Are science and spirituality compatible?

[DawudTalut]

So war and peace must also be compatible. How odd.

Abuse-of-science (war) and spirituality are not compatible.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I provided a link in the OP to Wikipedia's article on spirituality.

From the article:

There is no single, widely-agreed definition of spirituality.[1][2][note 1] Surveys of the definition of the term, as used in scholarly research, show a broad range of definitions, with very limited similitude.

So with that in mind, I'd have to say my answer is "yes and no".

 

[Skwim]

Abuse-of-science (war) and spirituality are not compatible.

So why would the Source, which is the reason you give for science and spirituality being compatible, not also be the reason other entities are compatible? And why in the world would an abuse of science equate with war?

 

[DawudTalut]

So why would the Source, which is the reason you give for science and spirituality being compatible, not also be the reason other entities are compatible? And why in the world would an abuse of science equate with war?

Because The Source gave science users choice to use it for good, some of them used it for bad......Abuse of law does not make law-maker responsible.

 

[Gambit]

So with that in mind, I'd have to say my answer is "yes and no".

Agreed. There is no consensus on a definition.. That's why there's an option for "it all depends." (It all depends on the definition.)

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Because The Source gave science users choice to use it for good, some of them used it for bad......

Do you mean science or technology? Either way, people have been killing each other as long as humanity has existed.

Abuse of law does not make law-maker responsible.

That depends, actually. It all depends what the purpose of the law in question is.

Unenforceable or unworkable law is bad law. Law that doesn't achieve its desired purpose is bad law.

So... if a law's purpose is to encourage some behaviour, for instance, if the behaviour doesn't happen, then the law - and the lawmaker - has failed.

Edit: an otherwise good law may be enforced badly leading to bad effects, but:

- laws should reflect the level of enforcement they will receive. A law that will be inconsistently enforced may be less just than no law at all.

- if the lawmaker and enforcer are the same person, the question of whether the failure of a law is the fault of the lawmaker or the enforcer is moot.

 

[bishblaize]

The pioneer scientist must have "a vivid intuitive imagination, for new ideas are not generated by deduction, but by artistically creative imagination."

-Max Planck

I believe that spirituality is better defined as an outlook, or a frame of mind, that forgoes judgement and analysis and instead relies on discerning coherence and 'rightness'. While in a day to day sense this means that science is not particularly spiritual, there are many key moments in the history of science where men and women had to look well outside the paradigms of their time and make intuitive leaps of understanding. These small but crucial jumps relied not on weighing up facts but simply 'getting it'. I'd call those moments using a spiritual outlook in a scientific context.

 

[DawudTalut]

Do you mean science or technology? Either way, people have been killing each other as long as humanity has existed.


That depends, actually. It all depends what the purpose of the law in question is.

Unenforceable or unworkable law is bad law. Law that doesn't achieve its desired purpose is bad law.

So... if a law's purpose is to encourage some behaviour, for instance, if the behaviour doesn't happen, then the law - and the lawmaker - has failed.

Edit: an otherwise good law may be enforced badly leading to bad effects, but:

- laws should reflect the level of enforcement they will receive. A law that will be inconsistently enforced may be less just than no law at all.

- if the lawmaker and enforcer are the same person, the question of whether the failure of a law is the fault of the lawmaker or the enforcer is moot.

The first fight used some elementary weapons which was 'the science and technology of the time".

or

 

[Salvador]

Science and spirituality are not compatible, because science can neither prove nor disprove supernatural phenomenon such as our God-given soul that will allow us to have a spiritual existence which is beyond our bodily existence on Earth.

 

[psychoslice]

Religion and science should be compatible, they should complement each other, science shows the way that it all happened, religion shows the way it is within each one of us. That we are all one with all that is, so whatever science shows. is our place in the cosmos, for we are all one.

 

[allfoak]

So war and peace must also be compatible. How odd.

If war and peace are opposites and we put them on a scale what are we measuring?

War and peace are as compatible as hot and cold, love and hate, male and female, science and religion etc.
We also should know that with the proper use of opposites we can change things.

If there is war offer peace.
If there is hate offer love.
Make a sad person laugh and you will feel better.

We could change the world through a proper understanding of opposites and how they relate to one another.
What it seems we are trying to measure and who we are trying to find is ourselves.

 

[Mycroft]

I voted 'It all depends' because, well, it all depends on the evidence.

Science and Spirituality are not antithetical ideas. Science simply doesn't deal with spirituality until some evidence is presented.

 

[Nerissa]

I think they are compatible. I think there are many things we cannot explain right now scientifically, but it might be possible later. But I don't think being able to explain something in a scientific way, means it can no longer be a spiritual or religious experience.
Like near-death experiences. Some people would say it's purely a neurological process while others might think it is actually a glimpse of the afterlife. But that made me think, why can it be only one of the two? Maybe this is just the way the body is designed to experience such things.
The same goes for finding signs and meaning in nature. One could say they are just natural processes and have no meaning, but what about when we speak? Do we say our words have no meaning simply because we can explain the our voice works and how words are formed?
Who knows. Maybe everything in nature is the way it is for a reason.

 

[Gambit]

Maybe everything in nature is the way it is for a reason.

That sounds reasonable.

 

[Bobbyh]

Are science and spirituality compatible?

What is spirituality? And what is science?

Science is a term used for describing the acknowledgment of empirical evidence.

Spirituality is a measure of ones self-awareness.

So I would think that spirituality is determined by scientific knowledge.

 

[LuisDantas]

What's spiritual about science?

A sufficiently wise conception of "spirituality" will not make it a point of conflicting with science. A better (wiser) one will in fact attempt to learn from scientific knowledge of medicine, nutrition, ecology, economy, psychology, sociology and anthropology.

What's scientific about spirituality?

We have to establish what we are calling spirituality before an answer can be given.

 

[LuisDantas]

Because The Source gave science users choice to use it for good, some of them used it for bad......Abuse of law does not make law-maker responsible.

Isn't the same said, with better reason, of spirituality in the place you are using for science, though?

 

[LuisDantas]

Science and spirituality are not compatible, because science can neither prove nor disprove supernatural phenomenon such as our God-given soul that will allow us to have a spiritual existence which is beyond our bodily existence on Earth.

Isn't that just about completely backwards, or perhaps just meaningless? It sure looks so at first glance.

 

[LuisDantas]

That sounds reasonable.

It is reasonable. It is also an arbitrary belief in sore need of evidence.

 

[DawudTalut]

Isn't the same said, with better reason, of spirituality in the place you are using for science, though?

Peace be on you.
Do you mean, Can one say
Because The Source gave spirituality users choice to use it for good, some of them used it for bad......Abuse of law does not make law-maker responsible.

and also

Because The Source gave science users choice to use it for good, some of them used it for bad......Abuse of law does not make law-maker responsible.

Agree!

Then it would be better to say:
The Source gave spirituality and science users choice to use these for good, some of users use these for bad [i.e. abuse of religions and science for selfish gains]......Abuse of law does not make law-maker responsible.