There is no contradiction in Religion and Science

[Heathen Hammer]

Hm, or perhaps, religion is a neighbor standing at science's fence demonstrating against how science does his gardening, while simultaneously occasionally sneaking a tomato.

 

[Gjallarhorn]

I would say that religion is more like science's wacky neighbour who keeps yelling at him whenever he goes to work.

Hm, or perhaps, religion is a neighbor standing at science's fence demonstrating against how science does his gardening, while simultaneously occasionally sneaking a tomato.

...I thought both fell under the category of old man.

 

[Heathen Hammer]

You tell us!


[oh burn]

[[sorry it was just there <3 ]]

 

[Gjallarhorn]

You tell us!


[oh burn]

[[sorry it was just there <3 ]]

:bow:

 

[George-ananda]

Um, yes.
Your theology should never be based on anything that denies reality. If ti does, it's simply fantasy.

I agree with these statements. Nothing in my theology denies reality though. I said earlier that my spiritual beliefs were about things that current science cannot confirm or DENY.

The Spirtual MUST interface with the Physical. If they do not compliment and enhance each other, then there is no real connection and one is merely illusion. If the Gods are not part of the universe they create and nurture, they are probably not there.

I agree with these statements. I believe in science and spirituality and that they are part of one truth. Science is, and as it should be, very conservative in the evidence it accepts. Theology also considers human experiences (objectively analized from all sides). We can learn about the universe from both approaches.

If you are convinced that it will 'never' be available then I don't understand why you'd pursue it as other than something interesting which remains forever as a quaint mystery and should not be taken seriously. Remember, in this case it was you who said 'never'.

I said such information will 'never be available to me' (just meaning during my lifetime). I have high expectations for the science of future generations confirming my beliefs.

So, are we using a scientific definition or a colloquial definition for the word 'evidence'? The colloquial can be twisted to include the fantasies of children, too. I thought we were hopefully discussing factual reality.

Science should use the scientific definition. Other useful fields, like theology/spirituality consider all evidence and objectively analayze it from all sides. The 'fantasies of children' is an example of something that would not survive 'objective analysis from all sides'.

We can make the best assumptions based on the most concrete method available at the time. At this time, the most concrete methods do not agree with your assessment.

They neither agree nor disagree with my assessment. So I don't see your point.

If you would like to extend your conclusion beyond these methods, that's your purview,

Yes I do. As I said above, Theology/Spirituality studies are also useful fields.

 

[George-ananda]

Also, I was reading you guys' little banter about master science and old man religion.

The thought that came to me comes from a much noted 20th/21st century philosopher.

"Narrow Science trumps narrow Religion. But broad Science/Spirituality trumps them both."

I can't help but feel you guys are stuck on sentence #1 of the quote.

 

[Gjallarhorn]

Also, I was reading you guys' little banter about master science and old man religion.

The thought that came to me comes from a much noted 20th/21st century philosopher.

"Narrow Science trumps narrow Religion. But broad Science/Spirituality trumps them both."

I can't help but feel you guys are stuck on sentence #1 of the quote.

What's the difference between broad and narrow science?

 

[George-ananda]

What's the difference between broad and narrow science?

OK Sir....the philosopher I was talking about is Ken Wilber. The following discussion is from Wikipedia:
&#12288;
Wilber describes the current state of the "hard" sciences as limited to "narrow science", which only allows evidence from the lowest realm of consciousness, the sensorimotor (the five senses and their extensions). What he calls "broad science" would include evidence from logic, mathematics, and from the symbolic, hermeneutical, and other realms of consciousness. Ultimately and ideally, broad science would include the testimony of meditators and spiritual practitioners.
&#12288;
Now, discussing it in George-Ananda's more pedestrian way, I would add 'Narrow Science' is materialistic and atheistic and hostile to new spiritual ideas and evidences that imply conciousness is more than physical brain activity. Paranormal and spiritual things are seen as anti-scientific.

'Broad Science' accepts all of 'Narrow Science' plus takes human spiritual and paranormal experiences and objectively tries to understand what/if there is anything to be learned. Spirituality is not seen as anti-scientific.

 

[idav]

Now, discussing it in George-Ananda's more pedestrian way, I would add 'Narrow Science' is materialistic and atheistic and hostile to new spiritual ideas and evidences that imply conciousness is more than physical brain activity. Paranormal and spiritual things are seen as anti-scientific.

'Broad Science' accepts all of 'Narrow Science' plus takes human spiritual and paranormal experiences and objectively tries to understand what/if there is anything to be learned. Spirituality is not seen as anti-scientific.

A book I like that reminds me of this is 'Tao of Physics'. I do see similarities between what physics has found and what eastern philosophy has long known.

 

[Gjallarhorn]

OK Sir....the philosopher I was talking about is Ken Wilber. The following discussion is from Wikipedia:
&#12288;
Wilber describes the current state of the "hard" sciences as limited to "narrow science", which only allows evidence from the lowest realm of consciousness, the sensorimotor (the five senses and their extensions). What he calls "broad science" would include evidence from logic, mathematics, and from the symbolic, hermeneutical, and other realms of consciousness. Ultimately and ideally, broad science would include the testimony of meditators and spiritual practitioners.
&#12288;
Now, discussing it in George-Ananda's more pedestrian way, I would add 'Narrow Science' is materialistic and atheistic and hostile to new spiritual ideas and evidences that imply conciousness is more than physical brain activity. Paranormal and spiritual things are seen as anti-scientific.

