How is science having an effect on our spiritual self?

page: 1
2
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join

posted on Aug, 16 2008 @ 02:18 PM
link   
The scientific community is having a large effect on our daily life. We've known for a long time that we have a spiritual self. What effect does all of this advancement in technologies-- have on our spiritual side? Does it take away from our spiritual side and make us more tired? Would you say that science is dramatically changing our spiritual side so that we can no longer be as magical or as spiritual as we have been before and that it's even harder to have a belief in magic or in spirits because of science?




posted on Aug, 16 2008 @ 02:21 PM
link   
Great thread! I firmly believe that we have to be closer to nature and lead a simpler life to enhance our spiritual selves...although I recognise that there may be others who feel differently. Modern life with all it's technology masks or insulates us from natural energy...disturbes our sleep, our bodies, our intuition...


More later....ice cream awaits...!

Cait



posted on Aug, 16 2008 @ 02:23 PM
link   
Scientific approach is making believing in things, existence of which cannot be proved by it, more problematic. But a lot of people are not that familiar with that, so magic spirits and such are going to say with us a little longer.
Actually i wonder what people that are really into those metaphysical ideas would prefer - believing but acting inquisition approach or ridiculing unbelieving scientific one?



posted on Aug, 16 2008 @ 02:38 PM
link   
It would depend on what science you are talking about. you see, there are two main types of science:

There is the science which gave us computers, automobiles, DVD players, TV, home refrigerators, heat pumps... this science tries to understand the universe and all that is in it. This science looks for new ways to do things that were once thought impossible, and finds many of them through slow, cautious research and painstaking review of all results by peers from different lands with different beliefs and agendas.

Then there is the science that claims to know all that is knowable, while embracing new discoveries that appear to support their beliefs on different levels. This type of science is reckless, promoting social policy on the basis of new not-as-yet-understood phenomena, and gives no credence to dissenting observation or peer reviews that may be unfavorable to the agenda being pressed.

If you mean the former, I would say the biggest problem is that all the advances make us a bit lazy.

If you mean the latter, then the problem is much worse. Scientists who agree with the 'consensus' (translation: agenda-specific proponents) are held up as some sort of prophet, while those who disagree are belittled and accused of something very akin to heresy. This is indeed a major spiritual influence, because this is actually a religion to itself, which places itself at odds with our personal spiritual beliefs. To force their 'morality', these scientists will point to the true science (my former example) as proof that they are all powerful (omnipotent) in their knowledge of all, while dismissing the principles that brought about their example in the first place.

This is a wonderful thread, and I gave it a flag. But I would really need to know, exactly which science are we discussing?

TheRedneck



posted on Aug, 16 2008 @ 02:47 PM
link   
Excellent point Redneck...I was too much in lust with my ice cream to really think about it, but you're right....the arrogance of some scientists can be the main problem as they assume, and then try to teach us that if it's not empirical, it doesn't exist.....

In terms of actual spiritual awareness I will stick to my knowledge that the more natural your life can be, the better, although try separating me from my laptop, and you've got a fight on your hands, I will admit. I wouldn't use it to meditate with though...

Cait

[edit on 16-8-2008 by caitlinfae]



posted on Aug, 16 2008 @ 02:56 PM
link   
reply to post by caitlinfae
You mean you have never gotten a spiritual message through your laptop? I got one the other night, it said:

"001010010101110110110100101001001010100100100101001001010101001
1010010100101001001111101010011110010101001111001010101010100101
1101010010010010101000100100100010010010010001000101011101111010
1010111111010010010101010010010010010010000101010100011010101010
0101010010101001010100100100100100100100101001010010100010101001
101001001001010100100100100010001010010010010100101010101001010"



Seriously, I agree. Natural is usually better, although I enjoy the niceties in life as much as the next guy (or gal
). But my 'altar', my place to find true spiritual calm and peace, is a little patch of overgrown wilderness right behind me.

