Science or Spirituality

Are we classing Spirituality and Religion as the same thing?

Because there are plenty of strongly Atheist people whop could have an OBE or practise Yoga and such without being a believer in a higher power. Such things to not need or prove the existence of a higher power.

I'd still go with science though, because as beings of high intellect we have evolved to question what we see. We look at something and we say "why?" & "how?". Science provides us with the answer to many of those questions. In the past when Scientific understanding was limited religious reasons were created to fill the gaps and give reasons for why things happen. Over time many of those have been proven wrong due to science and I'm sure they will continue to do so.

 

I see no particular reason to go with one or the other, personally.

 

Fire Ice Death or someone else, apologies for not remembering, posted a link to a video that included a line something like "There's a word for alternative medicine that's been scientifically validated through empirical evidence. It's medicine."

To me, subjective claims about spirituality, wellness and healing are no different than subjective claims about talking to God or seeing demons, etc. As LOH says, not falsifiable.

 

I can think of many good reasons to go with science.

Computers
Cars
Airplanes
Television
Modern medicine
etc

Shall I go on?

 

Oh, sure, technology has brought so many great things to our society. You know, modern medicine (that most people can't afford to begin with) artificially extending people's lifespans so that our society with our skyrocketing cost of living and marginal taxes can't begin to support them, a pollution problem so severe that it might cause a global mass extinction, increasingly insipid entertainment that panders to an increasingly poorly educated and out of shape population...need I go on?

 

Those are political and economic issues unrelated to the scientific method.

 

Let me start by saying I am happy at the different opinions and perspectives that have contributed to the discussion. I was hoping that many different people with different opinions would participate in this.

Now in regards to a definition of spirituality, it's going to very from person to person. I can give my relative definition, but it will be unique to each person's perspective, so I can't give a universal definition. Even if a majority may go along with mine. My definition is pretty much similair to the one LostonHoth gave in his 10:43 pm post. No religion and spirituality do not have to be the same thing. I follow no actual religion. My beliefs closely resemble Taoism, but I wouldn't actually claim to be a Taoist. I follow more of a philisophical approach to things. But you can be an Atheist and still be spiritual. You can be anything and still be spiritual.


DorkmanScott, you gave me an example of the image on a tv as being similair to our conciousness. I see your point, however, whenyou shut off your tv, does that paticular image disappear altoghether? What I mean is if you shut it off on your TV does it dissapear from all TVs? No, if you have two TVs in two seperate areas and they are both playing the same thing, when you shut off one one, the other image remains. If you shut ff both TVs, the image still exists over the transmission waves and just kind of stays out there. Just because one image dissapears in one area, does not mean it cannot exist in another.

For the sceptics of OBEs I can provide nothing more than to say try it. Robert Peterson wrote a book called "Out of Body Experiences: How to Have Them and What to Expect." He grew up taking the scientific approach to things and took the same approach to OBE's. You can always tr, take a year or to a experiment with the process and see how it goes for you. Try the above book if you should choose to try. I will admit, it's one of those things that you have to try for yourself, it is difficult to just explain.

LordVivac, in response to DarthBoba's post you stated that those were issues of politics and economy. But they were problems negative problems that stemmed from a scientific breakthrough, be it positive or not. So science is still some what resposible. And often times it is a spiritual connection that helps people deal with it. It is not wrong in any way to say they both need each other.

 

But we have evidence of the source and evidence that the image can exist in more than one location. No such evidence exists for "consciousness." It exists only in the mind.

Perhaps a better example would be a DVD. Let's say you have only one copy of a DVD. The image exists on the DVD. If you destroy the DVD, that image no longer exists. It isn't in the DVD player, it isn't in the television, it isn't in the energy that powers these technologies. It was on the DVD, and the DVD is destroyed.

Yes, it's still a flawed analogy since you can broadcast from a DVD. There is no known mechanism by which a consciousness can be broadcast. And before you say OBEs, I say: prove it.

If you could actually prove it, there's a million dollars awaiting you. Not to mention a probable Nobel prize.

As I said before, there is no evidence that there's anything to try other than meditative relaxation and flights of imagination.

Argument from authority.

I don't care who he is (which is probably in your favor, considering his website), I don't care how scientific he thinks he was growing up (again, he's self-reporting, which means we have to take his word for it; something I have no reason to do), or if you agree with him. I want to know what the evidence is, how he arrived at it, and how it can be studied and falsified. If it's just something you "feel" after you've been told what to feel, and not feeling it can be dismissed with "you didn't do it right" or "you have to want it more" or whatever, then it's indistinguishable from nonsense.

