Science and Spirituality Co-Mingling

[Sunstone]

I disagree. Axioms are things we think are the truth but we can't prove it because we have to start somewhere. The Big Bang is the same way for those who believe in it.

You don't get to define what axioms should mean to other people. You can disagree all you want, you can disagree until you are red in the face, but you cannot impose upon other people what axioms must mean to them. If you think "axioms are things we think are the truth", that's fine. That's what you think. But others are not required to share such a simplistic view of axioms.

God says no one has ever seen His face and lived. I believe that for the purpose of just moving on. If knowing God isn't useful or productive I wouldn't care if it were true or not.

So, what is "faith" to you?

 

[Acim]

*In interest of providing a briefer understanding of my points, I have bolded the key points. If desiring further understanding of those points feel free to debate/discuss them, but perhaps check within context of what is said in relation to that bolded point.

Yeah, give the definition then give evidence.
You are claiming that this is the core foundation of science, you obviously came to that conclusion somehow.

The definition of science, based on link you provided says: the intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behavior of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment

I would assume it to be after logical deduction and evidence, thus I would like to see the evidence as I've already seen your deduction.

The evidence, I provide here, would be an argument to which the points that I raise you either accept, discuss / clarify, disagree with, and/or debate.

The definition is stating science is the study of 'something' and that is the 'physical and natural world.' Let's say it said the study of 'God and the metaphysical.' Would it then be fair to claim that this type of study rests on faith, UNLESS that object of study could be shown to exist outside of the data (and really evidence) that is using references to that area of study. Like saying God exists, because the Bible (which can be seen by everyone) asserts, or strongly implies, that God both exists and is real. Is it only one bible, one source stating this? No, it is many. Therefore, we could say that is 'objective evidence.' Me, I wouldn't. I would say outside of all those sources, not taking those into account, it would be objective evidence if it could be shown and/or explained that this area of study doesn't (at least appear to) rest on faith, if this God could be found outside of these (biased) sources. Likewise, the physical and natural world is perceived/observed by physical senses. Then understood, described, analyzed, etc. via the mind (or brain, which is also relative to the physical). I find science, based on its definition and scientific method to be based on circular reasoning, that relies on faith at its core: that the physical world exists and can be observed/known through physical perception.

This point is at the heart of this thread, but this thread is also stating that if religious claims ought to answer to scientific rebuttals and inquiries cause it dares to include data that science has systematically studied and made findings of, then science ought to address inquiries of other endeavors when it makes its claims which those endeavors are also studying. It must also be perfectly willing to accept the other endeavors methods for determining veracity. Otherwise, one could just say 'irrelevant' and move on, aka ignore the co-mingling. Thus scientific claims may have nothing to do with religious findings and religious claims may have nothing to do with scientific findings. Then again, they might. Really seems to be up to the individuals and does seem quite well known that these two endeavors (and others) co-mingle and that proponents of science make it an ongoing point to have other endeavors' claims, answer to its inquiries and checked against its methodology. Ya know, being the best method ever.

Philosophy deals with claims that state the universe may be non-physical, it is not within the realm of science.

Philosophy does not only make this claim. It encompasses inquiries and understandings (many of which are logically consistent) into the nature of the non-physical and physical. There are branches of philosophy, well known, that encapsulate such claims.

Every scientist in the world can believe that this universe is only physical, it won't change the area that the claim belongs to.

Not sure how this follows. But if you wish to base your entire rebuttal around this assertion, I'm all ears.

Science is knowledge, our knowledge says that with the evidence we have at our disposal, and are continuing to find, the universe is only physical.

Knowledge of the physical relies on faith that the physical exists. How does this evidence come to us? Via observation, hypothesis, prediction, testing, analysis and sharing of findings / conclusions (leading to consensus and/or further testing and additional / updated findings) - aka the scientific method. It (necessarily) begins with observation. This observation is non-objective in that it relies on physical perception of the physical (and natural) world. It is inherently biased in this fashion. It relies on faith that perception exists objectively, and not a collection of subjective viewpoints. Once that is understood, the rest of the scientific method works swimmingly. Not perfectly, but well enough.

Science is not the first endeavor in human history to engage in hypothesis and/or analysis. Surely not the first to engage in sharing of findings. Not that this matters much to the point I'm making, but does matter to any side points of suggesting science is unique in its endeavor and method of studying the nature of the world.

