Mathew Naismith

This conversation is closed.

Are science & spirituality one and the same?

I believe they are it’s just they use different deductive reasoning processors to evaluate to become further aware, what do you think?

  • thumb
    Mar 12 2013: In my opinion it depends what you define as "the same". Because they are both similar in the way, they are both processes which look at the world, and try and base conclusions from it.
    They just come at it from a different angle. (science = more rational, spirit = more spiritual purposeful way of looking at the universe).
    But probably both contradict eachother on some things.
    Might be misunderstanding the question. :) Please tell me if I have.
    • thumb
      Mar 14 2013: BW,

      I agree we may have different concepts of what the word same is.

      Or MN may be saying they are the same in one regards - i.e. they are both human activities so they are the same in that regards.

      Whereas I am looking at it whether they are the same methodology, same in effectiveness at explaining things etc. And they are not in my opinion.
  • thumb
    Mar 16 2013: I have another way to define the difference:

    Science is the way we know things.
    Spirituality is the way we feel about things.

    By "know" I mean perception through physical means.
    By "feel" I mean emotional perception.

    We can have feelings about what we know that determine our attitude towards what we know - like, dislike, fear, dread, expect, enjoy. These feelings often cause us to ignore what we know (hopefully, not), or interpret it differently, and they drive practical conclusions from our knowledge - give us direction to act. Motives are not derived from mere knowledge.
    • thumb
      Mar 16 2013: G'day Arkady

      Perfect within my understanding, they are one of the same. My question is how did just matter create comp-lex thinking on it's own & where did matter & anti-matter come from in the first place? Not out of thin air surely becaus that's illogical!!!!

      Love
      Mathew
      • thumb
        Mar 16 2013: Matter and anti-matter are two kinds of matter. Science does have evidence that particles and anti-particles can appear from vacuum (not from thin air). "Thin air" and "vacuum" are not "nothing". To have "quantum vacuum fluctuation" one needs, at least, space and time.

        Circular reasoning, when conclusion is assumed in one of the premises or when consequence is necessary for the cause to exist, is invalid. There are no logical answers or rational explanations to these things. Such statements are inherently uncertain and lack meaning. Meaning and certainty come from "spirit" - our emotional perception of reality.

        Examples of circular statements: "if God created everything that is, seen and unseen, then who created God?" "Can God almighty create a rock too heavy for him to lift?" "Is benevolent and almighty God willing and able to eliminate evil?" "Can omniscient and omnipotent God who knows what will happen change the future?" "The universe created itself from nothing" "There was time when there was no time", "just say NO to negativism", "protect the rights of unborn women!", "I pray God to save me from his followers", etc., etc.

        I don't expect any meaningful conclusions from these "deep thoughts". Nonsense - that's all it is. Just make an emotional choice and stick to it. But don't say that your choice is "rational".
        • Mar 16 2013: To explain the first circular statement, you should take a look at Principle of Causality. That principle states that there is always a first uncaused cause in a chain of effect and cause. It is impossible to have an infinite chain of cause because that is illogical.

          How do you define space and time? Is space and time something spirit like or matter?

          And yes about your "quantum vacuum fluctuation", if vacuum is something, it is possible to have matter and anti-matter come from it because something can come out from something. However, something cannot come out from nothing, this is a logical thinking. Then where did the first particle(or a dense mass) come from which created big bang??
          Surely something cannot come from nothing!
      • thumb
        Mar 16 2013: @Christopher An
        If I understand anything about physics, space and time cannot have any meaning without moving massive particles. Space is used to describe position of bodies relative to each other, and time is used to describe the movement. So, space and time could not have "existed" or been defined before matter. They are properties of material world - not "spiritual". To have "vacuum" we must have space. To have "fluctuation" we must have time. I can believe that particles can appear from quantum vacuum fluctuations. But quantum vacuum is not "nothing".

        I can believe that matter appeared from "nothing" if somebody tells me what this "nothing" is. The problem is that once you give it a definition, it's "something", not "nothing". One cannot give a definition of "nothing". And without such definition the phrase "the universe came from nothing" is meaningless.

        So, in my view, the universe did not come from "nothing", but rather "something certain" appeared from complete uncertainty. I find it consistent with quantum physics.
        • Mar 16 2013: Wow that was a great answer! That cleared up a lot of questions I had previously!!
          Thanks a bunch
    • thumb
      Mar 16 2013: lovely and very much Einsteins own sense on this question
  • Mar 17 2013: In my opinion, they are both expressions of our great human struggle to draft a narrative that answers one question: Is the universe friendly? Where some perceive separation due to specificity or ambiguity others prefer a view that includes continuity and connectivity of both pursuits.
  • thumb
    Mar 16 2013: Einstein spoke as powerfully and elqouently as anyone could to this in his famous lecture at the Princeton Theological seminary.

    I hesitate to summarize it without again first reading it myself but I love what he said so much I think I can do it some justice "off the top of my head"

    What he basically said is that they are two different vectors of humanity..two different expressions of humanity not meant to be reconciled and not necessarily reconcilable but both essential expressions of humanity. He characterized spiritulaity as that open yearning towards something beyond what we know and "possess"..sort of the universal wordless fire in the belly of humanity that keeps us asking questions and looking for answers and evolving towards something worhy. Spirituality he said is about our aspirations and dreams and inspirations.

    Please don't rely on my characterization..Please do read it. So beautiful.
    • thumb
      Mar 16 2013: G'day Lindsay

      I'm not a hoggly-boogly fairyland spiritually aware person myself that thinks that everything that science can't explain yet is somehow of the spiritual because to me everything is of the spiritual even a scientist discovering something new, now that’s magic without the hoogly-boogly stuff. Nothing is hoogly-boogly magical as it's all of natural process that in time will be explained properly through processes like science.

      Love
      Mathew
  • thumb
    Mar 15 2013: ....

    Another angle -

    If we look at spiritual endeavors as those which brings meaning to one's life, as I tend to do, then I can't see how there is a one-to-one correspondence between science and spirituality. But neither do I think science falls outside of those activities or mind-sets which bring meaning.

    Recommended - 5 minutes with philosopher AC Grayling talking about meaning:
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RqXz9if0n_I

    I see science as a refinement of the reasoning process which helps us understand the world around us, to identify facts and to group those facts within theoretical frameworks which become models of our universe.

    How can wondering about and exploring nature using our minds not be spiritual?
    • thumb
      Mar 15 2013: G'day Peter

      A spiritually aware person is in there element when exploring in wonderment as of a scientist, some of these scientists are really wacko in a sense they are out there somewhere because of their own wonderment of our environment through exploration so yes I would agree with your very good point Peter, it is indeed just as spiritual (exhilarating) for an open minded scientist than it is for a spiritually aware person.

      Love
      Mathew
    • thumb
      Mar 16 2013: Re: "How can wondering about and exploring nature using our minds not be spiritual?"

      Grayling mentions that "meaning" is our attitude towards life. I agree. "Wondering" about life is spiritual. It's an emotional impulse. The motives for doing science are spiritual. Attitude towards science is spiritual. Attitude towards knowledge is spiritual. Science itself or knowledge itself are not. There is nothing spiritual in cold physical facts.

      Physical experiences are different from emotional experiences. We cannot have a physical experience without having an emotional experience, and people often confuse the two. E.g. taking a cold shower is just a physical experience. On a hot summer day and on a cold winter day, physical experience from a cold shower is the same. But emotional experience (our reaction or attitude) is quite different. Emotional experience motivates us to seek or avoid the same physical experience.
  • thumb
    Mar 14 2013: Both seek truths to unanswered questions on the state of "being".

    People (spirit/soul/being) exist (being/science/universe)! Both subjective and objective.

    Yes, in my opinion they are much alike.

    It differs when it becomes a religious or political perspective or agenda. The enigma of it all!
    • thumb
      Mar 14 2013: G'day Leslie

      So in saying this do you think that makes them the same keeping in mind that the conclusion is also the same. It's a sort of paradox they are but there not the same at the same time.

      I look at it this way Leslie, they are tools to be used to help us understand ourselves better which is very similar to a hammer & spanner, can a spanner or a hammer on it’s own loosen a tight nut? No but if we use both of these tools together in unison we can loosen the nut by tapping on the spanner with the hammer which gives us a better result that using a hammer or spanner on it’s own.

      Now look at spirituality & science as tools for which they are in the same context, yes I know they are still different tools but one could make A tool to do the same thing but other than that symbolically they are the same but only when used in unison which has happened when mysticism & philosophy where used in unison. The advent of modern day science killed off that unison but it is coming back to the fold with newer sciences like quantum physics but especially quantum mechanics as they look at the improbable as well & the reason I know this is my brother tried to study quantum mechanics but found it to be over he’s head.

      Love
      Mathew
  • thumb
    Mar 13 2013: Hi Mathew,

    I am I going to start a new thread to our conversation since it was getting pretty long. Nice response by the way:

    As for science being egotistical and dogmatic, I would have to kindly disagree. Are there scientist that are egotistical and dogmatic? Perhaps. You mentioned science being taken on blind faith for the simple fact that science would propose one theory only to have it proven wrong by another one that is even more profound. The truth of the matter is, that is actually what is great about science. That is the purpose of science. Every scientist, philosopher or anyone who is a lover of knowledge, have to acknowledge the possibility of being incorrect. It is what makes us smarter individuals.

    I personally believe it is the individuals who make claims about things they cannot be certain about that are the dogmatic and egotistical ones. Science essentially is trying to verify everything that is verifiable. That can be reproduced and shows consistency. If a scientist is wrong about a certain theory, then they are wrong and they'll find another alternative until they get it right. I find this fascinating and we do not give scientist enough credit for the hard work that they do. When it comes to the natural world, I think science is the best we got.

    you are correct in that what may be true today may not be true in 100yrs. perhaps some time passed my lifetime humanity would have reconciled the issues that we are talking about now and everything that I say will be incorrect.

    I believe Colleen mentioned this but since science is part of the whole, it does have a relationship with spirituality but if science fails to find answers of meaning, this does not mean that spirituality is not profound. It still is and it will always continue to be.
    • thumb
      Mar 13 2013: G’day Orlando

      I didn’t actually mean science itself being dogmatic & egotistical however it is the egotistical dogmatic scientist that do indeed make it so. I was on a NOETIC site for a while sometime back & I had to leave because of the egotistical dogmatism but I’m back because I realised that was my problem in not handling the egoist dogmatism not theirs.

      I look at science & spirituality as tools to be used differently to find the same answers, science is rediscovering ourselves where’s spirituality helps by giving science a better scope & bearing.

      It’s good to converse with people who take science & spirituality in the same important context & knowing one isn’t better than the other.

      Love
      Mathew
  • thumb
    Mar 12 2013: On the level of existence they are both part of the same one life. To some, science and spirituality are diametricaly opposed because the theories of origin do not agree. I suggest that science is one of many expressions of the eternal and is an important part of the evolution of thought.
  • Mar 12 2013: Oh,it is a good question,since I read all you guys opinions here,I reflect my instinct of thoughts about science and spirituality:I follow my spirituality to pursue science,meanwhile science helps me to strenghen my spirituality
  • thumb
    Mar 12 2013: Absolutely not. Science is making verifiable predictions based on obvervations. Since nothing "spiritual" has any testable claims, there is nothing scientific about it.

    That is all.
    • thumb
      Mar 12 2013: G'day Christopher


      First up did science derive from philosophy & mystIcism? How now is science looking at our environement? It uses modern day sciences like quantum mechanic, have you read up on some of the calims made by some quantum physicists, they border on delusional or more likely the mystical because to start researching in these areas to beggin with they have to look way outside the logical sphere to start with.

      I see your point but don't you think you just might be a little dogmaitc within your principles just like some religious people? "Dogmatism is plain ignorance of the things we don't understand yet".

      Do you think a hundred years ago that scientists back then would have accepted quantum mechanics as a serious science? Of course not because of their dogmaitism & ignorance which is brought on by a lack of understanding.

      Love
      Mathew
      • thumb
        Mar 12 2013: When philosophical questions become verifiable, they enter into the realm of science. Spirituality concerns all those things that are not verifiable.

        Science has no dogma or tenants. Instead, science has falsification. If your claim involving spirituality cannot be falsified, it is not scientific. There is no middle ground here.

        Without the instruments to perform the experiments to verify quantum mechanics, scientists in the past would have been correct to disbelieve any quantum claim. Without evidence, there is no reason to believe.
        • thumb
          Mar 12 2013: G'day Christopher

          http://noetic.org/discussions/open/304/ This link might interest you on the dogma's of science. You also might find the following link interesting as well http://noetic.org/noetic/issue-five-december/dawkins-darwin-and-other-dogma-how-the-tenets-of-b/

          “Without evidence, there is no reason to believe”. You wouldn’t call this statement of yours dogmatic? Dogmatic means inflexible, rigid, narrow minded, authoritarian & so on, I’m lucky because I believe in both science & spiritualism thank God.

          I can understand your stand on this because it’s the typical mode of thought of an inflexible science minded person which is programed into the recipient through the educational system but that sort of mind wouldn’t work too well in certain fields of quantum mechanics as you very much need to be able to see way outside the square before anything can be seen to be proven. How did we find out that the world wasn’t flat before it was proven? It might have been calculated but it couldn’t be proven until someone had the guts & the capability to prove it before it was proven, in other words it took blind faith.

          Look Christopher I’m also science minded but I’m also not ignorant of other possibilities until they can be proven wrong, you’re saying their wrong that’s it because they can’t be proven, that doesn’t make logical sense to me!!

          Love
          Mathew
    • thumb
      Mar 12 2013: I contend that there is nothing spiritual about science either. Is it not a pity that Neruda's poetry has no English in them?
  • thumb
    Mar 11 2013: I personally do not think they are the same but this does not mean they cannot be compatible. They are in essence asking two different questions, with different methods of seeking "truth" or "understanding". While I do not think there is anything more important than subjectivity, I do not think you should give precedence of one over the other. Perhaps they are similar to the yin-yang symbol (part of the same "whole" but inherently different in nature).

    I think as long as you leave out God talk and metaphysics, both can co-exist just fine.
    • thumb
      Mar 11 2013: I tend to agree. If spirituality is about feeling connected to the universe and other people, without invoking supernatural magic then it is not at odds or outside of a scientific understanding.

      You can go further and assume eternal souls and invisible agents but then you are outside of a scientific understanding, or reasonably skeptical critical thinking, and into the realm of speculation.
      • thumb
        Mar 12 2013: Yeah exactly. couldn't have said it better myself.

