A Hindu Perspective: Science vs. Spirituality

[The Grand Nudger]

Maybe for these other bastards, but I'm pretty solid on what spirituality means, you don't have to define it for me.  Has to do with spirits.  

[Athene]

---

To clarify a few points after reading the replies:

1. In no way am I assuming that I fully understand the reality of science or the reality of spirituality. The reality of science I am basing it on what scientists have said about the material world, the reality of spirituality I am basing it on what saints have said about the spiritual world. 

2. In no way am I calling scientists stupid, in the reality of the material world it is absolutely necessary to have science, and it is a critical part of life, and i have nothing but respect for what they do. The distinction I am making is that scientists can not claim to understand the spiritual reality when they have not made the necessary qualifications to earn the right to understand it (please refer to my essay to understand what it means to get the qualifications). 

It would be a bit like an athlete trying to understand a nuclear physicist, they live in two completely different realities. An athlete can never understand a nuclear physicist till he qualifies him self to understand. I don't mean taking a few classes at your local  college I mean dedicating ones entire life to gain an understanding. This analogy no way puts "down" either reality. 

4. There is the question of show me the evidence. If you read my essay you would see that this not the right question to ask as we have established the existence of two different realities. Evidence in one reality is not the same as in a different reality, so science based evidence will never show the reality of the spiritual world. Its a bit like showing evidence to a dog about rocket science, the evidence is completely nonsensical to the dog, and we can never present evidence at the reality of a dog about the existence of rocket science. 

3. Lastly the questions was brought up why not just use the same argument and replace the spirituality reality with a totally absurd reality and ask people to qualify themselves for that reality. The answer to this question would be sure you can do that, but the made up reality does not have thousands of years of evidence from saints who have tried and succeeded in qualifying themselves and talked about a reality which is infact different than to the material world. Show me any other reality you want to make up that has that much first hand accounts of experiences and teachings.  

There is also a question of personal experience, just like outliers in science who felt the world is infact not round but there is something different, they had to have an intuition, they had to have a feeling to try and explore an other reality. This same drive and intuition is found in thousands of people to explore the reality of spirituality. Now if you where to show me the same drive and intuition arising in people to explore this made up reality than i would say by all means lets try and validate this made up reality, but that simply is not the case.

---

Any and all knowledge that has potential to shed light on the veracity of your claims doesn't count. 
Convenient, isn't it?
Hence, the requirement for an "open" and empty mind to accept this real reality of your two realities.

[Alex K]

@krishna, let's say we do get a personal experience, how will one know if it is actually a spiritual experience or just another process on the brain getting misunderstood?

ESPECIALLY since it has been demonstrated a thousand times how easily the brain gets misunderstood, as you put it. The phenomenon can arise without superreal magic, and therefore the burden of proof that anything occurs that requires an extravagant explanation, has not been met.

[Aoi Magi]

this video is a bit silly but should give an idea, how spiritual experiences can occur quite naturally:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=51B8MzcxOX0

[Angrboda]

Spirituality can never be understood by science.

Since you haven't defined what spirituality is, we have no idea what you're saying can't be understood by science.

For example only a few hundred years ago, most people, including scientist believed the world to be flat.

That's a myth.  If you base your ideas about science on myths then you are sure to go wrong.

Only when there is a drastic change in knowledge, does reality change.

Reality doesn't change, only our knowledge of it does.

The big discoveries that changed the very face of science where looked at as outrageous and only when a few courageous outliers in the field of science dared to push the norms did the reality of science change.

"They laughed at Columbus, they laughed at Fulton, they laughed at the Wright brothers. But they also laughed at Bozo the Clown."
~ Carl Sagan

Another analogy that would apply to the world we live in today ......

Zzzzzzz.  Analogies only prove what the author already believes.

The great sages and saints have been talking about a different reality than science for thousands of years.

No, they've been asserting a different knowledge of reality.  Until you can show otherwise, there is only one reality.

This reality has nothing to do with how we know science today, how we knew science in the past, or how we will probably know it in the future. Based on the works of these great saints and their direct experiences, we realize that when we talk about science and spiritually we are talking about two different realities.

That there are two different 'realities' is a metaphor, not a literal truth, until shown otherwise.

To explain with an analogy.....

Again, analogies don't prove anything.

To main point of this essay is to reinforce the point that spirituality and science are in two very different realities.

I thought the point of the essay was to show this.  What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.

Another analogy would be the dog and the table analogy.

Another analogy.....

The dog and the scientist are in two different realities, the dog would never be able to understand the scientist.

The dog would never be able to understand the scientist because he's a dog.

Are you ever going to get around to proving that there are two different realities?