Because science is essentially self limiting natural world to the physical (phenomenon), it's first step (and really all subsequent steps that deal with that data set) is assuming the perception of the physical world exists. It has high degree of confidence in the existence of this world. It is not the only human endeavor that does. All human endeavors that do, and are using physical senses to establish said existence are relying on faith / high degree of confidence that is non-objective.

To date, I have not seen either via argument or evidence, existence of the physical world that does not rely on asking an individual to utilize physical senses to establish existence of the physical world.

Have I 'seen' evidence of another form of existence / reality and/or could that be shown / understood? Perhaps. It might rest on faith, or assumption that such a world / thing exists. A world that may be described as non-physical or perhaps would be better described via alternative understandings, all of which could be hypothesized about, tested by various individuals, subject to predictions and analysis and findings that could be shared. Might not be perfectly established existence that is without any flaws in understanding its basic existence, as is the case with the physical world, which also has shown reliability on observation alone or even relying on one's practice of going through the scientific method (via physical observations) do not lead to firm, objective conclusions that the physical world exists. It just continues the on-going assumption that study is plausible, ongoing and proudly open to updates and sharing of more findings.

 

[Acim]

The sciences do not need faith that reality exists in order to operate. They can operate via methodological naturalism, which requires no faith.

At it's core (definition, basic understanding) it relies on circular reasoning / tautology, and/or is subject to the same notions of faith that I am raising about scientific inquiry.

 

[Acim]

What is methodological naturalism?

I'll use Wikipedia, but am open to other sources, as may be desired.

Methodological naturalism: is concerned not with claims about what exists but with methods of learning what nature is.

That right there would be counter to what this thread has already raised. I would assert that methodological naturalism assumes (has faith) that the physical world exists AS nature/natural. But doesn't concern itself with understanding that (monumental) point and moves right along to concerning itself with methods of learning what nature is.

Wikipedia goes on:

It is the idea that all scientific endeavors, hypotheses, and events are to be explained and tested by reference to natural causes and events. This second sense of naturalism seeks to provide a framework within which to conduct the scientific study of the laws of nature. Methodological naturalism is a way of acquiring knowledge. It is a distinct system of thought concerned with a cognitive approach to reality, and is thus a philosophy of knowledge.

So, without any concern to what actually is 'natural causes and/or how they exist' this human endeavor says this is how all scientific endeavors are to be explained. Via reference to natural causes and events. Tautology, much? Oh, and what's that? This area of study, based on this description of the term says it is concerned with a cognitive approach to reality. I am asserting that reality rests on faith. Once that faith is accepted (as viable approach) the rest of its study and findings may not rest on faith. Then again, they might.

 

[Sunstone]

I'll use Wikipedia, but am open to other sources, as may be desired.

Methodological naturalism: is concerned not with claims about what exists but with methods of learning what nature is.

That right there would be counter to what this thread has already raised. I would assert that methodological naturalism assumes (has faith) that the physical world exists AS nature/natural. But doesn't concern itself with understanding that (monumental) point and moves right along to concerning itself with methods of learning what nature is.

Wikipedia goes on:

It is the idea that all scientific endeavors, hypotheses, and events are to be explained and tested by reference to natural causes and events. This second sense of naturalism seeks to provide a framework within which to conduct the scientific study of the laws of nature. Methodological naturalism is a way of acquiring knowledge. It is a distinct system of thought concerned with a cognitive approach to reality, and is thus a philosophy of knowledge.

So, without any concern to what actually is 'natural causes and/or how they exist' this human endeavor says this is how all scientific endeavors are to be explained. Via reference to natural causes and events. Tautology, much? Oh, and what's that? This area of study, based on this description of the term says it is concerned with a cognitive approach to reality. I am asserting that reality rests on faith. Once that faith is accepted (as viable approach) the rest of its study and findings may not rest on faith. Then again, they might.

The implication of methodological naturalism is that all metaphysical notions need not be considered as necessary to performing science, including the metaphysical notion that there exists an objective reality.

 

[Acim]

The implication of methodological naturalism is that all metaphysical notions need not be considered as necessary to performing science, including the metaphysical notion that there exists an objective reality.