TheRedneck



posted on Aug, 16 2008 @ 03:13 PM
link   
The basis of science, the scientific method, cannot be applied to the spiritual and vice versa. Attempts to do so will always fail. Science deals with things that can be consistently and physically be seen, touched, and tested. Spiritual matters cannot be dealt with in this manner because they are based on individual, internal perceptions. Perceptions which are very difficult if not impossible to test using the scientific method.

Science doesn't normally concern itself with the spiritual side because the "spiritual side" is outside the realm of science. Science (sounds too much like I'm talking about a person) "intrudes" on spiritual matters when the spiritual side ventures into the the realm of science. When claims are made from the spiritual side that there is "scientific proof" of a phenomenon, science is pulled, kicking and screaming, into the discussion. This is when the conflict begins. The same conflict arises when other scientists make claims with insufficient evidence or results which cannot be replicated by others. There are hucksters on both sides. On both sides, the hucksters eventually fade away. The valid claims will prevail, though not necessarily in an unchanged form.

Does science take away from our spiritual lives? If science makes it harder to believe in magic then just maybe there is a problem with that belief. It's human nature to question. Maybe we just have to find a different kind of magic.



posted on Aug, 16 2008 @ 03:20 PM
link   
i think science and spiritual self are a bit like oil and water ... and for me the two will never mix.



posted on Aug, 16 2008 @ 04:06 PM
link   
reply to post by Phage
 

This is what I dislike about science. I strongly support that we value our own perception and our own values about the world. We don't necessarily need to prove them with scientific methods. It's just that a lot of people have began thinking that if we can't prove something that it must not be worthwhile to think it. So people are forgetting their own values and judgments-- as their perceptions and their innate judgments could not be proven by a scientific method. But, there should be another way for us to prove our own beliefs, values, and judgments that come from our inner-self, that is non-scientific. Yet, it just seems like the scientific method is making it really hard for us to hold our beliefs as the power for people to not believe is becoming far stronger than the will for people to believe in their own perceptions, ideas, and judgments.



posted on Aug, 16 2008 @ 04:15 PM
link   
Frank, I completely agree....I've had so many heated arguements with ignorant scientists, who insist that if it can't be measured, it doesn't exist, and our familiarity and comfort with technology today makes us think, often, that science is infallible. We know *nothing*, compared to what there is to know, and cannot rule out what we perceive in other more spiritual ways as wrong, misguided or superstitious. Our love affair with technology has dulled our senses, and we need to rediscover what it feels like to be human in a world that is not techology loaded.

Having natural food, heating our homes differently, even allowing ourselves to be cold sometimes, switching off as much electrical stuff as we can and just allowing ourselves not to be constantly entertained will go a long way towards re-establishing a connection.

Cait



posted on Aug, 16 2008 @ 04:19 PM
link   
Hahaha.

Redneck, I think what you really mean is that there are two types of science.

1. The science that in application gives Mr, Mrs, and Junior Redneck new toys to play with and knowledge they agree with (e.g., the earth is round, gravity makes stuff fall, germs can cause disease)

and

2. The science that tells Mr, Mrs, and Junior Redneck stuff they don't want to hear (e.g., evolution, climate science).

Amazingly, in the real-world, both one and two are the same.



posted on Aug, 16 2008 @ 04:35 PM
link   
Melatonin, I'm sure Redneck can defend himself more than adequately here, but I'm not sure which post you were reading...your interpretation of what he wrote is nowhere near what I picked up from his post. He is not literally talking about two difference sciences....but about two different mindsets in relation to science.

Apologies to Redneck if I have misunderstood here...in my experience, and this is very personal, I've found that the scientists and the sceptics are the ones who will not move on their "truth", which the more spiritually minded among us are more thatn happy to investigate possibility, regardless of how empirical it may or may not be.

Cait



posted on Aug, 16 2008 @ 05:01 PM
link   
reply to post by caitlinfae
 


If you're secure in your knowledge why bother to engage "ignorant scientists"? Why even try to convince them you are right and they are wrong?

