Why do most scientists hate spirituality?

[in progress]

I too am a scientist who is crazy in love w/ spirituality. I see science as the study of the outside and spirituality as a sort of study or work of the inside. The two will merge as we rise in consciousness.

[Reverend Keith]

in progress:

Are you familiar with Ken Wilber? This area is one of his specialties.

Scientists don't hate spirituality. They just dislike it when people say certain things do exist when there is no proof for it's existence, which is understandable. Often, especially within spirituality and certain religions, it's just something which someone has said, with no evidence to support that they are telling the truth. If they could supply evidence then I'm sure a scientist would be fine.

For example, if a scientist didn't believe in life after death, but was shown hard evidence towards it's existence, then I'm sure they would then believe in it.

It makes sense, otherwise people would believe in anything other people say without questioning it.

Originally Posted by Greg

I thought here of all places I'd get a bit more support, but obvioulsy not

Hey Greg,

I don't think scientists necessarily 'hate' spirituality. They can mock it and those who do believe in it but that's just because they view the world from a 3D perspective and Not (as they seem to think), a Quantum one. 3D = Proof. Quantum = chance, random, non-linear.

I know that in the next decade or so, scientists Will begin to incorporate spirituality into their scientific belief systems. They have too many things that just sound too 'flat' when they explain it, and I know there's 'more' to it. Just like you do. Intuition will more validated in science in the future.

Science is really the pursuit of trying to prove a theory that may have began with random facts, pieces of evidence/mystery etc and some degree of intuition during the process. Spirituality is the other layer that will start to merge with that process and to some degree, change the order of the search.

Numerology being the study around the energy around numbers and being a mapping system for more than we realize is a good example of what I'm talking about. For most science using any form of math, they do not use the energy enough yet around numbers as variables but they will.

All this said I get what you're saying. It is annoying I agree.

Originally Posted by Songbirds

Scientists don't hate spirituality. They just dislike it when people say certain things do exist when there is no proof for it's existence, which is understandable.

It isn't so much lack of empirical evidence that bothers me given that most of our daily existence is hardly grounded by numbers and statistics. What bothers me is when people claim something is scientific when it isn't, and thereby transform legitimate science into pseudoscience.

Originally Posted by Greg

Is it because spirituality attempts to use science in it's attempts to describe the universe, and scientists get very defensive? I saw a programme today about an Astronomer who was giving a lecture on quantum physics. He called anyone who had a spiritual explanation on this as 'Mischievous Hippies' who spoke mumbo jumbo.
I often get very self conscious about my spiritual beliefs and am scared that I may be going against logic, going against the laws of the universe, but at the same time I can't ignore this innate spirituality I feel in me, It wont let me ignore it, no matter how much pain I feel.

scientists are spiritual people.... they have thier beliefs - logically justified beliefs.

what i am interested in is why people think spirituality cant be or indeed shouldnt be logic based.

They don't. You have come across one bad example and have let it taint your perceptions.

[JaysonR]

Greg,

Scientists do not generally just hate spirituality; in fact, many cite their endeavors as spiritual.
The most famous of this is Neil Tyson, who has so much passion for his experiences in astronomy, and how that impacts is ontological identity, that he can in turn electrify nearly any audience with his passion.

Case in point, he's the only guest I've seen turn John Stewart's eyes into a reflection of a five year old transfixed; begging for more in wide wonder.

There are some boisterous voices in the scientific and philosophical communities who spend a considerable amount of their time beating on the crown, so to speak, of, "religion"; such as Richard Dawkins and Sam Harris (yes, Christopher Hitchens as well, but he has passed).

However, if you listen to their discussions at great length, such as those found in The Science Network's, "Beyond Belief 2006", conference, then you'll possibly see that there is a considerable difference between what Dawkins and Harris (et al) are strongly opposed to and what a general spiritually involved individual is interested in.

Most of what the opposition is against comes from a reaction to what Sam Keen refers to as the, "Fifth stage, the final stage", of, "the evolution of (a) religion"; where a given religion, "...go(es) for power and empire".

Typically speaking, however, no scientist or philosopher is against the, "First stage", of Sam Keen's outline: "an utterly transforming experience of the sacred", for, "a lone individual", and is capable for any human, in Keen's way of speaking, due to, "the essence of religion (being) a series of primal experiences which belong to us only because we are born human and we share the human condition", and because humans are capable of seeing, "ordinary reality as extraordinary", and therefore having, "a primary experience of the holy", in such an event.

(Keeping in mind, words like, "holy", and, "sacred", are explicitly subjective terms in Keen's lexicon.)


So, I wouldn't go as far as to say that scientists are often found to be anti-spiritual.
However, I can say that some scientists are outspoken against religion employing its fifth stage of development to assert controlling attempts over secular (meaning, independent - but not void by opposition - of religious adherence) interests.

And to a critical mind, this makes sense.
A theological approach to viewing reality is one which understands the world in a mythological narrative of values that are unique and arbitrary to secular (same meaning as above) communal investments for the progression of human kind and the knowledge therein.
As such, having the secular (same meaning as above) appropriation of pursuits dictated by such a group oppressively (meaning, without the recipients welcome or asking) is going to inevitably create an equally verbose opposition.

So yes, there are outspoken champions of secular independence in science who's interest is to push back the waves of theologically invested agencies wishing to invest a value judgement in the direction of science, but I would not dare say this defines scientists as hate of spirituality.

Nor does the existence of the, "Fifth stage", style of religions indicate that all spiritual people are inherently akin to the theologically invested secular pursuant; especially in this era.
This, I believe, is where some people create an associative accident: inherently associating a person that is spiritual with the conception of a person that is theologically invested in secular influence.

All I can say is that today's science is materialistic and very selfish in nature with no moral anchor from which to keep grounded. It disregards and even insults the existence of a god(or at least a higher moral authority) to which we should follow and live by. Just look at the world today, is completely driven by science and has become morally deprived and degenerate. Goodness and Virtue of Heart is laughed at and rarely practiced nowadays. Its quite sad....

Originally Posted by Akaalis

All I can say is that today's science is materialistic and very selfish in nature with no moral anchor from which to keep grounded. It disregards and even insults the existence of a god(or at least a higher moral authority) to which we should follow and live by. Just look at the world today, is completely driven by science and has become morally deprived and degenerate. Goodness and Virtue of Heart is laughed at and rarely practiced nowadays. Its quite sad....

The question was "Why do most scientists hate spirituality?" not "Why do you hate science?"