Benny boy

This conversation is closed.

What science and spirituality have in common.

I know there is a connection here...maybe its already been pointed out and highlighted somewhere. but i would like to bridge my understanding more.

I know a lot of great scientists are very humble,
I know many are sure that 'nothing observed is uneffected by the observer, the very act of observing changes what your outcome is'
I know scientists have to use keen observation and are confident enough in their findings to have them scrutineered
Isn't science the study of life?
Isn't spirituality similar.
oh and neither oppress women. as far as i

  • thumb
    Sep 28 2011: Benny,
    Good point..."the very act of observing changes what your outcome is". I agree that both science and spirituality are studies of life...IF...we choose to observe the changes and outcomes of our experiences.

    After a near fatal head/brain injury, my family was told that I probably would not survive. When I continued to live, in spite of the medical prognosis, we were told that I would probably never function "normally" again. In spite of the work of science (advanced surgery, life support systems, medications, and incredible care) the prognosis was challenging for me. The medical professionals were all very nice, caring, individuals who were very aware of what the medical texts (science) projected for me and my condition. I respected and pondered the information they were giving me because I felt it was very relevant, logical, and I understood the benefits of the practices they used on the body at the time of the trauma and for awhile after. Medical practices (science) played an important role in supporting the body through the trauma.

    Once the body survived, something else dominated, and I say it was my spirit. Since I was also ending 24 years of marriage and had been diagnosed with cancer at the time, it would have been very easy to say the hell with it...I'm done!

    It was my spirit energy that caused me to want to live, and want to flourish. The prognosis for living a full life was not at all encouraging, and yet, that is what I am doing. My spirit energy, and the beautiful spirit energy of all those in my life, created a very powerful collective energy, which gave me the determination and strength to live life to the best of my ability.

    People tell me that I'm lucky...I beat the was a miracle...blah....blah....blah....
    I believe it is simply a possibility, available to all of us when we explore information from all sources, and make the connections in ourselves with the very act of observing changes and outcomes.
    • Comment deleted

      • thumb
        Oct 1 2011: Hi Adriaan,
        I cannot say the experience was "horrible", although it was VERY emotionally and physically challenging at times. Yes, I had a NDE/OBE, which, as you say, is very common. I did not practice a religion at the time, nor do I practice a religion now. I also did quite a bit of research after the experience to understand more about my "self". I agree with is not the easiest way to learn...never the less...I did learn quite a bit about life and and spirit:>)
      • thumb
        Oct 1 2011: Adriaan,
        For me, both the science and spirit results count equally, which is why they are so connected for me. They support each other in my humble opinion, and life experiences. The transition of the body AND mind is the important part. If they are not working together, supported in all possible ways, the result may not be the same.

        "Swedenborg" does not ring a bell, although I've read about extensive research by many scientists, and have read hundreds of accounts of NDE/OBEs.
        Thank you for your good wishes:>)
  • thumb
    Sep 26 2011: They are both trying to settle questions about the unknown. Spirituality is the subjective part of this universal inquiry and science is the objective part. The deal is that science seems to be more effective at solving problems both inside and outside our subjective head space. We've had spirituality since humanity began building societies and nothing much changed for millennia. Along came science and democracy and here we are, typing messages to anyone around the world real time. I think science is the evolution of spirituality- the desire for a greater perfection, for greater understanding, for greater awareness of the self and world.
  • Sep 25 2011: They have common search for understanding but each substantially differ in the search itself?
    • thumb
      Sep 25 2011: Science is the quest for explanations that require no miracle.
    • thumb
      Sep 27 2011: I agree Zdenek...well said:>)
      They have common search for understanding and each differ in the search itself.

      I believe there are "miracles" in science as well, depending on one's definition of miracle.
      One definition is:
      "an extremely outstanding or unusual event, thing or accomplishment"
      I believe science often produces outstanding accomplishments

      The difference in definitions is that some add "divine intervention". We can all believe in miracles, with or without a belief in divine intervention. What we consider a miracle, is often influenced by our perception and attitude of life.
  • thumb
    Sep 27 2011: Science is a means of finding new information out, or better yet finding out what information is accurate with the tools we have and what information we can discard.