This is saying what it is not. Not what it is.

If describing what it is (as has already been done in this thread) one sees it is a tautological proposition. And that it works as a basis for self limiting scientific inquiry AFTER the fundamental faith I am noting has been accepted. That the physical world exists and that it can be studied via inquiry into 'natural causes and events.'

 

[Sunstone]

This is saying what it is not. Not what it is.

If describing what it is (as has already been done in this thread) one sees it is a tautological proposition. And that it works as a basis for self limiting scientific inquiry AFTER the fundamental faith I am noting has been accepted. That the physical world exists and that it can be studied via inquiry into 'natural causes and events.'

On the contrary, methodological naturalism places no burden on the scientist to believe that the physical world actually exists in any metaphysical sense. How did you come up with the notion that it does?

 

[Acim]

On the contrary, methodological naturalism places no burden on the scientist to believe that the physical world actually exists in any metaphysical sense. How did you come up with the notion that it does?

I didn't. You did. Where did I use the word burden? I am saying methodological naturalism (MN) is employed in scientific inquiry AFTER the fundamental faith I am noting has been accepted. If I were stating it is employed before that, and that MN then dictates what science must do, I could see it as me claiming that MN has placed a burden on the scientist. As I intentionally did not phrase it this way, then I'm not sure how you came up with notion that I did this when I put AFTER in all caps.

Lemme know when you get to the tautological proposition of MN that is more pertinent, in my mind, to why it even ought to be embraced within context of this discussion.

 

[Sunstone]

I didn't. You did. Where did I use the word burden? I am saying methodological naturalism (MN) is employed in scientific inquiry AFTER the fundamental faith I am noting has been accepted. If I were stating it is employed before that, and that MN then dictates what science must do, I could see it as me claiming that MN has placed a burden on the scientist. As I intentionally did not phrase it this way, then I'm not sure how you came up with notion that I did this when I put AFTER in all caps.

Lemme know when you get to the tautological proposition of MN that is more pertinent, in my mind, to why it even ought to be embraced within context of this discussion.

I'm not sure we're communicating here. In fact, your post makes so little sense to me that I wouldn't know where to begin in responding to it. In light of that, I'm bowing out of this discussion.

 

[Acim]

I'm not sure we're communicating here. In fact, your post makes so little sense to me that I wouldn't know where to begin in responding to it. In light of that, I'm bowing out of this discussion.

That's fine. I felt I addressed your bringing in a side topic that does so happen to self limit scientific inquiry, but does not concern itself with the faith proposition which 'observable science' rests on.

 

[Acim]

So, it really does surprise me that there is no objective evidence, or logically valid way (other than faith, confidence, trust) to establish the 'reality' of the physical world. I continue to research and look for arguments that would be a reasonable way to substantiate said existence. I find very little or none.

I'll keep looking as it fascinates me that something so fundamental (especially to science) is seemingly nowhere to be found. It really does reinforce subjectivity or solipsism as to how reality of anything, namely the world/universe, exists. Because I have worked through solipsist position and continue to downplay it (though realize it cannot be disproven), I choose to go with intersubjectivity for the nature of (shared) reality. And the belief that conscious minds are not separate even while perception (of the physical) would strongly suggest individual minds are not connected in a discernible way.

I do find one way to get around this is through the experience of (night) dreams. In that 'reality,' during the experience, I find it would be hard for anyone 'outside' of me to convince me that they are manifestation of me. I am sure I would resist that notion within the relative plane of the dream world. Especially if the person (or whatever) was something I observed to be unlike me and/or I found myself disagreeing with, disliking or fearing. Even upon waking, I would conclude that such a symbol in a dream is "not me." Until I was perhaps 'more awake' and the acute realization of "it is, or was, all me within the dream" sunk in, as the only plausible explanation for all characters and things (including laws of nature) within that reality. But the basis of bringing the night dream up is that it is, upon waking, a realization that all minds (there) are actually joined, to one mind. And a mind that the dreamer does not appear, nor has any conviction in, as creating solely themselves. Even upon lucid dreaming where the wakeful mind enters in the dream, aware of the reality as a dream (illusion) and proceeds to exert influence with regards to other characters, the narrative and the environment. Not necessarily controlling other people, nor defying well ingrained 'laws of nature.' That's plausible, it could happen, I find it rarely if ever does (within the dream).

