Are science and spirituality compatible?

[Rick O'Shez]

Most certainly there will, and this is good thinking, this is why I will never argue or debate such topics.

I don't think there's anything wrong with speculating, the problem arises when people start making the speculations sound like factual statements, presenting beliefs as evidence.

 

[psychoslice]

I don't think there's anything wrong with speculating, the problem arises when people start making the speculations sound like factual statements, presenting beliefs as evidence.

Yes I certainty can agree with that, I myself really know nothing, I just share what I have at the time, and that can change anytime.

 

[gnostic]

That's depends on your definition for spirituality. And spirituality depends upon on each individual, doesn't it?

I don't think it is the question of "compatibility", but rather if they are "related" in some ways...and I would say they are "not related"...but again, it really depends on your definition of spirituality and why you are asking for such a comparison?

 

[Rick O'Shez]

That's depends on your definition for spirituality. And spirituality depends upon on each individual, doesn't it?
I don't think it is the question of "compatibility", but rather if they are "related" in some ways...and I would say they are "not related"...but again, it really depends on your definition of spirituality and why you are asking for such a comparison?

Yes, it does depend on the semantics. Spirituality can include an open-minded seeking after truth which looks quite similar to the scientific method.

 

[ThePainefulTruth]

It appears (based on your previous post) that you believe that deism (your "laissez-faire God") is compatible with science. Why do you believe theism is incompatible with science?

There is no evidence for or against a non-intervening God. The only evidence for theistic God(s) is hearsay, but there is massive amounts of evidence against them. For example, look at the Bible. The only parts of it that have been verified are the history, but none of the supernatural. You can say, "well it still happened", but you can only make that claim without science. If there is a supernatural realm or God, it's not detectable in this natural universe, a universe that was set up that way, ostensibly, by God--for what could well be a good reason.

Science is concerned with the objective world, spirituality is concerned with the subjective world, they are the same coin, one cannot be without the other, to see yourself as one side of the coin, is to miss the whole picture of what the world is.

Science is concerned with objective Truth. Subjective Truth also exists, but as art and beauty. Spirituality, the existence of an immortal soul, or divine consciousness/will, is undetectable and unverifiable--at least in any way that can be communicated. You can say God talks to you, but until God shows Itself and confirms that for me, there's no basis for believing you're telling the Truth, or aren't hallucinating or misinterpreting things or just out of touch with reality. Sorry to be blunt, but, s'why they call me the Paineful Truth.

 

[Gambit]

There is no evidence for or against a non-intervening God.

Is said "interactive" (not "interventionist") God. There is a difference.

Question(s):

Do you believe there is any evidence for the God of deism?

Do you believe that deism is compatible with science? If yes, why?

 

[ThePainefulTruth]

Is said "interactive" (not "interventionist") God. There is a difference.

No, they're not the same, but either supernatural interaction or intervention would reveal a supernatural being, and any such knowledge would negate the sole purpose of the universe, our free will.

Do you believe there is any evidence for the God of deism?

There is only evidence against revelation, and a total lack of evidence for it. Therefore, to answer your second question:

Do you believe that deism is compatible with science? If yes, why?

All the evidence takes us away from theism, and leaves with reason pointing only to atheism and deism with no evidence for or against either. The only difference between the two that has any bearing on our mortal lives is hope.

I had this thought a couple of days ago that I think is interesting and has a bearing on this:
The perfect absence of evidence for or against God is kind of an anomaly. If God doesn't exist, then it seems likely that some evidence would have become evident from "before" the Big Bang or concerning its cause. How could an unconscious cause have caused things (willed things) to happen so that it would be hidden so well? Contrariwise, you can't use an absence of evidence as evidence for the absence of evidence. (Eat your heart out Lewis Carrol.)

 

[Gambit]

No, they're not the same, but either supernatural interaction or intervention would reveal a supernatural being, and any such knowledge would negate the sole purpose of the universe, our free will.

The belief in the determinism of classical physics was the basis for the deadbeat God of deism. For in a world that was completely determined by physical processes, there would be no room for God to interact with the world. Nor, would there be any room for free will. But it would appear that you haven't heard the news. The world is not completely determined by physical processes. The determinism of classical physics has been supplanted by the indeterminism of quantum mechanics.