        And even more, there is really no reason to have to take them into consideration. just by its reasoning alone, there is no reason to do so.
      • thumb
        Mar 12 2013: Orlando and Obey,
        I perceive EVERYTHING as interconnected, so I agree with the idea that science and spirituality co-exist, are compatible, and I believe they can support each other IF that fits our personal beliefs.

        My perception of spirituality is the feeling of interconnectedness with everything and everyone in our world, and I do not perceive this concept to be "outside of a scientific understanding". In fact, I think/feel it is very much connected to science.
        • thumb
          Mar 12 2013: Hi Colleen and thanks for you comments.

          I do not disagree with your points. I do not see homo-sapiens as being separate from anything else in the natural world (as well as the universe). I think everything that exist is all part of the same whole because we all have the same origins (call it the big-bang, call it God, or whatever suits you).

          I do feel that science to a degree can contribute to area's of spirituality and perhaps help us understand its biological and mechanistic basis. How it has managed to evolve over time.

          As I pointed out before, what makes spirituality so grand is the experiences that individuals have and it is here that I think science has no say. We can talk about mirror neurons, axons, neurotransmitters, bio-electricity and none of these things are ever going to be able to tell us about the subjective experiences that we are having. No matter how how much we perturb our nervous system, there is always going to be that gap between the subjective and objective unless we know exactly which neurons contribute to certain experiences.

          this is what leads me to believe that they are inherently different but yes I think you are right that they are compatible.
      • thumb
        Mar 12 2013: Hi again Orlando....I appreciate your comments as well:>)

        I also believe that we are all part of the same whole natural universe, and in that respect, science and spirituality are also part of the same whole natural universe. I think/feel that the only thing that seperates one aspect from another part of the whole, is an individuals personal beliefs.

        I agree with you that science can provide information, and we, as individuals, may use the information in different ways....or not at all, if that is our choice. We can perceive it in a way that supports other beliefs, or not. If a person is "stuck" with a certain belief (either science or sprituality) that does not seem to support the other, s/he may perceive them to be seperate. I think/feel it takes an open mind and heart to feel and understand the connectivity of the whole.

        Also part of the whole of our understanding, as you mention, is what parts are objective and what parts are subjective. These can also be connected....UNLESS.....a personal belief causes him/her to seperate them. I agree that science cannot adequately define our subjective experiences. Science CAN, however, provide information regarding how or why we may experience what we do? Science is, for example starting to identify which parts of the brain control certain behaviors, so it provides us with more information regarding how we function. I find it fascinating!
    • thumb
      Mar 12 2013: G'day Orlando

      Yes they are different in their deductive reasoning (methods) but they both seek the same thing, answers to our whole being. Both methods are viable in finding out what we are & why we exist & both give us a better understanding of our environment in different ways because of the different methods used. Are they the same because they seek the same thing or are they different because of the methods used?

      Science breaks down every part of our environment & gives it all a label to seek the answers to the smaller questions as spirituality looks at the bigger questions, who are we & what are we doing here. I do believe science will answers these bigger questions as well once it finds newer science techniques to do so.

      So are they the same? I suppose it depends on our individual interpretations if it is so or not.

      Love
      Mathew
      • thumb
        Mar 12 2013: Great Response and G'day to you Mathew,

        I'm more open-mined to that possibility than you think. While I am a big advocate for scientific advancement, I just think there are some things that science would not be able to tell us. Of course this should not stop the scientific community from exploring and trying to understand the nature of spirituality and experience.

        Big picture wise, yes, both are looking for the same answers but I do not think this really says anything. For one many mystics and spiritual individuals, while being introspective would make claims about something that is external to their subjectivity, claims that they would not have any idea of (especially when closing their eyes during meditation). I think there is much more for us to learn spiritually as well as scientifically. I think the reason why science get's involved is because of the claims that some spiritual leaders say about the nature of reality or because they are curious with the brain activity of someone who is having a spiritual experience.

        I guess my concern is how new-age mysticism is being justified by invoking science. Like you I believe that science would be able to answer these questions of value along with philosophy.

        Let me ask you this:

        If people make claims about metaphysics or being one with God, how do you explore this scientifically? You cannot deny the fact that they had an experience, if indeed they did have such an experience. I think there are scientific reasons to doubt the actual existence of metaphysical afterwords and God but to state that the best experience in one's life is nothing more than an experience would be a hard sell to that individual.

        There was an article about a Dr. who said he was in heaven. I doubt that he was actually in heaven and there is much science to show that his brain was still active which may have produced the experience. nonetheless the experience changed his life. Scientifically and philosophically what do can we say to him?
        • thumb
          Mar 12 2013: G’day Orlando

          Yes I would agree with what you are saying here, there is tooo much blind faith in certain spiritual arenas for me & in my blog I do have ago at some of the new & old spiritual/religious concepts which are contradictory in my mind. For example in regards to karma, we are supposed to live out our lives correcting our karma from some past life which we will do in proceeding lives however it is written that after we die our life flashes before us showing us where we went wrong. My point is it’s the soul that is supposed to be learning from this not our physical bodies & just after death that is exactly what we have done so there is no need to repent on our sins in the next life.

          I also find science quite dogmatic & egotistical which to me is blind faith. How many scientific proven theories & concepts have latter on been wrong in their evaluative deductions through improved science awareness & techniques?

          In regards to being one with God or of proving there is a God in the first place through science when science today doesn’t have the capabilities to do so all I can do is refer you back a 100 yrs or so before quantum physics & mechanics was properly understood, they would have laughed at you back then in a lot of the theories & studies being performed today through these new sciences. Now we have had huge leaps in science in just the last hundred yrs what will the next hundred yrs give us?

          I’m not into fairy tale spirituality but I do realise that everything vibrates including thought so if it vibrates it must exist but psychologically speaking what seems to exist to us is usually something different just like once the world was flat or the sun was a God, one must take in all the aspects not just the ones that make us feel good or sound correct & this is why science, psychology & spirituality go hand in hand.

          Love
          Mathew

          PS It’s been a pleasure conversing with you Orlando
  • thumb
    Mar 11 2013: Just like modern science is very different from Alchemy, modern spirituality is very different from bearded old man man in white robe flying in the sky. I have taken both 'science' and 'spirituality' in Mathew's question as the modern concepts of those terms.
  • thumb
    Mar 10 2013: G’day Ted Followers

    I have the understanding that modern day science derived from mysticism & philosophy, mysticism provided the ability to look outside the square where’s philosophy provided a more in-depth analysis instead of relying totally on blind faith.

    Modern day science today is once again looking at ancient practices but in a more modern way for example scientists have been looking at healing people by just using vibrative frequencies & how certain vibrations effect plants in there development. Mystics & spiritualists have always known about the effects of vibrations on living matter but of course they thought it was more to do with hoogly-boogly stuff which of course it wasn’t.

    However if you take a look at Yoga or Tao for instance you can see the science within the belief, they knew about the science within this hoogly-boogly stuff but of course not quite to the extent that we are learning about now through different science techniques. When you read about the science within Yoga for instance it is so much in line with modern day science it’s not funny.

    This sort of debate upsets both science & spiritually minded people for the main reason both camps have their dogmas to deal with, I am open to both science & spirituality which shows my unbiased opinion & non-dogmatic principles which allows me to look outside the square of any one minded set ideological principles, now that's logical to me!!!

    Love
    Mathew
  • thumb
    Mar 10 2013: Spirits/souls (us) are not a part of the universe so they cannot be measured but they do manifest themselves and this manifestation is called life. Math for instance could be said to be part of the knowledge that is ascertained by this interaction. In other words I also don't think the 2 are mutually exclusive.
  • thumb
    Mar 10 2013: Science came into being initially to try & understand how God accomplished things in the material world. It has recently redefined itself as materialist-only. If we try to understand a materialist problem that actually has a spiritual component we are doomed to failure. Better to go with the evidence, even if it points in a spiritual direction, than to invent a whopper just to keep everything within a materialistic framework.
    Yes science & spirituality are closely related.

    :-)
    • thumb
      Mar 10 2013: G'day Peter

      Utterly agree on this......modern day science had gone materialistic which is a huge shame but I suppose that is the sign of the times. I had this same discussion on consumerist materialistic science before in reference to hydraulic fracturing, it was quite controversial as you could imagine. Science needs spiritualism to get it back on track I believe.

      Love
      Mathew
  • thumb

    Gail .

    • +2
    Mar 10 2013: That depends on how you define "spirituality". I see the two as going hand-in-hand, but those who define it differently will see them as being diametrically opposed to one another. Quantum mechanics is changing everything. I read an article yesterday about the grand movement in thought - based on experimental evidence - that has a little more than half of all Q physicists believing that my identity is not housed entirely in my body, and that the universe/multiverse (in all and each of its parts) is a/are living, sentient experience (rather than "a" being) within a system of probabilities. The trend is so great that those who have made the transition see the two merging. Spirituality asking the questions and science looking for evidence that either supports or discredits an idea.

    So, in my opinion, they are not the same, but they are complimentary for as long as spirituality offers new ideas and asks new questions for scientists to research, and for as long as science introduces evidence for or against those ideas while suggesting new ideas.
    • thumb
      Mar 10 2013: G'day Ted Lover

      We use to laugh at medicine men or witch doctors but now it is being understood that certain vibrations through chanting for intsance can effect living matter. I do think personally at this satge that they will find out in the future they are one of the same but that's just my beliefe which of course could be wrong.

      Love
      Mathew
      • thumb

        Gail .

        • 0
        Mar 12 2013: I don't see how they could ever be one-in-the-same. One looks for evidence. The other will ultimately depend on the evidence that science finds to put a base (legitimacy) under itself. They are two different ways of thinking. They are complimentary but not similar, except that science is itself an idea, and as an idea, it is spiritual in nature because thoughts are things and ideas are thought constructs.

        Science can rightly say that the God of Abraham (as today's cultures define Him) does not exist, and it can produce evidence to substantiate its claim, but science cannot say that no God exists or that Abraham's God did or did not create the universe. Such a claim would require conjecture rather than evidence. Science is firmly rooted in evidence.

        New fields of science are finding ways to quantify that which the spiritually oriented person believes. It finds patterns and presents proofs of quantifiable answers. It's still science.

        The only way for science and spirituality to merge is for science to produce as much evidence for its position as there is evidence for evolution. That science would have to clearly demonstrate that we are gods who create our own realities, thus we create the science that proves to us what we want to see. (And there is already science that suggests this idea that I first read in the 1980s)

        But still, even in this context, science is about evidence and spirituality is not. One could say that one is a question and one is an answer. One could also suggest that there can be no answers without questions, so the two are entangled making them ultimately one multi-dimensional thought construct.

        (If a tree falls in the woods and nothing heard it, did the tree exist?)
        • thumb
          Mar 12 2013: G’day TED Lover

          You seem to want to prove something first before it exists however I look at it this way if it’s not proven to be wrong then it has a 50/50 chance of it still existing. To me it makes no logical sense what so ever to disclaim something altogether because one is unable to prove it at that time, is the world still flat because once upon a time it was proven it was. How many scientific theories even from Einstein & Newton been debunked by improved science techniques & understanding?

          Did you know that Newton was into Alchemy which seems quite mystical at times especially in relation to producing gold from lead, the main components are lead, gold & urine, now this sounds awfully fanciful to me but they say it’s quite obtainable.

          With our limited conscious understanding even today what is evidence, is it what we claim to be evidence or is it something else? Example the world was flat but now it’s not so which evidence is correct for that time? We have simplified evidence but I’m afraid evidence isn’t that simple.

          I have had experiences with ghosts, spirits, entities or whatever you want to call them but I didn’t have evidence of my encounters but they were real, Ok let’s say I was delusional my family also witnessed firsthand simular occurrences, my tow eldest brothers at the same time had draws open up in front of them. Let’s say my whole agnostic/atheist family is delusional what about the other thousands of people in the world? What about out of body experiences, they can explain, while in surgery, exactly what happened & none of this has any so called evidence to prove that is what happens but it still exists!!

          Evidence is only as good as the methods to measure such things so if it can’t be measured it doesn’t exist, that to me is full blown blind faith because so called proven evidence has been debunked over & over again throughout human history.

          Love
          Mathew

          Mathew
  • thumb
    Mar 10 2013: Yes, they are. Like hands and feet are both limbs.
    • thumb
      Mar 14 2013: In what way are spirituality and science connected? When you reply, please provide your personal meaning of spirituality.
      • thumb
        Mar 14 2013: They both are human quests. I hope this connection will not require my personal meaning of spirituality.
        • thumb
          Mar 14 2013: Sigh... You might as well not respond if you don't provide your meaning of spirituality. Everyone has a different definition. Everyone. Please cooperate.
  • thumb
    Mar 17 2013: G’day TED Followers

    I would like to thank everybody for their participation even the people I clashed with.
    “To clash with others is not others at fault but my own for one must look inside to why one clashed in the first place not others”
    This has been quite a mind opener & I am all more the aware for it thanks to your participation.

    Love
    Mathew
  • Mar 17 2013: Somehow in this argument we have drifted into religion. The question proposed is in reference to spirituality, which sounds religious but isn't necessarily so. . Spirituality does not constitute or embrace a specific religion. Religion is about the hereafter and belief in the survival of the human soul.
    There is a fine line between the two but spirituality has more to do with our humanistic qualities, the essence of who we are, ie., our character.
    Love and concern for one another are spiritual qualities, but they are invisible virtues ,positive emotions, that science has yet to explain. Religion may be dedicated to encourage the growth of these qualities, but it is not an inherent part of them.
    • thumb
      Mar 17 2013: G'day Mirian

      Yes but people who are against spiritualism period in any form like to always bring up the worse scenario which is very human to do so, I thought it was obvious what I meant but that’s OK as it all panned out in the end.

