Why do You Find Scientific Knowledge and Spiritual Knowledge to be Incompatible?

[mikkel_the_dane]

Seeing how people often label claims about objective things "spiritual," it seems that your definitions aren't universally accepted.

Of course, because it is subjective.

The trick about the subjective is, that if you claim something is objective, you can get away with it being subjective as long as what you do, is subjective.
In sociology it goes like this as paraphrased: "Unreal beliefs can have real consequences".

But some people also claim some mental processes objectively physical and not mental.
That reality in practice is the combination of being interconnected as objective, intersubjective and subjective without in practice those 3 can be reduced down to only one of them is a lot of "fun"

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

Unless one has an open mind and considers the importance of each, one will find them incompatible. They are very compatible and arguably helpful to each as long as you have an open mind.

I think that you must be using a different definition of open-mindedness thanI do. For me, open-mindedness is the ability and willingness to consider an idea critically, that is, dispassionately, skeptically, and without logical fallacy in one's reasoning. It does not require accepting insufficiently supported claims

Often, when such an open mind rejects a claim for lack of sufficient supporting evidence, we hear that that mind is closed to such ideas. What such a person is actually asking of the rigorous critical thinker is to relax his standards to let what the critical thinker has concluded are substandard ideas in anyway.

That's faith - the willingness to believe without sufficient justification - and is the informal logical error called non sequitur - the conclusion doesn't follow from what preceded it.

And apparently, that's what it takes to embrace this vague, misty world of spiritual claims.

I require more to believe. I require a sound, evidenced argument. I have asked people who call themselves spiritual, or on a spiritual path to acquire spiritual truth and knowledge, and who want to be respected for these beliefs, to define these terms, provide illustrative examples, and explain why these ideas meet the criteria for these concepts.

Invariably, the answer (if any) fails to do this. Here's the latest example:

I still don't know what is being called "spiritual knowledge." I've asked multiple times including in one of the two threads to which you alluded above (as did two others), which referred to spiritual knowledge and wisdom and its relative value to scientific knowledge. There was no answer from either the poster addressed, who started his thread, nor any of the others that use such phrases. I asked for a working definition of both knowledge and wisdom, gave mine, and asked for examples of spiritual knowledge and wisdom, and why they met that person's definition. Crickets. And that offer is made again. Give me a definition of knowledge and how what you are calling knowledge qualifies.

I can't because you won't consider it knowledge.

This is exactly the kind of answer I would expect if I am correct about the claims - that there is nothing of substance to them. I ask for substance and get fluff.

I can do that for you regarding my beliefs. I can define truth, fact, knowledge, and wisdom clearly and succinctly for you, show you an example of each, and if required, show you why the example fits the definitions offered.

Truth is the quality facts posses, facts being linguistic strings (sentences, paragraphs) that accurately map some portion of reality. That accuracy is determined by the idea's ability to successfully predict outcomes. Knowledge is the collection of facts s defined.

If I give you directions to my house and they get you here, then those directions accurately map in words an aspect of reality that can be demonstrated and confirmed. And if the directions don't accomplish that goal even when followed without error, then they are not true, fact, or knowledge.

If you had knowledge, you could do what I did. You didn't. Nor has anybody else, which by now, I expect. And this repeated failure to demonstrate any validity to any of these claims is grounds for a skeptic to reject them.

But then we get the people demanding that these ideas be respected. OK. Make them respectable. Meet the criteria of rigorous skeptical empiricism. That's what I and many others like me require. That's when the complaints about not having an open mind or some other criticism of the process that rejects their claims is presented.

Sorry, but those are my standards for belief. If you want to be believed, meet them. If you can't, well, I can only assume that you've leapt into the world of faith, where things are believed just because they are appealing.

Here's an alternative type of answer from another current RF thread: "Obviously a spiritual world cannot be demonstrated from within a physical world, because it is OUTSIDE the physical world"

Always some excuse for why these things are real despite not being demonstrable or even clearly articulated.

Here' we're being asked to believe that reality includes things that can be sensed but not demonstrated. Here we are being asked to believe that things from outside of reality have pierced into the physical world to be detected by a mind, but that there is no demonstrable evidence that there is really anything out there.