Same goes with what I refer to as waking (shared) reality. The realization of being in, or immersed, in a physical world but not of it. Instead being of mind, one mind, that is implausible to separate myself from while also I (my apparent individual body self) am not the only one here.

Couple all this with spiritual understandings (that I currently hold) which doesn't rely on a God outside of this reality (physical world) to explore the spiritual principles at work. Namely forgiveness. As that is a whole other type of topic, I will perhaps elaborate on it at another time, in another post. Just noting it here because I see it as paramount to why do I find myself in a place/existence where I very much appear to be alone with my own thoughts, and yet perceiving others who are a little like me, separate from me, and seemingly of an entirely different worldview than me. Perhaps we can find common ground and call that knowledge, about the nature of this physical existence? I don't see why not. I might think that fascinating and a way to understand more about myself, why I am here. Or perhaps I turn to spirituality as a shortcut toward that understanding of Self and Nature, without needing a 'supernatural cause' to determine the 'cause' for why I am here, what is this for?

 

[Guy Threepwood]

*Couldn't think of a better thread title, and perhaps not best for what I'm getting at.

I think if spirituality/religious claims have to answer to scientific evidence, and inquiries, that science ought to have to (constantly) answer to spiritual/philosophical inquiries. Curious what others think about this?

I see science, at its foundation, depending on faith. That's fine, in my book. It works well after that is accepted as understood (or even as fact). The faith I speak of is that the physical world exists and/or is reality. I have confidence, much of the time, that it exists. I'm yet to see what I identify as objective evidence for it's reality. I've asked for this numerous times. I've seen arguments that attempt to establish it as reality. I'm yet to see one that is objective, nor employing circular logic. Example: the physical world exists because I can perceive it with my physical senses. That equals non-objective means to establishing its reality (actual existence). While this thread could be about anyone trying to provide the objective evidence I ask about in this paragraph (I very much welcome that), I think it is prime example of how science fundamentally relies on faith and is what I see the thread as being most about.

There aren't perhaps a lot of propositions / inquiries for science to answer to when it comes to spirituality/philosophy, much less religion. But there is the prime example, and I'm sure I could come up with some others. As I am non-denominational and thus not very religious, I honestly can't think of any inquiry from a religious doctrine that I'm familiar with that science ought to answer to.

I think Galileo framed this well "Nature is the executor of God's laws'

ie. science is a subset of religion/ the ultimate question, it explores and allows us to appreciate God's creation, whoever that God may be. And as long as we are open to this, we are free to follow the evidence wherever it leads, into ever deeper wondrous layers of nature

The problems begin where scientific progress becomes obstructed by atheism, seeks to stop short at the first simplest superficial answer- and declare it to be the complete, end-all 'God refuting' answer. And we have many examples of this, static universes, steady state, classical physics, Darwinism etc

Skeptics of atheism had no reservations in identifying the problems with these theories, and opening the doors to look beyond them

 

[habiru]

*Couldn't think of a better thread title, and perhaps not best for what I'm getting at.

I think if spirituality/religious claims have to answer to scientific evidence, and inquiries, that science ought to have to (constantly) answer to spiritual/philosophical inquiries. Curious what others think about this?

I see science, at its foundation, depending on faith. That's fine, in my book. It works well after that is accepted as understood (or even as fact). The faith I speak of is that the physical world exists and/or is reality. I have confidence, much of the time, that it exists. I'm yet to see what I identify as objective evidence for it's reality. I've asked for this numerous times. I've seen arguments that attempt to establish it as reality. I'm yet to see one that is objective, nor employing circular logic. Example: the physical world exists because I can perceive it with my physical senses. That equals non-objective means to establishing its reality (actual existence). While this thread could be about anyone trying to provide the objective evidence I ask about in this paragraph (I very much welcome that), I think it is prime example of how science fundamentally relies on faith and is what I see the thread as being most about.

There aren't perhaps a lot of propositions / inquiries for science to answer to when it comes to spirituality/philosophy, much less religion. But there is the prime example, and I'm sure I could come up with some others. As I am non-denominational and thus not very religious, I honestly can't think of any inquiry from a religious doctrine that I'm familiar with that science ought to answer to.

