The Roles of Science and Spirituality

[rez]

Quote by: spectre When you see that the scientific world is measurably infinite, you understand the turtle thing I'm saying. There is always something new to reduce, (and if you are smart enough to put it back together, something new to construct) so questions of an eternal nature become necessary when you realise that.

How do you know there is always something new to reduce? How do you know the scientific world is measurably infinite?

What you are saying here is this. Since the universe is infinite it is impossible to really explain it fully, so we have to cut our loses and look at the grand scheme of things here. What is really going on in this universe? Besides the math mumbo jumbo, and cell replication, and sequencing genomes and all that jazz...what are humans really doing here....?

[spectre]

I never said cut our losses, these things that we are doing are important, we need to know about cell replication, we need to know about genomes. Its always better to know more of infinity than less, its the fact that form is finite that is the bad premise for a full-understanding. Energy is infinite, matter cannot be destroyed, only converted into another sequence or back into energy - this is not finite but transformable. Its only the form that changes, not the underlying substance. Remember that. When will we get to the bottom of the reduction? Is string theory the very bottom, or once strings are found will we want to know more about their formation?

All of these discoveries are extremely valuable, but they teach us more than just "that they are" so there are always more questions which embrace the eternal, or infinite side, as these questions address the more immediate finite. You can't expect consistent done and dusted answers from infinite questions as you can from your finite answers either. But like I said its better to know more of the infinite than none of it, and so questioning the infinite gives a clearer grasp of what there is and how, and why, than none of it at all.

[rez]

Quote by: spectre You can't expect consistent done and dusted answers from infinite questions as you can from your finite answers either. .

Infinite questions?

[spectre]

finite questions have finite answers.

these spiritual questions will never have finite answers because they have an infinite nature about them.

The finite scientific answers are just portions. If the universe is infinite, then there will be an infinite number of these questions, that arise as you know more of the infinite. So you find finite answers to finite questions, but then continue to ask more. Spiritual questions have an infinite nature, as they deal with the infinte, so they are not portional and neither are their answers, but we can "believe" more of what is available of that infinity.

[Jack]

Definition of Spirit (from Oxford English Dictionary): a person’s non-physical being, composed of their character and emotions

I keep thinking back to this definition. I keep thinking that if those are what comprise our non-physical beings, it's not suggesting that there's a soul or other non-corporeal version of ourselves. Character and emotions are based in instincts we develop as we age, lessons learned from life experiences. They are the sum of our experiences. I have no reason to think that those reactions aren't due in large part to chemical reactions taking place throughout our bodies coupled with electrical connections being made in the brain.

Our brains are us, we are our brains. We've developed the means to keep a body alive artificially through the traumatic or surgical removal of any human organ except the brain. We can keep a person alive by replacing almost every organ and limb except the brain. God didn't give us everything we experience in this life. Our brains did.

[Sweet Katie]

Quote by: spectre Q: is it important for science to try and "prove" spiritual beliefs and should spiritual beliefs "adhere" to scientific regieme? Or should one of these two purely be abandoned?

If a Creator in some form exists, science won't be able to disprove its existence without the scientific theories (at some time) being disproven. As a person who finds Creation more plausable than absolute Evolution, I welcome definitive proof of absolute Evolution. I dispell the notion that Science and Religion are threats to one another. If evidence is looked at objectively, the truth will be revealed . . . Now, whether that time is determined by Chaos or the Bible is the question . . .

[Jack]

As a person who finds Creation more plausable than absolute Evolution, I welcome definitive proof of absolute Evolution.

There's the rub. Of course the creation story is more absolutely convincing. It's the only one of the two that proposes there are absolutes. It's a biased criteria.

Science attempts to explain nature. Nature is the observed, we are simply observers. We have limited control over natural processes. So all we can do is observe and attempt to explain.

To reason out the universe, that's not science. That's philosophy. That field isn't a scientific field, it's one of the humanities. Everything in that field is even less well defined, less agreed upon. It deals with understanding us and the common and unique perceptions we have of reality. But they don't define reality. That's what science does, by presenting conclusions based on their research. Best guesses. The best answer at the moment. Subject to amendment. No absolutes.