      Love
      Mathew
  • Mar 16 2013: I'm newly introduced here and this is my first dip in. I find quite a lot of the comments interesting, & would like to comment on a few points. Religion is not synonymous with spitiuality. It may be, but observably the doctrines and practice of religion(s) are not necessarily at all. Neither is spirituality synonymous with feeling or emotion, which is only a part of spitiuality. Spirituality is, surely, about an awareness that goes well beyond self, connectiong us to all. and it is understood by the whole self, intellectually as much as that feeling of vast connection. It is evident through what we say, how we say, and action, even when that action includes 'non-action'. Being aware involves an intimate understanding and understanding comes from knowledge. Science also is intimately concerned with understanding, and by studying and researching comes to these detailed understanding and awareness. They hav found, for example, so many things that were previously though otherwise. Somebody said here that we should not confuse our physical experience with our emotional or 'spiritual' experience. [Much evil comes from this confusion....] Yet science, through the study of cell receptors and ligands, has found that the hormonal release triggered by emotional response always causes a physical reaction - one can not separate them. We can recognise this in cases of embarassment - thought, feeling and physical symptoms all affecting us simultaneously.
    Somebody else also said that to talk about science and spirituality is actually useful. We could find arguments to say just about any 'this & that' is one and the same.
    I am very interested in scientific developments and discoveries and learn a great deal, but I am also interested by much recent scientific research that, altho disproves previously held scientific ideologies, matches those I've learnt about through Buddhist teachings.
    • thumb
      Mar 16 2013: G’day Fiona

      Now this is a good point, true spirituality is about awareness & so is science. I find the biggest problem we have in the west is we get an ideology & turn it into something else to suite our own ideologies which totally changes the intimal ideological belief to something quite different. You look at Yoga how that has been changed, one person here didn’t even realise the spiritual aspects of Yoga. You can’t practice Yoga or any other eastern ideology properly if you only understand what you want out of these ideologies & spiritual practices.

      Our own spirituality in the west is churched based with certain doctrines to follow that can hinder our awareness but if one is happy within this system that’s a good thing as long as they don’t push their ideologies onto people who are more spiritually aware because they don’t have the same hindrances within their beliefs but in saying this the east also have certain religions that do exactly the same as western religions have & still do today.

      So do you think they are one of the same Fiona? But of course this depends on which way one looks at them.

      Love
      Mathew
  • thumb
    Mar 16 2013: Nothing is the same but, everything is connected.
    cheers
  • Mar 15 2013: Sometimes science is fine tuned to serve political and racial conveniences.
    Try to get hold of the old theories of scientific facts and you will find that scientists say the non eurpean races have no god, and if they do those gods are primitive. Gods like Ogun a African god.
    Did Europe have pagen gods before christianity was introduced by the classical Greeks?
    • thumb
      Mar 16 2013: G'day Mohan

      I believe they did...you’re not saying science could have it wrong again, that's blasphemous!!

      Love Mathew
    • Mar 16 2013: Mohan-sorry buddy but your wrong the greeks didn't have christianity the romans adopted it like they did all religions and christianity destroyed them plunging the world into the dark ages so what you can take from this is that christianity not only killed those people in the dark ages but also stopped scientific advancement from the romans if christianity never existed we would be 1000 years more advanced as for the gods of the european they believed in ancient idols and didn't have a "set" god
  • thumb
    Mar 15 2013: I'd define the difference as follows:

    Science tells us how to get where we want. "Spirit" tells us where we want to get.

    By "spirit" I mean belief system, will power, love and other passions driving us towards various goals. These do not seem to be derived from facts, physical evidence, or reason.
  • thumb
    Mar 14 2013: Singh~ Science is.... factoring of true and false, positive and negative with conclusion. It is never final and what is accepted as a fact today may be modified or even discarded by the events of tomorrow. In the natural world, fact can be tested. It can also be inferred or explained by incorporation of facts, laws, inferences, and tested hypotheses. That is the best way I know to describe a fact in the natural world of science. Is this not true fact?
    • Mar 15 2013: It seems the True Fact is that has not changed and still can be " tested... also be inferred or explained by incorporation of facts, laws, inferences, and tested hypotheses." Example Nature's elemental characteristics water, air have remained unchanged, cannot be "modified or even discarded by the events of tomorrow."
      • thumb
        Mar 15 2013: We new the big bang theory existed, we then had to prove it outside of theory, by all logical means it was true. It was then tested and found, in my consideration, as law (thus far discovered) to creation. Loved that project!. Don't think that the molecular structure of water and air were never debated, tested and then were written. For they were the very forefront to the laws of science, along with an apple. Oh, and water does change in its molecular structure, hence the term Ice, and does return as water, or vapor and then can be discarded into thin air only to begin again, as water. Interesting!
      • Mar 17 2013: I can't agree to your statement that Nature's elemental characteristics (of) water,air have remained unchanged, cannot be modified ....". How do you characterize/define water or air? I believe that the components of air are still explored and explored by modern physics. New components are discovered. And the composition of it has been the hot topic related to the global warming argument. Indeed we are trying disparately to modify the composition of the atmospheric air nowaday.
        Let me add a comment to the distinction between the spirituality and science. spirituality comes from human conciousness about the environment and about himself. And science is just a physical exploration driven by his curiousity. about his physical environment. And religion really has very little influence to the war, it is simply utilized to justify the human nature of selective competition among ourselves.
        • Mar 17 2013: Have human despite technological advancements of Science , switched to anything other than air for natural breathing or drinking water for survival - what Likely continued for past nearly fifty thousand year of some recorded human history ? Changes in or discovering new air compositions or charging / bottling of water doesn't change these being the basic elements characteristics with 2/3 rd of human body as water. Any evidence from both science or spirituality that in past human breathe through what is not Air or drank what is not understood as water today. Science may have explored atomic / molecular/ compositional dimensions of Air, Water - have science or spirituality being able to produce something that will replace/ change needs of these two - it is from this essential prospective these have remained unchanged. thus shouold be distinguished as true facts rather than simple facts. Both Science and religion/ spirituality have these common grounds to start building up on - if air , one breathes doesn't produce a consciousness what will spirituality or science be worth of ? Or needed for
  • Mar 14 2013: In my view you could certainly say they are. I have no "beliefs" in anything but the nature in which we live. Spirituality is always a subjective notion but it can be a valid concept inside nature with absolutely no conception of or connection to some kind of "super-nature". Perhaps a better way to voice it is to call it "extra-nature"--this acknowledges that we are part of nature but are not limited to the dictates of classic territorialism, survival or the fittest, dominance and submission, "winner take" et al which typify the struggles of animals in nature. Our extra-nature is the development of language to express concepts which allow us to suspend territorial impulses in favor of potential synergy with others, exercising choice to cooperate rather than conquer. The degree with which we embrace our extra-natural capacities and take them to heart as powers of good which cumulatively result in a higher civilization and more benevolent culture could be called spirituality. And want of truth no matter where it leads--science--is at the core of "extra-nature". No other animal questions the unseen, un-named forces that establish the constants of nature. We do. But science as spirituality fails as spirituality when it becomes ground for cruelty, dismissivness, competitiveness to a fault-for collaboration in means to kill if not wipe out nature as is true in nuclear and biological weaponry development.
  • thumb
    Mar 14 2013: @Christopher Halliwell : But you got the most essential view about spirituality which is everyone has a different definition. No, actually it's not definition. Everyone has his/her own spirituality. In time you will have yours.
    If you insist, this is my spirituality in very brief. I see myself and every conscious being as a huge network of connections (some call this as a connectome) where my own conscious self is a node. This node that is Pabitra is ephemeral in biological time, it is active for now, influencing and getting influenced, creating and eliminating new connections. Then there will be a time when this node will stop sending and receiving signals but it's connections will continue to pulsate for some more time and then slowly die out. The network will continue however with new patterns and new connections. The network has no purpose, has no design has no direction in ultimate or final sense of meaning, it just exists by chance. All that we call reality, the physical and meta-physical, the entire being is the reflection of this network's emergent consciousness. They are existent only within this networked consciousness and meaningless outside of it.
    The whole idea is subjective to my experience and as consistent as Scientific truths. It's just that it requires no proof. It helps me make sense of my existence when science is not applicable.
  • Mar 14 2013: Remove the Hindu caste system, have respect for all life and practice free spirituality is the beginning to liberation through free education for all.
  • thumb
    Mar 14 2013: Check out CERN! Large Hadron Collider (LHC).
    • thumb
      Mar 14 2013: G'day Leslie

      It's good stuff isn't it, in the last 100 yrs science has gone ahead in leaps & bounds can you imagine what it will do in the next hundred years especially when we get away from this consumerist materialistic mentality which is holding us back for the sake of the world economy through the continues use of fossil fuels.

      Love
      Mathew
  • thumb
    Mar 14 2013: G’day TED Followers

    The main consensus does seem to say they are the same in some areas & not in others which is quite plausible to assume such views. It does seem to depend in how spiritualty cohabitates with science like strict religious doctrines aren’t going to give science anything where’s new age spirituality would. It obviously depends on the openness with both science & spirituality if they are going to be or seem the same, I have very open minded spiritual view which helps me with the scientific side of life but of course there are many spiritually aware people who think science is unnecessary & unwarranted if so why are we here in the first place finding our way through the use of science in this reality?

    I do think when they work in unison they do become one of the same also if one was to look at consciousness being everything then that also makes science & spirituality one of the same but only symbolically in human terms because human consciousness can’t valuate past what it consciously knows which is still very little if we take in the whole universe.

    So we know very little of our entire universe because we still can’t even answer if there are other beings in the universe or not or what lies beneath the entire ocean floor but we can assume that our validated proven science claims are correct which seems quite audacious to me.

    If we look at oneness as everything was created by this oneness in the first place that would make everything we know & don’t know of being the same as they came from the same energy source so what makes them different in realities like this one? It would seem that our perception/mode of thought that gives us variants when everything is one of the same, some spiritually aware people call this reality of variants an illusion as it’s not of what we truly are which I don’t agree with as everything to me is of the spiritual not just the mystical stuff.

    Love
    Mathew
  • thumb
    Mar 14 2013: Science does not reason....it is fact +/- .002!
    • Mar 14 2013: Does Science know all the facts or terms what ever it knows as a Fact?
  • thumb
    Mar 14 2013: It's like the Life of Pi, you choose the story of what you wish to believe is truth. None of us knows what is true. That is the quest! You can have one with out the other and still have the same conclusion. A Paradox! I'll stick to Professor's Brian Cox and Brian May to find the big picture. LOL
    • thumb
      Mar 14 2013: G’day Leslie

      Paradox’s don’t worry me as I tend to accept it just is (isness) anyway, I don’t have a need to understand everything that I don’t understand if I don’t find it necessary.

      Yes I agree you can have one without the other but that changes the outcome as it’s the tools we use that define the final outcome. Why do we have so many tools in this reality? If we used Yoga & Taoism the outcome will be different to using Christianity & wicka because it’s the mode of thought that defines how we see ourselves & our environment. If you are talking about our inner selves no matter what tools we use the inner self just is but what I’m talking about is our mode of thought in this reality.
      You might find the bellow vid’s interesting; they are scientific but at the same time give grounding to spiritual concepts, they are animated but it’s worth a look see.
      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x_tNzeouHC4
      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4my4wyUEagc

      Love
      Mathew
  • thumb
    Mar 14 2013: I think the lead question at the beginning was "Is science and spirituality one of the same?" which now stands revised as "Is science and spirituality one and the same?"
    These questions are different. My answer to the revised question is 'No'.
    • thumb
      Mar 14 2013: G'day Pabitra

      Good point & I utterly agree as they are different tools but when used in unison they do tend to take on the same value & lead to the same outcome. I refer you to my reply to Leslie for more definition.

      Love
      Mathew

      PS We are having trouble in seeing them as one of the same which is fair enough because they look & act like different tools but for some reason I'm not having the same problem in seeing them as one of the same when working in unison when woking a part yes but not in unison!!
  • thumb
    Mar 13 2013: One is self fulfilling, and the other is self refuting. Both end up with the same answer. Why does the path matter when there is an infinite/eternity amount of paths that can could would will and have already happened that all lead to the same answer
  • thumb
    Mar 13 2013: I think you should have made a stab at defining your terms, especially spirituality.

    For me, being spiritual means being concerned about living a decent life, happiness, appreciating the mystery of our existence, looking up at the blazing night sky in the early quiet of the morning, engaging in something that brings joy or contentment. In other words many positive states which feed us fall under the term spiritual. What doesn't belong there is a lot of new age non-sense and the old-fashion notion of a spirit world. I also do not think there is that much overlap between spirituality and religion. What's odd to me is that many people would not consider someone like me, an atheist, to also have a spiritual dimension. I suppose that's due to the power of propaganda. I also appreciate science and think that exploring the mysteries of nature through science can be a spiritual endeavor. So, for me, science is not equal to spiritually, but can fall within its domain just as art can.
    • thumb
      Mar 13 2013: After reading your comment, I looked up "spirituality" and read that modern usage of that term separates it from religion, not in the sense that they cannot coexist for someone but that spirituality is a broader concept than the belief in a religion. While you may not include New Age ideas in your own ideas, it seems that in modern usage, New Age and ancient spirit-connected beliefs as well as Eastern philosophical approaches to your questions fit within spirituality.

      There is nothing to prevent a scientist from considering herself spiritual. Scientists can be in love also. Scientists are not calculators and have a whole range of human traits!
      • thumb
        Mar 13 2013: Understand, I am not surprised modern usage would differ, and is why I would not label myself as spiritual without elaborating. I find the word to be too vague unless I know something about the person using it. Would be interesting to see the range of definitions if everyone here defined the term, especially those who label themselves such.
    • thumb
      Mar 13 2013: G'day Peter

      In a debate if I defined spirituality to one or two facets that would also have diminished the overall view of the discussion to one or two variables which I didn’t want as I wanted views on all angles to do with this discussion.

      I don’t personally go with all this fairy land hoogly-boogly stuff but can I prove it exists or doesn’t exist so all I can do is personally go by my own personal judgment & likes & dislikes like you.

      With me personally I look at myself as being spiritually aware & haven’t labelled myself a spiritualist as there is a huge difference between the two. To me spirituality is everything not just the hoogly-boogly stuff including physical life that so many spiritually aware people detest which I find strange because they are really also detesting a part of their spiritual selves by doing so.

      Love
      Mathew
  • Mar 13 2013: On the personal level they are all the same thing- they are made of person's beliefs. The diffefence is in the content of those beliefs and their sources. The greates difference between the two is that science in general (on average) makes better, more precise predictions.
    • thumb
      Mar 13 2013: G'day Roman

      Yes I utterly agree on that. To me science is a tool for us to rediscover ourselves where’s spirituality gives these tools more scope & bearing so are they one of the same? Only time will tell through furthering our investigations into our entire environment, at the moment for me they are because both are tools to be used in a different manner to accomplish the something.

      Love
      Mathew
  • thumb
    Mar 12 2013: G’day Obey

    Yes you are right that not all Yoga practices are spiritually orientated but where did Yoga stem from in the first place, some Yogi’s will say you are not practicing in true Yogic form if you don’t understand a little of the principles of the spiritual of Yoga. Yoga is of the whole not of what you want to pick out as being Yoga which is typical of westerners.

    Tell me what is so hoogly-boogly about the spiritual concepts of Yoga?