I could also spend a year whistling Dixie in the belief that it keeps Bigfoot away. The fact that I don't see any Bigfeet in that year doesn't mean the whistling worked, nor would me writing a book about my "success."

Speaking of which, Peterson's book is free on his website. It includes a series of exercises, the first of which involves creating and repeating an affirmation along these lines:

This is not skeptical inquiry. Skeptical inquiry doesn't WANT to find anything but the truth. The moment you begin to indoctrinate yourself with the concept of WANTING a particular result, of insisting that you WILL interpret your experiences a certain way, is the moment that you are no longer applying skepticism and critical thinking, but credulity and wishful thinking.

 

Fair enough, You have your beliefs and I respect that. I will not criticise you for what you believe. You arrived to your end similair to me. You beleive it and it works for you. I do however take a bit of offense when you call it "woo." If I'm understanding what you mean, it's that you don't beleive in the "supernatural" awspects of life. Be it religion or whatever. I can't determine whether you believe in God or a higher power but that isn't actually relevant. The fact that you call it "woo" is almost saying that the person is crazy or something. Don't be insulted if I'm misunderstanding it though. The whole point of starting this thread was to let everyone explore other people's beliefs be it in science, religion, the occult, Etc.


Ultimately yes, OBE are a "mind over matter" type thing. You need the proper mindset. But the same can be said for science as well. You have to beleive that you are going to discover something in order to actually get started. And you are influenced by what other people are saying, be it whether or not you are set to prove or dissprove them. For example, I watch that Morgan Freeman show on the Science Channel, Looking through the Wormhole I beleive it's called. Anyway, they had an episode on how the universe started and the first case shown was the Big Bang. Then they showed another theory that challenged the Big Bang in a way. It theorized are universe was started by two parellel universes crashing together and leaving behind energy to start ours. Or something like that if I am remembering correctly. Anyway, their theory was influenced by the Big Bang theory even though it was a bit of a rival. I guess what I am trying to say is that while OBEs, spirituality, religion, etc. are the inflenced by someone else to make a person beleive something, the same can be said on science's behalf.

 

I still maintain OBE's are possible without all the fluffy spiritual love stuff. Moreover: even without drugs.

 

I never done drugs in my life. Well, I smoked cigarrettes at one tme and got drunk once, but no hallucingetic drugs. When I started OBE's I was a bit of an Atheist. More Agnostic. I wouldn't deny God existed, but wouldn't say he did. I just started having weird dreams, and when I talked to a friend of mine who was involved with these sort of things about it, he said to try an OBE. My dreams would end wierd because I would wake up but not be awake. no longer asleep, but in a state of consciuesness that wasn't physcally awake. there was a nothingness, and yet there was something. Anyway, he suggested OBEs as a result of the feeling. That's how I started.

 

Unbelief is not a form of belief, just as bald is not a hair color, and not-stamp collecting is not a hobby.

Correct. I do not believe in things which there is no reason to believe exist.

See above.

"Woo" is a short way of saying "unsubstantiated nonsense claims." Or, a kinder word, pseudoscience. Non-crazy people believe crazy things all the time.

I find that people who say things like this are the ones who don't understand how science works.

Yes, to an extent, you have to believe that there is something there in the first place, otherwise why would you bother to investigate? But that's where the similarities end. A scientist does not begin an experiment with the affirmation "I want to find that X is the case. I will focus my energy on finding the evidence that X is the case, and allow the universe to demonstrate X to me."

No.

A scientist says "I believe that X may be the case. If X is the case, then in running this experiment I should expect to find A, B, and C results. Additionally, if D, E, and/or F results occur, then X is necessarily not the case."

Science is falsifiable. Pseudoscience is not. That's why one is useful and one is a diversion at best.

I do not understand this sentence, with or without the preceding sentences about cosmology. Can you try to clarify a bit more?

 

What I'm trying to say is that science is also influenced by people on what they find and can often influence people to believe in one theory and not explore others. Like the Big Bang theory I mentioned. When those guys first presented an alternative beginning, they were laughed at, called crazy, and no one took them serious. In time people saw what they were saying and accepted that as plausible. So the same can be said for spiritualist. Just because what they beleive is not accepted by others, doesn't make it anyless plausible or true. I probably should have been a bit more clear on that.


BTW, what about God do you not believe? I'm just curious. Is it improbable to you, or do you feel it is possible? And what is improbable about it?

 

Way I figure is the OBE's can be considered real - your feelings and experiences are real - but the explanation's wrong: with an OBE, you truly momentarily disconnect from your ego, but there's not suddenly a reason to assume a Higher Force guiding you. Have you considered that?

 

Yes, I have. I have also considered that we are the higher power in a more primitave form.

 

Why assume a higher force, at all?

