Trying to reconcile spirituality and religion.

DaftChris

I was on another forum and asked a question about being both spiritual as well as a person of science. I said that science only explains the natural world and that we don't know how or why natural laws came into be. I made the statement that, while I don't really believe in "God", I do believe that there could be something out there. And that was it possible to blend science with mystical beliefs like Kabbalah or Gnosticism?

Here is a portion of an answer given to me.

So what you are saying, is that the things science has not been able to explain yet are outside of its realm of discovery. I have never understood this POV. Why would you assume that existence of the supernatural, given that no one has ever been able to prove it exists at all? This is sounds a lot like an argument from ignorance to me

Is this true? Is the reason we try to blend faith with the natural world, because we are ignorant? Or are we, in our own way, just trying to find our own truth?

Patr

DaftChris said:

I was on another forum and asked a question about being both spiritual as well as a person of science. I said that science only explains the natural world and that we don't know how or why natural laws came into be. I made the statement that, while I don't really believe in "God", I do believe that there could be something out there. And that was it possible to blend science with mystical beliefs like Kabbalah or Gnosticism?

Here is a portion of an answer given to me.

So what you are saying, is that the things science has not been able to explain yet are outside of its realm of discovery. I have never understood this POV. Why would you assume that existence of the supernatural, given that no one has ever been able to prove it exists at all? This is sounds a lot like an argument from ignorance to me

Is this true? Is the reason we try to blend faith with the natural world, because we are ignorant? Or are we, in our own way, just trying to find our own truth?


Well if we assume that science has already discovered everything there is to discover, then the statement above will be true. Can anyone assume that?

Example: magnetism/ radiation/ electricity (lightning!) existed as long as our world was formed, but was only discovered recently. Or did it not exist until Science verified it.

Cheers

vinlyn

Rather than saying "science", I would expand it to "human knowledge". If we look at the body of human knowledge that existed in Siddhartha's world, and compared that to the body of human knowledge that exists today...it's amazing. Man's knowledge has grown exponentially. Even since my childhood back in the 1950s, what we know today is amazing compared to what we knew then. I remember when I was about 10 (in 1959) one of our church members had a heart attack, and my grandparents said, "Well, he's dead." And they were right...within days, he was dead. Today, I know people with serious heart conditions who live relatively normal lives. Open heart surgery, heart transplants, angioplasty, heart medicines (one of which I rely on), and other advances have changed life for millions of people. And that's just one example. So that is the science "side of things", and our knowledge will continue to expand.

On the other side is the spiritual side. And here is where your responder got it wrong, in my view. We don't (at least in today's world) -- in general -- look at what we don't know and try to attach it to religion. For example, when we (at least intelligent people) couldn't explain polio, we didn't attach it to the supernatural. We attributed it to a body of knowledge which we hadn't yet conquered. But then there's another realm of human interest -- spirituality -- that attempts to answer far more complex issues such (and I know this is a cliche) what is the purpose of life?...and other related topics.

The question to me is not that there are two different realms of knowledge, but rather, in what ways are those two realms moving toward convergence.

JohnG

Study history; you'll see that what was once supernatural, is now science. The prime one being 'we' are the only one's in the universe; beginning with hubble and now Kepler another supernatural explination is gone. But I would ask that person, what is a world where no one asks questions, and then seeks to understand them, and remain satisfied in the supernatural? For every one question answered, a multitude more open up.

Songhill

DaftChris:

Here is a portion of an answer given to me.

"So what you are saying, is that the things science has not been able to explain yet are outside of its realm of discovery. I have never understood this POV. Why would you assume that existence of the supernatural, given that no one has ever been able to prove it exists at all? This is sounds a lot like an argument from ignorance to me."

Is this true? Is the reason we try to blend faith with the natural world, because we are ignorant? Or are we, in our own way, just trying to find our own truth?

I look at "supernatural" as something which transcends nature. It could be something which our senses cannot perceive. "Reason," itself, could be considered supernatural. Reason is a process. It is not something we find in nature like a head of cabbage. We might even say mathematics is also supernatural.

When Siddhartha awoke and became Buddha it was because he realized the dharma which is supernatural.