    At present science & spirituality in certain arena’s seem to be the opposite, why? Dogmas on both sides of the fence. With science if it can’t be proven it doesn’t exist, this is a half glass empty attitude to me brought on by egotism & dogmas. To me if it can’t be proven wrong then it has a 50/50 chance of still existing, the scientific logic has no logic at all in this concept.

    Certain forms of spirituality are outright blind faith which I’m also not interested in but if I can’t prove something about spiritually to be wrong I’m not going to arrogantly & ignorantly going to say it doesn’t exist period because there is still a 50/50 chance it can still exist if not proven wrong. Sorry but some science minded people just don’t make logical sense to me in their analysis in if it can’t be proven it can’t exist, now who is practicing in blind faith within their beliefs/concepts?

    Love
    Mathew
    • thumb
      Mar 13 2013: You may be misunderstanding my position. I'm not saying if you can not prove or disprove something then it does not exist. I'm suggesting not being able to disprove something is not a great reason to believe something.

      RE: With science if it can’t be proven it doesn't exist

      I'm not sure this is an accurate statement either. It is not my understanding.

      If we can not prove or disprove something, then science has little to say until say we find a way to test something. Suggest it is just an open question, not a claim of non existence.

      This is where critical thinking and healthy skepticism comes in where we consider the evidence relevant to the claim etc.

      I guess there is a continuum of spiritual claims in terms of the how outlandish or speculative they are. But suggest not knowing for sure does not make it 50/50.

      I'm not saying I know for sure that there are no heavens, hells, nirvarnas, paradise, valhalla, reincarnations, magic spirits etc.

      I'm not saying if it can not be proven it does not exist.

      What I am saying is you can not show sufficient evidence for extraordinary claims then I'm inclined to withhold judgement, not believe.

      I am saying logically contradictory claims can not all be correct. So 99.999% of conflicting spiritual claims must be wrong to some extent.

      I will add just about where ever we figure something out like the earthquakes, floods, disease, lightening,drought we find natural explanations better supported than angry gods and goddesses. So perhaps err conservatively.

      I agree claiming to know something does not exist because there is no proof is illogical. However, believing it does exist with poor evidence is questionable.

      There could be a billion invisible unicorn spirits sitting on my sofa, or holding atoms together. Who knows? Maybe I had a dream about them and that convinced me they are real. Dreams and personal revelations count as evidence right?

      My views are not as extreme as you suggest, and less easy to dismiss I suggest
      • thumb
        Mar 13 2013: G’day Obey

        So what you are saying is if it can’t be proven wrong or right the probability of existence isn’t at 50%? So if there is no evidence you’re not going to believe someone who has witnessed let say a ghost for instance, at what percentage are you not going to believe them? 100%, 50% 25%. I will tell you now our whole family witnessed ghostly happening but of course we were all delirious but not only that thousands of other people in the world are also delirious/delusional as well. No I don’t have proof but I know what I witnessed firsthand.

        How wrong in the past has facts been wrong further down the track but you will believe in facts unequivocally probably at a 100% because you can’t dispute facts. Facts are only facts at the time evidence has proven a fact but down the track these so called proven facts can & have been proven wrong, take a look at Einstein & Newton for starters.

        Can I ask where you got your figures of conflicting spiritual claims of 99.999% because as science evolves it is proving more & more of what spirituality have been saying for hundreds of years like with vibrations for instance so 99.999% seems a little vogue unless you have unequivocal proof in what you are saying here. Spiritual people working with vibrations have been one of the biggest conflicting claims for a very long time with scientists but now with some scientist who are putting serious study into these conflicting claims are proving that a witch doctor let’s say can heal a person with chanting & other vibrative frequencies & of course herbs which a lot of modern day medicine was developed from.

        I’m sorry but your unequivocally proof of scientific claims is also flawed which means even when proven beyond a doubt you can’t possibly 100% believe in these claims logically either. I don’t personally believe anything at 100% & yes if I don’t witness it firsthand I will disbelieve it to the percentage of proof given as I would guess you do as well hopefully.

        Love
        Mathew
        • thumb
          Mar 13 2013: I might believe the person thought they saw something.
          Some believe honestly they were abducted by aliens.
          I had a friend who saw things in shadows that no one else could see.
          I think you would need to look at each case by case.
          I would not be surprised if a lot of this is just tricks of our mind but some may be something else that is difficult to explain and understand.
          I am open on this, but weary of conclusions with little evidence.

          The percentage is just indicative. But there have probably been more than 10,000 god concepts and associated dogmas and personal interpretations. At best only one view could be absolutely correct,

          In fact every person with spiritual or religious beliefs may be slightly different from some and very different from others.

          I have spoken with many who call themselves Christians, and there is a very wide range of beliefs.

          I haven't seen any studies on vibration so I don't know much about that. But no surprise if there are some examples where traditional techniques have some health effects - so what?

          It's not proof of spirits or magic. Antibiotics would be magical to people 2,000 years ago.

          Again you seem to be assuming my position on some things, wrongly, or I didn't really understand your last paragraph.

          To determine a probability of a claim being correct you need more data.
          Just because the claim is either correct or false, two outcomes, does not mean the probability is 50/50. Its not a coin toss.

          E.g thousands of contradictory god claims don't all have a 50/50 chance of being correct. I think you might just be mixing up probability of an outcome occurring with number of outcomes true/false (2).

          Did I say science was 100% correct? It's a process. It will develop and improve. About half of the conclusions in medical journals are found to be incorrect later. Suggest trying to be objective is more effective. More evidence is better than none.

          I just suggest a process like science is more reliable and has more explanatory powe
        • thumb
          Mar 13 2013: Re yoga, my understanding is it generally assumes mind body and spirit. I personally don't believe in magical spirits. Could be. No way to prove it I know of.
  • thumb
    Mar 12 2013: When philosophical questions become verifiable, they enter into the realm of science. Spirituality concerns all those things that are not verifiable.

    Science has no dogma or tenants. Instead, science has falsification. If your claim involving spirituality cannot be falsified, it is not scientific. There is no middle ground here.

    Without the instruments to perform the experiments to verify quantum mechanics, scientists in the past would have been correct to disbelieve any quantum claim. Without evidence, there is no reason to believe.
    • thumb
      Mar 12 2013: G'day Christopher

      http://noetic.org/discussions/open/304/ This link might interest you on the dogma's of science. You also might find the following link interesting as well http://noetic.org/noetic/issue-five-december/dawkins-darwin-and-other-dogma-how-the-tenets-of-b/

      “Without evidence, there is no reason to believe”. You wouldn’t call this statement of yours dogmatic? Dogmatic means inflexible, rigid, narrow minded, authoritarian & so on, I’m lucky because I believe in both science & spiritualism thank God.

      I can understand your stand on this because it’s the typical mode of thought of an inflexible science minded person which is programed into the recipient through the educational system but that sort of mind wouldn’t work too well in certain fields of quantum mechanics as you very much need to be able to see way outside the square before anything can be seen to be proven. How did we find out that the world wasn’t flat before it was proven? It might have been calculated but it couldn’t be proven until someone had the guts & the capability to prove it before it was proven, in other words it took blind faith.

      Look Christopher I’m also science minded but I’m also not ignorant of other possibilities until they can be proven wrong, you’re saying their wrong that’s it because they can’t be proven, that doesn’t make logical sense to me!!

      Love
      Mathew
      • thumb
        Mar 12 2013: Your prejudice of science is painfully apparent. There is no dogma or tenants in science. Instead, we have falsification. If your notion of spirituality is not falsifiable, it is not scientific. The end.

        There is nothing authoritarian about science. If you have evidence for your claim, you are just as credible as a person with a PhD in physics. The source does not matter. Only the facts.

        Science has no use for faith. You are lying if you say otherwise. I'm not discounting any possibility, I am merely unconvinced until evidence is presented. I have the most logical position.
        • thumb
          Mar 12 2013: Christopher,
          Your profile says you are an educator/teacher. Perhaps it might be helpful to realize that you could be a student as well:>)

          Telling a person s/he is "lying" when s/he is expressing his/her perception, is not a very good way to further a conversation....do you think?

          Good point..."I am merely unconvinced until evidence is presented".

          With that in mind, could you please produce your evidence which supports your statement "Science has no use for faith"? I'm sure in YOUR mind you have the most logical position. If you opened that mind of yours, you may discover other positions?
        • thumb
          Mar 12 2013: G’day Christopher

          Calling someone you don’t know a liar without proof or evidence sounds a little tooo strong in it’s response & shows a little blind faith within your judgment don’t you think. This is a typical response from people who are dogmatic as I also get this sort of reaction from dogmatic religious people as well, I find that quite interesting.

          I’m one sided am I, I had a blog called the Science of Spirituality & it was mostly on vibrations & the first post mentioned Einstein in relation to physics but I now have a blog on spiritual acceptance because I’ve evolved pass the ignorance of science.

          Obviously you didn’t look at the links I supplied in regards to science dogmas!!! Scientist themselves have mentioned that science can be dogmatic. Sorry if I hurt your ego, this is why I left science for spirituality it’s far less dogmatic but my new blog does still have a fair bit of science content as well as they do complement each other if one is open minded enough.

          If you take a look at my new blog you will also find out that I have a shot at new & old spiritual concepts so saying I’m prejudice without evidence seems a little contradictory especially from a science minded person.

          Love
          Mathew
        • thumb
          Mar 12 2013: Christopher,
          I received your personal e-mail, which I copied here. There is a way to keep replies in sequence....it takes a little creativity:>)

          In a personal e-mail to Colleen Steen, Christopher Halliwell wrote:
          "Subject: In response to your comment

          Your comment did not have a link to reply, so this will have to do:

          * A teacher is a student. I hope to learn from every conversation I have.

          * Science is the study of the natural world. If a scientist tried to use "faith" to prove his theories, he would be laughed out of the lecture hall. And for good reason. Faith is not a good thing. It is the excuse people give when they do not have a good reason to believe something. Your entire question makes no sense:
          Science requires evidence, and faith is lack of evidence. I can't make this any simpler for you.

          * Every conversation I have, I am learning about "other positions". As soon as the people that hold those positions provide evidence, I will have a reason to believe. I hope you understand the burden of proof as well."

          I do indeed understand the "burden of proof" Christopher, and what you provide is simply your perception....not evidence or proof for your comments. Do you understand "burden of proof" and how it might work for ALL people?
        • thumb
          Mar 12 2013: Christopher,
          I don't know why you are having difficulty with the reply system. Do you see the word "reply" in red, in the upper right corner of comments? If a comment is already at the 3rd level (3 small arrows in the upper left corner) you simply go to the next opportunity to reply.

          Your latest personal e-mail to me:
          "Christopher Halliwell sent you the following message through TED.com. You can REPLY DIRECTLY to this message, without revealing your email address.
          Very best,
          The TED Team

          ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
          Subject: Thanks for your reply

          I still don't know how to respond to your comment in the original thread, so I hope you don't mind If I keep responding in this fashion.

          * I don't need evidence because I am not making a claim. Those who make claims have the burden of proof. Since you understand that I am merely unconvinced of any deity, you should understand that the burden of proof does not apply to me in this situation. If I claimed I could fly like superman, then you would have a point."

          Christopher, honestly, I do not understand what you are arguing about. I don't believe in a deity either. How about reading all relevant comments in a discussion before arguing?
        • thumb
          Mar 13 2013: Christopher,
          I'm sorry you cannot figure out how to use the TED reply system. I will not receive any more of your personal e-mails. I am not confused about anything....sorry you are.

          In a personal e-mail, Christopher Halliwell wrote:
          "Subject: Thanks for your reply
          Next opportunity?
          Anyway, you said "and what you provide is simply your perception....not evidence or proof for your comments. Do you understand "burden of proof" and how it might work for ALL people? "
          That is why I told you that I do not have a burden of proof.
          As for how this applies to science vs spirituality, I assumed that was obvious. I have been demonstrating how faith is utterly useless in science because the scientific method requires evidence.
          Can you be more specific as to what you are confused about?"
        • thumb
          Mar 16 2013: Re: "If a scientist tried to use "faith" to prove his theories, he would be laughed out of the lecture hall."

          Faith is not used to prove theories. Faith is used to choose what to study.

          One scientist may work to create a weapon of mass destruction, another scientist may work to find the cure for cancer.
        • thumb
          Mar 16 2013: Re: "Faith is not a good thing."

          This is not a fact, but an attitude. Do you say this in good faith?
    • thumb
      Mar 12 2013: "Without evidence, there is no reason to believe." Are you sure that's not a dogma?
      A person was thoroughly searched and imprisoned in a cell. Another person without being searched entered the cell and left after some time. After some more time a prison guard entered the room and found the impriosned person dead with a dagger in his chest.
      What is the evidence to conclude that the visitor is responsible for his death? Or do you think there can be other conclusion possible?
      • thumb
        Mar 12 2013: In my opinion, belief without evidence is blind and only suppositional. Truth can be experienced and universal truths can be expeienced universally.
        • thumb
          Mar 12 2013: Thank you for your opinion. How about answering my questions? They are straight forward enough.
      • thumb
        Mar 12 2013: Disbelief until evidence is presented is not dogma. Research the scientific method.
        • thumb
          Mar 12 2013: Disbelief is a belief in itself just negative in direction. For a scientific inquiry evidence is the last step, the inquiry advances on reasoned belief systematically eliminating different explanations through observation, measurement, and experiment, and the formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses. There is no evidence at this crucial stage, evidence in the sense empirical and measurable. Theoretical and experimental science stand distinct.
          I hope you will not insist that the huge enterprise that LHC is, expended astronomical sums of money and labor on disbelief about Higgs Boson.
          The scientific method has four steps
          1. Observation and description of a phenomenon or group of phenomena.
          2. Formulation of an hypothesis to explain the phenomena. In physics, the hypothesis often takes the form of a causal mechanism or a mathematical relation.
          3. Use of the hypothesis to predict the existence of other phenomena, or to predict quantitatively the results of new observations.
          4. Performance of experimental tests of the predictions by several independent experimenters and properly performed experiments.
          Evidence comes at 4. The method depends on reasoned belief from 1 to 3.
          Hence an over simplified statement such as "Without evidence, there is no reason to believe." sounds like a dogma to me.
      • thumb
        Mar 12 2013: Pm, sometimes the questions are not easy to answer. Sometimes we have the tools and information. Other times we didnt. We didn't understand germ theory until we had microscopes.

        In your prison example there is circumstantial evidence that suggests the opportunity to commit a crime, but you need more evidence to be more certain. That's kind of the point.

        There are of course other possibilities limited only by our imagination. But some have a bit more evidence than others.