    Spirituality although some consider it childish fantasy is a means of making sense of that information and giving it meaning .

    What they have common is they allow us to know the universe
  • Comment deleted

    • thumb
      Sep 26 2011: Actually, fMRI machines have predicted human speech and thought before they even spoke/consciously thought by analyzing brain signals. So "science" (our understanding of science really. Science encompasses the whole universe and we are yet to figure it all out.) can tell su what we are thinking.
  • thumb

    E G

    • +2
    Sep 25 2011: The science and the spirituality are the same thing , I mean the science is a part of the spirituality (don't confuse the science with the scientists ).
    • thumb
      Sep 25 2011: That makes sense to me actually thanks..hah..
  • Sep 25 2011: newton says "for every action there is equal and opposite reaction"

    Hinduism says "the amount of love u show on others is same as you receive"
    • thumb
      Sep 25 2011: cooool..i wish i knew more about hinduism and their messages.

      There is Einsteins theory of relativity too, one thing can only be defined relative to something defined as its opposite.

      eg, hot is not cold.

      I think einsteins theory seeks to explain relationship.
    • Sep 29 2011: Haha! Sorry but I can't help remembering this Jack Johnson song saying; Lord knows that the world is cruel, I ain't the lord, I'm just a fool, learning loving somebody doesn't make them love you.

      EDIT: I guess that the Buddhist "Bear no Hope" comes first. Don't expect anything in return if you show love.
  • thumb
    Oct 1 2011: Yes, I think they have more in common than people want to admit. They both are seeking to understand the basis of our universe. They both would like to find out where we came from, They both would like to heal diseases and free life from illness. They both would like to make the world a better place to live. They both would like to give us longer lives. They both would like to have prevented the death camps of WWII. They both want to give every person the chance to be the best that they are. They both have limits. They really only differ in method of how to achieve these goals and I wish they could work hand in hand to achieve these things so that we could have a better world.
  • thumb
    Sep 27 2011: Maybe there isn't much difference between science and spirituality except that as the scientist looks into the world to understand the spiritualist also looks into the one that is looking.
  • thumb
    Sep 27 2011: They may have common goals, but the way they achieve those goals could not be more different. One is so efficient at fulfilling its goal that almost all people on this Earth today can reap its countless benefits. The other requires a few pre-requisites that may in fact be at odds with reality. You may deny this, but you've already guessed which one is which because you know it's true.

    I don't rightly see why we must give to reality a spiritual dimension when nature is wonderful of its own accord.
    "Isn't it enough to see that a garden is beautiful without having to believe that there are fairies at the bottom of it too?" - Douglas Adams

    The molecules in your body were forged in stars billions of years. Your existence is only possible due to a long line of successful ancestors from LUCA all the way to you through 4,4 billions of years, if one of them hadn't had offspring, you would not be here. Those are awe-inspiring facts that no silly spiritual gobbledygook could ever dethrone because the human mind is limited in ways nature is not. I have no time for spirituality, I am constantly in awe of our majestic universe. Spirituality is settling for less in my honest opinion.
    • thumb
      Sep 27 2011: Matthieu,
      The way "they achieve those goals" depends on the explorers:>) is enough to see that a garden is beautiful without having to believe that there are fairies at the bottom of it..." AND... it's fun to believe in "gobbledygook":>)

      Nothing has to be "dethroned". In my humble perception, "being in awe of our majestic universe", is very spiritual:>) To believe in science AND spirituality is not settling for is opening the heart and mind to much much more:>)
      • Sep 27 2011: Colleen- I will never forget in nursing school a good friend of mine said in passing that she thinks this work is her spirituality-  I silently agreed, and reflected on it since.

        To me when something is  fullfilling, brings peace to your heart that is a persons spirituality  (even when not giving it a name) your soul is where it should be and the pieces fall in place with that. 

        It's not hard to dance around the terms we give it though, I think if you can call yourself fullfilled you are spiritually sound- I don't need to convince others of my attitude towards life, I am happy knowing you are happy-
        • thumb
          Sep 27 2011: Hi Autumn,
          I always refer to my life as work/play:>) When I am tackling anything with my heart and mind open, there is more success in the outcome. Being spiritual, simply means to me, that I am more aware of the energy flowing through my heart and mind. It means I am aware and mindful in this life experience.

