Science and Spirituality Co-Mingling

[Acim]

*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.

 

[Deathbydefault]

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?

No, they are not at all equal and should not be held to anywhere near the same standard.

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.

Science is the pursuit of knowledge, that is the practice and the reliability of it.
Nothing within the realm of science has to be taken of faith, it can be objectively demonstrated.
If you think it does have to be take on faith, or that it is a subjective process in and of itself, you are simply incorrect.

Btw, you confuse science and philosophy a bit.
I'll quote the specific line now and reply.

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.

It is reality, a reality we experience.
It may not be ultimate reality, but that is irrelevant to the discussion.
Science simply operates around this, and has tried to produce evidence a few times that this is not the only reality.
If anyone would like to demonstrate that it isn't, do so objectively and science will accept it.

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.

Religion is irrelevant to science.
Science operates under what can be proven true, what can be demonstrated.
Scientists go out of their way to prove each other false as often as possible, because they want to be correct.

Philosophy is about wondering and questioning, about skepticism and possibilities.
It's about 'could be's' and 'it's possible', science is about 'what is'.
That's not to say it can't be combined with philosophy, it just operates in an extremely specific realm of philosophy.

 

[Acim]

No, they are not at all equal and should not be held to anywhere near the same standard.

Agreed. I don't hold them to the same standard. Science would never rise to the level that spirituality does (for me).

Science is the pursuit of knowledge, that is the practice and the reliability of it.
Nothing within the realm of science has to be taken of faith, it can be objectively demonstrated.

Except for it's foundation, or the belief in a physical reality.

If you think it does have to be take on faith, or that it is a subjective process in and of itself, you are simply incorrect.

Perhaps. My prime example in OP states otherwise. Lemme know if you are up to that challenge.

Btw, you confuse science and philosophy a bit.

Nope. I understand science to be off shoot of philosophy and gradually establishing itself on its own right, without ever actually addressing the fundamental faith it is built upon. After that faith is accepted, it works fine.

It is reality, a reality we experience.
It may not be ultimate reality, but that is irrelevant to the discussion.

You are providing no argument to the prime example. Just stating your belief. Great that it is irrelevant for you. I see it as a huge side step from which other (so called) evidence could rightfully be scrutinized. Those who wish to do similar things from scientific perspective to religious belief may be relentless in their scrutiny. IMO, that's on them, not religion. To the degree you may disagree, I'd have no problem playing a role of devil's advocate to show how such scrutiny could be applied to science in its failure to acknowledge that it fundamentally relies on faith.

Science simply operates around this, and has tried to produce evidence a few times that this is not the only reality.
If anyone would like to demonstrate that it isn't, do so objectively and science will accept it.

Science cannot objectively substantiate that the physical world is reality. So, there's that in your above assertion. I highly doubt today's scientist(s) would readily accept another version of 'reality' were it to present itself. I think it would be adopted as an offshoot of physical existence, and filtered through that.

Religion is irrelevant to science.

Then why would any religious claim / assertion have to answer to scientific evidence?

Science operates under what can be proven true, what can be demonstrated.

Oh, how I wish that were the case. Would be nice to live in that world.

Scientists go out of their way to prove each other false as often as possible, because they want to be correct.

I see today's science as having fairly firm camps established. If not in the camp of the majority, where consensus is the golden maxim, then may as well be labeled a heretic. For sure, are best left ignored. I am only speaking on scientific matters here btw, and not say something that deals with pseudo science, though do fully recognize that if you aren't in camp consensus, you are highly likely to be labeled as practicing pseudo science. But to be clear, I am not referencing creationism vs. evolution in my assertions in this paragraph, nor in anything I've written about (yet) in this thread. Doubt I would ever bring that up in this type of discussion.

I see today's science as heavily influenced by funding sources and visibly providing 'evidence' to support a doctrine that aligns with funders. Not all the time (for sure), but enough of the time that I would think one would have to be from another century or playing ignorant to not acknowledge this.

Philosophy is about wondering and questioning, about skepticism and possibilities.
It's about 'could be's' and 'it's possible', science is about 'what is'.
That's not to say it can't be combined with philosophy, it just operates in an extremely specific realm of philosophy.

Philosophy is the mother/father of science. The scientific method is a philosophical argument or set of assumptions. The practices of science (apart from method) are where I could see the distinction you are making, being made with greater degree of distancing. Include the method, and divorce is implausible.

 

[Deathbydefault]

Agreed. I don't hold them to the same standard. Science would never rise to the level that spirituality does (for me).