        An angel could have teleported into the room and killed him. Or more mundane the knife could of been hidden in the room. Or it could have been suicide.

        But you can look for more information. Fingerprints, signs of a struggle, motive, DNA.

        In the end a court would make a decision based on the evidence and human subjectivity.

        We can not be certain of much. But some claims are better supported by evidence than others. You might say the sun rotates the earth. I might suggest the earth or its the sun. We can examine the evidence for these.

        If you say an invisible magic toadstool is responsible for creating the universe this might be unverifiable. It might be correct but is there sufficient evidence to strongly believe it?
        • thumb
          Mar 13 2013: Hi Obey! I get positive vibes from you even in disagreements. Thanks.
          Actually human mind cannot function outside a belief system. That I shall not accept something without evidence is also a belief. I have no qualms accepting human nature of belief and I think rational progress can only be made based on practical grounds of human nature.
          I would like to think that the lack of patience and kind of rhetorical assertion of the primacy of reason and evidence in science that I get to hear here are more momentary than realizations. I have worked with scientists half my life and it is my experience that practicing scientists consider logic, reasoning and evidence as tools of human mind, not entire human faculty itself.
          The beauty of science is it's honesty, that it never claims it is eternally right. For the most profound of it's theories it leaves the avenue of falsification open. But it has definite field of application and does not take questions for examination beyond that field. It may not be wise to take the scientific values and apply them as humanistic values blindly. However, that's a choice.
          The beauty of spirituality is that it cannot be learnt. Since its experiential, it grows with time in a person. Culture helps but it's a unique trait of human mind that enriches one's world view. It's not believing in super natural or tooth fairies.
          I think I have nothing more to add in this debate. But I remember a funny story. In ancient Indian schools of thought a sage named Charbak was very popular. The Charback school of thought was believing in nothing other than physical realism and that too as long as it is personally experienced. When a modern day Charbak was asked about his experience when he witnessed a lion chasing a man, hunting him down and eating him up; he replied : I see an electron cloud chasing another, exchange of different forms of energies and interestingly the bigger cloud ultimately overlapping with the smaller one.
      • thumb
        Mar 12 2013: "disbelief is a belief..."


        Being unconvinced of your claim is not the same as believing your claim is false.

        You would do well to learn the difference. Regards.
      • thumb
        Mar 13 2013: Good discussion PM
        Perspective is an interesting thing.
        ob
      • thumb
        Mar 16 2013: In situation you describe, there is a reason to believe that the dagger was brought in by the second person. The fact that the first person was searched and did not have a dagger is the evidence that the dagger was brought by the second person provided that the dagger could not have come from anywhere else. If both entered the cell unsearched, it would be unreasonable to believe that the dagger was brought in by the second person.
    • thumb
      Mar 16 2013: Re: "Without evidence, there is no reason to believe."

      Your comment went well until this statement. People may have plenty of reasons to believe which have nothing to do with physical evidence.

      http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/ethics-belief/

      Again, the reason people believe in moral values (e.g. equality between men and women) does not come from physical evidence. Men and women seem to have some physical differences, so, they are not equal.

      What's the evidence for this statement of yours? Isn't it a dogma?
  • thumb
    Mar 11 2013: Matthew, spirituality is a vague word. How do you define it?
    • thumb
      Mar 12 2013: G’day Obey no 1kanobe

      I don’t think it really matters as all spirituality is connected in some way, as I have mentioned mysticism & philosophy in my replies here I suppose any spiritual content that is mystical in some way as mysticism is one of the initial components that helped form science to what it is today I suppose.

      Love
      Mathew
  • thumb
    Mar 11 2013: You are correct! Just coming at it from different angles sort of speak. I have a better understanding.
    http://www.transparencing.com/The-Origination-of-Evolution-by-means-of-Purposeful-Creation.php
    • thumb
      Mar 11 2013: I completely reject purposeful creation in the context of biological evolution. I have a completely cogent deconstruction of the idea in this essay, but this is not a place for that.
    • thumb
      Mar 11 2013: Hi Bushy,

      I read some of the material in the link you just posted and while some of it is benevolent, philosophically interesting and contemplative, I have to agree with Pabrita on this one.

      It was not too bad but there were a few questionable things. What you are essentially doing is using science to justify your philosophical and spiritual conclusions. What your looking for is a matter of philosophy and spirituality, not science (at least not completely).

      I am all for spiritual experience, the value of consciousness, living in the moment and transcendence but I wouldn't use science to justify my claims. I use science to get a better understanding of the macro world and see what's going on outside my own mind but I wouldn't use it to justify my spirituality.
      • thumb
        Mar 11 2013: There is absolutely no need to. Science is devised for 'how' questions and Spirituality grows inside human beings to handle 'why' questions. I contend they are one of the same in the broadest term of meaning because human quest is about both 'how' and 'why'.
        • thumb
          Mar 11 2013: I agree with you.

          While I am not a scientist I do see its value. Let's take something like consciousness. this is something that science,philosophy and mysticism can all explore and talk about. Although science may give us a better understanding of consciousness's relationship to the brain , I do not think these findings will provide spiritual meaning or insight. Nor are they intended to.

          What makes spirituality great is the fact that it is something that has to be experienced. It are these experiences that provides us meaning in what appears to be an intrinsically meaningless universe. No amount of scientific analysis can perhaps comprehend such experiences.

          I personally think that people think that a growing interest in scientific and technological advancement spells the end of meaning and value. They realize that Science is hard to disprove and instead used science to only validate that there is meaning and value still in the universe. I totally understand the concern but I think this is a misappropriation of what science is actually standing for, which is why you constantly hear people say "Science thinks it has all the answers" which is something I've never heard a scientist say.
  • thumb
    Mar 11 2013: Np, I believe that science and spirtituality aren't always at harmony so they can not be one of the same but they both correspond with philosophical ideas.
  • thumb

    W. Ying

    • +1
    Mar 11 2013: Yes!
    It has to be.
  • Mar 10 2013: Is "know thyself " about spirituality or science or both ?
    • thumb
      Mar 10 2013: G'day Natasha

      In asking such a question tells me you know it's both I'm presuming...a very good question to ask indeed Natasha. By delving into the workings of our entire environment including the universe scientifically we are rediscovering ourselves that spiritualists of old new about long ago, we are just using a different method to rediscover ourselves I believe which is great.

      Love
      Mathew
      • Mar 10 2013: Good day Mathew !
        I think that spiritual/science oscillation is self-reflecting process. Without science ' I am' can't be understood rationally , without spirituality it can't be experienced and enjoyed .

        Yes, i share your vision :)
        Thank you !
  • thumb
    Mar 10 2013: Not yet.
  • thumb
    Mar 10 2013: They both help people try to understand the world, and people have great misunderstandings about both.

    Much of what you read about the connection about science and spirituality, in TED Conversations and elsewhere, particularly claims from non-scientists about what most or all scientists believe or what science says, will be misunderstandings and incorrect.

    For example, pretty much zero quantum physicista believe that atomic particles are sentient, according to one of the world's foremost quantum physical scientists with whom I consulted on this, and yet sites on the internet are full of the assertion that vast numbers of quantum physicusts believe this.
    • thumb
      Mar 10 2013: G'day Fritzie

      I utterly agree but of course I do!!!.......It's amazing what we are now finding out through newer science techniques, some scientist are saying that there would have had to be some form of intelligence that created the universe, I think this had something to do with the web that is interwoven throughout the universe. I do believe science will prove or disprove everything one day & that includes the existence of a God, I believe they will find an intelligent creative consciousness not A God of man but that’s just my belief at the moment.

      Love
      Mathew
      • thumb
        Mar 11 2013: Hi, Matthew. People are entitled to their own spiritual beliefs, definitely. It is the claims non-scientists make about what scientists are finding at the cutting edge of science that are very often misinterpretations.

        Just as I wouldn't interpret Christianity or Islam for anyone, being of neither faith and not having expertise in these areas, I think it is useful to realize that many of the things non-scientists think science says are not necessarily correct, even though we have heard or read other people make the claim.

        If we do makes claims about what experts in those fields believe, it is useful to provide links to the evidence, so readers can evaluate the evidence for themselves. Often links turn out to be to discredited sources. Every time I have checked a dubious claim with an actual scientist who is trained in the field in question (as opposed to, say, a sociologist for verification of a claim about physics), I have found the lay claim to be substantially incorrect.

        We just need to realize that we cannot believe everything we read, regardless of how confident and persistent the speaker is. It's a caveat lector (let the reader beware) situation.
  • Mar 17 2013: no those are not irrational beliefs because as far as human knowledge goes the universe did come from nothing or a god created it and ok yes but i meant that strong emotions like an example would be a father loses his kid to a hospital's error and he then for the rest of his life believes that hospitals are bad my theory on why religion is behind the majority of irrationality is what you said people rationalizing to themselves when science (or other influences) disproved their religion so they come up with something so as to not disprove their own belief but this is just a loose theory on my part i could be completely wrong but it definitely has some truth to it
    • thumb
      Mar 17 2013: Re: "i meant that strong emotions like an example would be a father loses his kid to a hospital's error and he then for the rest of his life believes that hospitals are bad my theory on why religion is behind the majority of irrationality "

      I guess, this was in response to my post. Unfortunately, there is no time for you to answer - feel free to send me a personal message.

      Irrationality that you describe here is not due to religion. It is rooted in our neurology. Our thinking process is not much different from that of a Pavlov's dog that established a link between a bell and the food. This is how superstitions are born. Religious superstitions seem to be a sequence of this physiology which causes irrational beliefs, not the other way around. Science can disprove a particular myth, it cannot disprove religion in general.
  • thumb
    Mar 16 2013: G’day Arkady

    We are definitely on the same page Arkady as I agree with you fully with how one can know about nothingness, it was a very good point to bring up.

    There is an Ekhart Tolle who is spiritually aware & he tells us in his books to live for the here & now because that is what’s happening which makes a lot of sense not that I agree with everything he says or anyone else for that matter.

    We have limits & we will always have limits, I’ve said previously that science will prove or disprove everything one day even the existence or non-existence of a God but of course that might not be quite the case because I can see we will always be limited by some sort of mode of thought.

    Love
    Mathew
  • Mar 16 2013: ok so i can't respond to your last comment the normal way but religion was more than those what about both the world wars? and even the war in the middle east right now their religious views told them to hate us so they listened to its irrationality and Ohhhhh now i get why you said that then yes that makes total sense religion is a part of war but if there was no religion what would this believe we would be killing each other over? man uses science in everything same with man using man to do things but if religion wasn't around the wars we would fight would be solely on revenge of a immoral act or to benefit one's self but this cannot happen in a modern society as we have checks and balances to make sure one does not wage war for his own benefit (although i bet it has happened anyways)
    • thumb
      Mar 16 2013: G’day Chalres

      I guessed this is in reply to my counter reply to you earlier Charles. Your use of sarcasm within your replies confuses the issue which I also do at times myself.

      You don’t think if we didn’t have spiritual religion we wouldn’t fight over other ideological views & beliefs like let’s say my science is more correct than yours or your science is antiquated to ours so we will dominate you, yes this is also of religion because the meaning of the word religion is having a belief system of any kind not just of spiritual religion.

      Look I can see your point about spiritual based religion but to bash one religious concept & not another is a little biased to me. If you are not just talking about spiritual religion but all religions (beliefs) fair enough but it sounds like you are. Science is but another belief as I believe in the concepts of science. If you don’t think science has anything to do with world dominance think again, Hitler at the time was far more technologically advanced when he started conquering Europe & because of this he thought he was invincible but of course it didn’t take long for the allies to catch up. I’m not happy with the way spiritual religions have conducted themselves at times either but don’t put all spirituality in the same basket that would be ludicrous.

      Love
      Mathew
  • Mar 16 2013: I don't think science and spirituality are the same. Science may be able to inform spirituality to some extent but does not in anyway constitute it. Spirituality is a notoriously hard thing to define, and as such people confuse it with all sorts of things. I think the biggest fallacy I'm seeing in this conversation is the equation of spirituality to religion. I believe someone pointed this out, but I cannot remember who it was at the moment.
    Religion, like science, can inform spirituality but is not itself spirituality (I do not wish to equate science and religion here, they just have the ability to serve this similar function). Spirituality is a necessarily individual thing and even if someone is accessing their "spiritual-self" through coming to an understanding of certain sciences or religious doctrines they are still going to experience what spirituality fundamentally is for them, which is going to be different than it is for anyone else.
    I think this is the best explanation I can offer without defining spirituality. I choose not to define it because I think language is a medium not well-suited to things of a spiritual nature. And I feel that defining it within language cannot fully do it justice.
    • thumb
      Mar 17 2013: G'day Amanda

      Thanks you for your response.

      Fiona just below made a good point that both science & true spirituality work towards awareness in one way or another either it be awareness of an atom or ourselves. Spirituality is like phycology it digs into the very soul to explain our feeling in why we are feeling angry or depressed & gives us solutions that actually work simular to phycology & phycology is a science. I’m not talking about hoogly-boogly spirituality I’m talking about spirituality that has been proven by science to work & why, it is funny how so many people equate spirituality to just the hoogly-boogly stuff or is this done on purpose by those who don’t believe?

      Love
      Mathew
  • Mar 16 2013: Ok, that's an interesting question. How do you define science and spirituality? Try this out: Let's suppose there are only two relevant questions and all learning can be divided into answering these two alone. What's important and How do I get it? Science, by my definition, is the pursuit of knowledge of the physical world and does a great job of answering the second question. Spirituality is the pursuit of knowledge of ourselves and our happiness and does a great job of answering the second question.

    So if we look at it that way they are different. On the other hand if you look at HOW they do what they do, they are almost identical if done appropriately. The only significant difference is spirituality must acknowledge state of being where as science does not and hence can not answer the first question.
    • thumb
      Mar 17 2013: G'day Tyler

      This is the thing, it depends on how you look at them if they are going to seem the same or not. Fiona made a good point earlier that they both are about awareness but does this make them the same? It’s a bit of a paradox because it’s a yes & no because this isn’t the only thing that makes them simular if not the same. If you take in also science derived from both philosophy & mysticism & that science probably wouldn’t be around without these two you would have to say yes they are the same but modern day science has been quite separate from these two so you would say no however I think that is changing again to a certain extent again.

      I asked a question earlier where did matter & anti-matter come from in the first place to not just create this universe but to also create a complex diverse mode of thought (thinking)? Funny enough I didn’t get an answer because surely we couldn’t blindly accept it was just there if by magic!!

