Spirituality - Why does science loath it?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Spirituality is just a lot more vague and ill-defined, but just as silly.

afstandopleren, I always find it weird how you seem to hate on scientists practising generally accepted science, doctors prescribing medicine which has been tested for numerous years in double-blind tests, yet accept homoeopathy on the basis of an anecdote, water crystals responding to music on the basis of a dubious article, the existence of giants on the basis of 2 small photos and a random newspaper article and bizarre phenomenons on the basis of no evidence at all supporting it. Even weirder is how you claim we're the narrow-minded ones, yet you seem to use an enormous double standard. Science seems to fail miserably because it does not always predict everything with absolute accuracy, yet pseudo-science, when sporadically doing something right, is the answer.

I'm sorry, but it's hard to take a discussion with you serious if you act like that...

EDIT: Funny vid
 
Because there is an actual balance between the two that scientist are in denial about. Not like you seem to understand since you believe so badly in science, it´s almost as if it´s your religion, looking at the way you keep replying to these sort of stuff, trying to bend it your way so you can live with it.

I find it annoying that you completely disregard personal experiences and completely overlook the fact that spirituality can be proofed through Near Death Experiences. Short explanation: People die, have some memories and when they are revived, they change generally into better people.

*awaits more stupidity*
 
afstandopleren said:
Because there is an actual balance between the two that scientist are in denial about. Not like you seem to understand since you believe so badly in science, it´s almost as if it´s your religion, looking at the way you keep replying to these sort of stuff, trying to bend it your way so you can live with it.

I find it annoying that you completely disregard personal experiences and completely overlook the fact that spirituality can be proofed through Near Death Experiences. Short explanation: People die, have some memories and when they are revived, they change generally into better people.

*awaits more stupidity*
Click to expand...
There's no balance between science and religion. Science you must accept, you deal with it every second of your life and even after it, there's no believing in science as you said before. While on the other hand religion is based stupid claims never tested before or already proven wrong numerous times. What gives me the motivation (I know wrong word :/) then to believe in religion?

And still, personal experiences don't count as ''proven''. I could say I saw a crocoduck two minutes ago walking under my bed. Still that isn't enough evidence to call it proven.
 
Pokequaza said:
There's no balance between science and religion. Science you must accept, you deal with it every second of your life and even after it, there's no believing in science as you said before. While on the other hand religion is based stupid claims never tested before or already proven wrong numerous times. What gives me the inspiration then to believe in religion?

And still, personal experiences don't count as ''proven''. I could say I saw a crocoduck two minutes ago walking under my bed. Still that isn't enough evidence to call it proven.
Click to expand...

*clap clap cap* Congrats on failing miserably and taking so long to think this up. " Science you must accept"? HELLO JEHOVAH!!!!! What's next, Scientology taking over the world?
And no, it's impossible to deal with science every second of your life, otherwise you might as well be dead...wait, if ur dead, how come ur replyin'?

Personal experience are that person's own truth, and when many people have the same experience, than it's a fact. Didn't they teach you that at school yet? You can't proof someone's experience wrong and if you do try, then you are a horrible person...1 of many in this society. Congrats for being 1 of the many.
 
Pokequaza said:
There's no balance between science and religion. Science you must accept, you deal with it every second of your life and even after it, there's no believing in science as you said before. While on the other hand religion is based stupid claims never tested before or already proven wrong numerous times. What gives me the motivation (I know wrong word :/) then to believe in religion?

And still, personal experiences don't count as ''proven''. I could say I saw a crocoduck two minutes ago walking under my bed. Still that isn't enough evidence to call it proven.
Click to expand...

People like you on BOTH sides are the reasons that it often seems like "science loaths religion", or the other way around.

You are VERY foolish to say that religion is based on stupid claims that have been proven wrong numerous times. You are only parroting what you've heard other extremists say about this topic, and have no clue what you're really talking about. You sir are setting your self up for failure in life, and are one of the most closed minded individuals I've ever known.

Religion CAN and DOES work with science if you're willing to keep an open mind. Only your own ignorance is preventing it form happening. If you want to say why something wont work with something else, you WILL find it. You can do this with just about anything and everything. Keep an open mind, and you'll be a lot better off in life.

One more thing... Please stop saying how "science proved this, and science proved that". It makes you look very uneducated. Yes, science may give us a VERY good understanding of something, but it can not "prove" something, at least not in the sense you may think. Saying science is about proving things right and wrong is silly. It's about understanding how things work. Science doesn't have to be against religion, that choice is up to you.

What motivation do you have? Lets for the sake of argument say that I'm right and your wrong. Religion IS right. Eternal life sound nice to you? You have NOTHING to lose with religion, and everything to gain. Heck, even if I'm wrong and there is no eternal life, I haven't lost anything. If we die, and that's it, then if nothing else I've learned how to live a better life. If I'm right, I get eternal life. Win/win situation. :p
 
DarthPika said:
What motivation do you have? Lets for the sake of argument say that I'm right and your wrong. Religion IS right. Eternal life sound nice to you? You have NOTHING to lose with religion, and everything to gain. Heck, even if I'm wrong and there is no eternal life, I haven't lost anything. If we die, and that's it, then if nothing else I've learned how to live a better life. If I'm right, I get eternal life. Win/win situation. :p
Click to expand...
Some evil demon is about to enter your house and eat your brain, but you can do something about it, if you jump around in a circle on one leg for 5 minutes, he'll be scared and go away. You'll have to do this every month, though, or he'll come back. What do you have to lose? Isn't the consequence of not doing this far greater than the consequence of doing this? Do you see how silly this is when it's applied to something you don't believe in?

The probability of there being a personal god is far less than the probability of there being, for example, fairies (which would only contradict biology). A world with a god would be a fundamentally different world. Design would be evident everywhere, God would not hide himself, our planet would not be as minuscule and insignificant compared to the rest of the world, and the world would not be full of cruelty and imperfection like it is today.

And science and religion don't necessarily go together. The majority of scientists are either deists or atheists, the number of biologists who do not believe in a personal god is even greater (over 95%, if I'm not mistaken, I could try and find exact numbers if you'd really want some, but I don't have much time ATM). Religion may be winning globally, but amongst the more intelligent and the more scientific, it's not as prominent.
Science (mainly psychology), however, has given us a pretty good idea of why people believe in a god and are part of a religion, though. I have one interesting vid about the subject (it might seem biased since it was help at an atheist conference, but whatever): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1iMmvu9eMrg
afstandopleren said:
Personal experience are that person's own truth, and when many people have the same experience, than it's a fact.
Click to expand...
Or mass-delusion. As I have said before, the brain is everything but perfect. If we're able to live in a fantasy when sleeping, why would it not be possible when awake? Hypnosis and cold reading working should be evidence enough for how easy it is to fool the brain.
Near-death experiences are interesting, but somehow brains which were oxygen-deprived, whilst the body was doing everything to make sure it would survive, don't seem like the most reliable sources for anything. I've heard the stories of some kid seeing the roof of the hospital and people seeing their long-lost families or whatever, but there's everything but a consensus on what these people see, and most of the stuff is hardly as spectacular as your everyday dream. The power of the subconscience is not to be underestimated as well.
To use this as evidence for spirituality seems like clutching at straws, though.

Pokequaza said:
Science you must accept.
Click to expand...
The scientific method is a great, and the only truly viable method for exploring the world, but it's not perfect. And established science is not something you must accept. Most of the greatest ideas in science (evolution, relativity, and so on) came to be by thinking outside of the box.
But this was all in the face of evidence, something religion and spirituality have barely been able to present.
 
Okay first, I admit I didn't really thought about it science isn't 100% true, I kinda forgot it... still you guys could response a bit nicer? We all do make mistakes...

afstandopleren said:
*clap clap cap* Congrats on failing miserably and taking so long to think this up. " Science you must accept"? HELLO JEHOVAH!!!!! What's next, Scientology taking over the world?
And no, it's impossible to deal with science every second of your life, otherwise you might as well be dead...wait, if ur dead, how come ur replyin'? Uhm... breathing, has to do with science, please hold your breath then for an hour. You can relate everything to science this way... not to religion or whatever.

Personal experience are that person's own truth, and when many people have the same experience, than it's a fact. So, if I decide with some other people to say we saw a Crocoduck for example then it's existence is a fact?... :/ Sorry but saying I post dumb replies, please don't post them by yourself either then. Didn't they teach you that at school yet? I do at least go to school... ._. You can't proof someone's experience wrong and if you do try, then you are a horrible person...1 of many in this society. Congrats for being 1 of the many.
Click to expand...

DarthPika said:
People like you on BOTH sides are the reasons that it often seems like "science loaths religion", or the other way around.

You are VERY foolish to say that religion is based on stupid claims that have been proven wrong numerous times. I didn't say (or meant) religion itself is, everything to do with religion is. You are only parroting what you've heard other extremists say about this topic, and have no clue what you're really talking about. You sir are setting your self up for failure in life, and are one of the most closed minded individuals I've ever known. Well I wouldn't call myself close-minded, I'm actually up for many things, but why should I believe in something with no evidence at all?

Religion CAN and DOES work with science if you're willing to keep an open mind. Only your own ignorance is preventing it form happening. If you want to say why something wont work with something else, you WILL find it. You can do this with just about anything and everything. Keep an open mind, and you'll be a lot better off in life.