The dharma obtained by me is profound, of deep splendor, difficult to see, difficult to understand, incomprehensible, having the incomprehensible as its scope, fine, subtle, the sense of which can only be understood by the wise.

There is nothing wrong with having faith in the supernatural. It is also okay not to believe in a God who some imagine will save us all, and grant us our wishes.

karasti

There are examples where what we know is now science-based, were once blamed on religion. There are still less advanced cultures who believe mental illness is related to religion and demons because they don't have that science knowledge to know what causes mental illness like schizophrenia. Voodoo and even some Native American traditions show this quite a bit. Even we don't always get it right, for example assuming someone acting "crazy" is in need of being put in jail when they are suffering hypoglycemia. There is often a scientific explanation for the "crazy" in life, we just haven't found them all yet. What we today know to be one thing, was 50 years ago thought to be something entirely different. Imagine what we'll know 50 years from now.

Zero

DaftChris said:

Is this true? Is the reason we try to blend faith with the natural world, because we are ignorant? Or are we, in our own way, just trying to find our own truth?

Both - our ignorance leads us to find our own truth.

Compartmentalised knowledge keeps chaos at bay.

lobster

The difference is science has reasons to believe what it knows. Buddhists have reasons for what they know. The superstitious and gullible believe things with no basis. In a child it is charming. In an adult it is spiritual and developmental immaturity. We of course can all be childish. Should we make a childish science or a childish religion for adults?

vinlyn

lobster said:

The difference is science has reasons to believe what it knows. Buddhists have reasons for what they know. The superstitious and gullible believe things with no basis. In a child it is charming. In an adult it is spiritual and developmental immaturity. We of course can all be childish. Should we make a childish science or a childish religion for adults?

Well put...but I wish you would expand on what you wrote.

lobster

Ok vinlyn,
let us mention a little about convergence.
All spirituality changes people for the better. If not, the system is clearly led by an agenda.
However what is better?
Though there are some perverted systems, we are trying to allow innate qualities or accentuate positive aspects that beneft ourself, others and our setting.
Science will want to explore and understand this process, if it sees it occuring. So for example sportsmen, patients and others are being taught meditation and visualisation. Because it works.

So there are techniques that are well documented and tested that can be explored.
Many have not been. For example mantrayana as a sound or acoustic healing.
It is believed dolphins use acoustics for diagnosis and healing. Cats purr to heal injury and maintain health. It is from my experience possible for humans but not yet much science, I can not quantify. There is a kidney stone breaker that uses sound . . . it is there . . .

Being pro-science will allow the valuable to thrive. There is so much of value in Buddhism but for example, Buddhist cosmology based on a tunnel through mount Meru, through which the sun and moon travel (hence darkness) is almost totally forgotten. Good thing too, it came from earlier 'explanations'. Ignorance.

So I feel we should use a trained mind to encourage that in other approaches that is of value and let die all fantasies of being a frog in a previous life. There will never be evidence for that, just stories . . . for little princesses . . .
:scratch: :thumbup:

Cinorjer

DaftChris said:

I was on another forum and asked a question about being both spiritual as well as a person of science. I said that science only explains the natural world and that we don't know how or why natural laws came into be. I made the statement that, while I don't really believe in "God", I do believe that there could be something out there. And that was it possible to blend science with mystical beliefs like Kabbalah or Gnosticism?

Here is a portion of an answer given to me.

So what you are saying, is that the things science has not been able to explain yet are outside of its realm of discovery. I have never understood this POV. Why would you assume that existence of the supernatural, given that no one has ever been able to prove it exists at all? This is sounds a lot like an argument from ignorance to me

Is this true? Is the reason we try to blend faith with the natural world, because we are ignorant? Or are we, in our own way, just trying to find our own truth?


My take is that it's both true and irrelevent. If something exists within the laws of the universe, then science is capable of examining and explaining it given time and effort. If it doesn't fit into the known laws of the universe, then science will examine the phenomena and announce they'd discovered another law.