I'm exactly the opposite.
Spirituality is unsupported nonsense until proven otherwise.

Except for it's foundation, or the belief in a physical reality.

Never saw that added to science, I assume you made this up or came to this conclusion on your own.
Science doesn't claim that, that is a claim for philosophy.
Scientists might, however. Practitioners aren't the core foundation of science, unlike religion and whatnot.

Perhaps. My prime example in OP states otherwise. Lemme know if you are up to that challenge.

It does, that's why i said it was wrong...
I can easily take such a challenge, and have dealt with similar dozens of times.

Nope. I understand science to be off shoot of philosophy and gradually establishing itself on its own right, without ever actually addressing the fundamental faith it is built upon. After that faith is accepted, it works fine.

Way to prove me right.
Shall we refer to definitions? They seem to be on my side.

You are providing no argument to the prime example. Just stating your belief. Great that it is irrelevant for you. I see it as a huge side step from which other (so called) evidence could rightfully be scrutinized. Those who wish to do similar things from scientific perspective to religious belief may be relentless in their scrutiny. IMO, that's on them, not religion. To the degree you may disagree, I'd have no problem playing a role of devil's advocate to show how such scrutiny could be applied to science in its failure to acknowledge that it fundamentally relies on faith.

There's this beautiful thing called logic, I happened to use it here.
I was referring to your confusion of science and philosophy, I am a science and philosophy buff.
Reality, as described in philosophy, is a fluid like thing.
"True" reality, or ultimate reality, is what atheists assume we are living in, and what afterlife lovers assume will be next.
Like I said, that is irrelevant to science, that is strictly in philosophy as science has yet to make any claims on it.

Science cannot objectively substantiate that the physical world is reality. So, there's that in your above assertion. I highly doubt today's scientist(s) would readily accept another version of 'reality' were it to present itself. I think it would be adopted as an offshoot of physical existence, and filtered through that.

You sort of caught on here.
Science makes no claims about reality, it just operates within this one.
Scientists, if they stay true to science, will accept any evidence that can be demonstrated repeatedly.
Whether they're happy about it or not is irrelevant, it's their damn job.

Then why would any religious claim / assertion have to answer to scientific evidence?

It only has to when it makes claims that go against scientific knowledge.
In actuality all it has to do is prove what it says is true and science will accept it, that's why it's irrelevant to science as it cannot do that.

Oh, how I wish that were the case. Would be nice to live in that world.

Wouldn't it? If only people would stop getting in the way of making that the method of the world.

I see today's science as having fairly firm camps established. If not in the camp of the majority, where consensus is the golden maxim, then may as well be labeled a heretic. For sure, are best left ignored. I am only speaking on scientific matters here btw, and not say something that deals with pseudo science, though do fully recognize that if you aren't in camp consensus, you are highly likely to be labeled as practicing pseudo science. But to be clear, I am not referencing creationism vs. evolution in my assertions in this paragraph, nor in anything I've written about (yet) in this thread. Doubt I would ever bring that up in this type of discussion.

Pseudo science is something that claims to be science when it isn't, like intelligent design.
The reason it isn't science is because it is a claim that holds little to no evidence yet still says it's true.
That goes against the purpose and product of science, it's rather disgraceful.
If you follow the methodology of demonstration and evidence, you're practicing science.

Not that hard to grasp, but easy to confuse.

I see today's science as heavily influenced by funding sources and visibly providing 'evidence' to support a doctrine that aligns with funders. Not all the time (for sure), but enough of the time that I would think one would have to be from another century or playing ignorant to not acknowledge this.

The way you see it isn't the way it is.
Research this subject further.
Here.

Philosophy is the mother/father of science. The scientific method is a philosophical argument or set of assumptions. The practices of science (apart from method) are where I could see the distinction you are making, being made with greater degree of distancing. Include the method, and divorce is implausible.

Disagreed. i already explained why that isn't so.
I'd rather not get into definitions, but we can if you like.
Linguistics aren't always enough to explain complicated stances.

 

[Acim]

I'm exactly the opposite.
Spirituality is unsupported nonsense until proven otherwise.

I agree with the last assertion. I find it can be supported. Rather easily. Convincing everyone? Probably not. Even science isn't held to that standard in most of its findings.

Never saw that added to science, I assume you made this up or came to this conclusion on your own.
Science doesn't claim that, that is a claim for philosophy.

You think I made up the idea that science is the systematic study of the nature of the physical/natural world?

It does, that's why i said it was wrong...
I can easily take such a challenge, and have dealt with similar dozens of times.