Few "unignorant" scientists would say that if something can't be measured it doesn't exist. A true scientist would have nothing to say about it from a scientific standpoint. If there is no data, there is nothing to discuss. A scientist (if he's using the scientific method, if he isn't it isn't a scientific discussion) will only talk about the validity of the data and the conclusions that are drawn from it. If, on the other hand, "data" is presented and that "data" conflicts with what science can demonstrate, or cannot be validated, or duplicated then the arguments (I prefer "discussion") can get heated, and rightly so. The discussion is where the learning is. Where the progress is. I put a lot of stake in the scientific method. I also am fully aware that science is far from infallible. Again, any true scientist will admit the same.

There is no doubt that our love of technology has caused the human race problems. It will cause us more. It is also true that science and technology have improved our lot in many ways. Few blades in any world cut with one edge. If you want to throw out the baby with the bath water be my guest. Return the dark ages. The Renaissance was not just a spiritual awakening but a scientific one as well.

But that's not even what this discussion is about. It wasn't a discussion about the validity of either side. The question was about how science affecting our spiritual selves. If you allow yourself to get into heated arguments about it, it seems it has. I suggest you keep the two separate. Remain secure in your spiritual beliefs. Two different realms and never the twain shall meet.

[edit on 16-8-2008 by Phage]



posted on Aug, 16 2008 @ 05:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by caitlinfae
Melatonin, I'm sure Redneck can defend himself more than adequately here, but I'm not sure which post you were reading...your interpretation of what he wrote is nowhere near what I picked up from his post. He is not literally talking about two difference sciences....but about two different mindsets in relation to science.

Apologies to Redneck if I have misunderstood here...in my experience, and this is very personal, I've found that the scientists and the sceptics are the ones who will not move on their "truth", which the more spiritually minded among us are more thatn happy to investigate possibility, regardless of how empirical it may or may not be.

Cait


Hi Cait,

I know exactly what redneck is referring to, the 'social policy' thing gave it away. What his gripe is is when scientists discover stuff that suggests issues that require some sort of action - social, economic, and governmental. As a libertarian, redneck can't accept that. Indeed, one of his major bugbears, climate science, fits his category one perfectly - a slow collection of knowledge over a long period (over 100 years) which has led to the current position. But that requires a knowledge of the history of climate science. However, he puts his faith in a few industry shills that tell him what he wants to hear.

The thing here is that there is just one science. It is the science that observes nature and makes inferences, forms theories and models to explain phenomena and sets of phenomena, makes new predictions etc etc. That's science. It underpins all science, from physics to geology to psychology.

Then there are the applications that are derived from science. He wants the applications for new toys, but not the results and implications of knowledge that conflict with his ideology.

....

As for your issues, 'regardless of how empirical it may or may not be' is sort of the problem, though. If we are talking science, then it's hard to move far from empiricism. What a good scientist or sceptic will do is to reject claims that have no evidence or empirical basis. It doesn't mean it doesn't exist, just that any claims without evidence are pretty vacuous. Indeed, the excellence of science is shown in its pudding.

I think you are rather wrong on the possibility thing. Science is at the forefront of knowledge acquisition, it prospers by investigating possibilities. And any scientist worth their label will react to new knowledge, and readily move on "their 'truth'". There is one mindset on science, it's just a methodology.

However, I think those dwelling in the realm of pseudoscientific woo are rather different. Even when shown to be talking and spreading vacuous tripe, nothing changes. All the studies that show homeopathy to be complete crap, yet people still buy into it. Do scientists have a responsibility to point these things out? Or do we allow people to be hoodwinked by snake-oil salespeople?

Science is methodological naturalism, if you define spiritual stuff as non-materialist, then you are outside of science straight away, and science is not the problem. The problem is that science is just fan-frickin-tastic at doing what it does. And its success is one good reason to be a materialist.

If people see how great it is, oh well. Doesn't stop you believing what you want if it makes you feel good - if you really want the bigfoot, crystal magic, or indigo children to be real, believe it to be so. Just don't expect others to buy it without some sort of reliable evidence.