What am I to think other than these people are experiencing mental states in which they project their mental creations onto reality outside of their heads. How else to understand the claims of those saying that they are connected to something real and external that they cannot demonstrate?

That's my conclusion until somebody can give me a reason to think otherwise.

So instead of a definition here is the explanation how come to some people spiritual knowledge can't be knowledge. They have subjectively a rule that only objective knowledge can be knowledge. Since the spiritual in effect is subjective, it can't be knowledge.

OK. I won't argue with that. But I still don't see why you refused to define what you mean by knowledge, or give an example of spiritual knowledge with a reason why others should call it that.

I am personally of the opinion that my belief in God makes sense. So now what?

Nothing. Most critical thinkers, being skeptics, us are uninterested in what others believe, just what they can demonstrate.

Personally I see science and spiritual teaching as two separate paths toward a "goal/answer" mixing them is the problem that I see, trying to explain spiritual experience with science is not giving any result. Trying to explain science with spiritual teaching is mostly impossible if not fully impossible. But both paths are good as stand alone teachings

You're reaction to my posing these same questions to you in another thread recently was to just ignore the post and offer no defense for your views. You asked, "Why is spiritual knowledge seen as less correct then knowledge from science?" and added, "I have noticed that often spiritual wisdom/knowledge is seen as less valuable then science knowledge and I wonder why it is so? Why do science believers refuse to acknowledge that spiritual teachings, that can be found many thousands of year back is lesser the science that has only been around for a few hundreds years?"

I gave you a similar answer to the one above and you ducked for cover. Crickets. Why would I value what you refuse to articulate? Why would I consider your beliefs correct if you don't have the courage to explain them why I should?

I say knowledge is that which is accurately understood.

I have to commend you for making an effort to define what you call knowledge. None of your compatriots even bothered to try. You've seen the responses I've received of late.

I agree with your definition insofar as it goes, but consider it incomplete. I'd need a better idea of how you decide what is accurate to know if I agree that what you call knowledge and accurate would also be those things for me.

I enjoy our discussions. I don't agree with much of what you write, you being a Christian creationist (I know that many Jehovah's Witnesses see themselves as separate from what they call Christendom, so no offense intended calling you Christian if that is not a term you use to describe yourself), but you being a Christian creationist isn't a problem for me.

What matters is that you have none of that contempt and antipathy that virtually always comes through when others with your worldview deal with people like me, which is what I don't like about them - not their willingness to believe by faith or to hold vague ideas that they call truth, but their bigotry.

Besides this palpable contempt (people: it's contagious - it breeds contempt in return where there was previously just disagreement), it's their debating ethics. They don't respect my way of evaluating the world, but bristle at having theirs rejected, angrily calling me closed-minded, or blind, or calling my worldview a religion as if that invalidated it.

So thanks for being you.

Ultimately, when a truth is discovered, genuine religion and genuine science will always agree.

I don't know what you mean by genuine religion. I see religion evolving to keep in agreement with science, so where it does that, it goes from being contradicted by the science to agreeing more. Perhaps that's what you mean by genuine religion.

For example, I am confident that the stories in Genesis and Exodus were once taught as history - literal truth - and calling it myth would have been considered blasphemy at that time,likely punishable with death.

But as science progressively demonstrated that the creation story and the flood story, for example, were not accurate, these became allegories instead to keep the Bible aligned with the science contradicting it.

I know that as a creationist, you don't accept the scientific account. And I'm sure that you consider your faith genuine religion. But how do you reconcile that disagreement between your creationist beliefs with your comment above? They seem contradictory.

And to those Christians that would say that they accept the science regarding evolution, how do they reconcile that science with their belief that God made man in His image, or that man but not his fellow beasts has an eternal soul? Scientific evolutionary is dysteleologic - undirected, without goal or purpose. Did man evolve under the direction of a deity forming him to be in its image? If so, this theistic evolution is incompatible with the scientific theory, even if one claims he accepts the science.

