Spirituality - Why does science loath it?

[afstandopleren]

Science does a pretty good job at explaining the natural world, and there's no apparent evidence for a supernatural world, so why would the middle group be the way to go? Compromising is nice in a lot of occasions, but it's possible for one side of an argument to just to be right.
Because our lives are filled with experiences that make us ,'believe' as you said it. Apparently this isn't in your case. You just live by facts, without any space for random phenomena.
I am of the opinion that when something is worth believing, it immediately enters the natural world, and is therefore part of science. There's no point in even considering the supernatural, because it by definition does not exist in your world. If it did, it would be natural.
Sure, knowledge is science and knowledge is gained by experience. Something that your science doesn't seem to be able to provide. Just because you can't comprehend it, doesn't mean it's not there. You of all should know that by now.
Most of the spiritual is silly anyways. It connects humans with the universe, the universe with parts of the human brain, human activity with nature in an indirect way and so on. It just seems narrow-minded to think animals like us would have magic powers like that, especially in reference to the universe.
You'd also expect research to massively hint towards the existence of spirituality if it were real, wouldn't you? (In which case scientists wouldn't be opposed to it, which they are for a reason...)For you silly, normal for others. You can't force your science on others.....or did you forget? Remarks like that can get offensive at some point in time. Will it be now?

It's getting close minded around here.

Oh, Spoon, can you answer these? What was before the Big Bang? What CAUSED the Big Bang? How come we are alive? How come we are conscious? And if you could please answer without links. We aren't in a creationist thread here so I think you can REALLY do without.

 

[DawnOfXatu]

It's getting close minded around here.

Oh, Spoon, can you answer these? What was before the Big Bang? What CAUSED the Big Bang? How come we are alive? How come we are conscious? And if you could please answer without links. We aren't in a creationist thread here so I think you can REALLY do without.

Just because that there is no current answer for a question doesn't mean that the answer is automatically spirituality. Science may not be able to answer those questions now, but eventually the answers will be found. As the scientists try to find the truth, spirituality seems perfectly content in just assuming whatever they want.

 

[omahanime]

Science requires proof for belief. Spirituality has no proof.

 

[Dragon Rider Of PokeBeach]

For you silly, normal for others. You can't force your science on others...or did you forget? Remarks like that can get offensive at some point in time. Will it be now?

Why can people force religion onto others but not science? And why is science more offensive then spirituality?

As to the original point, Science doesn't loathe spirituality, it just doesn't accept it as fact. There is a huge difference between the two. Loathing means that they hate it with the bottom of their heart, and believe anyone who believes it should probably be shot and killed. Not accepting it as fact is what it is, they just don't believe in it. To be honest spirituality probably loathes science way more than the opposite. They're usually the ones that are so bent on not believing anything that has been scientifically proven. Like in 1925, John Scopes was arrested for teaching Darwinism instead of Christian views. I've never heard of someone being arrested for religious views, unless it ended up turning into some sort of riot or something.

And also towards the last question you asked, no one knows those answers because there isn't really a way to find them out yet... But just science doesn't have an answer doesn't mean that the spiritual one is automatically correct. It just means science doesn't have enough proof yet. But spirituality has no proof what so ever. I could just say that the universe was spat out of the great Concorado and base a religion around it without any proof or anything and it would be accepted. Science at least has an educated hypothesis.

 

[Kaishu]

*sigh* This debate could go on and on. The thing that most people aren't realizing is that this is like trying to compare apples to oranges. I also don't think that trying to explain how science works is being closed minded like some have claimed so far.

Seriously, I've said my piece. Have fun spinning your wheels in a never ending internet debate that could quite possibly turn into a flame war if it continues. I think I'll pick my battles and stay out of this one. =D

 

[gamercal]

Seems like something I, as a chemist in training, should be involved in

It's a bit difficult to get started though, because 1) most things I would've come up with have already been said, and 2) the OP is perhaps the most closed minded of all the people in here atm. Faced with the combination of the two, it seems a little futile to be in here, but...

Spirituality seems to me to be a case of "I say therefore it is". Basically, to me is seems like a Spiritualist would believe anything anyone told them if it had anything to do with their religion (or whatever else they believe in in the first place), no matter how absurd it is. I don't know about you, but it seems like an EXTREMELY gullible point of view to take.

Science, on the other hand, is a case of "I say, and I have this to prove it. Therefore it is". Science is nothing without proof and/or plausible theories as to why something is how it is. Not everything is clear cut, naturally, but in order to convince a Scientist that something is the case you must have actual evidence to support your case. This is completely unlike the Spiritualist above, who would probably believe you on religious grounds.