For instance, if ghosts really existed, then science would simply make room in our understanding for the existence of ghosts and look for the connection to the known laws of the universe that must be there. Science did examine ghosts, and discovered them to be the product of the human imagination and ability to see recognized patterns in random stimulus. What science can't do is study something that doesn't exist, and ghosts as ectoplasmic independent things that rattle doorknobs do not exist. For something to exist, it must have an effect on the universe in some way. What is it, and how does it work are the questions science answers.

But this is all irrelevent to our search for a spiritual life, of finding meaning in our existence or searching for that grander purpose to it all. What difference at all would it make in your life if science said that thing you glimpsed last night was a restless spirit? None at all. If science said wearing a bit of red string around your finger really did bring good luck, it would be great for the string industry but you will suffer as much as before.

Sile

Well--science isn't really in the business of declaring, in perpetuity, what cannot exist. Science as a whole hasn't declared that ghosts don't exist; rather, specific studies concluded that ghosts in those studies were the product of human imagination.

If a device were invented tomorrow which showed evidence of ghosts existing, and the experiments were successfully repeated, science would eventually publish the results. Modern science (well, from the 1600s on) studied electricity for several hundred years before finally agreeing on the existence of the "electron."

Science imho doesn't rule anything out 100%; if it did, it wouldn't really be science.

vinlyn

lobster said:

Ok vinlyn,
let us mention a little about convergence.
All spirituality changes people for the better. If not, the system is clearly led by an agenda.
However what is better?
Though there are some perverted systems, we are trying to allow innate qualities or accentuate positive aspects that beneft ourself, others and our setting.
Science will want to explore and understand this process, if it sees it occuring. So for example sportsmen, patients and others are being taught meditation and visualisation. Because it works.

So there are techniques that are well documented and tested that can be explored.
Many have not been. For example mantrayana as a sound or acoustic healing.
It is believed dolphins use acoustics for diagnosis and healing. Cats purr to heal injury and maintain health. It is from my experience possible for humans but not yet much science, I can not quantify. There is a kidney stone breaker that uses sound . . . it is there . . .

Being pro-science will allow the valuable to thrive. There is so much of value in Buddhism but for example, Buddhist cosmology based on a tunnel through mount Meru, through which the sun and moon travel (hence darkness) is almost totally forgotten. Good thing too, it came from earlier 'explanations'. Ignorance.

So I feel we should use a trained mind to encourage that in other approaches that is of value and let die all fantasies of being a frog in a previous life. There will never be evidence for that, just stories . . . for little princesses . . .
:scratch: :thumbup:

Thanks for expanding on that!

vinlyn

Cinorjer said:

My take is that it's both true and irrelevent. If something exists within the laws of the universe, then science is capable of examining and explaining it given time and effort. If it doesn't fit into the known laws of the universe, then science will examine the phenomena and announce they'd discovered another law.

For instance, if ghosts really existed, then science would simply make room in our understanding for the existence of ghosts and look for the connection to the known laws of the universe that must be there. Science did examine ghosts, and discovered them to be the product of the human imagination and ability to see recognized patterns in random stimulus. What science can't do is study something that doesn't exist, and ghosts as ectoplasmic independent things that rattle doorknobs do not exist. For something to exist, it must have an effect on the universe in some way. What is it, and how does it work are the questions science answers.

But this is all irrelevent to our search for a spiritual life, of finding meaning in our existence or searching for that grander purpose to it all. What difference at all would it make in your life if science said that thing you glimpsed last night was a restless spirit? None at all. If science said wearing a bit of red string around your finger really did bring good luck, it would be great for the string industry but you will suffer as much as before.

I disagree just a tad. I don't think a real scientist would say that ghosts don't exist. Rather, he would say that there is not evidence at the present that ghosts exist.

Cinorjer

vinlyn said:

Cinorjer said:

My take is that it's both true and irrelevent. If something exists within the laws of the universe, then science is capable of examining and explaining it given time and effort. If it doesn't fit into the known laws of the universe, then science will examine the phenomena and announce they'd discovered another law.

