy and clarified that historical evidence shows deep division and conflict between spiritual sects.

I see a lot of ego involved where it seems to be more important not to look like a fool rather than be open to any potential truths. This can be seen in the current "atheism vs religion" wars. It's my belief versus your belief, basically.

Not to say all scientists are like this as they come in many different flavours. However, scientists are people too and they come with their own issues just like everybody else.

Being an observer without prejudgements is the scientific approach like you said but this is often forgotten.

[Interuniversalism]

Originally Posted by Gem

There would be many who wouldn't agree.


I thought Rumi was Muslim.


Many people believe that is the case.


There is a lot of historical evidence that shows deep disagreement and conflict between spiritual sects.


That's more like the scientific approach.


Scientists don't pretend to know it all or understand everything or that everything can be understood, least of all via 5 senses.

My dear you are absolutely right. How can I disagree. I lost the argument. I just realized I have been wrong all these years. Thank you.