          I think the concept of "spiritual" has been so connected with religion, that it is balked at by some. To me it is simply being aware of all that is in our world. That's why I cannot understand why people want to seperate science and me everything is connected, and I wouldn't deny myself the opportunity to experience it all! I think you're right Autumn...we often dance around the terms, and I also agree that I don't need to convince others of my attitude toward life or beliefs. It's just fun to talk about it at times, and my life is testimony enough to me that what I believe works for me:>)
      • thumb
        Sep 27 2011: If spirituality is a concept that covers the same ideas than wonder and awe, then it is a completely wasteful term. I think neither of us believe that and on these grounds I think it is fair to say that the wonder and awe that one can get from material nature, from music, poetry, literature and all things that are absolutely of this world do not fall under the category of spiritual. They involve much of the same emotions and feelings, but that was exactly my point., that one does not need to call upon some immaterial realm to feel absolutely dumbstruck in this universe.
        • thumb
          Sep 27 2011: You just said it.
          It is indeed that matter can play around, dance and do us marble that matter makes us alive.
          The spirit is that animation that works in that matter and animates us.
        • thumb
          Sep 28 2011: If you believe it to be a "wasteful term", so be it Matthieu. I'm not attached to what you choose to believe. As you know, you're very welcome to put things in whatever catagory you choose. I agree..."they involve much of the same emotions and feelings", so in my perception, the important piece is how we experience the emotions and feelings, and I don't care how one chooses to catagorize it. I totally does not need to call upon some immaterial realm to feel absolutely great about this universe. For me, it's about being fully present in the here and now.

          I also agree with Frans, that the spirit energy is what causes the animation and works in the body and mind, which is the carrier. We don't have to call upon an immaterial realm to feel absolutely dumbstruck in this is in us at all times:>)
      • thumb
        Sep 28 2011: I believe it is a wasteful term only if it covers the same ground as any experience eliciting wonder and awe, my point being that it doesn't. So it's not a wasteful term. Nor is my appreciation of the universe in any way or form spirituality.
        • thumb
          Sep 28 2011: That's it what you will:>)
    • thumb
      Sep 27 2011: Hi Matthieu,

      Based on your answers (at least the ones I've read,) I suspect you have not seriously engaged in any "spiritual" practice (I'm not referring to religion when I say "spiritual practice.") So I would guess you don't know much about what you refer to as silly spiritual gobbledygook (other than the silly spiritual gobbledygook that you have heard.)

      Basing your conclusions on "hearsay" evidence is not particularly "scientific."

      I agree much of what is talked about when we enter into esoteric realms is silly spiritual gobbledygook. But I suspect that might be the result of "faulty reporting." We hear stories from people who do not actually know what they are talking about, talking about what they do not actually know.

      [A note to all of you who know what you're talking about: You do not have to write saying that you do.]

      I hold open the possibility there might be "something" that cannot be explained by empirical science. Something that I can experience (as can you) that lies perhaps at the origin of many traditions we see in the world. However, if such a possibility exists, I do not think it must be buried under millennia's worth of cultural detritus.

      If such a possibility exists, I say, it must be possible for a human with a scientific mind to experience it without compromise. (This is one of the reasons I reject most "traditions" themselves - they require us to abandon reason and believe in "nonsense" to attain some imagined ideal (or to feel we understand our place in the cosmos.))

      I don't think either the Dalai Lama or Stephen Hawking are idiots.

      I think it's good to keep an open mind. That's what a good scientist does.
  • Sep 25 2011: I think the relation between science and spirituality is both are created by men itslef
  • thumb
    Sep 25 2011: Both are being practiced by human being.
    At any given time both fails to answer everything.
    • thumb
      Sep 25 2011: I like your first statement, and i would say science and spirituality both have tools for 'how to know' whatever it is you wish to know.
  • Sep 30 2011: What these two seemingly divergent concepts have in common is that they both have only a finite resource of answers. One considerably more finite than the other.

    I'll let you figure out which one...
    • Comment deleted

      • Oct 1 2011: My point is more to do with the ILK of answers available from the respective schools of thought.

