Bridging the Gap Between Science and Spirituality

[Miss Hepburn]

This gang may enjoy this interview with an Oxford physicist:
The Universe is a hologram....
I like her and often listen to this interviewer. :)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UAPbrHQqofs

If in a rush go to about 26 min in.

[HITESH SHAH]

Originally Posted by johnsonava

'm curious to hear your thoughts on how science and spirituality can coexist and even complement each other. Are there scientific theories or discoveries that have resonated with your spiritual beliefs? How do you navigate the potential conflicts or tensions between these two realms?

Science deals with axioms , theorems , principles which explains various cause effect relations in material (like physics,chemistry,astronomy etc) and less-material world (subjective fields like politics ,economics , psychology etc) .
Spirituality too deals with axioms and principles which can be more abstract than other sciences and which work over periods / area which may be be very long and wider. In that sense Spirituality too is science (though more abstract ) .

The reason why science and spirituality may look at odds is that in European history some so-called spiritual people have pestered some genuine scientists for their vested interests and in that conflict genuine scientists won finally . So spirituality or religion is looked upon with suspicion . But looking at big picture , discarding spirituality for such a period in history will be a big mistake. Of course foolish/sellfish/fraudulent spirituality should be vanquished at all cost like it has done in the past. But genuine spirituality devoid of such attributes deserves respect .

To the best of my knowledge most scientists were not against spirituality . In fact many of them came from humble backgrounds with foundation of religious beliefs . Albert Einstein , alexander fleming , michael faraday all had some spiritual beliefs despite being good scientists. So increasingly people view science and spirituality as complementary and NOT conflicting .

[Gem]

I think people want it to fit together, but science is method of proving laws, and there's only two factors, the observation, the hypothesis and the experiment. If a scientist happens to be religious or likes meditation or takes a more philosophical, that's all a different practice to scientific practice, so when it comes to science I care nothing about the religion or the spirituality of the scientist, and when it comes to spirituality, I don't care if a teacher has no scientific knowledge. One in no way implies the other, at all.

I think the bridge that they have in common should be reason. Sometimes in spiritualism people just talk about faith and mystical hokum, which is fine and I sometimes get into that a but as well, but I like it when a spiritual discourse is reasoned, structured, makes sense and you can join the dots.

In spiritualism mainly studied Buddhist philosophy, and if you just take the Pali Cannon, it's a pretty sensible discourse, though because it's 'set in stone' the commentaries are tied to its tenets rather than expressions of insight... However, depending on the sect, traditions have add-ons that usually conflict with each other. Because it's a spiritual practice people are fine with that and don't care if it makes no sense, but I do. I'm like, this part and the other part directly contradict each other, and I have to reject parts that don't add up. Then again, that sort of discernment is the proper way to approach Buddhist philosophy since it is not actually a religious belief. This doesn't prevent people from treating it as a religion. Some are fanatical dogmatists as you'd find in any religion. Hence I practice spirituality through reason and discernment, which is more scientific, and the investigation is still the discovery of the truth about nature. The difference with spirituality is, you can't prove it 'out there' with measurements and equations that accurately predict outcomes. You have to realise it 'in here' as your own insight.

[Altair]

Many paths could possibly help. I think the key here is to understand the difference between a spiritual and a scientific approach. Structure/laws/order/predictability are 'of this world', they make sense within certain contexts here. And mostly man made contexts, as natural systems - be that ecosystems, or our functioning organs - are highly complex and self organizing, seeking harmony, which just quite isn't the same as our laws and orderly approach.

Structure/laws/predictability are what science understands, and they by themselves are not enough to capture the mystical, because that also requires the opposite characteristics, which are largely considered a 'nuisance'. Think of a doctor who doesn't understand your stress due to a relationship may have an actual impact on your organs. He simply can't 'discover' that, it's too complex, so it's discarded.

No idea how to really 'bridge the gap', we may need better equipment and/or more integration between fields.

[HITESH SHAH]

The conflict between science and spirituality can be eliminated if we understands its similarities and differences .

Similarities are driving factors like

1. Reason - It's obvious for science . For spirituality too it should be obvious.

2. sincerity / honesty - the way spirituality can be superstitious / foolish/ignorant/fraudulent the same way science too could be pseudo-science promoted lobbies / political parties / trade bodies etc which may not be 100% true. There is dire need to distinguish between genuine/honest/sincere on one side and fake/partial facts with vested interests.

3. devoid of personal bias/ prejudices - The moment personal biases colors one's judgement it is no longer science or spirituality .

4. Curiosity / inquisitiveness - This is critical element of both .

5. Being able to connect dots ie establish cause and effect relations ships .

Also there are some dissimilarities which for me is not dissimilarity but the very nature of the subject. I would discuss that in my next post.