The word science means knowledge and which it says in the book of Timothy to stay away from godless chatters and Opposing ideas (which Ideas is theories) that only opposes the scriptures, but it did not said to stay away from knowledge, but the false knowledge that opposes the scriptures.


1 Timothy 6:20 Timothy, guard what has been entrusted to your care. Turn away from godless chatter and the opposing ideas of what is falsely called knowledge,

 

[viole]

The word science means knowledge and which it says in the book of Timothy to stay away from godless chatters and Opposing ideas (which Ideas is theories) that only opposes the scriptures, but it did not said to stay away from knowledge, but the false knowledge that opposes the scriptures.


1 Timothy 6:20 Timothy, guard what has been entrusted to your care. Turn away from godless chatter and the opposing ideas of what is falsely called knowledge,

If I made up a new religion today and write scriptures for it, I would probably write the same verse.

Ciao

- viole

 

[Acim]

If I made up a new religion today and write scriptures for it, I would probably write the same verse.

Ciao

- viole

There's very few philosophical paradigms that don't do this. Materialistic sciences will deny (anything resembling) supernatural causes as not pertaining to knowledge, as it understands it. Readily dismissing them as babblings / meaningless chatter. Seems most teachings wish to limit the scope, not trusting the student to use discernment in way that suits their own path. Or to reinforce the rigidness of their self sustaining paradigm. When any paradigm paints 'non-knowledge' with such a broad scope, it opens itself to reasonable skepticism. And for the discerning folk, it makes rebuttals fun, if not very easy. As I've done on this thread. Will be real nice if science of the materialism variety can ever get around to verifying its own objective existence. Until it does, I observe it to be a made up paradigm that is continuously making things up based on an axiomatic position. Circular reason at its finest. Gotta be nice to lodge that softball toward other paradigms when ignoring it within the field of science.

 

[soma]

Science has a profound impact on all aspects of life spreading into our thoughts and culture, transforming paradigms, inspiring and changing our perceptions about the universe and our relationship with it. Christian mysticism on the other hand, is about developing a direct insightful experience, relationship and communion with the beautiful, reasonable energy of the universe and its awe-inspiring power deep within, calling it God. Science and mysticism offer us the depth to be able to change the direction of our basic concepts and outlook of the world around us by pointing to Infinity and something beyond matter. Viewing the universe from the perspective of Infinity radically changes our thoughts for the better in a whole-world view of unity, observing our finite self in infinity. Our science started with the Greeks where philosophy, religion and science were linked together to find the principle character, quality and cause of all things then we disconnected them. If the universe is a free, receptive, improving and an interconnected system then scientific laws are an ideal model for understanding the reliable and proven connections in it. There will always be some features of the physical universe that the laws of nature cannot capture so we need the connections of philosophy, religion and science to show us that infinity is closer than we thought.

 

[viole]

Science has a profound impact on all aspects of life spreading into our thoughts and culture, transforming paradigms, inspiring and changing our perceptions about the universe and our relationship with it. Christian mysticism on the other hand, is about developing a direct insightful experience, relationship and communion with the beautiful, reasonable energy of the universe and its awe-inspiring power deep within, calling it God. Science and mysticism offer us the depth to be able to change the direction of our basic concepts and outlook of the world around us by pointing to Infinity and something beyond matter. Viewing the universe from the perspective of Infinity radically changes our thoughts for the better in a whole-world view of unity, observing our finite self in infinity. Our science started with the Greeks where philosophy, religion and science were linked together to find the principle character, quality and cause of all things then we disconnected them. If the universe is a free, receptive, improving and an interconnected system then scientific laws are an ideal model for understanding the reliable and proven connections in it. There will always be some features of the physical universe that the laws of nature cannot capture so we need the connections of philosophy, religion and science to show us that infinity is closer than we thought.

When you talk about energy, do you mean that thing that we measure in electronvolts, among other units of measurement?

Ciao

- viole

 

[soma]

I think there are many dimensions to energy. Some we can sense with our five senses, others we need instruments that can detect energy more subtle than what we can pick up with our senses; therefore, there is mechanical energy and with the complexity of biological structure we have conscious energy that demonstrates introspection, memory, analysis, dreams etc.