For instance, if ghosts really existed, then science would simply make room in our understanding for the existence of ghosts and look for the connection to the known laws of the universe that must be there. Science did examine ghosts, and discovered them to be the product of the human imagination and ability to see recognized patterns in random stimulus. What science can't do is study something that doesn't exist, and ghosts as ectoplasmic independent things that rattle doorknobs do not exist. For something to exist, it must have an effect on the universe in some way. What is it, and how does it work are the questions science answers.

But this is all irrelevent to our search for a spiritual life, of finding meaning in our existence or searching for that grander purpose to it all. What difference at all would it make in your life if science said that thing you glimpsed last night was a restless spirit? None at all. If science said wearing a bit of red string around your finger really did bring good luck, it would be great for the string industry but you will suffer as much as before.

I disagree just a tad. I don't think a real scientist would say that ghosts don't exist. Rather, he would say that there is not evidence at the present that ghosts exist.

You're right. That was sloppy of me. Thanks for the correction.

Florian

This is a bit odd. It is obvious that the natural sciences, let's call it all physics, will never explain anything much about the world. This is because physics must give way to nmetaphysics before it can reach reality itself. This is the whole point of distinguishing physics from metaphysics. The idea that physics does not need metaphysics for a fundamental theory is blatantly ridiculous, and the idea that it does not need religion is equally ridiculous in my opinion. The reason physicists can get away with assuming they don;t need anyone else is that it is nonreductive. That is, physics is happy not ask or answer fundamental questions, so can blithely say it is self-contained and complete. It is, yes, if we don't want to solve any major problems.

Someone said earlier that the Buddha's doctrine is supernatural but I would want to see some argument behind this. For me this would be the only naturalistic doctrine there is, since it would be the only one that is true. How could it not be naturalistic if it is true?

How can anything be supernatural? The idea makes no sense. The laws of Heaven come from Tao being what it is. It is a natural phenomenon giving rise to natural processes. If there are ghosts then they are natural phenomena. If there is Nibbana then it is a natural phenomenon. Etc.

Besides, scientists do not study what exists. That would be ontology. They are unable to prove that anything really exists, which allows Buddhism the space to say that it doesn't. If physicists want to argue then they'll have to take up metaphysics or mysticism because physics is useless in this respect.

But physicists rarely get this since they do not usually like to think about such things. Or so it seems.

Tosh

DaftChris said:

I was on another forum and asked a question about being both spiritual as well as a person of science.

Can you define what you mean 'being spiritual' means? In A.A. (and no doubt N.A.) 'being spiritual' seems to mean many different to different people. For some 'being spiritual' must include a god, for others 'being spiritual' is lighting candles and joss sticks, but for me 'being spiritual' means working with my mind.

There's probably many other concepts of what 'being spiritual' actually means; so what's yours?

DaftChris

@Tosh

To me, "being spiritual" is being open to the possibilities that there could be something out here (God, a universal consciousness, etc). Not theistic, but also not atheistic per se.

Florian

Ramesh Balsekar, advaitan philosopher and follower of Wei Wu Wei, writes, 'Spiritual seekers are like lost children in a forest of their own imaginings'. But this would be just one interpretation of 'spiritual'.

vinlyn

Florian said:

Ramesh Balsekar, advaitan philosopher and follower of Wei Wu Wei, writes, 'Spiritual seekers are like lost children in a forest of their own imaginings'. But this would be just one interpretation of 'spiritual'.

That's a very interesting statement...and a good "warning".

Florian

Sorry. I quoted from memory and spoilt the quote.

"Spiritual seekers are lost children in a conceptual forest created by their own imagination".

Ramesh Balsekar
The Ultimate Understanding

A very good book.

MaryAnne

To me, being "spiritual" means feeling, knowing and remembering that I am connected to, affected by, and effecting everything -seen and unseen- everywhere.

All the rest (religious practices, ritual, prayers, philosophy, etc) comes under the heading of "What one does with that knowledge" .

lobster

Is there a cure for being spiritual?

buddhajunkie

God is inherently non-scientific.

Science discovers "truth" by testing falsifiable hypotheses. But the existence of God is inherently unfalsifiable, and thus incompatible with science.

Florian

Yes. But science is quite half-hearted. The existence of anything is incompatible with Nagarjuna's view.

music

Is there a cure for being spiritual?

Yes. Log in more often.