'Broad Science' accepts all of 'Narrow Science' plus takes human spiritual and paranormal experiences and objectively tries to understand what/if there is anything to be learned. Spirituality is not seen as anti-scientific.

So, can one scientifically test and experiment on spirit?

 

[gnostic]

I agree with you; science is just a toddler before nature which is its master.

Religion is a doddering old man before its offspring and master, science.

Religion is old man that smell bad, has dementia, paranoia, and very seriously bad case of superstition.

 

[George-ananda]

So, can one scientifically test and experiment on spirit?

Not at this time, but probably some day. Currently 'narrow science' cannot confirm or deny spirit's existance.

 

[George-ananda]

Religion is old man that smell bad, has dementia, paranoia, and very seriously bad case of superstition.

HaHa...in this context, what is 'Religion'. Is it the formal recognized institutions? Does it include the beliefs of people who call themselves 'spiritual but not religious'? Is it any beliefs outside of the materialist's world-view?

 

[Gjallarhorn]

Not at this time, but probably some day. Currently 'narrow science' cannot confirm or deny spirit's existance.

So, "broad science" doesn't exist.

And of course it can deny. It has been tested for and found, well, not to be.

 

[Heathen Hammer]

I agree with these statements. Nothing in my theology denies reality though. I said earlier that my spiritual beliefs were about things that current science cannot confirm or DENY.

But the neither/nor does not then leave the door open; it marks the thing, subjected to this neither/nor dichotomy, as nonexistant until proven. That is how rational thought based on deductive reasoning works. In some lights it might seem that because 'you cannot disprove' [which we both know is a nonsense take on logical examination, stressed and repeated here many times], you take this as leave to speculate anything you fancy has the same chance of being real. I... don't see this as being useful. because it opens up the box for literally anything conceivable, including irrational paradoxes.

I agree with these statements. I believe in science and spirituality and that they are part of one truth. Science is, and as it should be, very conservative in the evidence it accepts. Theology also considers human experiences (objectively analized from all sides). We can learn about the universe from both approaches.

I am afraid experience tells us theology is not objective.

I said such information will 'never be available to me' (just meaning during my lifetime). I have high expectations for the science of future generations confirming my beliefs.

Ah, hm.

Science should use the scientific definition. Other useful fields, like theology/spirituality consider all evidence and objectively analayze it from all sides. The 'fantasies of children' is an example of something that would not survive 'objective analysis from all sides'.

I do not feel this is an accurate assessment. Theology works the table backwards, from a baseless supposition to a search for confirming evidence, and leaves the door open to denial of evidence to the contrary. It does not possess a 'theological method' as science has for itself. it does not, as I said earlier, analyze objectively.

They neither agree nor disagree with my assessment. So I don't see your point.

Semantically correct, I suppose, but I won't belabor the point.

Yes I do. As I said above, Theology/Spirituality studies are also useful fields.

Not for ascertaining objective reality, though. It's results are simply not comparable.

 

[George-ananda]

So, "broad science" doesn't exist.

Oh please! It's a science that also studies concious experiences. How can it not exist?

And of course it can deny. It has been tested for and found, well, not to be.

Oh please....spirituality has been found not to exist???

I hope there are viewers out there at least noticing the close-mindeness of the atheist school so that I'm not just wasting my time here.

 

[Pleroma]

Atheism and Scientific realism are dead. All evidence is pointing to a theistic view of our existence.

 

[kylixguru]

Not at this time, but probably some day. Currently 'narrow science' cannot confirm or deny spirit's existance.

Do we need science to tell us what salt tastes like?
If people refuse to taste it, they disqualify themselves upon the subject.
That's how I see atheists and their views of God. Disqualified.

 

[Gjallarhorn]

Oh please! It's a science that also studies concious experiences. How can it not exist?

Because you said so. There cannot be a science of spirit unless one can and has tested for spirit, which you say has not happened yet. At most, there is a philosophy of spirit.

Oh please....spirituality has been found not to exist???

I hope there are viewers out there at least noticing the close-mindeness of the atheist school so that I'm not just wasting my time here.

Spirituality certainly exists. It is a cultural phenomenon, just as anime is. Doesn't make spirits or Shinigami real though, unless you can point to some studies (which you have said do not exist yet) to lend evidence to your beliefs.

 

[Pleroma]

Because you said so. There cannot be a science of spirit unless one can and has tested for spirit, which you say has not happened yet. At most, there is a philosophy of spirit.

The existence of Life force is already a well established fact. You atheists must open your minds and see the world around you. The people who practice pranayama and Hatha yoga have all experienced spontaneous involuntary movements feeling the resurgence of life force hidden in them in their spiritual bodies and more and more people are getting hurt while the life force emerges out of their spiritual body and cleanse their nadis. Its powerful and they can be empirically tested.

Spirituality certainly exists. It is a cultural phenomenon, just as anime is. Doesn't make spirits or Shinigami real though, unless you can point to some studies (which you have said do not exist yet) to lend evidence to your beliefs.

Spirituality will be more powerful than science and orthodox religions.