Spirituality - Why does science loath it?

Status
Not open for further replies.
afstandopleren

afstandopleren

Balanced member of balancing acts.
Member
This thread is about Spirituality with the main question: Why does science loath it?

People seem to get more spiritual these days (at least, they do in Holland). I do have to wonder tho, why are scientist so bound on proving something wrong that doesn't exist according to them in the first place....?
 
Because people are being wilfully ignorant? These people vote for your government, educate your children, and so on, you can't honestly expect everyone to just let them be.
Not only that, the industry based on this is getting increasingly more successful and powerful, basically, this is a fraudulent industry, swindling their way to richness...

And what's the point of science if it can't help and educate the masses?
 
Science doesn't "loathe" anything. Science is not an individual. Science is the obtaining of knowledge through study or practice. In other words, science is a process of discovering the physical boundaries and limitations of this world. Since Spirituality is, by definition, outside of the physical world then you can't really compare the two.
 
@Spoon: I think the same goes vica versa, scientist are denying that there is more between heaven and earth. If they come to that point they just raise their shoulders and go "Oh well, this is just a small flaw in science, we'll be able to get rid of it tomorow or next year when we have 'more' knowledge."

@Kaishu: I think they are. 2 sides, 1 coin. Somehow, they can't coexist anymore...but the way the attitude that science brings forth.....I don't think they will go hand in hand ever again.
 
Who knows, science may one day discover a realm of heaven or earth, but with our current knowledge these things have not surfaced. Remember, scientists once thought the world was flat, so who knows.

afstandopleren said:
@Spoon: I think the same goes vica versa, scientist are denying that there is more between heaven and earth. If they come to that point they just raise their shoulders and go "Oh well, this is just a small flaw in science, we'll be able to get rid of it tomorow or next year when we have 'more' knowledge."

@Kaishu: I think they are. 2 sides, 1 coin. Somehow, they can't coexist anymore...but the way the attitude that science brings forth...I don't think they will go hand in hand ever again.
Click to expand...

The thing is the belief that science and spirituality can coexist is, in itself, a spiritualistic opinion. The fact that it's something you believe but something that's not been proven true by science is what makes it so.
 
I'd probably say Science loathes spirituality because it threatens what they pump out. If you mean, religion, and so on (which is what I think you mean), it says something different than what they say (not always, but for the most part). Scientists appear to fight whatever says they are wrong. Those are my opinions on the subject.
 
afstandopleren said:
I think the same goes vica versa, scientist are denying that there is more between heaven and earth.
Click to expand...
Like what?
I see nothing at all hinting towards anything spiritual, therefore, the most logical conclusion is that nothing spiritual exists. Of course, if evidence arises proving otherwise, I'm sure scientists would happily except it (in which case it would in turn become science). I don't know what this spiritual something would be, though. Most of the spiritual stuff today is so obviously false it's no wonder scientists are "loathing" it.

And science "loathing" spirituality would be like science loathing fairies, unicorns, aliens and bigfoot...

PokeChamp said:
Scientists appear to fight whatever says they are wrong. Those are my opinions on the subject.
Click to expand...
There's no right or wrong in science. There's consensus, and there's generally accepted theories, but those are revised and questioned constantly. Religion, on the other hand, seems to be behaving like that, though (unless they're forced to admit they're wrong in the face of massive amounts of evidence, and even then they try to find a way around actually admitting it).
 
Exactly. Science is not a biased practice since it's the combined effort of studies done by a plethora of people. Science grows and encompasses things constantly.
 
Heavenly Spoon :F said:
Like what?
I see nothing at all hinting towards anything spiritual, therefore, the most logical conclusion is that nothing spiritual exists. Of course, if evidence arises proving otherwise, I'm sure scientists would happily except it (in which case it would in turn become science). I don't know what this spiritual something would be, though. Most of the spiritual stuff today is so obviously false it's no wonder scientists are "loathing" it.

Let me define spirituality a bit. Spirituality is stuff like love (not the hormone version), the something that makes water crystals change shape, past lives, rituals that makes autistic kids behave like you and me (something where science still tends to fail miserably.).

And science "loathing" spirituality would be like science loathing fairies, unicorns, aliens and bigfoot...

That's not spiritual, that's fantasy.... And why don't you just admit that science loathes it because it can't proof it and thus, can't deal with it. It's a stupid but human phenomena.
Click to expand...

Too bad not everyone is open....it could help mankind so much... It would also help if people wouldn't follow and trust science so blindly....
 
I think the discrepancy here is that you are not aware of the definition of science. It's not a religion. It's not a belief. If science were to just accept ideas because it felt like it then it wouldn't be science. These practices have not been proven in a scientific manner so they are not scientific.

I accept scientifically discovered ideas, however I believe in things such as love and the human soul. They are completely separate things in the first place. I don't see how you are trying to compare the two.

Now, if what you are saying is that you are against the people who are closed to the spiritual world and only accept scientific discoveries as something they believe in then this is different. But science itself cannot be compared to spiritualistic beliefs.
 
Personal experiences aren't science, yet they hold so much more facts then science does. It's like near death experiences.....if you get what I mean.
 
I don't see why love would need to be spiritual. Our understanding of the brain is still in its infancy, yet we have found quite a bit of indications which all point towards love being part of the brain (and it for some reason also being related to the parts of the brain which cause the desire for food).
Crystal? Are You still talking about the failure of a water crystals experiment, or something else?
Past lives? Where would they come from? What indication is there of them? What evidence? And how could the past lives system even possibly work, with the amount of new humans increasing exponentially, and life having had a beginning and everything... Animals are chemical entities, where would the thing which reincarnates or whatever even come from, or what would cause it?
And could you link me to whatever it is you're talking about concerning those autistic kids?

You should have an open mind, but not so open your brain falls out, believing things when there's absolutely no reason to has nothing to do with open-mindedness, but has everything to do with rationality.
 
I know exactly what you mean. They aren't scientific and that is exactly my point. And just because life experiences have nothing to do with science they shouldn't be disregarded by any means.
 
Sorry, I meant Water Crystals. You know, freeze them up and put them under a microscope. Water really IS the most sensitive element....makes you wonder doesn't it? If words and music can change water crystals, imagine what they can do to us....
 
The experiment you're referring to wasn't even done with distilled water, and it wasn't an isolated experiment. It's dubious at best. If this experiment would be worth anything, it would have been published in a scientific paper and subjected to peer review.
Part of the scientific method is doing experiments over and over again, and trying to find theories to explain your findings, not doing 1 experiment and giving a silly explanation for your findings. Of course science doesn't accept it when you're doing it wrong...
 
Science doesn't loathe spirituality, specific scientists may loathe spirituality and in fact a large proportion of scientist do dislike the idea of spirituality and religion. The main reason for this is because they are on different sides of the spectrum. Science believes that everything can be explained by logic, where on the other hand spirituality seems uninterested in the truth, and much more involved in happiness. Scientists do not like spirituality because it does not follow any of the logic that they have come to know as the truth, and the same can be said of those who are 'spiritual' as they do not like science trying to undermine and explain things that they wish to view as supernatural.

As an analogy, science and spirituality are like Liberalism and Conservatism. You could map them out on a line, but the further toward either side you go the more the two start to bend inwards and look one in the same. On the far left you have Communism, and on the far right you have Fascism. Which although on opposite sides of the spectrum, are very similar. Spirituality and science behave the same way, the farther you move toward science the more you begin to find wild and illogical statements which are used to describe the world, case and point "String Theory" whereas on the other side you find spirituality becoming out-of-hand with worlds filled with Unicorns and Elderly men making giant ships and rounding up two of every animal. Although both sides are on opposite ends, they are both absurd to the point of being almost the same.

I personally hold a different view on both science and spirituality, which is a more Psychological view. Scientists who have trouble with others believing in different things, are more-or-less controlling people who are looking to prove others wrong so that they can strengthen their secular grip on the world and remain in control of everything. Spirituality is a way for people to make themselves feel more important. The idea of true love, the idea of an afterlife, and the idea of a soul are all just methods that ones brain uses to protect itself from harsh truths. The idea that you can only love one person on the planet and that it is meant to be, is just something that makes one feel that they will find somebody eventually, and that they will live happily ever after. The soul and the afterlife are just ways in which one can avoid the inevitable truth that they will probably be rotting in the ground within the next century or so.
 
You're explaining the flaw in your analogy yourself, liberalism and conservatism aren't a security blanket and a search for truth. Ending up in one "extreme" makes one delusional, the other makes one extremely sceptical (not making one come up with weird theories, that's just the fun of science :D, if they end up being true, more fun to us :p).
But I honestly think the universe itself is far more overwhelming, far more beautiful, far more special than any religion or philosophy ever predicted, from the sub-atomic to the universal. And accepting death is probably a lot easier and carefree than living your life trying your very best not to suffer for eternity. But that's maybe just me. I have little problem with spirituality as a security blanket, it's organized religion and the likes I have a problem with (and I guess the lack of education causing the spirituality).
 
You do realize that you can have both together? :/

It doesn't have to be one or the other. Being to far one side or the other isn't very smart. Meeting somewhere in the middle is the best route.
 
I've heard a multitude of people who have said that whenever this debate shows up, but I have never truthfully been able to understand how one comes to this amalgam of the two. Would you care to elaborate how?
 
DarthPika said:
It doesn't have to be one or the other. Being to far one side or the other isn't very smart. Meeting somewhere in the middle is the best route.
Click to expand...
Science does a pretty good job at explaining the natural world, and there's no apparent evidence for a supernatural world, so why would the middle group be the way to go? Compromising is nice in a lot of occasions, but it's possible for one side of an argument to just to be right.

I am of the opinion that when something is worth believing, it immediately enters the natural world, and is therefore part of science. There's no point in even considering the supernatural, because it by definition does not exist in your world. If it did, it would be natural.

Most of the spiritual is silly anyways. It connects humans with the universe, the universe with parts of the human brain, human activity with nature in an indirect way and so on. It just seems narrow-minded to think animals like us would have magic powers like that, especially in reference to the universe.
You'd also expect research to massively hint towards the existence of spirituality if it were real, wouldn't you? (In which case scientists wouldn't be opposed to it, which they are for a reason...)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top