        I'm not denying the existence of a 'god'; I have no proof either way. But a couple of things are for sure: if there is in fact such an entity / concept, a) 'he' is NOT interventionist and, b) 'he' IS apathetic. Which begs the question (from a human being's standpoint): is such a concept even relevant? Are we that feeble-minded we need some airy-fairy book of precepts and 'threats' to live civilly? 'God's' creations are really so flawed? If 'god' is omni-everything, why the stuff-up...?

        The core problem with religion its intractability--it does not waver in its doctrine or tenets, irrespective of era, situation or application. Another problem is how people who espouse these ideologies interpret the oftentimes arcane text from which their beliefs are derived the way they WANT. Obtrusion of a belief system on others who are not amenable (more saliently, are impressionable) - patently in an effort to avert the extinction of doctrines that hardly reconcile with a modern, developed thought process - is also an issue of import.

        As for science; it's concepts centre around the continuous questioning, assaying and scrutiny of its propositions. This is Achilles heal of religion, in that scientific thinkers always question and empirically buttress their 'doctrines'; as distinct from theologians. Just look at the recent discovery of particles that may travel faster than light--a revelation that questions the entire premise of Einsteinian theory. In religious terms, that's tantamount to sacrilege!

        I'm open-minded. I do not deny the existence of a 'god'. However, I also do not dismiss the incongruity of gifting humans with the faculty of thought, yet expecting them to follow some linear ideology that so often flies in the face of the very nature of the humanity.

        Religion, as it stands, does not add up. Empirical thought does. If 'god' wanted sheep, why did he create shepherds?
  • thumb
    Sep 30 2011: i appreciate all your responses; but to me they are just that.
  • thumb
    Sep 30 2011: I don't think that spirituality and science have anything at all in common.

    Spirituality is a belief in the unprovable and relies heavily on faith in an immaterial reality while science is an exercise in figuring out our material world and the physics on which it exists, science is grounded on what is provable while always seeking that which is probably.

    Spiritualists accept that there are powers (energies) that exist beyond our own reality that may be encountered under specific conditions of consciousness (somewhere between the two halves of the brain not communicating) or other non cerebral states of being.
    Spirituality perceives that which is sensed and experienced at higher levels of human ability to measure and recreate.

    Science accepts that all phenomena, physical or otherwise behave predictable and may be explained in time when the right questions are asked.
    The possibilities of science are limited by the tools it has in the time that it has, while spirituality is a limitless excursion into all possibilities, however unproven.

    One cannot prove it's immaterial reality and the other must refrain from claiming to have all of the answers, especially when it lacks the tools to readily answer the questions asked of it.
    One nourishes the indefinable within us and the other attempts to define us without ambiguity.

    There should be a natural coexistence with the two however, since each searches for answers to the significant questions of our time.

    After all, is science not acceptable when it approves us?
    Is spirituality not tolerable when it comforts us?
  • Sep 30 2011: If you wanted science people to get along with religious people (and vice versa), both sides would need to seriously work on their ability to feel empathy.

    Instead of constantly ditching out the same and same arguments, instead of being so quick to judge the others, let's try to understand why one believes, and another does not. Do this for yourself, honestly, and you'll see that both sides have very valid reasons.

    I don't know what science and spirituality have in common, but I know what we human beings have in common: We are all living on the same planet, none of us has asked to exist, yet we live. And we all strive to make what we think is the best out of this life that comes from nowhere. That's what we have in common, and that's why we should just stop always focusing on our differences, because we're all in the same shit.
  • thumb
    Sep 29 2011: Forgive me if someone has already pointed this out, I don't have the time to read all 53 comments, but I thought I would give my piece for anyone that does have the time to read it or cares.