      Love
      Mathew
      • Mar 17 2013: haha, interesting stuff. I was looking at it from a sort of, technical how-to aspect. Does that make sense? I've always felt like when I step into my lab (i do nutritional research) or when I'm trying to understand...happiness/spirituality. I'm basically using the same procedures. Here's an exercise: Try putting the scientific method into spiritual terms. It really blew me away! Tell me what you think!
        • thumb
          Mar 17 2013: G'day Tyler

          Ah I get you, it is a different way of looking at it & I wonder why the rest of us haven't looked at it in quite this way before.

          It comes down to spirituality can answer both questions but science only one but we are indeed using the same technique so why can't science answer the first question? It obviously doesn't have the capabilities as yet. I do think science one day will be able to answer the first question.

          It is funny what we do scientifically in practice is what we do in spirituality they both have the same effect just with different facets of life. This is why I love scientists who are open minded you are the future & an important part of our future but I suppose a truly open minded spiritualist is the same & like with an open minded scientists they are hard to come by.

          One more thing, if you look at psychology which is a science they are very much alike as they are both interested in one’s wellbeing mentally & spiritually. I know a lot of spiritually aware people dismiss the mind as thoughtless chatter but if it wasn’t for the mind they wouldn’t recall let’s say a mediative experience for starters I know this because I worked with disabled people for a while, some are conscious of very little of what’s around them & have no way of being aware of more than their conscious understanding allows.

          Love
          Mathew
  • Mar 16 2013: thanks peter Great video!
  • thumb
    Mar 16 2013: ....
    Mathew, what's your dog's name?
    He looks to be a happy alert little chap
    • thumb
      Mar 16 2013: G'day Peter

      This isn't my dog, the dog it belonged to the people who ran a farm stay we stayed at. I gather the dog in the picture is yours Peter; they do get under your skin. My wife ran over our little dog some time ago &we never got another one to replace it.

      Love
      Mathew
  • Mar 16 2013: NOPE.

    Science uses yesterday's crystallization to "prove" and "disprove", always at least 1 step behind, while dissecting the immeasurable - like a salt-water drop trying to "dissect" the ocean.
    It makes every one believe they LIVE on a spinning BALL, while they cannot even stand on one. A Ball HAS NO horizon, and CANNOT BE "measured" in "square" anything, or divided in grids, while navigated with FLAT maps of quadrants, and being covered with FLAT water that does not bend, unless falling...

    The Absolute One (Sh'ma), called God, in order to give Him glory, wants us to RISE ABOVE what "is" and acquire the wisdom (lit. white field: error-FREE realm) to BE AS GODS, acquire eternal life by overcoming "death" via the ONLY gateway: the Mind.
    • thumb
      Mar 16 2013: ....

      Well, this certainly brought clarity to the issue
      • Mar 16 2013: Whaaat - was it not clear that the point for our physical existence on earth in the ongoing drama, or is it movie, "Heaven & Earth" (Theory & Practice) is Overcoming Death ?

        Any "scientist", or is it seance-operator for there LITERALLY IS NO "past", for light supersedes itself every trillionth of each second whereby replenishing the visible, should know that Unless The Universe (ONE verse) would be SIMULTANEOUSLY run in Absolute Timing & Synchronous Precision (RAM!), NOTHING could exist?
  • Mar 16 2013: ok that's true we do get a herd feeling from singing together but that is nothing to do with a god no it's not ignorance it's being open minded because i look at all theories (including religion) and believe they are right until proven wrong and im sorry but if you are christian i can literally prove every bit of your religion wrong and i probably know more about it than you
    also you're wrong both of those were started from religious problems WWI arch duke ferdenand was assassinated leading to treaties of countries combing into a world waar so religion started WWI as for WW2 hitler believed his race was divine and that jews were the cause of all problems so that was also caused by religion and almost every war is either directly caused by religion or religious aspects effect judgement leading to war i'd love you to give me a real example of a war without religious baggage attached to it
    • thumb
      Mar 16 2013: G'day Charles

      They weren't religious wars or religious based wars, show me a war that didn't incorperate some sort of science in it especially modern warfare. This is a rediculous argument, show me a war that didn't involve babies or weapons, come on!!

      You can not actually prove everything of any religion wrong that is again rediculous, you can theorise but you can't give me physical proof. Prove to me that God doesn't exist but don't theorise give me hard physical proof.

      With world II in particular the reason why Hitler & his Nazi party was against the jews wasn't because of religion but how the jews in his country & the world ran the world ecomony to thier own benifit while German people where starving to death.

      Sorry to disappoint you but I'm not a religious Christian.

      Can I ask you a question, can you tell me where the matter came from to create the universe & our complex mind? Don't blindly tell me is was just there or it appeared out of thin air. Surely you can't believe that just physcial matter created complex thinking as that sounds awfuly like blind faith?

      Love
      Mathew

      PS By the way I'm also into science & I follow no organised beloefe system as I find all organised beliefe systems dogmatic to some degree or another just like scientists can be.
      • thumb
        Mar 16 2013: I like the point about wars, babies and weapons. I don't like the point about Jews. Nazis killed Jews not because of anything that Jews did, but because of the Nazi belief system which I categorize as "spirituality". And, yes, they exploited a long tradition of antisemitism that existed among Christians since early centuries. But let's not attribute human corruption to religion or God. I see no direct causality here. Killing each other has always been a popular pastime in all cultures.
        • thumb
          Mar 16 2013: G’day Arkady

          I had a chat to a couple of people of German decent & they said that the Jews controlled the money system like with banks, gold & so forth & where blamed for the great depression but like with anything radical the Nazi’s where good at propaganda & they did persecute anyone not a socialist &/or inferior to them unless they could use them to their advantage.

          Love
          Mathew
      • thumb
        Mar 16 2013: It is not uncommon to blame Jews for everything - from killing Christ to all sorts of economic and political problems. In Russia there was a popular belief that "Jews sold Russia". To whom? Now there is this strange belief that Muslims are barbaric. Sure, there are "facts", "evidence", etc. I don't even want to talk about it unless the person who makes these comments acknowledges his own hypocrisy and depravity.

        There is a sarcastic poem by Igor Guberman, a Jewish poet from Russia:

        Везде, где есть цивилизация
        И свет звезды планету греет,
        Есть обязательная нация
        Для роли тамошних евреев.

        Which roughly translates

        Wherever there is a civilization under the sun, there is a nation designated for the role of Jews.
        • thumb
          Mar 16 2013: G'day Arkady

          I brought up a discussion on how eastern spiritual ideologies where more sound & less corrupted than western spiritual ideologies, didn't the westerners get into me but they will knock easterners for what ever but they have a hard time looking at themselves truthfuly.

          I'm not a very popular person because I will call a spade & spade & question science & spiritual dogmas, & ideologies with the same vigure & at the same time look at myself in how critical I am of others.

          In saying I'm not popular personally one on one isn't quite right becuase I get on quite well with a number of spiritual aware people unless they become too dogmatic & egotistical which is rare as I only like to be around genuine people.

          Love
          Mathew
        • Mar 16 2013: Arkady sorry i can't respond properly to your last question
          Yes you are right there is still irrationality in the world even without religion but the religion based wars would cease completely (also i mean 3rd world countries not the US) and we could finally wage war on actual problems not made up ones
          and with the god created from nothing YES you are absolutely correct it means nothing so why would you believe the same sort of argument but on the other side believing god did create it from nothing because the truth is God has never been proven the only proof we have is irration fanatics from thousands of years ago telling us they talked to god how do we know these people aren't just like the fanatics today hearing their own head and interpreting as messages from god i know many many Many! christians who think they have heard god or spoken to him it is just Insanity nothing more except we tolerate these insane irrational people because i may be wrong but i personally believe ALL irrationality has its origins in religion this is not counting irrationality from strong emotions though but society frowns on that irrationality but not religious ones?
      • thumb
        Mar 16 2013: Mathew, on your issue of physical matter creating complex thinking, which many find incredible, and because our current reason based understanding of nature doesn't provide a sufficiently satisfying answer as to how this came to be, many are willing to accept or at least entertain answers which come from elsewhere, supernatural agents and such.

        What's going on in nature can be used to illustrate how natural laws actually are bringing complexity and thinking into being right in front of our eyes all the time, even if we can't follow a causal thread back to time zero (assuming there is a beginning of time).

        Neither the sperm cell or the egg cell are thinking humans. Yet, when they combine, they undergo a progressive transformation which builds to a human. This does not happen by incantation, there are natural forces which cause this to happen in repeatable and predictable ways. The egg and sperm combine, and sometime later you have a living being, and if human, hopefully one who's thinking is not distorted by culture.

        There are innumerable examples in nature of complexity and properties emerging by way of natural processes and not one credible defensible example of any process which came into being by way of magic. Plenty which we cannot explain, and may never be abe to explain, but none for which the billions of proponents of magic have yet to explain either (assert answers yes, but not explain).
        We know very little, but it seems to me that what we do know is arrived at by experience combined with reason, or at least a mind prepared sufficiently to appreciate when an answer jumps out, so to speak.

        The fact that so much is not known and may never be known, or that our minds may be simply to limiited to understand nature, is no reason to cast doubt on the very process which has got us this far, that of reason itsself, of which the methods of science are a subset.
        • thumb
          Mar 16 2013: G’day Peter

          I see it this way peter, what most spiritually aware people see as supernatural I see as a natural occurrence the problem is science has also looked at in a supernatural way because that’s how spiritual people perceive it but scientists today have gotten over this thought mode in having nothing to do with anything called supernatural as they are now proving it’s quite a natural occurrence like with how vibrations affect us.

          There are a lot of fairyland people who look at nature & see supernatural which is fine but as long as they don’t interfere with scientific progress. I know evolution has work what some would call miracles but with complex thought I’m just not personally influenced as yet that nature as we know it at the moment on it’s own gave us complex thought. I look at the conscious changes in human history let’s say from the Stone Age to the bronze age melting rocks down to make metal tools which is a huge advancement, I know this happened over a long period of time but???

          I believe by studying nature including the universe we will eventually find the answer but we won’t find it through hoogly-booly stuff in realities like this one it must be done scientifically.

          Love
          Mathew
      • Mar 16 2013: matthew of course science is in war and babies what are you trying to prove? all wars have those three components for almost all time what im saying is if we simply removed the religious aspect of it irrational killing would stop and ok i got a question can you tell me where god came from? and the matter that created him? your arguent can be flipped with the same effect for both but i can't tell you our entire history because our limited knowledge as humans but we have good ideas of how all those things happened and it definitely didn't start by god burping now i'm not an atheist im agnostic because it IS illogical to think there is no god but there is no way he is how we think he is if there is a god it would just be a ridiculously advanced alien species or a even crazier though is that we are our own god because i believe that eventually we will have time travel and who knows maybe we created the universe haha it would be pretty cool but i somehow doubt it
        • thumb
          Mar 16 2013: Re: " if we simply removed the religious aspect of it irrational killing would stop"
          Religion is not the source of irrational behavior. There is plenty of irrational behavior among people who have nothing to do or even are against religion.

          Re: " where god came from". This question has no meaning. "What is the sound of one hand clapping?" Don't you need two hands to clap? "Where does light go when it goes out?" Questions about god are circular. They are questions about ourselves. Why is it reasonable to believe that the universe created itself from nothing and unreasonable to believe the same about God? I, personally, believe in self-creation.
        • thumb
          Mar 16 2013: G’day Charles

          The point was Chrales you seemed to making out that all wars where religiously based when religion is & has always been a part of human history of course religion is going to play some factor in wars just like babies & the whole family structure who are the true victims of war.

          I’m with you on actual religious wars like with the crusades, Spanish inquisition & the thirty year war & so on because it does seem if it wasn’t for religion these wars wouldn’t have started in the first place but I’m afraid human nature doesn’t need much of a fanatical ideology to commit such heinous crimes against humanity. I’m sure if we had no church religion we would have found some other sort of ideological ideology to fight over.

          Believe it or not to a certain extent I’m on your side because I can see how religion has segregated humanity but what I’m saying if it wasn’t for religion I’m sure humanity would have found something else to fight over but of course I could be wrong as I’m just surmising on this as you are.

          Love
          Mathew
    • thumb
      Mar 16 2013: Charles, Support for some of what you claim (religion linked to violence) can be found in the work of Steven Pinker. He has studied the history of violence (as well as language, and the human mind in general) and makes the point that moralistic motives are the source of much, if not most, violence, on both the small and large scale. He cites Nazism as an example.

      You might find his 8 minute talk on human nature interesting
      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tFDJJ1KydgE

      ..
      My own limited few of history suggests that if Catholicism had not fueled anti-semitism across Europe for a thousand years before Hitler came long, there likely would have been no Holocaust.
    • thumb
      Mar 16 2013: Charles,

      Re: " i personally believe ALL irrationality has its origins in religion this is not counting irrationality from strong emotions though but society frowns on that irrationality but not religious ones?"

      If you make an exception, you cannot say ALL irrationality has its origin in religion. I don't see anything wrong with irrational beliefs such as "God created universe" or "the universe came out of nothing by itself". The problem is when people confuse rational with irrational - emotional experiences with physical experience, science with spirituality. Then they confuse feelings with knowledge and start thinking that their beliefs have more merit than someone else's.

      This is why I see a great danger of scientists thinking that moral rules can come from their research.
  • thumb
    Mar 16 2013: G’day TED Followers

    I take it that outside the cosmos it’s dead space, it has no driving force to propel anything so how did the matter & anti-matter come into contact in dead space to create the universe & complex thought on its own?

    Love
    Mathew
    • thumb
      Mar 16 2013: You need to read a few books on cosmology and general relativity.

      There is no space outside the universe. Space and time do not have meaning without massive particles.

      Some people believe that the universe started from "nothing". What's funny is that some people are convinced that science has evidence of this. I've talked to a devout atheist who said to me trying to explain the concept that "before" the big bang, there was no time and no space and no matter - just emptiness. I'm still wondering when that was and what was empty.

      When space, time, and laws of physics loose meaning, we don't get "nothing". We get complete uncertainty and lack of meaning. Meaning and certainty are created when we start drawing boundaries and can distinguish between "A" and "not A". "Meaning is exclusion" http://www.logictutorial.com/. The more possibilities we exclude by what we say, the more meaningful is our statement.

      So, you can say that "science is the same as spirituality" or "emotional experience is the same as physical experience". But such statements are not useful. If you want meaning and knowledge, you have to draw boundaries and definitions. The unit of information is one bit. It simply symbolizes distinction between "yes" and "no", "true" and "false", "logical high" and "logical low", "on" and "off", "heaven and earth", "light and darkness". More bits (or boundaries) means more information (more knowledge). This is how meaning, knowledge, and the universe are created as described in Genesis.