[edit on 16-8-2008 by melatonin]



posted on Aug, 16 2008 @ 05:26 PM
link   
I think that once we have a deeper understanding of quantum physics and have developed sensors that can operate at the quantum level much of what we call spiritual or mystical will be revealed. Our neurons operate on the quantum level and thus interact with the universe in ways that our science can not yet explore. Give us a few more decades and we will have full understanding of this connection I think.



posted on Aug, 16 2008 @ 05:27 PM
link   
This is the kind of discussion that really depresses me....you ruined it with that word "woo". I'm gonna leave it here, not because I can't debate, but because I don't want to. Huge apologies to Redneck for making a mess.

UFOTECH....thank you for that last reply...that's what I was thinking but couldn't find the words..

Cait

[edit on 16-8-2008 by caitlinfae]



posted on Aug, 16 2008 @ 05:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by caitlinfae
This is the kind of discussion that really depresses me....you ruined it with that word "woo". I'm gonna leave it here, not because I can't debate, but because I don't want to. Huge apologies to Redneck for making a mess.

Cait


Did it bother you that much?

It's fine to say 'ignorant scientists' but not to say 'pseudoscientific woo'?

I apologise for calling a group of phenomena like I see it. Glad I didn't go as far as calling some of these people pseudoscientific wackaloons, 'snake-oil salespeople' has a good history though.

ABE: actually, don't leave, Cait - I'll do so. I made my point. You can all complain about how science and ignorant scientists are destroying spirituality, even though the vast majority of people do still believe in this sort of stuff.

[edit on 16-8-2008 by melatonin]



posted on Aug, 16 2008 @ 05:39 PM
link   
reply to post by melatonin
Ah, melatonin! I was wondering when you would show up, and I do hope you are well.

As for my definitions of the two types of science, I meant exactly what I said. I trust in science quite a bit. I excelled in every scientific class I took throughout my academic career (and there were quite a few), and I actually do research on private projects in my spare time.

What I do not have trust in is when someone who is not a scientist, and clearly does not understand the science they are speaking to (as witnessed by consistent errors) tells me I have to change my ways for the 'good of the planet'. Then the single greatest hope they can spell out for me to do is to pay more money to them.

That is, in my own personal experience, a scam. It is also a mockery of the scientific thought and research that has led to our position today, yes, including all of those nice little toys we so enjoy. Worse, this abuse of knowledge can have undesirable effects.

As one possible example, given that historic CO2 emissions trail historic temperature rises by a few years, it seems completely plausible that the rise in CO2 levels actually helped to abate the warming trends, as a self-correcting mechanism of the natural structure of the planet's ecosystem. If that were true, then by reducing CO2 levels, we could actually be compounding any warming trend.

Now I am not saying I believe that. But it does serve to show how dangerous a lack of knowledge can be when coupled with a belief that we have all the knowledge. Arrogance can be deadly, and many of the present scientific 'consensuses' (see my first post for the translation) are frothing with arrogance.

So, in answer to your accusation, you did not understand me correctly. Perhaps you understood what you wished to understand?

Oh, and so you'll know, I never considered myself a Libertarian, although I do agree with some of their platform. I consider myself an educated individual... and a redneck.


TheRedneck



posted on Aug, 16 2008 @ 05:43 PM
link   
reply to post by melatonin
 

I find it shocking that you would call someone with a different set of beliefs than yours a woo and by doing that you are proving the idea that scientists are ignorant to be correct. Being a materialist is not the right way, and not the best way, for anyone to be. It is obvious that metaphysical concepts like magic and spiritual selves do exist. It is less obvious to scientists that only see what they want to see and look for other explanations with things through scientific methods rather than taking methods to prove other observations about the world in other ways.



posted on Aug, 16 2008 @ 05:46 PM
link   
reply to post by caitlinfae

Huge apologies to Redneck for making a mess.


Never apologize for stating your beliefs. And never underestimate your ability to understand things. I have received as much wisdom inj my life from a janitor as I have from an engineer.


TheRedneck





new topics
top topics
 
2
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join