Science can't explain everything (yet at least ), I know, but it is foolish to believe random fantasies without actual evidence to support them. Besides, stuff like the meaning of life is philosophy anyway, not spiritualism (although I guess the two are linked somewhat)

Really though, we have the OP saying that we're all closed minded, yet he's the one saying "You're all wrong" whenever we disagree with him. Sounds like he is the one who's pretty closed minded to me...

 

[Pokequaza]

And I'm entering :3...

The main problem why people chose spirituality is the truth or believe in it (despite science and spirituality are two totally different things) is in the human mind itself; selfishness... Not able to accept we evolved from worms a few million years ago, ''we're far more superior than those creatures back then right? so impossible!'', not be able to accept we're (Earth) only a very small atom compared to the rest of the universe, not be able to accept our lives have an end, and so on. That's were spirituality comes, it gives you a good answer, almost always with a happy end, nothing can go wrong. You even don't have to think about it, just say: ''God did it'' (for example) easy right?

And science can't be compared with spirituality/religion etc. Science shows us the reality, how things work, you have to know pretty much of some subjects to understand it. On the other hand for spirituality you have to know nothing (not saying these people are dumb).

Science doesn't reject spirituality/religion. They just prove the truth (well at least close to the truth) and since spirituality/religion is mostly vice versa it's just disproven in some cases. It's not science exists to disprove. It's science wants to prove things for its own, and if anything isn't in the ''laws of science'' like mostly spirituality... well yeah then it's disproven...

Oh, Spoon, can you answer these? What was before the Big Bang? What CAUSED the Big Bang? How come we are alive? How come we are conscious? And if you could please answer without links. We aren't in a creationist thread here so I think you can REALLY do without.

Why would be able Spoon answer them? Nobody is was able to prove it, so why would he? Science can't yet give a good theory for these. Science improves every day, with every new discovery, coming closer to the truth every time. While spirituality keeps itself at one point and ''rejects'' to change, something weird happened? Well I don't want to know the truth, just say some magical thing did it.

And I don't see the problem with posting links? Well okay, I've your going to post links to Kent Hovind then I can understand. But if there's a vid with a theory about it which you accept, why not posting it?

At least I can do a guess what was before the Big Bang... First you have to accept that both time and space are infinite. And according to the laws of thermedynamics energy will always exist. Since particles are nothing more than energy they have always existed and will always exist. Then there must have been something before the Big Bang, but what if the Big Bang is just an illusion? Maybe it's just the life cycle of our universe, expanding and collapsing all the time. Collapsing to an incredibly small size, squeezing all the atoms in a terrible small space what creates as a result it's expanding again. And after it looses that energy, it collapses again... Not saying this is true, just an (for me logical) idea of how it might work. And with that I also answered your second question.

About the ''alive'' and consious part. That's more like an illusion for me to. Our brains, having so many ''features'' (as I call them) including emotions, consiousness, selfishness, instinct etc etc. It just grows from when you're born. I would like to go deeper in this, but my post is already that long, my notebook starts doing weird and going slow :/

Well I can't wait for the replies :3

 

[bacon]

Since when does a debate truly end?

Much like DarthPika, I am a person who tends to hold both sides in equal regard. While I doubt things like creationism (and indeed, doubt that any religion ever has got it even remotely correct), there are some things fundementally weird about the universe that make me question how far studies based on empirical evidense can take us, and what meanings equations truly have. Does this mean I believe in God? Of course not. Jumping to such a conclusion instantly is ridiculous. But at the same time, I also think that jumping to the conclusion that there isn't anything spriritual is equally as close minded. Ultimately, I am of the opinion that while spiritual things may be unlikely, in a Universe like this I would not be entirely surprised if they existed.

 

[Pokequaza]

Debates never end as long as we keep posting

But at the same time, I also think that jumping to the conclusion that there isn't anything spriritual is equally as close minded.

Uhm... well to be honest, I wouldn't call myself close minded. I am open minded, but I made the decission for myself what to call truth and what to call nonsense. And most spiritual stuff belongs to the nonsense... However, I'm sure that most of these things can also be explained, sometimes related to the human mind and our unconsiousness... So I'm always glad to hear spiritual stories... but yeah, people mostly don't like it when I tell them what I think of it (at least my explanation is closer to the truth (for me)... so looks like people don't want to know the truth... ah well I'll quit talking about this before starting a flame war

 

[afstandopleren]

The reason people don't tell you those things is because they won't feel taken seriously when you put your own truth (most likely science based) in their story. I can hardly take someone serious that doesn't take things to heart and can't keep his mouth shut because he/she thinks what the other person was experiencing is a 'lie'.

