Are science and spirituality compatible?

[psychoslice]

I like that too.

I think Albert Einstein must have been a Mystic, he saw what we call God in everything, but I don't think he believed in God as a personified figure, or organized religion.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

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

Some approaches to spirituality have an empirical approach, but I wouldn't say that spiritualtiy is based on empiricism in the way that science is.

 

[ThePainefulTruth]

I cited appropriate documentation to support my claim. I'm afraid you don't have the luxury of ignoring that fact.

My response was based on the documentation/links you provided.

Also, the God of theism (as opposed to the God of deism) is the ground of being and is present for all times.

Which one?

I like that too.

I think Albert Einstein must have been a Mystic, he saw what we call God in everything, but I don't think he believed in God as a personified figure, or organized religion.

The only label Einstein pinned on himself was "agnostic" but that's ultimately just a statement of ignorance. He specifically denied being an atheist, and said He didn't believe in a personal God. There's not much left, concerning God, but deism; but like so many before him, he just didn't want the grief that accompanies it. Atheists are a lot easier for theists to ignore.

If Thomas Paine had been an atheist, the theists wouldn't have hounded him on his deathbed like they did to recant his deism. An atheist is godless and easy to dismiss, but a deist is a theist who believes in a God that's reasonable, a God that makes sense.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

That is, science can be viewed as a means to objective knowledge while spirituality can be viewed as a means to subjective knowledge.

The problem I see is that people often want to make a subjective spiritual experience the basis for an objective statement about the nature of reality.

 

[Gambit]

Some approaches to spirituality have an empirical approach, but I wouldn't say that spiritualtiy is based on empiricism in the way that science is.

Agreed. Spirituality is empirical in the sense that it is based on experience.

 

[jonathan180iq]

I'm a monist naturalist. I really don't see any reason to believe that there is anything outside the realm of natural existence.

 

[Gambit]

The problem I see is that people often want to make a subjective spiritual experience the basis for an objective statement about the nature of reality.

Reality clearly has both subjective and objective aspects.

 

[Gambit]

I'm a monist naturalist. I really don't see any reason to believe that there is anything outside the realm of natural existence.

Define "natural."

 

[Rick O'Shez]

Agreed. Spirituality is empirical in the sense that it is based on experience.

Spirituality isn't empirical when people start making assumptions about the experiences they have.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

Reality clearly has both subjective and objective aspects.

So how do we experience the objective aspects?

 

[jonathan180iq]

Define "natural."

Natural - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary

8.a
10.b
11.a
12.a & b

 

[George-ananda]

Are science and spirituality compatible?

They are definitely compatible. However science is limited and only can study our three-dimensional realm at this time. A spiritual master I respect said science is like the letter 'C' it is missing something. Spirituality is like the letter 'O'.

 

[Gambit]

So how do we experience the objective aspects?

The observation of objective phenomena is amenable to the third-person perspective while the observation of subjective phenomena is amenable only to the first-person perspective. That's one of the primary differences between science and spirituality.

 

[Gambit]

Spirituality isn't empirical when people start making assumptions about the experiences they have.

Science isn't empirical whenever scientists start making assumptions about the experiences people have.

 

[Gambit]

Natural - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary

8.a
10.b
11.a
12.a & b

Previously, you stated: "I'm a monist naturalist. I really don't see any reason to believe that there is anything outside the realm of natural existence." Words have different meanings depending on context (as demonstrated by the above definitions). That's why I asked you to define "natural." I want to know exactly how you are employing that term in your previous statement.

 

[jonathan180iq]

Define "natural."

Previously, you stated: "I'm a monist naturalist. I really don't see any reason to believe that there is anything outside the realm of natural existence." Words have different meanings depending on context (as demonstrated by the above definitions). That's why I asked you to define "natural." I want to know exactly how you are employing that term in your previous statement.

I don't believe that there is anything supernatural about existence. Even that which would seem to be supernatural in the past can be come to understood to be a natural phenomenon, ie, occurring in nature without the guidance of the mystical.

I'm not really sure what's confusing about that.

 

[Gambit]

I don't believe that there is anything supernatural about existence. Even that which would seem to be supernatural in the past can be come to understood to be a natural phenomenon, ie, occurring in nature without the guidance of the mystical.

I'm not really sure what's confusing about that.

One of Merriam-Webster's defintions of the term (and one of the definitions you provided) defines "natural" as" of, relating to, or operating in the physical as opposed to the spiritual world <natural laws describe phenomena of the physical universe>."

Do you agree with that definition?

 

[jonathan180iq]

One of Merriam-Webster's defintions of the term (and one of the definitions you provided) defines "natural" as" of, relating to, or operating in the physical as opposed to the spiritual world <natural laws describe phenomena of the physical universe>."

Do you agree with that definition?

Yes. That's 12.b, as I've already referenced.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

Science isn't empirical whenever scientists start making assumptions about the experiences people have.

I think you're missing my point. People can have various kinds of spiritual or meditative experiences and then make all kinds of assumptions about what they mean, based on existing beliefs or wishful thinking. I'm saying that the experiences themselves have validity but the assumptions are just speculation, going beyond empiricism.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

The observation of objective phenomena is amenable to the third-person perspective while the observation of subjective phenomena is amenable only to the first-person perspective. That's one of the primary differences between science and spirituality.

Sorry but I don't understand in what sense you're using third-person perspective here.
Third person - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia