Can Science and Spirituality be friends?

DaftChris

This was originally a blog post of mine that I thought could start a good dialogue here.

Short answer? Yes.

Long-ish answer?

I view science and spirituality as being halves of one collective brain. Spirituality and/or religion as being “right brained”; that being more belief-based, heavy on symbolism and highly subjective. Whilst science is “left-brained”; using logic, calculations and being overall more analytical. If one is too left-brained, they can become cold and detached. If one is too right-brained, they can become too aloof and not based in reality. The same can be said about science and religion/spirituality.

Religion has changed drastically over time. The rabbinical Judaism of today is no where similar to the temple Judaism of the time of Christ. Buddhism had evolved from what a humanistic philosophy taught about the state of life to many denominations having large pantheons of spirits and demi-gods. Nothing ever remains stagnent. Religion and spirituality will change over the course of time to adapt to the changing world.

Science is not exempt from this either. Despite what many people would say (how religion and science are not compatible because religion adapts to science and not vice versa) science also will change over time. The science of today is very different from the science of not even 200 years ago. Within time, it is almost certain that the science of the future will be different from the science of now.

Both change over time and both are not mutually exclusive. To think that one has all the answers and trumps the other has been puzzling to me. To go back to the brain analogy, both sides of the brain are ideally needed to function. Both science and spirituality, to me anyway, are needed for people to have the answers to the questions that plague the human existence. Why are we here? Where are we from? Where are we going? Spirituality also need not be something supernatural. The vastness of the universe; the orderliness of physics; the beauty of nature. There are quite spiritual at their core and are every bit as fulfilling as God, rites, ritual and prayer.

Science and spirituality are not enemies. They only appear to be, because their proponents claim superiority over the other. Within time, perhaps people will understand that and things will start to make more sense.

What do you think?

vinlyn

You know, @DaftChris, I think the way you phrased the thread title is the most perfect way the general theme has been described at anytime on this forum: "Can Science and Spirituality be friends". To often we get into the discussion about Buddhism being science, and as a person trained in the sciences...it's just not.

But, the way you've described it -- as can they be friendly -- I like that...particularly when you consider how human friendships go. In some areas a friendship can be really close, in other areas significant different, and sometimes friendships fall apart completely. And that's the only caveat here -- what if science discovers something that is clearly significantly against some Buddhist concept (such as rebirth)?

person

Carl Sagan and Neil DeGrasse Tyson both had/have views based in science but have a spiritual quality in that they step out of their small ego and identify with the universe.

person

So I guess in relation to the title of the thread. Science can be spiritual like in the above and spirituality can be scientific in that it is based off of ones observations of the world and checked against others views.

Science and religion is a tougher nut to crack because religion is more structured and dogmatic than spirituality.

misecmisc1

my thinking says: if we take this from a human being's perspective, then: we can use science to a little extent to verify what spirituality says, and we can use spirituality to answer things which science does not understand.

But, if we take the perspectives of science and spirituality, then from their perspective, sorry, they cannot be friends because science does not stand without the concept of 'I' and spirituality does not stand with the concept of 'I'.

lobster

I would like to add a third element - art. Science and art can be friends. Music has a mathematical basis, how far can it be programmed and be artistic? Quite a distance until the essential difference is reached.
Painting can be scientifically analysed for proportion, form and abstract criteria, amongst other components. Taken too far and we have data and no dada.
Art for me is in between science and Religion.
Science in its purest form is the search for truth and Religion too. That is their full circle meeting. It is very difficult to say what art is but we can examine the expression. The Truth that religion finds ( on the rare occasions it does ), is difficult to verify or collate, though it too has a myriad of symbolic and other artistic results.

I love science but I love love more and there is an art to that - religion. :wave:

Florian

I think the definitions for the words 'science' and 'spirituality' can vary so much that the question is a bit woolly.

For me Buddhism is a science, or may be practiced as a science, so I see no conflict. But someone else may define 'spirituality' as New Age dreaming and 'science' as blinkered scientism, and they would have a different view.

vinlyn

Florian said:

For me Buddhism is a science, or may be practiced as a science, so I see no conflict. ...

Yup, that's woolly!

Florian

What was woolly about it? Seems crystal clear to me. I'm struggling to see how it could be misunderstood by anyone.

vinlyn

@Floridan, ah...you're the one who brought up it being woolly!

Florian

No, you did. The post is right there just above your previous one. I cannot understand why you would have posted it, but there it is.

vinlyn

Florian, it's a word I've never used. I wondered what it meant, and finally assumed it probably meant fuzzy.

Here's your post: "I think the definitions for the words 'science' and 'spirituality' can vary so much that the question is a bit woolly. For me Buddhism is a science, or may be practiced as a science, so I see no conflict. But someone else may define 'spirituality' as New Age dreaming and 'science' as blinkered scientism, and they would have a different view."

And here's how I responded:

"Yup, that's woolly!"

Florian

Oh right. You quoted my post and called it woolly, so I thought it was my post you meant. My bad. Forums are confusing sometimes.

caz

Buddhism is an Inner Science it doesn't contradict Worldly Science and where it does it needs to change.

David

caz said:

Buddhism is an Inner Science it doesn't contradict Worldly Science and where it does it needs to change.

Agreed. If religion conflicts with science, it's being done wrong.

lobster

If science conflicts with Religion, it has not been there yet.

To be more clear, that is religion with a 'big R'.
Gnostic, experiential knowing, not dharma opinion, woolly new ageism and other unscientific theories of how it might be . . .

Florian

ourself said:

caz said:

Buddhism is an Inner Science it doesn't contradict Worldly Science and where it does it needs to change.

Agreed. If religion conflicts with science, it's being done wrong.

It's deciding which one is being done wrong that can be tricky.

searching_samsara

vinlyn said:

, and as a person trained in the sciences...it's just not.

Stand aside, heres a 17th century physician who is "trained"

Like a pet dog?

seeker242

A Meeting of Two Minds: Carl Sagan and the Dalai Lama

"Religion and science do not have to be at odds. Science, says Ann Druyan, widow of Cornell astronomer Carl Sagan, can communicate with, learn from and even benefit from religion and vice versa."