Likewise, did man alone evolve an immaterial soul? How is this possible unless souls are coded for int DNA, and only in human DNA? What mutation would lead to a soul, and what would give the creature bearing it a selective advantage? Evolution doesn't work without that feedback between DNA and morphology / behavior.

 

[sayak83]

You covered functional analysis (the calculus of infinite-dimensional spaces and in particular the algebras and representations of bounded and unbounded operaters of e.g. Banach spaces ) and tensor calculus on manifolds in high school?

Special relativity and Quantum mechanics. I read the Lecture Notes of Feynmann and Physics book of Resnik, Halliday and Walker in high school ( 10th - 12th). Also read Modern physics of Arthur Beiser.

 

[bobhikes]

I think that you must be using a different definition of open-mindedness that I do. For me, open-mindedness is the ability and willingness to consider an idea critically, that is, dispassionately, skeptically, and without logical fallacy in one's reasoning. It does not include accepting the idea if critical analysis doesn't justify doing that.

Often, when such an open mind rejects a claim for lack of sufficient supporting evidence, we hear that that mind is closed to such ideas. What such a person is actually asking of the rigorous critical thinker is to relax his standards to let what the critical thinker has concluded are substandard ideas in anyway.

That's faith - the willingness to believe without sufficient justification - and is the informal logical error called non sequitur - the conclusion doesn't follow from what preceded it.

And apparently, that's what it takes to embrace this vague, misty world of spiritual claims.

I require more to believe. I require an sound, evidenced argument. I have asked people who call themselves spiritual, on a spiritual path to acquire spiritual truth and knowledge and who want to be respected to define these terms and provide illustrative examples, and explain why these ideas meet the criteria for these concepts.
.

You conveniently cut out my definition.

Science is the discovery of processes in the world. / Spirituality is the discovery of self.

If you don't like my definition that is fine but this is how I see the differences between Science and Spirituality.

Also openminded to me is the ability to accept change, that is all. One can not latch on to anything as absolute whether it be scientific or spiritual as soon as one does they close there minds to that subject.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

You conveniently cut out my definition.

Science is the discovery of processes in the world. / Spirituality is the discovery of self.

If you don't like my definition that is fine but this is how I see the differences between Science and Spirituality.

By that definition, spirituality is subject to science.

 

[Cooky]

Two of our better known posters have created threads to ask why either science or spiritual views are more important than the other.

Do your spiritual views conflict with science?

Do your scientific discoveries conflict with subjective spiritual revelations?

Why are science and spirituality incompatible?

This is why I like String Theory. Because the strings come from somewhere else. It leaves room for the question of 'where'.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

...




This is exactly the kind of answer I would expect if I a correct that there is nothing of substance to these claims.

I can do that for you regarding my beliefs. I can define truth, fact, knowledge, and wisdom clearly and succinctly, show you an example of each, and if required, show you why the example qualifies.

Truth is the quality facts posses, facts being linguistic strings (sentences, paragraphs) that accurately map some portion of reality. That accuracy is determined by the idea's ability to successfully predict outcomes. Knowledge is the collection of facts s defined.

...

No.
Here is for a variation of the evil demon from Descartes and how science is methodological and not philosophical as correspondence as map reality.

For there 2 realities there are no difference. You are in the reality you believe you are. You are the only mind in reality and everybody else and everything else is a simulation running on a computer.
You can't prove which one you are in and you claim of mapping reality is unprovable.

Now I am not going to be nice, but I really hate your sub-culture of science, which don't understand how science is methodological and that it would be the same for these 2 examples above.
You are trying to do philosophy and you fail badly, because you can't prove that your experiences map reality "one to one". In effect you claim you can prove naive empiricism and philosophical naturalism, but you can't.
This has been know for over 400 years now and nobody have solved it.

So if you could really do that, there would be at least a Nobel prize in it and you would be one of the great ones in science. But you can't. You just believe that you can.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

By that definition, spirituality is subject to science.

No, because nobody can in effect do reductive physics and reduce everything down to only being expressed in strict physical and scientific terms.
Your sentence can't itself be expressed in strict physical and scientific terms. It is philosophy and bad philosophy at that.

 

[bobhikes]

By that definition, spirituality is subject to science.

Maybe in your opinion but not mine. First of all the self is individual. Second the self is constantly changing. I can think of no way it will pass the scientific method.

 

[Valjean]

Science comes from the Greek word meaning knowledge, to know. Science is the state of having facts, and knowledge, to know things.

When scientists teach things that are not truth or facts then that is known as pseudoscience.

Pseudoscience includes beliefs, theories, or practices that have been or are considered scientific, but have no basis in scientific fact.

When a scientist teaches you that we came from nothing for example, when there is no observational proof of anything coming from nothing, that is pseudoscience. It really isn't science at all. It's snake-oil.

Pseudoscience is just that -- pseudo, ie: fake.
No-one, to my knowledge, is promoting pseudoscience, and when scientific methodology goes off the tracks, it's usually scientists who point this out.

As for coming from nothing, that's a religious assertion: an uncreated God; animals poofed into being from dust, &c.
The big bang; the expansion from a point source, which is what I assume you're referring to, is evidenced. There's good reason to believe it happened. The mechanism, though, remains unresolved. It's an active area of study.
It's religion that believes the universe poofed into being, from nothing, by magic.

When scientists tell you that primitive man was less intelligent, only used grunts, or had only basic grammar and spelling, that also is pseudoscience. Scientific fact is that civilization appeared suddenly and with complex language. In fact more complex than we have today.

Science can tell you the cephalic index of a skull. It can tell you that the brain of X was a third the size of yours. Draw what conclusions you will.
The development of various types of human societies is all very interesting, and the origins of language are still not known, but what does this have to do with pseudoscience?

Scientists aren't the only ones that abuse the word for knowledge. There is a cult known as Scientology. The word also derives from the Greek ciencia, knowledge, and ology, study. Or the study of knowledge. It is also known as the Church of Scientology.

Huh? How is science 'abusing' the word for knowledge?

In the Bible the church, or congregation (ecclesia in Greek) is not a place but the Christian congregation of anointed ones (or holy ones). Today the Christian congregation, or church, is everyone both called to rule in heaven, and those with an earthly hope that serve unitedly the leader of the Christian congregation, Jesus Christ.

So you can see how L. Ron Hubbard abuses the word much as do scientists. And they peddle fictions as facts. Deal in pseudoscience.

No. I don't see what the Bible has to do with any of this, or Dianetics, for that matter. I don't know what you're getting at.

The study of science is only possible because God created the universe. He created the fundamental laws of the universe that we study.

Now its you who are making unfounded assertions.

You know I have come to the realization of something a long time ago. We humans, even though we think we know a lot, we don't. And the more you know the more you realize that you don't know much of anything at all. That is why the ignorant are always the loudest and most assertive of their narrow-minded thinking.

Exactly -- now you're talking like a scientist.

There are two things that will always be true. The first is the book of creation. God created the fundamental laws of the universe, and we are discovering these laws and learning how to use them. Man can send an artificial satellite to a moon orbiting around Jupiter. How? Because they can calculate with precision the trajectory and speed and other things needed to get the satellite in orbit all the way across the solar system. This is because God's fundamental laws of the universe are faithful and true. They don't break or bend or change.

The laws are faithful and true, but their creation by an intentional personage is unsupported folklore; pure religious speculation; ancient beliefs based on nothing. You're preaching.
You complain about evidence-based science, yet you believe unsupported, ancient foklore. Why?

We take advantage of these laws to communicate back and forth on the internet.

Also the words found in God's holy word in the Bible are infallible. They are all of them true and accurate. That is real knowledge. Real science right there.

No, that is folklore. It's not based on observation, It's not tested. It's not predictive or repeatable, ergo: not science.
Your assertions about God and inerrancy are religious faith, not knowledge. They have no supporting evidence.

We humans get almost everything wrong most of the time. And without our personal viewpoints on things the universe will still continue to run. Our viewpoints will change, but the truth will always remain. Most humans have been wrong about most things they think throughout the entirety of human history. Today is no exception. The only time we get things right is when we adhere to God's word. His laws found in nature, and this laws found in the Bible.