I acknowledge that you have provided your opinion as a rebuttal to the example in OP. I have yet to see you challenge it with a reasonable argument, much less anything that reaches standard of objectivity.

Way to prove me right.
Shall we refer to definitions? They seem to be on my side.

Cool, we both agree that science relies on faith at its foundation. I guess no disagreements then.

There's this beautiful thing called logic, I happened to use it here.
I was referring to your confusion of science and philosophy, I am a science and philosophy buff.
Reality, as described in philosophy, is a fluid like thing.
"True" reality, or ultimate reality, is what atheists assume we are living in, and what afterlife lovers assume will be next.
Like I said, that is irrelevant to science, that is strictly in philosophy as science has yet to make any claims on it.

There are plenty branches of philosophy that have made claims on the nature of the world, its (alleged) reality, its ethics/morality, so on and so forth. As well as many theologies. Science has a (philosophical) method to guide its ongoing study which, when contained to phenomenon in the physical world, rests on a fundamental faith proposition, aka assumption.

You sort of caught on here.
Science makes no claims about reality, it just operates within this one.
Scientists, if they stay true to science, will accept any evidence that can be demonstrated repeatedly.
Whether they're happy about it or not is irrelevant, it's their damn job.

Science consistently makes claims about aspects of physical phenomenon. Agree that it is not (in actuality) making claims of reality. Perhaps we are in agreement if we both acknowledge that when anyone (scientist or proponent for science) claims that science is 'best method we have for understanding our reality,' they are making a false assertion. The more factual assertion is scientists are engaged in what they believe to be a systematic study regarding the 'nature' of the physical world, filtered through their selected hypothesis, and providing a means for others to follow their work via a standard practice called the scientific method. This may apply to all of humanity, or it may not. Up to the individual.

It only has to when it makes claims that go against scientific knowledge.

Why? If it is irrelevant to science, why would anyone in science suddenly raise it to the level of relevancy? If a story teller makes claims that go against scientific knowledge, does that story teller deserve ongoing scrutiny for daring to make assertions that go against scientific knowledge? If yes, then why not make it a two way street. If science (anyone, at any point) decides to use the word 'reality' in relation to what science is studying, they deserve full onslaught of the philosophers, theologians and anyone else who has also made claims about reality. And science must then address all of their concerns through the filter of the methods they deem 'best for understanding our world.'

In actuality all it has to do is prove what it says is true and science will accept it, that's why it's irrelevant to science as it cannot do that.

But even science doesn't do this consistently. Just have to provide evidence of some sort, and await for another to come along and disprove that as substantial enough evidence to back up the original hypothesis. In a sense, science prides itself on this. Proving true is not the standard I routinely see in science.

Wouldn't it? If only people would stop getting in the way of making that the method of the world.

Pseudo science is something that claims to be science when it isn't, like intelligent design.
The reason it isn't science is because it is a claim that holds little to know evidence yet still says it's true.
That goes against the purpose and product of science, it's rather disgraceful.
If you follow the methodology of demonstration and evidence, you're practicing science.

I see the pseudo science thing come up within the circles of scientific thinkers, often. Every day if I look for it. Take Climate Change as prime example. Personally, I'd rather not get into that for sake of this discussion. Instead, I'd use example of vaping/eCigs as an example I feel confident I could keep up with. Fairly aware of the available scientific data in that domain. The 'popular' side in that equation is not proving anything true. If you are one who has impression that ecigs are dangerous, chances are very good that you are influenced by pseudo science. I think any actual proponent of science would recognize this. I think a person who is entrenched in the political game that I find pervasive in modern science will utilize a whole lot of rhetoric which could result in the 'popular' side lodging counter claims that it is the detractors who are engaged in pseudo science. And so, I bring up this example to show how the pseudo science claims can cut both ways. I honestly think I could come up with hundreds of examples along these lines, most of which have to do with who is funding the researchers to say what they (the funders) wish to have stated. I do recognize that actual science is likely not impacted by this, but the political reality is that both sides are constantly claiming to be practicing 'actual science' while those that disagree / detract from their viewpoint are practicing something closer to pseudo science.

The way you see it isn't the way it is.
Research this subject further.
Here.



Disagreed. i already explained why that isn't so.
I'd rather not get into definitions, but we can if you like.
Linguistics aren't always enough to explain complicated stances.

Whatever (with regards to your research). I'd love to get into definitions. Part of the scrutiny process as far as I'm concerned. You haven't yet explained anything. Your opinions have been duly noted.

 

[McBell]

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?.