"Fortunately, in scientific terms, if there is a God, He has left Himself plenty of material to work with. To pick just one example, the indeterminate nature of quantum events would allow a clever and subtle God to influence events in ways that are profound, but scientifically undetectable to us. Those events could include the appearance of mutations, the activation of individual neurons in the brain, and even the survival of individual cells and organisms affected by the chance processes of radioactive decay." (source: pg. 241 "Finding Darwin's God" by Kenneth R. Miller)

 

[psychoslice]

There is no evidence for or against a non-intervening God. The only evidence for theistic God(s) is hearsay, but there is massive amounts of evidence against them. For example, look at the Bible. The only parts of it that have been verified are the history, but none of the supernatural. You can say, "well it still happened", but you can only make that claim without science. If there is a supernatural realm or God, it's not detectable in this natural universe, a universe that was set up that way, ostensibly, by God--for what could well be a good reason.



Science is concerned with objective Truth. Subjective Truth also exists, but as art and beauty. Spirituality, the existence of an immortal soul, or divine consciousness/will, is undetectable and unverifiable--at least in any way that can be communicated. You can say God talks to you, but until God shows Itself and confirms that for me, there's no basis for believing you're telling the Truth, or aren't hallucinating or misinterpreting things or just out of touch with reality. Sorry to be blunt, but, s'why they call me the Paineful Truth.

Ha, I agree with you, religion has no proof of their subjective world, such as talking to God, but still this is what they believe, we cannot prove it wrong, they cannot prove it right. There are many theory's in science that cannot be 100% proven also, they may sound to be true but until it is proven beyond doubt they remain a theory, a hypothesis.

 

[ThePainefulTruth]

The belief in the determinism of classical physics was the basis for the deadbeat God of deism. For in a world that was completely determined by physical processes, there would be no room for God to interact with the world.

Yeah, if physics determined our choices and we had no free will, that'd be the opposite of the reason God would have created the universe, to spawn us with free will. Our free will is not contradicted by natural law.

Nor, would there be any room for free will. But it would appear that you haven't heard the news. The world is not completely determined by physical processes. The determinism of classical physics has been supplanted by the indeterminism of quantum mechanics.

The "Many Worlds" & "Copenhagen" interpretations of quantum mechanics are pretty much over the hill. The Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle is out the window as well. The influence of the observer has been greatly exaggerated and given much more influence that it ever could have had. For that to have been workable, we'd have had to have observers in the universe from time zero. There's only one interpretation that explains everything, but at a price, the "Transactional Interpretation". But science is going to have to eliminate everything else before it finally breaks down and says OK, let 's look at it.

Ha, I agree with you, religion has no proof of their subjective world, such as talking to God, but still this is what they believe, we cannot prove it wrong, they cannot prove it right.

But if they're going to claim revelation and other violation of natural law miracles like the parting of the Red Sea, the burden of proof is on them. So far, all they have is 10,000 years of self-serving, unverifiable hearsay, while science has 10,000 years of accumulated evidence, facts and proofs.

There are many theory's in science that cannot be 100% proven also, they may sound to be true but until it is proven beyond doubt they remain a theory, a hypothesis.

When you have massive evidence on one side with more coming in every day, with none on the other, and new findings keep agreeing with the massive evidence, that's essentially a virtually proven theory. Some details may need to be corrected, but that's it. Creationism is dead in the water, being buoyed only by 100% blind faith.

 

[psychoslice]

Science without religion is lame. Religion without science is blind. Albert Einstein

 

[Gambit]

Our free will is not contradicted by natural law.

Agreed. Free will (divine or human) is not contradicted by natural law. (The God-world relationship and the mind-body relationship are analogous. If you maintain that natural law rules out the possibility of divine free will, then logical consistency dictates that you maintain that natural law rules out human free will.)

We have compelling evidence that consciousness creates reality due to the violations of both Bell's inequalities and Legett's inequalities.