 

[Eevee]

Like in 1925, John Scopes was arrested for teaching Darwinism instead of Christian views. I've never heard of someone being arrested for religious views, unless it ended up turning into some sort of riot or something.

The reason why John Scopes was arrested was because he broke the law.

 

[Heavenly Spoon]

The reason people don't tell you those things is because they won't feel taken seriously when you put your own truth (most likely science based) in their story. I can hardly take someone serious that doesn't take things to heart and can't keep his mouth shut because he/she thinks what the other person was experiencing is a 'lie'.

When you think you witnessed something, and you say you did, you're not lying. However, if no-one else has ever seen the thing you saw ever before (or if those who supposedly did saw very different things), the thing you witnessed goes against everything known to science at this point and it left no traces or evidence of its existence, why should I believe you? Why should you believe yourself? The brain is designed as something to help us survive and cooperate with kin, so obviously it's going to make some mistakes. There's 2 main mechanisms at work for witnessing spirits, one is that our brain identifies objects as human (ever yelled at your computer?) and projects human qualities onto objects. It also sees things as possible predators (if you think there's a predator when there isn't, you waste some energy, if you don't think there's a predator when there is, you die), so we tend to see ghosts and spirits in a lot of things (shadows, reflections of light, maybe even our imagination going wild). The 2nd thing is that we can form images of people in our brain. I'm sure you're able to imagine a fictional conversation with someone else (thinking about what the other person might respond with in a debate can help), the brain has a lot of mechanisms like this, but these can get out of hand from time to time (the brain isn't perfect(which is why a lot of science is done using computers and the likes)).
Our brain also tries to desperately find patterns even when there aren't any (case in point: conspiracy theories), which I guess helps as well.

And to respond to your questions: Before the Big Bang is a scientific unknown (and considered by some to be a flawed question, as there was no time before the Big Bang (at least not like we know it)). There's a lot of fun hypotheses (multiverse, antiverse, big crunch, whatever), but it's very hard to know because our science is currently limited to energy and time, which formed at the time of the Big Bang. To say it's something spiritual, however, would just be avoiding the question, and there's just as much, or even less evidence, than the current hypotheses.

Life = self-replicating (don't worry, even when you're infertile you're still making new cells all the time, so you're still alive), to answer that question we need to go back to the origin of life, in which case you might want to look up abiogenisis.

Conciousness is caused by the brain, many small neurons cooperate to create awareness.

But at the same time, I also think that jumping to the conclusion that there isn't anything spriritual is equally as close minded.

I agree. Spirituality COULD exist, but there's no reason to think it does.

 

[gamercal]

I'm gonna get shot here, but can the original poster please clearly define what he/she means by "Spirituality" in this context? It's a little difficult to know truly what you're arguing for/against if you don't have a concrete definition.

 

[Heavenly Spoon]

Let me define spirituality a bit. Spirituality is stuff like love (not the hormone version), the something that makes water crystals change shape, past lives, rituals that makes autistic kids behave like you and me (something where science still tends to fail miserably.).

I don't know what the non-hormone/brain version of love would be, though, and the others seem dubious at best.

 

[Pokequaza]

@Heavenly Spoon, yes someone I can agree with. Your story about the brain mechanisms... something I tried to explain already a few times in the past (well it was my lack of English then).

About the Big Bang, and all other science. Will we ever know everything? No I think. But we'll come close to it.

 

[Juliacoolo]

Because politics and religion are supposed to be kept separate. When people mix the two, scientists try to keep it down. I don't think it's necessary, but some people have a passion behind their beliefs.

 

[WailmerMan]

Why? Because there is NO LOGIC behind most religion. Science is all about logic and what we know about this world. Before people come in and say I'm just bashing religion, I'm not trying to. Religion is all about faith, and faith is believing in what you can't see.

 

[Krucifier]

Science = Logically explaining the world around us with evidence.
Religion = Irrational beliefs in scientifically unfounded and untestable superstitous claims.

Does this answer your question?

 

[afstandopleren]

~.~ Religion isn't the same as spirituality.... and I'm not going to chew it out for you people what it really is. If you don't, then it just means that you lack some experience to comprehend what I mean.

Now let this thread die.

 

[Pokequaza]

Well you made it, so why let it die?

Spirituality and religion aren't the same. Religion is more ''part'' of spirituality... So religion is spirituality but not always vice versa. (correct me if I'm wrong)