Here you go:

It is true because science says it is true.
Though if you do not believe you will not go to hell for all eternity.​

Next?

 

[Deathbydefault]

Science.
Philosophy.
Faith.

What other definitions do you want?
I don't really need to respond to you past this to validate my arguments.
You can deny definitions if you like, but we should find some we agree on to further the arguments substance.

It's too tiresome to respond to huge posts all day, and I am at work currently.
Let's start cutting this shorter.

 

[First Baseman]

Science is based on theoretical assumptions that cannot be proven but must be assumed to be true. Scientists decide which options are to be assumed truth.

Every theorem is based on axioms that cannot be proved, for example.

 

[Acim]

Science.
Philosophy.
Faith.

What other definitions do you want?

The definition of faith (provided) applies to science. It is used by (all) scientists in substantiating the existence of the physical/natural world.

 

[Deathbydefault]

The definition of faith (provided) applies to science. It is used by (all) scientists in substantiating the existence of the physical/natural world.

Evidence?

 

[Acim]

Evidence?

See the definition. Would you like me to google it for you? Lemme know if you find a scientific person who doesn't have confidence in the existence of the physical world. As noted before, I share in that faith/confidence. Got no objective evidence to substantiate said existence, but as you noted, that's irrelevant. Just makes sense to note that the foundation of science (study of the physical world) rests on faith.

 

[Deathbydefault]

See the definition. Would you like me to google it for you? Lemme know if you find a scientific person who doesn't have confidence in the existence of the physical world. As noted before, I share in that faith/confidence. Got no objective evidence to substantiate said existence, but as you noted, that's irrelevant. Just makes sense to note that the foundation of science (study of the physical world) rests on faith.

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.
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.

Philosophy deals with claims that state the universe may be non-physical, it is not within the realm of science.
Every scientist in the world can believe that this universe is only physical, it won't change the area that the claim belongs to.
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.
New evidence that says otherwise will be inducted as well, there's not a credible scientist out there that would deny evidence.
That's not to say they wouldn't challenge it, though.

 

[Sunstone]

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

 

[First Baseman]

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

They do need faith, however. One can't prove reality is real, for example, one must accept or deny it based on faith.

It requires faith to believe in a creator or abiogenesis or the big bang because nobody was there to see it happen. There is evidence that it did and evidence that it did not. And how one interprets evidence is based on faith.

 

[Sunstone]

They do need faith, however. One can't prove reality is real, for example, one must accept or deny it based on faith.

What does methodological or procedural naturalism mean to you, then?

 

[First Baseman]

What does methodological or procedural naturalism mean to you, then?

What is an axiom?

 

[Sunstone]

What is an axiom?

What is methodological naturalism?

 

[First Baseman]

What is methodological naturalism?

I don't know.

What is an axiom?

 

[Sunstone]

I don't know.

Methodological naturalism has arguably been for centuries now the dominant way in which scientists approach the sciences. It is somewhat simplistically described as "a strategy of choosing not to consider supernatural causes (or, by extention , any metaphysics, such as whether or in what way things are real) when doing science." Bottom line: Scientists have been doing just fine for centuries without dabbling in metaphysics as part of their doing the sciences.

What is an axiom?

An axiom is something posited as provisionally true for the purposes of moving on. They are judged not on the basis of whether they are true, but on the basis of whether they are useful, fruitful, and productive. Is your God something you consider provisionally true for the purposes of moving on? Do you judge the notion of your God in terms of whether it is useful, fruitful, and productive, rather than in terms of whether it is true?

You seem to be trying to fit the sciences into the box of being "based on faith in the same way some religions are based on faith". Unfortunately, that is a problematic approach to both faith and the sciences.

 

[First Baseman]

Methodological naturalism has arguably been for centuries now the dominant way in which scientists approach the sciences. It is somewhat simplistically described as "a strategy of choosing not to consider supernatural causes (or, by extention , any metaphysics, such as whether or in what way things are real) when doing science." Bottom line: Scientists have been doing just fine for centuries without dabbling in metaphysics as part of their doing the sciences.



An axiom is something posited as provisionally true for the purposes of moving on. They are judged not on the basis of whether they are true, but on the basis of whether they are useful, fruitful, and productive. Is your God something you consider provisionally true for the purposes of moving on? Do you judge the notion of your God in terms of whether it is useful, fruitful, and productive, rather than in terms of whether it is true?

You seem to be trying to fit the sciences into the box of being "based on faith in the same way some religions are based on faith". Unfortunately, that is a problematic approach to both faith and the sciences.

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.

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.