    That is the answer. Both science and spirituality are governed by forces. How they act on us as humans is the reason there will always be disagreements between ethics and "right and wrong".
  • thumb
    Sep 28 2011: @ Matthieu . I could not figure out how to reply to you statement i apologize im still trying to familiarize myself with the way the website works. I will have to say i disagree. Inspiration is something entirely different from thinking. The mind thinks but the soul provides inspiration. Whether you accept that is up to you, but you cannot deny that the brain is not responsible for the generation completely new ideas. The mind can make it seem like that but in reality it can only process and replay what it has already experienced. Therefore true inspiration must come from somewhere else. Perhaps a collective unconscious? Why do completely unconnected people often come to the same conclusions at around the same time? Such as the development of language civilization and religion. Especially in religion you can see the idea generated through many different and unconnected people and most present the same basic ideas at their root.
  • thumb
    Sep 28 2011: I think in the simplest deepest way both science and spirituality seek to interpret the world for us. They try to explain the world and the universe.
  • thumb
    Sep 27 2011: Science and the true uncorrupted version of all religions search for the same thing: The Truth. Today's religion deny truth and therefore they are all false religions. If something is true never deny it. God is Truth for the definition of both is: that which is. God is not a person in the clouds make things pop out of the air. That is illogical and untrue. If everyone believes a lie that still does not make it true. For under the infinite pile of lies the truth will always remain. Lies can be swept away with truth. Know truth, know God. Here is some online books and discussion of truth please take a look when you find the time Thank you for reading my post friends =]

    You will know the truth, and the truth will make you free. - Jesus Christ
    Believe only what you yourself test and judge to be truth. - Buddha
    • thumb
      Sep 27 2011: There's one truth, one for everyone. - Veda's
      • thumb
        Sep 27 2011: There's a sign on the wall but she wants to be sure
        'Cause you know sometimes words have two meanings
        In a tree by the brook, there's a songbird who sings
        Sometimes all of our thoughts are misleading-Led Zeppelin

        Truth has only one meaning thats why we must only believe truth. Words and thoughts are misleading.
        The mind controls us, when we must control the mind. The truth is the only way to control the mind and bend it to our will. After you know truth the mind becomes your companion and friend. This is true for everyone. Thats what is meant by enlightenment and being "awakened".

        Man is sanskrit means mind. mankind=mindkind we must be more than man. We must free the spirit from the mind and become spiritkind.
  • thumb
    Sep 27 2011: Many scientists do not understand spirituality and those of religious persuasion refuse to embrace science.

    If the word 'spirituality' is replaced with the phrase 'deep appreciation of nature', would the scientific mind be more appreciative of the thinking style of the religious mind? Is the lack of commonality between science and spirituality merely down to how we use words to label them?

    It seems to me that the deep appreciation of nature is a powerful yet neutral state of mind that both science and religion can draw on for stimulation and knowledge. Label it which ever way you want - it is probably the same thing.
    • thumb
      Sep 27 2011: If spirituality meant 'deep appreciation of nature' then all good scientist would be spiritual. How can one seriously conceive of a scientist who every day works with nature but does not appreciate it? No I think the problem is that spirituality means a whole host of other things that have no sort of material existence. I'd even say some element of spirituality is like a shrug to nature, as if to say "nature, you're not good enough, I need to find my catharsis in some other intangible realm".
      • thumb
        Sep 28 2011: QUOTE: "I think the problem is that spirituality means a whole host of other things that have no sort of material existence. I'd even say some element of spirituality is like a shrug to nature, as if to say "nature, you're not good enough, I need to find my catharsis in some other intangible realm".

        Hi Matthieu,

        Your conclusions (or your hypothesis) are (is) based on incomplete data; and perhaps on erroneous assumptions.

        As an old friend of mine once said, "Sometimes there are bad explanations for things that work for other, good reasons."

        As I mentioned in my previous post, in concurrence with you, a lot of what comes under the rubric of "Spiritual" is silly gobbledygook. But to reject out of hand that there might be some things that are beyond the pale of empirical science because of that is not scientific.

        I can think of at least two things that, at the moment, and, perhaps, forever, are beyond the grasp of objective science: One is consciousness (not awareness;) the other one is superstrings.

        Shall we reject both of those because anything we can say about them could be construed as nothing more than gobbledygook?

        Some think we should "reject" them both and cast them out of the Cathedral of Science where they might reside in the realm of, say, Philosophy (that pantheon of gobbledygook.)

        You embrace the scientific method. One of the foundational principles of science is that we must start with an understanding that we do not know.

        And if something cannot be tested - from within the scientific paradigm - we will have to accept we may never know.

        Not knowing is not scientific proof.

        Reject the gobbledygook?