So when we talk about trying to prove or disprove spirituality with science, it is like trying to convince a dog that a table is not just how he perceive the table to be. For the dog to believe that it is something more, it has to make an effort to learn from someone who has the knowledge to see the table in a different reality. In essence their needs to be some qualifications that the dog needs to gain, training that he needs to go through in order to perceive a different reality.

No amount of training is going to make a dog understand atoms.  Analogy fail.

When the saints and sages discuss a spiritual world, where things are not what they seem, they are in fact talking about a different reality, they are like a nuclear scientist perceiving the table to be made up of molecules and perceiving different purposes for the table than just something to pee on.

What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.

When we understand that spirituality and science in the material world can be compared to two different realities [..]

Precisely.  They can be 'compared to' two different realities as metaphor.  You've shown nothing more than this.

[..] isn’t it then borderline arrogant for a scientist to assume that he has the qualifications to understand a different reality then he currently lives in, when he has not made one effort to qualify himself to understand the spiritual reality.

Only if this 'spiritual reality' is in fact different from plain old reality, a fact you've yet to establish.

The arrogance of the scientist can be compared to a person who was an education of a dishwasher approaching a rocket scientist and saying you are crazy, there is no way you can build something that could go to the moon [..]

You are implicitly saying that the saint has knowledge that a scientist lacks.  I can't help but think that if you were able to demonstrate this, then you wouldn't need all these metaphors and analogies.  Fail again.

We need to ask ourselves which reality are we in

You need to do a better job of showing there is more than one reality.

If we chose not to read the lives of saints and take their experiences as something real [..]

I accept the experiences of the saints as something real.  I don't extend that courtesy to their woo-filled interpretations of what their experience shows.

Scientists are arrogant to assume, like a dog, that their reality is actually the only reality that exists, and they dogmatically refuse to try and qualify themselves to understand a different reality.

Scientists don't assume.  The burden of proof is on the spiritualist to show that there is something to their ideas, and so far they have failed.

The saints are simply not respected by the majority of scientists, it’s a bit like a dog not respecting a nuclear physicist because he perceives what he is saying is so completely absurd that he must be crazy.

Not really.  You want spirituality to get a pass from skepticism.  If science needed a pass from skepticism, it wouldn't be worthy of the respect it has earned by demonstrating results.  You want the respect without having to show the results.  Sorry, it doesn't work that way.

In truth saints spent more time in qualifying themselves to understand the reality of the spiritual world than scientist have spent training to understand their fields. These saints have spent their whole life contemplating the spiritual life, to qualify themselves to gain insight into a different reality then the material world we live in. They can be compared to a dog breaking free from the animalistic qualities it was born with, and transforming itself to a nuclear physicist who can perceive a different reality. Qualifications to understand spirituality is not the same qualifications to understand dishwashing, or rocket science, it is in fact much more difficult. If we don’t spend the time to qualify ourselves, and similar to taking a few classes in our local university about rocket science think we can build a rocket to the moon, assume we think we can understand the spirituality reality, is simply arrogant on our behalf.

That's one big pile of bullshit.  
 

So the question is do you want to be a dog bound by the material reality imparted on you by your fellow dogs or do you want to transcend those qualities and try to qualify yourself to understand a different reality.

And there's the sales pitch.

You failed to establish what you claimed in your opening sentence, that spirituality is a distinct and separate reality.

[downbeatplumb]

All snake oil salesmen put the testability of their product out of reach. Be suspect of anything that cannot be tested by science.

[Brian37]

Ah ,we've got a book reader on our hands.  Sweet.  I like to read as well, and when I read a good book I also feel things.  That's how I know it's a good book.  I can tell you now that I wouldn't enjoy it, I find autobiographies dry, tedious, and more than just a little bit suspect....but I understand and appreciate that others enjoy them.  I thought we were talking about spirituality though.   Are we actually just talking about a book club, and which books gives us the tinglies?

It seems that "spiritual experiences" need to be defined further. Will post again in a few days defining this concept. Would be happy to get everyone's thoughts on it. Thanks.

I already properly defined "spiritual experiences" for you. It is the flawed perception that when we feel good, that good is coming from a divine place. Our deep feelings do not need to be described outside of nature. "Spirituality" is simply a hollow loaded word humans use as an excuse not to figure out what is really going on.

[Krishna Jaganath]

Spirituality can never be understood by science.

Since you haven't defined what spirituality is, we have no idea what you're saying can't be understood by science.

Spirituality:  the path where one tries and qualifies one self to understand God. 

For example only a few hundred years ago, most people, including scientist believed the world to be flat.

That's a myth.  If you base your ideas about science on myths then you are sure to go wrong.

It's an assumption yes, I don't really know with 100% proof that most scientists believed that the world was flat at that time. But if you where to look at most scientific discoveries it involved a few outliers going against the socially accepted norm of their times. 