No, we get things right when we follow a methodology and actually test our hypotheses. Believing what our parents taught us, with no evidentiary support, has produced neither progress not agreement for ten thousand years.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Maybe in your opinion but not mine. First of all the self is individual. Second the self is constantly changing. I can think of no way it will pass the scientific method.

Well, assuming that your "self" is in this world - and if it wasn't, I would be surprised to see you posting on the internet - then "discovery of the self" involves "processes in the world."

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

No, because nobody can in effect do reductive physics and reduce everything down to only being expressed in strict physical and scientific terms.
Your sentence can't itself be expressed in strict physical and scientific terms. It is philosophy and bad philosophy at that.

Please just stop.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Please just stop.

No, you see. I was born on a cliff and I spent all my time wondering if I should jump or not. All there is to reality is strict brute physical facts and if I deny that I will die. Now I deny it and I am dead. /s

I just go absurd on you and you don't know how to handle that. But only that which makes sense is real. Well, no. Falsification is a subset of skepticism, but falsification is not the only method in skepticism. If you can't handle that reality doesn't add up in positive neat terms, then that is your problem.

 

[bobhikes]

Well, assuming that your "self" is in this world - and if it wasn't, I would be surprised to see you posting on the internet - then "discovery of the self" involves "processes in the world."

The self doesn't exist in the world but exists only in you in a moment of time. There are no measurements a person can take to determine your self. There are no questions another person can ask that will help them determine your self. The self is always changing with every new experience you get including those of self reflection. You can't even prove it exists in this world.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

The self doesn't exist in the world but exists only in you in a moment of time.

And "you" is not "in the world?"

There are no measurements a person can take to determine your self. There are no questions another person can ask that will help them determine your self. The self is always changing with every new experience you get including those of self reflection. You can't even prove it exists in this world.

A few thoughts:

- if you're using the word "self" in a meaningful way, then you have a meaning in mind (and if you don't have a meaning in mind, the word is just a meaningless sound), so the mere fact you're talking about this suggests that your position is false.

- whenever anyone lists off a bunch of "facts" about something and then says that we know so little about this thing that we can't even confirm that the thing exists, I take this as a big red flag that the person is talking out of their butt.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

No, you see. I was born on a cliff and I spent all my time wondering if I should jump or not. All there is to reality is strict brute physical facts and if I deny that I will die. Now I deny it and I am dead. /s

I just go absurd on you and you don't know how to handle that. But only that which makes sense is real. Well, no. Falsification is a subset of skepticism, but falsification is not the only method in skepticism. If you can't handle that reality doesn't add up in positive neat terms, then that is your problem.

It's more that I'm not interested in playing along when you try to insert yourself into a conversation, change the subject, and make the conversation about you and your personal philosophy.

I'm sure you think it's wonderful, but I just don't care.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

It's more that I'm not interested in playing along when you try to insert yourself into a conversation, change the subject, and make the conversation about you and your personal philosophy.

I'm sure you think it's wonderful, but I just don't care.

Yeah, you have just confirmed, that you are as subjective as me. You make it about your understanding and I make it about mine.

So which is with science more important, just to get back to the Op. Your subjectivity or mine?

You can go science all you like and I will go subjective all I like. Both are parts of the world and so are you.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Yeah, you have just confirmed, that you are as subjective as me. You make it about your understanding and I make it about mine.

So which is with science more important, just to get back to the Op. Your subjectivity or mine?

You can go science all you like and I will go subjective all I like. Both are parts of the world and so are you.

What part of "please just stop" do you not understand?

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

What part of "please just stop" do you not understand?

Well, I am polite and answer you relevant to the importance of the OP. Science is important, but only of limited use. The same with religion and philosophy. And how you do that can be different from me. And that is a part of how reality works.

 

[Cooky]

Well, I am polite and answer you relevant to the importance of the OP. Science is important, but only of limited use. The same with religion and philosophy. And how you do that can be different from me. And that is a part of how reality works.

I read your posts in an Indian accent. Is there any validity to that?

Your points are wise however. No question there.