        Reject the possibility that certain things are beyond the scope of objective science and yet are just as "natural" as carbon?



        When we scientifically study the objective, we must be objective scientists.

        When we scientifically study the subjective, we must be subjective scientists.
        • thumb
          Sep 28 2011: I am fully aware that there are many things beyond the scope of science. However, I refuse to say that these fall under the category of the spiritual. Superstrings don't provide much scientific testability, that is true.But they are the product of sound mathematics and have not just come out of thin air. All things spiritual on the other hand run the high risk of having absolutely no grounding in reality by the mere fact that there is an infinite myriad of possible ways our universe could be but only one way it is. We should be content with what we know and not what could be true if we get lucky at the guessing game.
      • thumb
        Sep 28 2011: True spirituality is not solely the appreciation of nature that is merely part of it. Full spirituality is the complete awareness of the present. One must think less and let inspiration come. Never block out anything in the present. Love the whole present the good and the bad. Make the two, one. You would be surprised at the benefits of practicing this for just a few mins a day. Inspiration and life will flood you.
        • thumb
          Sep 28 2011: I'm happy you're confirming my suspicion that spirituality requires more than just an appreciation of nature. I'd hate for my wonder of nature to be called spirituality. Whatever that extra ingredient for spirituality is, I am perfectly happy without it. I'm good as I am now, thinking and drawing all my inspiration from thinking.
      • thumb
        Sep 28 2011: Hi Matthieu,

        I agree. We should be content with what we know.

        We should also be content with what we do not know.

        This may not be apparent to you but your communication style elevates your "not knowing" to the realm of certainty.

        Again, this is not a very scientific approach.

        Rejecting all things "spiritual" is not a particularly useful stance for the very reasons you state. It's almost a meaningless word. Much of what we call "spiritual" can be explained by science (say, psychology) and much of it is simply a misrepresentation of natural phenomena (say, hallucinations being interpreted as revelation*) and so on. That clearly means everything we call "spiritual" is not gobbledygook - some of it is just misapplied science (bad descriptions.)

        I am not asking you to accept anything. I am suggesting an open mind is a good thing.

        And, as I say, there are things that objective science will (probably) never be able to explain. We can call them "spiritual" if we want (and maybe "reject" them as a result) or we can simply say, "This I do not know."

        In my opinion, the need for complete explanations - whether spiritual or scientific - is the hallmark of a limited mind.

        I think an open mind is a useful thing. It is also quite pleasant (subjectively speaking.)

        * "Divine revelation" and ecstatic visions diminished considerably when Europeans began baking bread with wheat flour rather than with rye flour. Why? Because rye was, and is, susceptible to ergot contamination. Ergot is a fungus. Ingesting ergot can lead to hallucinations similar to those experienced with LSD.
  • thumb
    Sep 27 2011: Benny, my Joyful friend:>)
    For me, the connection is that science and spirituality are both seeking information...cause and affect...answers. I like to consider ALL information, so I percieve science and spirtuality to be very connected. If we are open minded and open hearted, we can see how science and spirituality support each other. Of course, if someone is stuck in his/her particular beliefs of science being the "only" answer, or spirituality being the "only" answer, then s/he misses the opportunity to make the connection.....his/her loss:>)You are a wise person to percieve the connection that many wise people for centuries have been aware of. You're in very good company:>)
  • thumb
    Sep 26 2011: Where is christophe cop when you need him.

    Science encompasses all which exists in the natural universe.

    Spirits, ghosts and other supernatural entities do no exist. I do not know what sort of annoying justification everyone here has for spirituality, but I see no common ground here at all.
    • thumb
      Sep 26 2011: Cole,
      Could it be that you mix up spirituality with spiritisme or do you think it is the same?
      Spirituality is occupied with the natural world for nothing that we can be aware of is not - or supernatural
    • Sep 26 2011: Cole

      Thanks for your thoughts, at 16 I know you have a lot of experiences to influence what you eventually believe in or not- please take no offense.

      Before I came to the place I am now spirituality meant nothing more than NOT denying existence of a god but also not confirming 'God'. It's not that you can expect that one day you will believe in something but I believe that denying it can often be an early event for people who are spiritual.