One more thing... Please stop saying how "science proved this, and science proved that". It makes you look very uneducated. Yes, science may give us a VERY good understanding of something, but it can not "prove" something, at least not in the sense you may think. Saying science is about proving things right and wrong is silly. It's about understanding how things work. Okay I admit I was a bit wrong in that part, sorry for that, didn't think of it. Science doesn't have to be against religion, that choice is up to you. Still these two are contradicting eachother on many points...

What motivation do you have? Lets for the sake of argument say that I'm right and your wrong. Religion IS right. Eternal life sound nice to you? You have NOTHING to lose with religion, and everything to gain. Still if this was ''true'' there wouldn't be any evidence to support this, no matter what I still couldn't agree with you. Heck, even if I'm wrong and there is no eternal life, I haven't lost anything. If we die, and that's it, then if nothing else I've learned how to live a better life. If I'm right, I get eternal life. Win/win situation. :p
Click to expand...

Noob Sandwich said:
Can you guys stop being assholes to pokequaza?
Click to expand...
Don't mind, the world is full of them... ;(
 
HeavenlySpoon said:
A world with a god would be a fundamentally different world.
Click to expand...

I disagree with this. Take a look at lab rats. We control every aspect of their lives and sometimes rats are born into this scientist controlled world. The laws of physics still work the same, but as far as happiness, health, food, environment, pain, and pleasure, those are determined by the whim of the scientist.

HeavenlySpoon said:
Design would be evident everywhere, God would not hide himself, our planet would not be as minuscule and insignificant compared to the rest of the world, and the world would not be full of cruelty and imperfection like it is today.
Click to expand...

Refer back to my example of the lab rats. A lab rat born into that world will see many examples of scientist designed objects and their lives will most certainly be full of cruelty and imperfection.

The scientist is a god to the lab rat because it doesn't know any better, it can't know any better, and any theory the lab rat comes up with about the true nature of the scientist, no matter how accurate or superstitious it is in terms of the rat's existential reference frame, is just a guess and nothing more.

And I am slamming both sides with that last statement.
 
@Spoon: So people with near death experiences are just suffering from mass delusion? And I honestly don't see how dreams can be compared to BDE's/NDE's. =/ I do think it's great that you actually do get that the power of the unconscious is a great one. The reason I use it as 'evidence' is because it's a common 'phenomena' that actually generally has a huge impact on the person that has it and the surround people (family etc.). It's there and real, yet people wave it off like some fairy tail. Sure, you can say that they are suffering from mass delusions because they are almost always the same and hardly 'spectacular' (it doesn't need to be that btw) or that it's just caused by the physical state of the body, it just doesn't explain why it's always nearly the same life changing thing.

@Pokequaza: Breathing isn't science....I don't know why you call it that or seem to compare it to, but if one thing is sure for me is that something like breathing isn't science. You don't seem to know yet that not everything can't be proved, you'll find out if you stick to the path of science sooner or later. Also, if you were open minded, then you wouldn't have put full trust in science and defended it. It kills conversations when you keep your faith in 1 thing and think everything else isn't the right truth.

That point I made you think is dumb, actually referred to the BDE's. I explained it more elaborate in this post tho. I do think that example of the Crocoduck and the Flying Spaghetti Monster could be proving my point. Sure it may come across as mass delusion, but hey, it was real for those people and you should leave it at that if you don't agree or get it (unless they go Jehova on you of course).

._. Dude, I'm 20, I've done school. I'm don't care about going to uni and I'm currently studying at home. But congrats on going to school. I'm sure a lot of kids in Africa or the Middle East would only dream of going to a school. >.>
 
Noob Sandwich said:
Can you guys stop being assholes to pokequaza?
Click to expand...

I was simply correcting him on a few errors he made. If we're going to be talking about what science does and how it works, we may as well be right about it.
 
ONce again, a battle brawl goes on between pokequaza and darth pika...
Well, for the spirit thingie, I think that spirits are, awesome!
Scientists! Be quiet! Your just making us lose our imagination!
 
Okay, let's make this post without mistakes.

afstandopleren said:
@Pokequaza: Breathing isn't science...I don't know why you call it that or seem to compare it to, but if one thing is sure for me is that something like breathing isn't science. Okay it was maybe stupid example and without explanation. But... ah well, just forget that, then I was ''wrong again''... You don't seem to know yet that not everything can't be proved, you'll find out if you stick to the path of science sooner or later. I already know not everything can't be proven, but as we said before, it was all about explaining how things work right? So proven or not doens't really matter. Also, if you were open minded, then you wouldn't have put full trust in science and defended it. It kills conversations when you keep your faith in 1 thing and think everything else isn't the right truth. True, but ''science'' is the only thing that provides me enough evidence and explanation to believe it. What makes me believe there's a god somewhere out there. Personal experiences? These are most based on what people want to see. Like, if I said something, it still hasn't to be true.

And what do you call open minded? Keep saying false things? Well I'll be rather close minded then.

That point I made you think is dumb, actually referred to the BDE's. I explained it more elaborate in this post tho. I do think that example of the Crocoduck and the Flying Spaghetti Monster could be proving my point. Sure it may come across as mass delusion, but hey, it was real for those people and you should leave it at that if you don't agree or get it (unless they go Jehova on you of course). What point of you do you exactly mean?
Click to expand...

DarthPika said:
Noob Sandwich said:
Can you guys stop being assholes to pokequaza?
Click to expand...
I was simply correcting him on a few errors he made. If we're going to be talking about what science does and how it works, we may as well be right about it.
Click to expand...
I couldn't do anything less then agree with you. Anyway I've learned now, so I will try to make these errors not anymore again, still I must say, don't think I'm dumb or whatever, I'm just a very bad talker, explaining things is hard for me, sometimes I even can't, but that doesn't mean I don't understand.

aggiegwyn said:
ONce again, a battle brawl goes on between pokequaza and darth pika...
Click to expand...
And once again; We're not battling, we're trying to discuss... :/
 
afstandopleren said:
That point I made you think is dumb, actually referred to the BDE's. I explained it more elaborate in this post tho. I do think that example of the Crocoduck and the Flying Spaghetti Monster could be proving my point. Sure it may come across as mass delusion, but hey, it was real for those people and you should leave it at that if you don't agree or get it (unless they go Jehova on you of course).
Click to expand...
Personal truths don't get us in space, personal truths don't allow us to explore the microscopically and sub-microscopically small, personal truths don't extend our life expectancies beyond placebo, personal truths don't supply energy, personal truths don't feed us, and most importantly, they don't teach us anything.
I honestly don't care if anyone wants to live in their own little fantasy world with fairies and unicorns and whatever (although I think it's just stupid), but when people start indoctrinating their kids with these fantasies, when these fantasies start affecting the way people vote, and therefore affect our politics, when these fantasies gain government funding, when these fantasies create massive companies, and when these fantasies slow down science, I start caring.
And if you're going with personal truths, what's the point of a debate anyway? It's true for you, who am I to say it isn't?
There's no such thing as an absolute truth (even in mathematics), but we can at least try to find a light, instead of just wandering around in the darkness guessing. Personal truths get us nowhere, they never have and they never will. One can either believe in a personal truth and achieve nothing, or give up on their personal truths and try to come closer to an actual truth, and I prefer the latter.

Also, afstandopleren, of course near-death experiences have a life-changing effect. It puts you face-to-face with your own mortality, it makes you realise how fragile your body is, and it makes you thankful to be alive, to have survived something like that (hooray for medical science!).
 
Science doesn't give us truths, it gives temporary stable facts, formed by the current paradigm.

And how on earth could you know? I can conclude from your post that you haven't done some research on the subject. It doesn't make people think about how fragile they are. You could've known that. So there goes your reply, out of my window.
 
Of course you know how fragile you are, but we tend to ignore this. One can only image how it must feel to have yourself reminded of it in such a severe way. I don't see how it can not be a life-changing experience, or how you need spirituality to justify it being that.

Science doesn't give us truths, and I didn't claim it did, but it gives us acceptable theories which apply within certain boundaries. Newton's laws of motion and gravity were pretty darn accurate for speeds and masses we were accustomed with at the time. Scientific facts aren't temporarily stable, most theories stay correct, we just find more general theories. Most, if not all of the "facts" which later turned out to be false were established by the same disregard of science and acceptance of things on the basis of pretty much nothing you're advocating now.

You can claim science is fundamentally flawed all you want for all I care, though, but don't go claiming spirituality is correct at the same time. That's one huge double standard, which I addressed previous (but you seem to have ignored this).
I side with science because to me it seems like the best way to address the questions of life, the universe and everything. It has increased the quality of life enormously, and most importantly, it works.
 
seems like you are the one with the double standards. Anyways, this isn't a real discussion (can you figure out why?), I'm going to let it die...again.
 
afstandopleren said:
seems like you are the one with the double standards
Click to expand...
Because I'm less sceptic towards things which have piles of evidence behind it and which have gone through massive peer-review than I am towards things which are based solely on witness testimony?
No, sorry, please tell me why.
 
@afstandopleren, I always find it weird why you chose to let the thread die at the point you're starting to lack of arguements or starting to lose the discussion.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top