 

If there is such a thing as god/gods, why would he be content to just watch us tear each other apart? i know people say that he likes to let us learn from our mistakes, but i find it difficult to believe that he could watch his "children" do things like murder, etc.

is there any spiritualists out there that can answer this question, because i am genuinely interested in the answer?

 

That's true. The difference is that the Big Bang theory, and other scientific discoveries, had evidence to back them up. Spiritualism doesn't. So it is less plausible/true due to lack of evidence. The more evidence you present, the more plausible it becomes and the more likely people are to accept it as true.

Well, I don't believe that Thor brings the thunder, nor that Apollo drives the sun, nor that Quezalcoatl lives in the Chrysler building, for a start.

As there's nothing I do believe about gods, this is a pretty vague question.

Possible and improbable are not mutually exclusive. Though it depends on the claim. Any god which is inherently contradictory is impossible by definition, in the same manner as a square circle.

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. There is no evidence for the existence of any god. Thus the existence of any god, based on available evidence, is entirely improbable.

We have a thread specifically devoted to non-belief in gods if you want to continue this particular line of conversation.

 

That is evolution at work. We are evolving at such a rate we are slowly getting immunity to natural methods of keeping our numbers in check (disease, natural disasters). But in doing so, we are damaging ourselves. Pollution will create global change at a rate we may struggle to deal with. Vast areas may be flooded and others will turn to desert. At some point we will cause so much damage that a natural backlash will ultimately occur to rectify the problem so that Earth can recover. If it means the majority or all of the Human Race is wiped out, so be it. A new species will replace us.

 

That, I cannot answer with my beliefs, my belief is set on balance. For any amount of good there must be an equel amount of bad.

I have asked that question to a Jehovah's Witness and he gave me a book called "What Does the Bible Really Teach," which answered with this metaphor: Picture a teacher in a classroom. He is teaching a class and a rebelious student stands up and claims he can answer the question in a better way. Now the teacher has an option, he can send the student to the office for disrupting class. But in doing so he leaves doubt in his teaching methods to the other students and leaves more rebelious behaviour to happen. Or he can hand the chalk to the student and allows him to show his way. Since the student does not know how to do it it is inevitable that he will fail. The student is silenced, and the class' trust in the teacher's methods are re-assured. Now picture God as the teacher, Satan as the student, and the remaining angels as the class. Satan made an accusation against God's soveirnty, his right to rule. (Paraphrased,but the same concept)

So basically God said "Okay, you do better." And has allowed Satan to rule the world to prove him wrong. If he simply went "Oh Yeah, goodbye*poof*" Then the other angels may doubt God as well. That's how it was explained to me.

Dorkman, I was just curious, but thank you for the link to the other thread. Maybe I will check it out.

I saw on Looking Through the Wormhole on the science channel an episode that discussed a higher power. One of the theories was that God was something of a computer programmer. Same way we may play "the Sims" or "Spore." They theorized that a higher power is something like what we'll be 50+ years from now. It was interesting enought to intrigue me. It's not that I right away assume a higher power, I just keep the option open for exploration.

You kind of enter a paradox with that. You beleive that you don't believe. You do believe in your unbelief, that's why you follow it. Do you understand?

 

You seem to be confusing science, as a method, with the results of said method. Science, in its ideal state, is self-correcting as new evidence is presented that moves towards greater accuracy and understanding. It's not just the views currently held by those that follow said methodology. That said, it doesn't seem, from my cursory reading, to upend the big bang theory, it just is an alternative to the inflationary model.

 

Well, it depends on which God you're talking about. Ostensibly, the Christian God wasn't content (that's what Jesus was all about). Humanity was offered a way out, and some choose to take it and others don't. And true, genuine love is such that it cannot be forced upon somebody, so God won't make the choice for humanity. They chose what they chose, and he redeems it from there.

As for the thread topic, science informs my spirituality, and my spirituality informs my views of science. I don't see why it has to be one or the other...in my view they're the same thing. Different lenses for discovering why the world is the way it is and why it works the way it does. I think that both are necessary, if we're to someday completely understand such things.

 

Spirituality comes from the understanding of your own essence. It's who you are before who you are. It's the core of who you are and the most complete benefience of who you are. It is your HIGHER SELF- the mother of the virtues and harmonies of life that breeds justice, mercy, love, and right. And these can not pass away because they are the true essence of the Creator within you. Your Higher Self is where you and the Creator meet and keep each other's company. That's spirituality.


Science simply means to know. It deals with research, knowledge, study, confirmation, evidence of the physical in our universe.

 

Things like what's right and such seems to be more morality/ethics than spirituality

 

I completely concur. Spirituality has nothing to do with morality or being a nice guy. People often get it confused.