A Hindu Perspective: Science vs. Spirituality

[Krishna Jaganath]

Hi,

I never claimed to understand either reality. I've only presented a view point that spirituality and science are two different realities, and you have to have qualifications to understand either one. Neither spirituality can be understood be science or science understood by spirituality without the proper qualifications. 

Thanks

To claim anything about something you need to have knowledge about it. You are stating spirituality cannot be understood by science because they exist in separate realities. Which implies you have knowledge of this other reality while you yourself exist within our reality, yet you state a scientist who also exists within the same reality cannot understand it.

Also regarding "proper qualifications" please define specifically what qualifications you mean.

Hi,

I don't need to have knowledge about it if I can reference someone that i view has having the proper qualifications to explain something. For example people talk about science, without having first hand knowledge about how it actually works or being a scientist because they reference someone they believe who has the proper qualifications. The same way I am referencing the saints and their works who talk about this reality. 

Also to define specifically what the qualifications are would be a whole other essay. As i said before the reason for this essay is to establish certain points at a very highlevel. I would be happy to post another essay in a few days about the essence of these qualifications. 
 
Thanks

---

Hi,

You do bring up a good point when you ask what is spirituality. I was planning to write another essay on the essence of spirituality in a few days. I wanted to first establish the argument that science and spirituality should not be considered as something that can co-exist, they are very different things. Once this point is established I can then talk about what is spirituality. Hopefully you will read it. Would love to hear your comments about it. 

Thanks.

Please don't bother! Writing essays is meaningless in this context, especially when what you are stating can be easily summarized within a few sentences, if not words, retaining the same depth as your entire essay.

If you feel that way then I won't. Sorry for taking up your time.

[The Grand Nudger]

Well, if the point of your essay is to establish some point.....you've got a long way to go.  Good luck.

"Science can't prove my religion wrong, and scientists are arrogant dogs" - Is that a fair summary of your essay?

[Homeless Nutter]

Spirituality can never be understood by science. [...]

You can't possibly know that, let alone prove that bold assertion. Anthropological sciences, like neurology, psychology, sociology and psychiatry have already taught a lot about where magical thinking and superstitions come from and how they work.

Of course - that doesn't mean much to people, who desperately want to believe in some sort of extra-sensory reality, that's easily accessible, without the need for dealing with all those boring facts and tedious scientific methodology.

Spirituality - it seems to me - is a way for people, who are not willing, or unable to access and comprehend science, to feel like they possess some kind of "arcane knowledge", that escapes even the smartest scientists. It's a crutch for ego. That's why science produces material results - like medicine, technology, statistical data, while spirituality fails to produce anything, other than emotions.

[Krishna Jaganath]

Well, if the point of your essay is to establish some point.....you've got a long way to go.  Good luck.

"Science can't prove my religion wrong, and scientists are arrogant dogs" - Is that a fair summary of your essay?

This forum seems to have a general view of taking content and summarizing it in an unusual way to fit the views of the person viewing the post. 

In the essay, I've used the analogy of a dog, the dog can also be replaced by anything that is perceived to have a very different reality and understanding than someone else. Now if the analogy of the dog offended you, I apologize, but to make it clear, I felt my essay was very neutral and only presented the case i was trying to make. 

In the posts and comments I've viewed thus far, 'spiritualists" have been called much worse than dogs, but if you want to generalize the essay in how you presented above please feel free.

---

Spirituality can never be understood by science. [...]

You can't possibly know that, let alone prove that bold assertion. Anthropological sciences, like neurology, psychology, sociology and psychiatry have already taught a lot about where magical thinking and superstitions come from and how they work.

Of course - that doesn't mean much to people, who desperately want to believe in some sort of extra-sensory reality, that's easily accessible, without the need for dealing with all those boring facts and tedious scientific methodology.

Spirituality - it seems to me - is a way for people, who are not willing, or unable to access and comprehend science, to feel like they possess some kind of "arcane knowledge", that escapes even the smartest scientists. It's a crutch for ego. That's why science produces material results - like medicine, technology, statistical data, while spirituality fails to produce anything, other than emotions.

What if I took what you said above and reworded it: 

Science - it seems to me - is a way for people, who are not willing, or unable to access and comprehend spirituality, to feel like they possess some kind of "arcane knowledge", that escapes even the saints and sages. It's a crutch for ego. That's why spirituality produces results in a humans - like love, understanding and unity.

[robvalue]

You can write an essay if you want, but if you can't define something in a couple of sentences, there's a good chance it's either not real or you don't actually know what it is.

If it references a "soul" or "God" then I'm going to ask what those things are too. Either they are part of reality, or they are not. Either they can be studied in some coherent methodical fashion, or they can not. If either of these criteria fail, the whole thing is irrelevant.

Here: Science models reality.

3 words.

You say there can never be any evidence for spirituality. Then that's all there is to say. I don't believe things without evidence. Why should I? I live in the real world, as much as possible. I suspect spirituality is simply an imaginary add-on for people who find the real world too boring or complex. Most likely the ideas have been forced into adhernet's brains at a young age before they had developed proper thinking skills.

If I asked you to believe in something, but presented no evidence for it, and couldn't even succinctly describe what it was, what would be your reaction?

[ignoramus]

No probs, if you ever need a quad bypass, there's this faith healer. I've heard he's good.

[Alex K]

OP, shouldn't you first clearly define what the word spirituality means before you argue at length about how science cannot understand it? I could easily write a wall of text on how fnorblgarble will never be understood by science (for starters, its transcendental essence is incompatible with the scientific paradigm ). You see how that might be problematic if I don't specify at all what fnorblgarble is?

[ignoramus]

He means woo goddamit! There, I said it for him!

[Homeless Nutter]

What if I took what you said above and reworded it: 

---

Science - it seems to me - is a way for people, who are not willing, or unable to access and comprehend spirituality, to feel like they possess some kind of "arcane knowledge", that escapes even the saints and sages. It's a crutch for ego. That's why spirituality produces results in a humans - like love, understanding and unity.

---

You'd have no proof for such a statement being true. It would be just another bold assertion. Anyone can make those - they don't mean a thing.

You are using products of science - like micro-processors and synthetic materials - as we speak. There's the proof that science works. And modern science has only been around for a few hundred years.

How are you going to prove, that spiritual people are more "loving, understanding and united" than non-spiritual people? Just because you think so - that doesn't make it true. What you seem to be attributing to spirituality seem to be in fact effects of community and social interaction, which are perfectly possible without involving superstition, even though frauds, like gurus and priests tend to hijack those aspects of humanity, in order to profit from them. 

So, yeah - "I know you are, but what am I" defense does not really work in this instance, which shouldn't be surprising, since we're not in kindergarten. If you want to convince me that spirituality has any value, other than as a very convenient and profitable scam, you're going to have to come up with some kind of evidence, that it does ANYTHING at all, other than make you feel good about yourself. And after thousands of years of human spiritual pursuit - I expect your evidence to be pretty damn strong.

[Alex K]

Meh, spirituality is just a cheap way out for people who are not willing to embrace fnarblegarble!