Science or Spirituality

Religion is nothing at all like science. Science's rules are based on empirical experimentation and logical derivation. Religion's rules are taken from some book.

 

No it doesn't, it doesn't prove that at all.

A distinction worth noting, however, is that science doesn't answer questions it feels it lacks sufficient information to answer, generally speaking. That you can supply a response to a question does not necessarily equate to having the answer to that question, but it is a habit that can be found in many ideologies, including much of religion.

 

Wormie,

The doctors explained to me that the NDE (as they refer to OBE's) was caused by a lack of oxygen to my brain and by other chemical reactions that happen when a person starts dying.

I did not have the classic NDE experience as I did not see a "father figure" waiting to judge me. I only heard beautiful music and saw the most wonderful light. I didn't have deceased relatives appear to me and tell me it wasn't my time and to go back to my body.

There was just this peaceful, calm feeling, the light and the music.

Your experience may have been just your own guilt over what you were doing that you knew was wrong and not any sign from God.

 

But why choose "sides" at all?

IMHO... when it comes to understanding the physical universe, Science can't be beat! The scientific method, honestly applied (humans CAN be funny about that) - measuring, recording, experimenting, replicating results, testing, theorizing, modifying theory on the basis of new knowledge, etc - does a GREAT job of helping us come to understand the physical universe.

If I had to build a bridge, or develop a vaccine, or fix my computer, or the like - GET ME A SCIENTIST!

But... IMHO... Science has nothing to say about things like Right and Wrong. Those aren't scientific concepts. You can't measure "RIGHT", you can't experiment on "WRONG". There is nothing empirical about it. Science can tell you what you CAN do, but it really has nothing to say about whether you SHOULD do it. It doesn't have much of anything to say about Love either, unless you believe Love is "just" a biochemical reaction (and some do).

So, to me, it isn't an "either/or" proposition. What's that saying - when all you have is a hammer, every problem looks like a nail? To me, it is a matter of context. Science is great, as far as it goes - and it goes pretty far. But ... IMHO... it reaches its limits when you start talking about anything beyond the physical. For that, you need a different toolbox....

 

But now you're conflating spirituality with philosophy. One need not have any kind of belief in "spiritualism" to have a sense of right and wrong and to be able to express it.

There IS such a thing as the science of right and wrong, and a scientific understanding of why we will tend to find certain actions "right" and others "wrong." Sociology, anthropology, and psychology are all sciences, and all give us a solid idea of why our "moral sense" is what it is, without ever having to appeal to some kind of immaterial mojo.

 

Well, personally, I don't have an issue if there can be a distinction between science and ethics/morality. However, I'll point out that while science isn't trying to say it can test right or wrong, spirituality IS trying to make claims on science. Which is why we have....
creationists fighting evolution being taught in classrooms
psychological disorders being treated as demonic possessions
parents letting their kids die as they pray rather than going to a doctor
people arguing that homosexuality isn't 'natural'
faith healing

just as a start. So, if there's any competition here, it's from ethical/moral systems and philosophies under the category of spirituality don't stay where you've suggested they should.

 

Lowbacca -

Oh, there CAN be conflicts, I agree. And yes, sometimes the conflicts are pushed by those with a religious outlook... but IMHO the conflicts are also sometimes pushed by those with a wholly "scientific" outlook as well, although I think in those cases, the ones making the arguments rarely see themselves as advancing a particular cause. For example, I think Ethical Relativists, who argue - or imply - that right and wrong are just matters of opinion, grounded in nothing more than viewpoint, basically embrace the idea of a totally mechanistic, physical, "scientific" universe.

I am just suggesting that conflict is not inevitable. I don't think that being accepting of "Spirituality" means one must reject "Science", or vice versa.

Shadow

 

Shadow-Jedi, I would think it highlights a lot, though, that you're focused on attacking science for things that most people associated with science never claim science is capable of doing in the first place, and it presents a tone that the clash between science and spirituality is the fault of science, ignoring where the clashes tend to be.

As far as relativism, I'm not sure what point you're making there. Ethical relativism is a philosophical stance, not a scientific one. Any clash an ethical relativist takes with religion (and I'm not sure I see why they'd clash with religion other than that you just said they would and would like to see an explanation for why they would) isn't between science and spirituality, it's between a philosophy and, it would seem, an individual religion. Beyond that, as ethical relativists are only addressing ethics, I would think that within the larger scope of relativism, that they might likely oppose science's stance on the universe as well, which operates under some things being constant and, therefore, not relative.

 

This is spirituality and not spiritualism, then?

 

but IMHO the conflicts are also sometimes pushed by those with a wholly "scientific" outlook as well, although I think in those cases, the ones making the arguments rarely see themselves as advancing a particular cause. For example, I think Ethical Relativists, who argue - or imply - that right and wrong are just matters of opinion, grounded in nothing more than viewpoint, basically embrace the idea of a totally mechanistic, physical, "scientific" universe.

The thing is, ethical relativists (or whatever the proper term for them is) are not out and about trying to to pass laws to get government to endorse and spread their views. The religious right and social conservatives ARE doing this. Ethical relativists just try to spread their message and it's perfectly within their right to do so, and the same goes for Christians, Muslims, Buddhists, etc. But none of them are allowed to use government as a conduit for their message, and this is the principle that our current religious culture war revolves around....there is one group that accepts this principle, and there is another group that rejects it.

 

Since this is relevant to my previous post: http://www.usatoday.com/news/religion/2010-10-01-politicalpulpits01_ST_N.htm

We know what's right, and we know why it's right. The question is, when we see someone launching a blitzkrieg against our principles, do we stand up to them and speak out against this madness or do we wait until they've already turned white into black and plunge society into a twisted alternate reality?

 

Really not comfortable with churches getting so involved...not appropriate at all imo.

 

I am not comfortable with the blending of worship services and politics - Right OR Left (and yes, it happens on the Left as well).

That being said, I don't think the line is always crystal clear.

For example, suppose a politican says "Hey, I am for abortion on demand... a developing fetus is not a human being. I think taxpayers should pay for abortions too, as they do for most other medical procedures when it comes to government reimbursed health care."

Is this a political statement? A scientific one? A philosophical one? How did this politician decide when life begins? In seeking to change the current law re taxpayer funding, isn't he or she essentially discounting the religious views of some of his/her constituents? Isn't the raising of this topic essentially the raising of a moral or philosophical issue?

Suppose the politician says THIS: " All medical personnel should be required to participate in abortions - no exemptions for conscience. And all hospitals taking any federal funds should do likewise". Hmmm. Okay, this would basically put, for example, Catholic hospitals in the position of having to violate core beliefs OR closing down. Is this a "non-religous" issue?

Where I balk is at pastors and the like endorsing certain CANDIDATES versus making clear their church's stand on ISSUES. One thing to say where a given church stands on abortion funding, for example, and another, IMHO, to say "Vote for Candidate X".

 

EDIT: wrong thread. Very wrong!