Religious belief offers absolutes. But as a philosophy, theology cannot create reality. It can and does deal in fantasy.

We all tell ourselves stories, we all have reasons for why our lives and why reality work the way they do. If part of your story can incorporate fantasy, then religious belief will be acceptable to you. If the story you tell yourself doesn't allow for fantasy, your world will make perfect sense without invoking gods.

[spectre]

Thanks Jack for another reductionist oxymoron. (in reply to the prior post)

Perhaps those things do originate in the brain, but the experiences that stem from them or immaterial thought are as valid as the primordial creatures to crawl up from the swamps. Or is it that you don't believe in life either? That creatures never crawled out of the swamp it was just the swamp?

Do any of you believe in evolution or are you belief-neutral plants?

lifeless matter evolves into more complex lifeless matter (i.e. macrometers) which inturn evolved into living matter (i.e. plants, animals with a limbic brain) which allowed the evolution of immaterial emotion (interior experience to limbic-brain exterior) which evolved into creatures with a mind to calculate using these instincts you put forward as survival mechanisms (neo-cortex) and creatures with minds, are then able to use those minds to think more abstractly past the original survival capacites (people with souls).

Evolve you sterile apes!

[spectre]

your world will make perfect sense without invoking gods.

To reason out the universe, that's not science. That's philosophy. That field isn't a scientific field, it's one of the humanities. Everything in that field is even less well defined, less agreed upon. It deals with understanding us and the common and unique perceptions we have of reality. But they don't define reality. That's what science does, by presenting conclusions based on their research. Best guesses. The best answer at the moment. Subject to amendment. No absolutes.

Best guesses? Yea? Science defines reality? I'm afraid that as new discoveries come and pass reality keeps getting re-defined. Science keeps coming up with new theories on reality, and new ways that reality is. No different to philosophy, as philosophy deals with the same problem-answer situation as I said before; spirituality solves questions of an infinite nature, and science solves questions of a finite nature. Both are necessary, as more finite answers come, the "reality" will change, this is an infinite process, we aren't going to have a date where everything is solved, new discoveries lead to new research. Exactly the same as philosophy defines aspects of reality that aren't portioned, but infinite and can only "reason" these answers in a limited understanding of the infinite, so the knowledge and reasoning increases as reasoning continues.

[spectre]

Nature is the observed, we are simply observers.

Science observes nature from a third person perspective (observed), Spirituality observes nature from a first person perspective (observers). It is important to study what is doing the observation in order to understand the observation process which effects the research.

your world will make perfect sense without invoking gods.

What has this got to do with post-mythic spirituality?

[rez]

Quote by: spectre lifeless matter evolves into more complex lifeless matter (i.e. macrometers) which inturn evolved into living matter (i.e. plants, animals with a limbic brain) which allowed the evolution of immaterial emotion (interior experience to limbic-brain exterior) which evolved into creatures with a mind to calculate using these instincts you put forward as survival mechanisms (neo-cortex) and creatures with minds, are then able to use those minds to think more abstractly past the original survival capacities (people with souls). Evolve you sterile apes!

Being able to abstractly think does not mean you have a soul.

[Dadoo]

Indeed, a soul's presence may argued. I like to believe it to be the same as the body, in a different context.
Scientific methodology depends upon evidence, and the witnesses to said evidence, and it's ability to be duplicated in another lab setting.
Spiritual methodology depends upon faith in the testimonial of "witnesses", as well. Yet, we have some trouble duplicating miracles.
A miracle, done twice may be a magic trick, or other form of technology.
One must have faith in either science or spiritual thinking modes. Arriving at a paradox, I reason that they may be disparate views of a singularity. Different terms, same meanings.
Each has a role in my life,; one enhances the other. The Dalai Lama even calls upon science to explain in their terms, phenomena that Tibetan Buddhism has expounded upon for a millenium.
In any sense, it is conjecture and theory until a scientifically-proven deity arises and actually takes care of this messy planet. All the others were a lot of talk.
Dadoo

Science