PDA

View Full Version : Science vs. Spirituality



Danustouch
October 30th, 2001, 01:26 AM
This article ROCKS!!!!!

http://www.thinkdeeply.com/main/article.php?sid=42&mode=thread&order=0

Aengus McTeague
October 30th, 2001, 03:38 AM
Gee, sorry. I found it pretty incomprehensible, and and not the slightest bit likely to lead any atheist to reconsider. I also question the writers facts. In the beginning, he states that 90% of the scientific community does not believe in God. Yet I found a statistic showing that roughly 40% believe in some type of diety.



"The result: about 40 percent of scientists still believe in a personal
God and an afterlife. In both surveys, roughly 45 percent disbelieved and 15
percent were doubters (agnostic).'' source (http://solon.cma.univie.ac.at/~neum/sciandf/contrib/clari.txt)

For another riff on thought, spirituality, and science, try Physicist and Cosmologist Brian Swimme:



Well, I think the difference is that while every member of the universe participates in the construction of the cosmos, that participation proceeds without a conscious reflection upon it. We, too, are participating in constructing the cosmos, but we have the awareness that we're doing that. That's the essential difference of being human. We recognize this process as happening, and we can actually awaken to the fact that we are actively doing it. We're not just doing it. We're awakened to the fact that we're doing it.
This then calls for spiritual development so that we can find our way between the two extremes of how we tend to respond to this. On the one hand, we can be so overwhelmed by what that means, so frozen by the responsibility, that we divert ourselves from really embracing that destiny. And I think that happens a lot. Right now it's what our civilization is about, for the most part. But the other extreme actually is just as bad. We become so inflated with the thrill of that role that we lopside into thinking that we are the real action of the universe and that the human, and human enlightenment, is all that really matters. But I think it's not that. It's rather that we're participating in this huge, vast, intricate event, and we're a member of the community, but we seem to be especially destined to reflect upon this and to participate in it consciously. So I try to emphasize the fact of uniqueness hereóbut at the same time there's an equality. There's both. We're unique in our particular role. But on an ontological level, there's an equality. We're not somehow superior to the moon or to the phytoplankton or to the spiders or to anything else. Everyone is essential.


From the What is Enlightenment? Journal (http://www.wie.org/j19/swimmeintro.asp)

BB,
Aengus

Illuminatus
October 30th, 2001, 02:04 PM
Originally posted by Danustouch
This article ROCKS!!!!!

http://www.thinkdeeply.com/main/article.php?sid=42&mode=thread&order=0

We are likewise unimpressed.

The entire argument (if you can extract a solid argument from the heaps of conjecture) basicly said that Thought could not exist in a random, godless universe. All it did was point out one of Science weak points in the discipline of neural biology, which is lagging behind the other disciplines in answering the questions about the universe.

Thought evolved as life did - tiny microorganisms using photoreceptor cells to find food, becoming small multi-cellular clusters that could actually use sensory cells to 'see', then more and more complicated animals which could not only see, but built a complicated bed of neurons to interpret and use the sensory information bombarding the organism... so on and so forth.

To this day, Scientists like myself (or technicians like myself, as the author would have you believe) have not bridged the link between simple photosensory response and complex human thought... but that's a poor justification for the existance of a diety.

Pointing out a weak link does not prove an unprovable theorem. Had this guy been born 3000 years ago, he would have used thunder and lightning as his primary arguments for the existance of a higher power, explainging that the village elders could not explain why these things happened, therefore they must be divine in origin.

- Ill

BlueAlvarez
October 31st, 2001, 11:39 PM
However, when a technician attempts to explain the universe on an energy and mass basis, it is similar to a person trying to give a comprehensive review of a book when the beginning chapters have been skipped.

Ugh.

I am now dumber for having read that.

Swanspirit
November 10th, 2001, 04:16 PM
but only separate and apart from the attempting to convince everyone that there is a god........
I like the ideas that thought is PART of the divine..... as energy..........
and that energy as thought is and has power......and I realise that some people are just geting there while other work with that idea on a daily basis ......
and I think that can be considered as an idea .... and extracted from this article .
I dont know what the stats are on scientists not believing in "god"........... and I wonder if they .. the "non believers " arent just looking for a new paradigm of deity.... instead of trying to fit what they find as science into the old paradigm frame ...... and it doesnt fit ...... just as some spiritual seekers are finding a poor fit as well.......
Love and Light
Swannie

Old Witch
November 10th, 2001, 09:18 PM
To the whole thing......Whaaaaaa?:confused: (Please don't try to explain.)

Illuminatus
February 14th, 2002, 05:33 PM
Bump

Mercuria
February 17th, 2002, 08:49 AM
Why is it always science VERSUS spirituality, anyway?

I'm interested in all forms of science, especially physics. That doesn't stop me from having a spritual side. In fact I find no conflict between them whatsoever. Granted, I do take a special interest in the new physics, which does have some almost "mystical" undertones, but don't I find any conflict with the more commonsense, rational sciences either.

In fact some of the parallels between science and spirituality are quite profound.

Mercuria

Illuminatus
February 19th, 2002, 02:18 PM
Originally posted by Mercuria
Why is it always science VERSUS spirituality, anyway?

I'm interested in all forms of science, especially physics. That doesn't stop me from having a spritual side. In fact I find no conflict between them whatsoever. Granted, I do take a special interest in the new physics, which does have some almost "mystical" undertones, but don't I find any conflict with the more commonsense, rational sciences either.

In fact some of the parallels between science and spirituality are quite profound.

Mercuria

You've got it backwards. People link Spirituality to Religion. And Science and Religion clash. Science and Spirituality really do not clash directly.

So people who say that Science ruins Spirituality, are usually under the flag of some Religion whose tennants have come under question.

Myst
February 19th, 2002, 03:17 PM
Originally posted by Illuminatus
So people who say that Science ruins Spirituality, are usually under the flag of some Religion whose tennants have come under question.

Some days you really see it more clearly and easily then I could.

Mercuria
February 23rd, 2002, 12:53 PM
Illuminatus- true, very true.

Also, some religions are clash with science more than others.

Xander67
February 27th, 2002, 07:46 PM
HOW IRONIC ;)

heheh