      It can also be what it is at the moment, putting your trust in what you know so far- which is that things of spirituality are an imaginative dream.
      • thumb
        Sep 26 2011: Autumn,

        Your post disgusts me. Patronizing me as if you are a more experienced human being (time does not even necessarily equal experience for that matter) is just an absolutely pointless and immature argument.

        A dream? I never said they are dreams. Dreams exist. The things described do not. There is no confirmed evidence of any, and things such as spirits, ghosts, etc. have all been rejected by an overwhelming majority of the scientific community. (95% reject supernatural entities, 93 reject any sort of theism or dogmatic belief). I would also like to point out that if you do not trust me, it only makes you look like the idiot seeing as how the most trustworthy and credible people on the planet are the ones who lead me to this conclusion.

        This is not some sort of deep emotional topic which requires years of pondering and reflecting, it took me about 5-10 good minutes of critical, logical thinking (which is apparently something you stay away from if you automatically decide to point out my age as if it is detrimental to my credibility).
        • Sep 27 2011: Hey Cole, my sincere apology- I should have recognized my own personal reflection in my response- I did not want to condem you, I was just so set in my ways like you and thought I'd convey you never know if your view will change like mine did. I do not think any less of the non-spiritual- like I said, I was reflecting my story where it didn't belong-- I really think that the belittling that sometimes happens on these boards stinks but yeah- 
      • thumb
        Sep 27 2011: You're certainly not going to win Cole's friendship through condescension about his age. I certainly think Cole is the kind of guy who 's smart enough not to be talked down to. I think Cole and I can agree that there are enough wonderful things in nature to keep us full of wonder and awe without having to call upon a very probably nonexistent or indifferent immaterial realm.
    • Sep 30 2011: Science encompasses all which exists in the natural universe.

      I don't understand that statement. I thought Science was just a category invented by human beings where we dump all the observations, predictions and understanding we were able to gather about the world surrounding us. Science barely encompasses the tiny part of the natural universe we human beings know about.
    • thumb
      Sep 30 2011: QUOTE: Where is christophe cop when you need him.

      He's over on: "How can I remember more TED talks?"
  • thumb
    Sep 26 2011: In my personal experience, spirituality and science have one thing in common: a search for answers.

    The way in wich they go about finding answers, on the other hand, is what often generates a great divide. Spiritual people, more often than not, go after their answers based on their informed views. They go after the specific answers they want, and often use their spirituality to answer thigs in ways that suit them.

    With science, more often than not, the methodology is designed not to have biased answers informed by your world-view, and is, in my opinion, a valuable tool in the exploration of truth, where spirituality isn't. Even though spirituality is well-intentioned.
  • Sep 25 2011: People. Both must be learned. The meaning of evidence, credibility of resources, and adherence to the propositions of others is left to the individual to determine. Both have a great deal of power and influence.
  • thumb
    Sep 25 2011: Lets say a scientist (called Mr A) has within his consciousness, an understanding that life is whole and complete.
    and lets say another scientist (called Mrs B) has within her consciousness, an understanding that life is broken and incomplete.

    Would this effect the outcome of an experiment he or she was undertaking?

    All i am saying is, if science is based on laws of nature, and laws of life, the closer these Laws are to what is so
    the closer these scientists outcomes are going to be to what is so.
    • thumb
      Sep 27 2011: No, if the subjective feelings of a scientist affects the outcome of an experiment undertaken, then the experimental protocol needs to be revised. Results need to objectively make sense regardless of the state of the scientist who undertook them and need to be repeatable.
    • thumb
      Sep 27 2011: I think I see your points Benny and Matthieu,
      I believe we carry an energy...the life force energy...spirit it what you will. When the energy is well balanced, the tasks we undertake tend to be more balanced as well. If we don't feel whole and complete, it often affects the everyday tasks including our work. So, in that respect, no matter what experimental protocol or objectivity is applied to a task, the results may not be as good as if a scientist tackled the experiment with an open heart and mind. When I say open heart and mind, I am not suggesting giving up protocal or objectivity. In my perception, an open heart and mind expands the possibilities of ideas and experimentation. I think the energy we carry, which could be called spirit, influences everything we do.
  • thumb
    Sep 25 2011: All comments welcome