[Altair]

Originally Posted by HITESH SHAH

3. devoid of personal bias/ prejudices - The moment personal biases colors one's judgement it is no longer science or spirituality .

We all have different spiritual paths, interests, practices. This is personal bias, and I don't believe it is possible to start of as a neutral. If tried though, one is still biased as are the outcomes of said practice. To exclude all personal taste in a practice may lead to a voidish experience where one immediately ignores what is presented, returning to 'nothingness'. Creativity and diversity are part and parcel of the package, the 'subjective' is essential in any practice, IMO. Talking spiritual paths here, empirical science is different. Don't believe spirituality can be treated scientifically.

[HITESH SHAH]

Originally Posted by Altair

We all have different spiritual paths, interests, practices. This is personal bias, and I don't believe it is possible to start of as a neutral. If tried though, one is still biased as are the outcomes of said practice. To exclude all personal taste in a practice may lead to a voidish experience where one immediately ignores what is presented, returning to 'nothingness'. Creativity and diversity are part and parcel of the package, the 'subjective' is essential in any practice,

Hi
I agree with you . People will have personal interests / preferences . All scientists / spiritualists do have personal interests / biases . I too have it .And there is nothing wrong with it .

Only the personal biases which colors / clouds ones objective assessment on the subject matter is what I talked about here . There can be many personal biases / interests which do not impact the objective assessment . And that is perfect and in fact very much required to make our experience of life worthy and beautiful.

[HITESH SHAH]

Originally Posted by HITESH SHAH

Also there are some dissimilarities which for me is not dissimilarity but the very nature of the subject. I would discuss that in my next post.

Before I talk about dissimilarities , I would also talk about one more similarity which i missed out - there can be good exceptions to the rule . In spirituality and science everywhere there can be exceptions .e.g.
1. All metals are solid but mercury is liquid and yet a metal.
2. All solids when heated turn to liquid and on further heating turn to gases . Dry ice / Iodine can be exception and turn directly to gas state without being in liquid state.
3. All object from higher earth altitude gets attracted to earth center yet lava from earth crust can come out away from center at the time of earthquake/volcano , air may spiral upwards away from earth center in times of tornado / typhoon / storms .

There is absolutely no need to rationalize /object to / favor /question / intimidate exceptions . There is no need to question either generalized majority or exception minority . All we need to do is to accept things as they are and work with it.

Now I would talk about inherent differences in the nature of subject matter in sciences and spirituality

1. Quantification - The subject matter of sciences as we understand is physical world where there can be measurements and arithmetic calculations. Through extrapolations lot of hitherto unknown stuffs can be calculated and known. Such quantification is not possible in some sciences like economics/psychology etc . So does in spirituality quantification is next to impossible.

2. Experience/feel - Some subjects /sciences are subjects of experience / feeling . In such matters at most u can compare subject matters but efforts to quantify it in a universally accepted manner is futile and frustrating exercise. Examples of such subjects are beauty of participant, taste of cuisine , fragrance of flowers , melody of music . Sciences like economics , psychology / politics too are matters of feeling/experience and not of quantification . So is spirituality . It's a feeling and experience with little need to quantify .

3. Spirituality is stimulant / catalyst which make the experience /effectiveness of other subject/science better and it may not work by itself alone.

[AniSophia]

This is exactly what Transpersonal Psychology is doing -- we are bridging the gap between science and spirituality with quantitative, qualitative, and mixed methods approaches to understanding consciousness and spirituality.

For those who say science and spirituality are incompatible, I say that is a very narrow view point and contradicts what is already known in the field.

I have mentioned this elsewhere, but will mention it again here.

The Journal of Transpersonal Psychology is a great place to start if one wants to see how this bridge is being formed. There are other journals, as well. For instance, a journal for Astronomers published a qualitative article about the spirituality of astronomers, and how it guided them to go into the field.

I am a second year PhD student in Transpersonal Psychology. My dissertation will focus on how space weather (solar flares, geomagnetism) which is quantitative influences consciousness and spirituality via qualitative accounts.

There is a wealth of research out there. You just need to know how to look for it.

Originally Posted by johnsonava

Greetings, fellow seekers of knowledge!

The relationship between science and spirituality has long been a topic of fascination and debate. While science focuses on empirical evidence and rational explanations, spirituality delves into the realm of consciousness, interconnectedness, and the mysteries of existence.

I'm curious to hear your thoughts on how science and spirituality can coexist and even complement each other. Are there scientific theories or discoveries that have resonated with your spiritual beliefs? How do you navigate the potential conflicts or tensions between these two realms?

Let's engage in a respectful and open-minded discussion, sharing insights, personal experiences, and any resources that highlight the interplay between science and spirituality.