      I suggest that we do not confuse our physical experience with our emotional or "spiritual" experience. Much evil comes from this confusion between science and spirituality, between faith and knowledge.
      • thumb
        Mar 16 2013: G’day Arkady

        Is there unequivocal proof that there is nothing outside of this universe or are they just theorising because that is what they are doing in relation with matter appearing out of thin air/nothingness? How can scientists measure nothing & be absolutely sure of their deductions? Don’t you need time which is of space to measure something? We can only think in a mode of thought of time & space unless we learn to think in a different thought mode which conscious changes have done in our past I believe.

        If we flounder about in one thought mode our knowing is going to stall like it did in the dark ages so yes I can see your point in having boundaries & definitions as this is exactly what science is all about however asking others if they think science & spirituality are of the same thing is of that same process I believe in finding definition & boundaries between these two.

        I’ve conversed with a lot of spiritually aware people & most of them think science is unnecessary which is a very sad thing indeed because they think everything outside of this reality is just unconditional love except for other realities & dimensions like ours & this is where most of them want to be. A lot this new age spirituality I find is quite scary within their ideological views, concepts & beliefs. What I find so funny is they desire to be somewhere else but desire denotes ego but they detest the ego as well, I don’t get it!!!! I’ve actually written up about this on my blog recently about this type of ideology & how flawed it is & why it’s so flawed.

        Love
        Mathew
        • thumb
          Mar 16 2013: I think we are on the same page here. Nothing can be said about nothing. Those who know, don't tell, and those how tell don't know. As far as experience is concerned, past and future do not exist. "Here" and "now" is all there is. I don't see any meaning in discussing of "what was before big bang" and "what is there outside our space". Our logic and reasoning, clearly, have limits. Not because of something supernatural, but because when it comes to "self", reasoning fails. Circular logic is faulty. This is also the reason why humans have trouble explaining their own consciousness.
    • Mar 16 2013: Hi Matthew :D

      Your comment reminded me of something I read once:

      "Modern science is based on the principle: give us one free miracle and we'll explain the rest."

      Your conversation is a good one. I hope you learn alot through the comments and discussions that have are taking place....

      Mary
      • thumb
        Mar 16 2013: G'day Mary

        Thank you I have become a little more aware & knowing, I do like to put my foot in it as one can only learn by doing so no matter how uncomfortable it can be.

        Love
        Mathew
  • thumb
    Mar 16 2013: I have a question to everybody: how do you define "spirituality"?
    • thumb
      Mar 16 2013: .
      My answer:
      the comment just below.
    • thumb
      Mar 16 2013: G'day Arkady

      To me spirtaulity is of everything because everything came from the same creative conscious source simular to how the universe was created from one source matter, matter & anti-matter, it's indeed very much all connected.

      Love
      Mathew
      • thumb
        Mar 16 2013: Perhaps, you have some distinction between "material" and "immaterial". As John Lloyd said, "we can see matter, we cannot see what is the matter".
  • thumb
    Mar 16 2013: .
    Yes.
    They are same.

    Spirituality is the results of processing by our brain (a computer made from living cells).
    It may contain wrong program-data.

    (For details, see the 1st article, point 2(5), at
    https://skydrive.live.com/?cid=D24D89AE8B1E2E0D&id=D24D89AE8B1E2E0D%21283&sc=documents).
    • thumb
      Mar 16 2013: G'day W.Ying

      Indeed, the brain is dumb without input but spirituality is that imput as everything is of the spritual so science has to be of the spiritual.

      I don't get it that others don't get it especially when we know that science evolved from mysticism & philosophy in the first place but that's just me & obviously you as well!!

      Love
      Mathew
  • Mar 16 2013: Science and spirituality is different. People say that science cannot be used to see or detect spirituality. This is one of the theories or facts that christianity uses to prove the existence of God.
    In my opinion, science and spirituality is something totally different since they have so many different perspectives. Science can be seen physically and it is able to interact with us by using physical ways such as taste, seeing, touching, and etc. However spirituality is complete opposite. We cannot detect or see spirituality nor we can feel. That is because spirit is not detectable when using scientific method.
    ^ something that i learned in my school.. I go to catholic school but I am agnostic.
    • thumb
      Mar 16 2013: G'day Christopher

      What if I told you spirituality is everything quite simular to how the universe was created from one source matter, basically what I am saying it's all consciousness including matter.

      Where did the matter & anit-matter come from & don't tell me it was just there or it just materialised out of thin air, you can't believe surely that matter on it's own created complex thought?

      Love
      Mathew
      • Mar 16 2013: That's the part that I am having problems with right now. It is impossible for something to come from nothing. I think I can use the principle of causality at this point to explain. Principle of Causality states that for every effect there's a cause. This principle also states that it is impossible to have an infinite series of causes. Well that means surely there was a first uncaused cause, the first cause that is independent from any other causes.
        Can spirituality be something that includes consciousness including matter? I don't think spirituality could have had matter also included in it since matter(something) cannot come from nothing. In order for spirit to create matter, spirit would have to transform into a materialistic form since matter cannot come from spirit directly. Either it was spirituality that came from thin air(the first uncaused cause) or there is another way to explain this. Since humanity cannot figure out the exact answer, for now we would have to rely on our thoughts and philosophical thoughts..
  • Mar 16 2013: no none at all spirituality is a figment of our mind to explain the unexplainable and all religion will be dismantled by science and it's a beautiful thing! and that science was only derived from it because they used the spirituality to explain what they could not at the time that's why you will NEVER see religion deriving any new science it's because religion is the ancient way of thinking and science is new as for the war thing i can get that but if you simply removed the religion wars could finally be waged for actual moral reasons instead of wars starting because of religion which has single handedly started more wars and killed more people that anything humans have done
    • thumb
      Mar 16 2013: G'day Charles

      Science is proving spirituality to have some founding especially in the area of vibrasional influences, they can now see how certain vibrations as chanting, singing, praying, instrument playing & so forth can have certain effects on humans. Don't get me wrong I'm not into hoogly-boogly stuff either but I'm not that ignorant to dismiss spirituality all together.

      What was moral about the two world wars & the multitude of other wars that weren't religious??

      Love
      Mathew
  • Mar 15 2013: NOOOOOOO spirituality is a connection to the abstract science is linear connecting the two leads to irrationalities such as believing in religion and science because these two fields ALWAYS contradict each other only difference is that science has facts religion has fanatics
    • thumb
      Mar 16 2013: G’day Charles

      I gather by this statement you give no grounding to spirituality at all even though science derived from mysticism & philosophy in the first place.

      I will put it this way, we are still fighting in religious wars after many centuries however science has found better ways to conduct these wars in a more deadlier fashion, you can’t see a link or a connection here? They go hand in hand.

      Love
      Mathew
  • thumb
    Mar 14 2013: I think I will be a fossil by the time it is all resolved!
  • thumb
    Mar 14 2013: G’day TED Followers

    This is but another hypothesis- What’s the difference between an ant & a human being remembering everything that exists vibrates? That’s obvious through observation however forget what we can see & look at the molecular structure & at the very atoms that make up an ant & a human. They vibrate at a different frequencies to each other as a whole which give them their form now change that frequency to more a human like frequency what then would be the difference? It of course would have to be human as well. Don’t get me wrong I’m not saying we can do this but what I am saying is there’s little difference between the two when you look at it in a vibratory sense, it’s how we look at things that define it what it is.

    The point is what is the vibrative difference between spirituality & science at the very core remembering science derived from mysticism & philosophy in the first place? I know when we look at science & spirituality like the ant & the human we see one being of logical fact & one of feelings they are obviously quite different but when one digs deeper & looks at them in a vibratory sense they seem not so different after all.

    Love
    Mathew
  • thumb
    Mar 14 2013: If you don't have the information to prove or disprove a claim, you may not have enough information to estimate a probability. Unverifiable claims do not default to 50% likelihood.

    If I claim we are reborn on planet xenu after our deathd, it does not default to 50-50 because it is unverifiable.
  • thumb
    Mar 14 2013: Spiritual is feeling which is not accepted by all.
    Science is acceptance by a group of experts.
  • thumb
    Mar 14 2013: Hi Mathew, reading through looking for some common ground, I guess there is some.

    It's perhaps that you look at the similarities between science and spirituality and believe they are the same, and seem to ignore the differences.

    I acknowledge the similarities but also consider the differences and conclude they are not the same, even if there is some overlap.

    It may just be how we define "same". Similar is not the same in my view.

    Also, you seem to be arguing against a strawman position I'm not making. We agree it is illogical to assert an unverifiable claim is false, or a claim is false unless there is evidence.

    100 years ago we didn't know there were other galaxies. We had no access to the evidence but they existed.

    I'm also not assuming you are into the supernatural. You haven't defined what you mean by spiritual yet as far as I can see, so I am only really addressing spiritual type beliefs that invoke the supernatural or make other assumptions without sufficient data. And I acknowledge sometimes something works even if none of the conflicting supernatural or spiritual explanations can not be proven.

    Also, the more we understand the universe through the scientific method the more it blows my mind.

    I'm not saying intuition and agency assumption has no place. I actually think it helped our survival.

    Perhaps the root cause of the different positions is on how much value we place on subjective and intuitive spiritual type approaches in terms of accurately explaining things.

    Our intuition can be great, but it is often flawed. There is a testing that shows intuitive people jump to the wrong conclusion. It is not the best method we have to explain things, in my opinion.

    I also acknowledge people get positive feelings through subjective spiritual experiences and investigation, imagining patterns, causes, and connections that may not be correct.

    Perhaps we just agree to disagree how effective spiritual investigation compared to the scientific method.
  • thumb
    Mar 13 2013: G’day Obey

    I’m sorry but it does sound like you are saying proof of evidence through observation is the be & end all when it’s been proven a number of times it’s not & can be quite flawed.

    I ask again, where did you get your figure of 99.999% from because you’re the one who is supposed to be all about facts? I’m not easily conned through deceitful provocations that are unfounded & hopefully you haven’t tried to con me in this way like you did with Yoga which you obviously knew little about.

    I agree that what a lot of spiritually aware people take as hoogly-boogly science today is showing it’s not hoogly-boogly as it has a fundamental reason why it worked scientifically. Because everything that exists vibrates including thought there is no reason at all why one vibration can’t change another vibration in some way, we are all vibrative living matter that can be changed by other vibrational frequencies, why not? There is nothing hoogly-boogly about it but of course a medicine man does, so, what if it works!!

    It sounds like you are getting me wrong, I’m not into hoogly-boogly stuff but I seem to be a lot more open minded than you.

    If you can’t prove or disprove something anything one way or the other to me logically you would have to give it a 505/50 chance if not that’s just plain ignorance to me but of course that’s just me & of course I could be wrong.

    There was a physics experiment conducted which shows not necessarily proved that just by one observing one can change the outcome of the said experiment, this is sort of in line with mind over matter with the scientific experiment to do with changing the structure of water crystals just by taking on a different mode of thought.

    Love
    Mathew
    • thumb
      Mar 14 2013: Hi Matthew,

      If you don't understand that an unverifiable claim being true or false does not mean each of these outcomes has a 50/50 chance, I'm not sure how to help you in this regards. I pointed out in many cases you don't have enough data to make a probability assessment. I pointed out that there may be other competing claims, and they can not all be 50%. The total probability can not exceed 100%. I'll try one more time.

      Do the math. You can not have a 50% chance each that the Jews, Christians, Muslims, Hindus, Mormons, Aztecs are correct. That adds up to 300% already. Even though each is either completely true or false, it's not 50/50.

      You can have 2 horses in a race. Either one of the other will win (assuming they both finish and not a tie for simplicity). 2 possible outcomes. However , it is not 50/50 odds that each will win. I wish the bookmakers would do that, then we could make a fortune picking the horse more likely to win.

      How about we race a horse against an ant. 2 possible outcomes (for simplicity). You can bet on the ant thinking it is 50/50. I will bet on the horse thanks.

      Seriously, this is primary school math. I've done 3rd year engineering mathematics and post grad financial analysis. If anyone else can point out the error of my ways, please do - otherwise I hope you can understand that 2 outcomes does not always equal 50/50 unless each has equal chance of occurring - a coin toss is 50/50. A 2 horse race may not. A billion contradictory spiritual claims don't all have a 50% chance of being correct.

      Maybe I'm using 50/50 in a mathematical probabilistic way, and you are incorrectly using it to point out a claim is either true or false.

      Hope this helps.
      • thumb
        Mar 14 2013: This doesn't take any higher math. An easier example might be the experiment of rolling a die. You will get a two or you won't get a two and cannot predict that in advance. But two and not two don't have equal probability. 2 has a 1/6 chance of arising off the rolll of a fair die. Not 2 has a 5/6 chance.
      • thumb
        Mar 14 2013: G’day Obey

        Again where did you get 99.999% from? Your into facts only, I would like to know what proof you have of spiritual conflicting claims at 99.99%!!

        Sorry but we are talking about a yes or no, a right or a wrong, it exists or it doesn’t which is a choice of two, simple isn’t it? You obviously don’t think something exists if you CAN’T prove it which I would say is less than a 50% chance but it could be more or less depending on how the dice rolls.

        I on the other hand I look at it like a coin 50/50 if you can’t prove it it still has a 50% chance of existing as it hasn’t been proven to be right either, simple. OK you want to roll a dice & see what comes up but I’m not that flippant.

        Where did you get the figure for I quote “A billion contradictory spiritual claims”? This isn’t like the 99.999% that you obviously made up out of your head, strange for someone who studied engineering mathematics wouldn’t you say?

        Please take a while before you converse with me again to give yourself time to grow up a bit, I don’t appreciate narky sarcasms, did you know sarcasm is the lowest form of wit but may be you haven’t heard of this saying yet?

        Love
        Mathew
        • thumb
          Mar 14 2013: Hi Mathew I acknowledge 99.99% was just indicative. My opinion not tested.

          I do suggest that every person who has a spiritual beliefs has a slightly different understanding or set of beliefs from others.

          Please see fritz example on probability.
  • thumb
    Mar 13 2013: I don't think they are the sme but they can go hand-in-hand.
  • thumb
    Mar 12 2013: G'day TED Followers

    Why did Einstein believe in God & why was Isaac Newton into alchemy if science wasn’t simular in content to spiritualism? There is more scientists today that believe in God or a creative source than ever, why? It could be because of the new science techniques being used today or is it because they just don’t believe matter & anti-matter just materialised out of thin air or the cosmos or is it something else?