Although some loopholes remain - not all non-local models have been ruled out - we now have to face the possibility that there is nothing inherently real about the properties of an object that we measure. In other words, measuring those properties is what brings them into existence. "Rather than passively observing it, we in fact create reality," says quantum researcher Vlatko Vedral of the University of Leeds, UK. (source: "The Second Quantum Revolution" by Michael Brook, 20 June 2007, NewScientist.com news service)

 

[Gambit]

Science without religion is lame. Religion without science is blind. Albert Einstein

I like that.

 

[Gambit]

Yes, it does depend on the semantics. Spirituality can include an open-minded seeking after truth which looks quite similar to the scientific method.

Agreed. There are some similarities, namely, both are based on empiricism.

 

[Gambit]

That's depends on your definition for spirituality. And spirituality depends upon on each individual, doesn't it?

It's subjective, if that's what you're alluding to.

I don't think it is the question of "compatibility", but rather if they are "related" in some ways...and I would say they are "not related"...but again, it really depends on your definition of spirituality and why you are asking for such a comparison?

I'm employing the term "spirituality" as basically interchangeable with the term "mysticism." I would say science and spirituality are related in the sense that both are based on empiricism. Also, I would argue that both may be viewed as complementary. That is, science can be viewed as a means to objective knowledge while spirituality can be viewed as a means to subjective knowledge.

 

[ThePainefulTruth]

Science without religion is lame. Religion without science is blind. Albert Einstein

I've used that analogy but I word it a little different. Religion back then wasn't as synonymous with the church as it is now. I express it this way, it's like a boat: the engine is our faith, emotion and motivation, while our reason is at the controls, or should be. Faith without reason is blind and eventually runs up on the rocks. While reason without faith is dead in the water. Reason without faith can't determine where to go; faith without reason goes around in circles.

Agreed. Free will (divine or human) is not contradicted by natural wall. (The God-world relationship and the mind-body relationship are analogous. If you maintain that natural law rules out the possibility of divine free will,

I've never said that and don't believe it, that is if I understand what your getting at.

[then logical consistency dictates that you maintain that natural law rules out human free will.)[/quote]

????

We have compelling evidence that consciousness creates reality due to the violations of both Bell's inequalities and Legett's inequalities.

Legett's Inequalities have been shown to be erroneous, while Bell's Theorem assumes an understanding of quantum mechanics we don't have. Do a search on the Transactional Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics TIQM. And in any case, no matter how much we learn, I don't think we're ever going to get past the Big Bang or through the Planck spacetime gaps--physically OR mathematically.

 

[psychoslice]

My religion consists of a humble admiration of the illimitable superior spirit who reveals himself in the slight details we are able to perceive with our frail and feeble mind. Albert Einstein

 

[Gambit]

????

What exactly aren't you understanding? Atheistic materialism precludes the possibility of free will (human as well as divine).

Legett's Inequalities have been shown to be erroneous, while Bell's Theorem assumes an understanding of quantum mechanics we don't have. Do a search on the Transactional Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics TIQM. And in any case, no matter how much we learn, I don't think we're ever going to get past the Big Bang or through the Planck spacetime gaps--physically OR mathematically.

I cited appropriate documentation to support my claim. I'm afraid you don't have the luxury of ignoring that fact. Also, the God of theism (as opposed to the God of deism) is the ground of being and is present for all times. (The God of deism is superfluous (not needed), that's why deism inevitably leads to atheism and has so historically.)

 

[Bunyip]

What exactly aren't you understanding? Atheistic materialism precludes the possibility of free will (human as well as divine).

No, not in any way whatsoever does materialistic atheism preclude free will - that is about as overt a strawman as could be imagined.

I cited appropriate documentation to support my claim. I'm afraid you don't have the luxury of ignoring that fact. Also, the God of theism (as opposed to the God of deism) is the ground of being and is present for all times. (The God of deism is superfluous (not needed), that's why deism inevitably leads to atheism and has so historically.)

 

[Gambit]

My religion consists of a humble admiration of the illimitable superior spirit who reveals himself in the slight details we are able to perceive with our frail and feeble mind. Albert Einstein

I like that too.