    Why do some science minded people believe if it can’t be proven at that time in human history it can’t exist period? How about looking at this in a more logical way, if it can’t be proven it still has a 505/50 chance of existing unless it is proven wrong. Some science minded people remind me of the half glass empty factor!!

    If anyone thinks I’m prejudice towards science you couldn’t have me so wrong, I had a blog titled Science of Spirituality which was on vibrations mostly with a little spirituality content to balance out the science logically but I now have a blog titles The World of True Spiritual Acceptance which is on spiritual acceptance but it has a shot at many new & old spiritual concepts & ideologies so no I wouldn’t say I was prejudice against science or spirituality or anything else.

    Love
    Mathew
    • thumb
      Mar 13 2013: Hi mn, I have heard conflicting views about einstiens beliefs. Perhaps he was a deist. Or perhaps some quotes were metaphors. Probably not into interventionist.

      Newton had a whacky side.

      I'm not sure it follows that if newton, one of the great human scientists of all time had supernatural beliefs then science must be related to mysticism.

      For me the key difference is in the approach. One is evidence based.

      But humans can go to work as a scientist and still believe in magic underpants.

      We are complex creatures. But the approaches are quite different.

      I dont think you have defined spirituality. Its a fuzzy word. Just like god means different things to different people.

      In some definitions there is some overlap e.g. they are human activities, you can feel a powerful sense of awe considering the natural universe without invoking supernatural elements. The key profound different is the approach and accuracy of the explanations.
      Even your vibration examples rely on evidence to prove effectiveness. You you the scientific method to test a claim. And science will work on an explaination. But any unverifiable beliefs such as vibrating spirits etc can not be tested. Any number of supernatural explanations can be made for the same phenomena. One might be correct.

      Sorry but your understanding of probability is not very good in this case. True false possible outcomes does not mean a claim is 50 50.

      Is there a 50 50 chance I have a pet invisible spiritual dragon claim is correct. You have no information to make an assessment of the probability.

      Also I acknowledge the scientific method didn't leap into existence from nothing, it developed over the years into one of the most profound inventions or tools humans have developed.

      Just my opinion but most spiritual approaches just don't stack up when it comes to explaining things.
  • thumb
    Mar 12 2013: Ted Lover can you tell more on the article you read where I could read it. Thank You
  • thumb
    Mar 12 2013: G'day TED Followers

    The big questions did science derive from mysticism & philosophy? Going by what I have read it did so is modern day science still a mix of philosophy & science? Yes because over the last 100 yrs we have seen this through new developments of sciences like with quantum physic, mechanics & vacuum. To be able to look outside the logical sphere one must first have a wonderment of what if’s which is what mysticism & philosophy is all about.

    Modern day science has evolved way past philosophical & mystical deductive reasoning processing but some will say spirituality has evolved as well. When you look at church related religious spiritualism can we say that it has evolved in the same way as modern day science & the answer would have to be no because it’s lost it’s mystical relevance & replaced it with blind faith religion, however if we look at other religions not just based on blind faith like Buddhism or Taoism there structure is quite different.

    Also if we looked at Yoga which isn’t a religion but a spiritual practice you will find it quite scientifically sound within it’s practices as modern day science is finding out through experimenting with things like vibrational frequencies for instance. On top of this we have a more modern day spirituality which is or should be a mix of philosophy & mysticism with a little dash of science.

    Science arose from the mix of philosophy & mysticism & to me it looks like it’s going right back to where it started as it’s now looking outside the logical square as proven by newer scientific methods developed in the last hundred years or so.

    Love
    Mathew
    • thumb
      Mar 12 2013: Hi Mathew,

      I do yoga, my wife is an instructor. I don't see it inherently as a spiritual practice. Maybe that is up to the practitioner. Or maybe I'm not embracing the mystical elements that you consider an essential part of yoga.

      Just because science might find evidence for benefits for some herbal remedies or traditional practices this does not mean (1) all mystical beliefs are validated or (2) all the supernatural baggage is relevant or correct.

      I agree the boundaries of science now stretch into the quantum and cosmic scales that even our super primate brains struggle with. We evolved to perceive medium sized things like lions that could kill us or fruit that feeds us on a human time scale. We can see bacteria under a microscope and that makes some sense. Newtons laws make intuitive sense. But at the atomic or subatomic level, it hurts my poor brain. I suggest this is not a reason to assume magic or mysticism.

      Appreciating the wondrous and complex universe is kind of "spiritual". However, for me the word spiritual contains a lot of baggage. I would consider myself somewhat spiritual but I don't believe in magical spirits, gods, ghosts or goblins.

      Perhaps we need at least 2 qualifiers or different words for those who feel awe at the universe and our own existence but don't include the supernatural, subjective magic and those who do include it.

      When you say science arose from mysticism, are you doing this to give credibility to mysticism. Our knowledge came from or replaced our ignorance, but that does not give ignorance any standing. Mysticism and supernatural beliefs were/are important. I suggest the supernatural elements are less viable today. The challenge is perhaps acknowledging the awe without getting superstitious.

      Modern science is simply one of the most profound human inventions. I'd nearly put it up there with language.

      Some aspects or views of Buddhism do cross over to the supernatural in theory and practice.

      Peace back.
      • thumb
        Mar 12 2013: G’day Obey

        Well with the Yoga thing I personally know of a Yoga teacher of high standing & she says it’s spiritual, if you don’t know everything is spiritual not just the mystical stuff. The following link should explain that yoga is spiritual & why. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yoga This in an awfully funny statement from someone who is supposed to be into Yoga as well in say Yoga isn’t spiritual!!!

        Why should I try to give mysticism credibility when I know it was one of the components that helped found science remembering that philosophy was also a factor in this & I never said that all mysticism is a viable or has a viable connection to science.

        I will put it in a nut shell, they have been using & experimenting on vibrative frequencies to do with healing similar to what a witch doctor or a shaman did & does today. There are numerous scientific studies in these areas if you cared to take a look on the net. You may ignorantly laugh at mysticism as did the people who thought the world was flat or the sun was a God but science is proving you wrong.

        http://quantumchanges.wordpress.com/cymatics/
        http://www.share-international.org/archives/health-healing/hh_ebnewch.html
        http://marguerita.com.au/sound-healing/

        I couldn’t find what I was looking for but these links give a generalist idea of how mysticism has assisted in our evolutional conscious awareness.

        Love
        Mathew
        • thumb
          Mar 12 2013: In just saying some people may practice yoga or meditation imagining a spiritual dimension, others like me practice yoga without supernatural assumptions.

          I can go to church and sing the songs, listen to the sermon, close my eyes and not imagine I'm enveloped by some magic spirit or receiving divine wisdom or in contact with some invisible being.

          If something works, beyond the placebo effect, it works. No argument. So I don't laugh at effective treatment. Maybe there is evidence acupuncture works. But we validate these claims with evidence. And the mystical explanations as to why they work may be completely wrong.

          I'm not surprised if people in the past hooked onto practices that sometimes were beneficial.

          Its not all or nothing.

          I'm just an advocate of critical thinking and being a bit skeptical, looking for sufficient evidence to counteract the hyperactive agency detection and natural tendency to make mostly incorrect intuitive conclusions.

          Let me give an example. As a young chemical engineer I listened to an operator explain how a process changed the properties of steel. It was fantastic and made intuitive sense to him. But had nothing to do we scientific reality of recrystalisation, grain growth (yes most metals are in crystalline grains) and the relief of dislocations, dispersal of carbon and other elements etc.

          His intuitive belief was created to fit the facts. He created a cause to explain the effect. The effect was real. The cause highly speculative. And actually it was wrong.

          Mystical experiences and beliefs may help people make sense of the world. Sometimes they are closer to the truth and some are way off. Some are just unverifiable.

          I'm suggesting cats and science have four legs. Dogs and mysticism have four legs. But it is false to say cats are dogs. That mysticism and science are the same is false. Suggest clarifying the statement to say mysticism and science are used in attempts to explain the world. Then I would agree.
  • thumb
    Mar 12 2013: Is the question what drives us? Shouldn't this be in the questions category?
  • Mar 11 2013: God created the heavens and the earth. They are inextricably tied.
    Take the Zodiac for example. The bible does not say it is a fake, it says God established it for His purposes, and we are not to dabble or delve into that. Fortune telling, drugs (sorcery), all these are very real - and we are told not to practice them. This does not mean they are not 'science' in the truest sense.
    • thumb
      Mar 11 2013: Hi bill. How do you know there is a creator god and that it is a he.
      Wouldn't it be better to assume it is gender free, asexual.
      It would most likely be an it.
      • Mar 11 2013: It Obey, is a grammatical gender; God, He; my country America, she; the ship, she; and so forth. God in the bible represents Himself in the male gender, as a father, so somehow this related to our understanding. I have seen enough of the bible and life to know that much of it is supernaturally inspired. So... do I know all God's mysteries? No. I can relate to the image however, as to a gender tense. Its not about having a penis or vagina. Its about attributes in terms we can grasp.

        As to how I know there is a Creator is because I see the evidence of Him.

        You could be computer-bot generated for all I know. A lifeless, soulless, zombie. But I have faith I am seeing the evidence of a human being, with a spirit that loves, and a mind that creates, and a body to experience this world. Quite a nice trinity, to be created in the image and likeness of your Maker... huh?
        • thumb
          Mar 12 2013: I would suggest you might be projecting human love.

          Thanks for clarifying on the gender.

          How do you know which bits of the bible are spiritually inspired?

          Yes we could all be in the matrix. From my perspective there seems to be as much evidence for that as there is for the different gods and goddesses. Perhaps we have a different idea of what counts as compelling evidence.

          I find it a bit odd that people look around and say this or that is evidence of a god, when it seems very speculative.Even stranger when they land on their cultural god.
  • Mar 11 2013: Spirit meaning breath in Sanskrit where it has been defined/first recorded is decidedly an observation of life essence and Science a process to study all things live or otherwise, so not the same. Yet an example I think in alignment with the question might be the physical similarity of a church steeple and particle separator.
    • thumb
      Mar 11 2013: I think spirit means soul (Atman) in sanskrit. Though popularly thought to be associated with living beings, soul is the substance of being, a property that is more than it's physical totality. A close example may be : Beauty is the soul of a flower.
      Spirituality in ancient Indic thoughts is the appreciation of the transcendence of such substance as soul of beings.
  • thumb
    Mar 10 2013: No.. not at all... science and spirituality is different. spiritual believes are related to eternal feelings and the security for our soul and lead to heaven. On the other hand, science is still on the way , which certainly don't have any hope. But majority of people are behind science, as it comforts their life. whereas to be spiritual we need to choose the narrow way which God has shown.. that is very hard to walk through.. and don't offer any comfort while we are on the way. so its completely opposite.
    • thumb
      Mar 10 2013: G'day Saji

      Yes I agree spirituality is far more comforting to someone like me who is spiritually minded but I can also see that science is also comforting to science logical minded people as well. Modern day science derived from mysticism & philosophy I believe & I can see modern day science today melting back into the same reality it derived from in it’s analysis of ancient spiritual practices.

      Love
      Mathew
  • thumb
    Mar 10 2013: No. Science is a method that helps us understand the universe.

    Spirituality usually refers to something else, that is typically more intuitive and subjective and unreliable than science and reasoning.
    • thumb
      Mar 10 2013: Science and spirituality both are methods that help us understand the universe. We use these understandings in fundamentally different ways.
      I don't think spirituality has anything to do with intuition. It is subjective and holistic, true but I don't think it is unreliable just because it does not use reasoning for understanding. Science and spirituality are one of the same, same being the quest of mind to come to terms with the self and universe.
      • thumb
        Mar 10 2013: I guess it depends on how you define spirituality.

        For most definitions I completely disagree.

        They are often two opposing ways of understanding the universe. At best you might say they are complementary.

        A scientific understanding of consciousness is very different to assuming you are an immortal spirit or soul with gods and demons and a magical afterlife.

        Having said that we can have great wonder and appreciation at the universe and our minds and existence without believing in magic without sufficient evidence.

        There are many conflicting spiritual beliefs. That is unreliable. Science doesn't.

        You might say they have similar intent but they are completely different.
        • Mar 12 2013: Obey, defining spirituality necessitates acknowledging one possesses a spirit (or vice versa).
          Definitions that do not include a human spirit (inside us) are to create definitions which do not exist, and to use words to say other than what they mean.

          Spirituality by definition must be related to how cognizant of, or in touch with their own spirit, or other spirits, a person must be. God is a spirit. Demons are spirits. Angels are spirits
      • thumb
        Mar 10 2013: Not everything with the same or similar intent is the same.

        Praying to be healed or seeing a doctor may have similar intent but they are not the same.
        • thumb
          Mar 11 2013: "Praying to be healed or seeing a doctor may have similar intent but they are not the same." Both use understandings from spirituality and science but use these in different ways. A person acts and behaves completely differently in war and peace but that does not make him two persons. In both cases he tries to make sense of his position with respect to his environments to the best of his abilities.
          Spirituality, as it is understood in modern times, is not magic, religion or fantasy. It has conflicting beliefs but so does Science. Both Science and Spirituality strive to resolve those conflicts. For Science we use libraries, researches and theories for Spirituality we use experiences and equanimity.
          I think we are differing on scales of perception.
      • thumb
        Mar 11 2013: I'm not sure how you equate seeing a medical doctor with praying to a magical invisible being.

        I suggest seeing a witch doctor and invoking magic and spirits is more similar to the latter.

        You said yourself spirituality is subjective, while science tries to be objective.

        How is praying scientific?
        • thumb
          Mar 11 2013: I do not equate seeing a medical doctor with praying to a magical invisible being. When there is hope for a cure, a known clinical diagnosis and medical help at hand praying is superstition. However, I have seen up close one of my colleague's wife unconscious and strapped to life support system with 75% damage of brain on account of cerebral thrombosis. I talked to the doctor who was as qualified as world can offer and ensured the medical attention as best as world can offer and he said whatever medically possible had been done and it was now up to the patient to recover (he said it will be a miracle if she did because statistically she is as close to death as one could get. I clearly remember he advised us to pray.)
          Now logic and reasoning would demand that my friend and colleague should have started preparing the hearse but he was sitting by her unconscious wife's side holding her hand softly calling her name.
          This is exactly where subjective spirituality takes over from objective science. It prepares a human being to cope with a situation h/she has no answer for. This spirituality doesn't have to be placing faith on a God or divine miracle or "the sacred" but a a transcendent dimension within human experience itself.
          I never pray to God but I do wish strongly with my sincerest intent to the great uncertainty of reality to be in my favor. If the dice roles in my favor, I am happy, if not I try to take it in my stride.