Only when there is a drastic change in knowledge, does reality change.

Reality doesn't change, only our knowledge of it does.

Reality is subjective, it is always changing with knowledge. The essence, atma doesn't change which is always the same no matter which reality we are in (but this is a different subject and topic altogether).  

The big discoveries that changed the very face of science where looked at as outrageous and only when a few courageous outliers in the field of science dared to push the norms did the reality of science change.

"They laughed at Columbus, they laughed at Fulton, they laughed at the Wright brothers. But they also laughed at Bozo the Clown."
~ Carl Sagan

Okay. 

Another analogy that would apply to the world we live in today ......

Zzzzzzz.  Analogies only prove what the author already believes.

Okay.

The great sages and saints have been talking about a different reality than science for thousands of years.

No, they've been asserting a different knowledge of reality.  Until you can show otherwise, there is only one reality.

There is only one essence, reality is ever changing ( i have to admit, reality and essence needs to be defined clearer by me, I can see how that can be a bit confusing and wordy)

This reality has nothing to do with how we know science today, how we knew science in the past, or how we will probably know it in the future. Based on the works of these great saints and their direct experiences, we realize that when we talk about science and spiritually we are talking about two different realities.

That there are two different 'realities' is a metaphor, not a literal truth, until shown otherwise.

Truth can't be shown till one qualifies oneself to be worth of that truth.

To explain with an analogy.....

Again, analogies don't prove anything.

Okay

To main point of this essay is to reinforce the point that spirituality and science are in two very different realities.

I thought the point of the essay was to show this.  What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.

If you want dismiss it please do, as I said before there is NO evidence in the material reality that is going to prove the spiritual reality. 

Another analogy would be the dog and the table analogy.

Another analogy.....

Okay

The dog and the scientist are in two different realities, the dog would never be able to understand the scientist.

The dog would never be able to understand the scientist because he's a dog.

Are you ever going to get around to proving that there are two different realities?

Can't prove it with out qualifications 

So when we talk about trying to prove or disprove spirituality with science, it is like trying to convince a dog that a table is not just how he perceive the table to be. For the dog to believe that it is something more, it has to make an effort to learn from someone who has the knowledge to see the table in a different reality. In essence their needs to be some qualifications that the dog needs to gain, training that he needs to go through in order to perceive a different reality.

No amount of training is going to make a dog understand atoms.  Analogy fail.

Okay

When the saints and sages discuss a spiritual world, where things are not what they seem, they are in fact talking about a different reality, they are like a nuclear scientist perceiving the table to be made up of molecules and perceiving different purposes for the table than just something to pee on.

What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.

Okay

When we understand that spirituality and science in the material world can be compared to two different realities [..]

Precisely.  They can be 'compared to' two different realities as metaphor.  You've shown nothing more than this.

There is nothing more to show...

[..] isn’t it then borderline arrogant for a scientist to assume that he has the qualifications to understand a different reality then he currently lives in, when he has not made one effort to qualify himself to understand the spiritual reality.

Only if this 'spiritual reality' is in fact different from plain old reality, a fact you've yet to establish.

A fact that can not be established 

The arrogance of the scientist can be compared to a person who was an education of a dishwasher approaching a rocket scientist and saying you are crazy, there is no way you can build something that could go to the moon [..]

You are implicitly saying that the saint has knowledge that a scientist lacks.  I can't help but think that if you were able to demonstrate this, then you wouldn't need all these metaphors and analogies.  Fail again.

A saint has knowledge of a spiritual reality that a scientist does not have, just like a scientist has knowledge of a material reality that the saint does not have. 

We need to ask ourselves which reality are we in

You need to do a better job of showing there is more than one reality.

Can't do that. 

If we chose not to read the lives of saints and take their experiences as something real [..]

I accept the experiences of the saints as something real.  I don't extend that courtesy to their woo-filled interpretations of what their experience shows.

Okay

Scientists are arrogant to assume, like a dog, that their reality is actually the only reality that exists, and they dogmatically refuse to try and qualify themselves to understand a different reality.

Scientists don't assume.  The burden of proof is on the spiritualist to show that there is something to their ideas, and so far they have failed.

There is no proof ... 

The saints are simply not respected by the majority of scientists, it’s a bit like a dog not respecting a nuclear physicist because he perceives what he is saying is so completely absurd that he must be crazy.

Not really.  You want spirituality to get a pass from skepticism.  If science needed a pass from skepticism, it wouldn't be worthy of the respect it has earned by demonstrating results.  You want the respect without having to show the results.  Sorry, it doesn't work that way.

Respect is in the writings, teachings and lives of saints. Results can't be shown in the material reality. 

In truth saints spent more time in qualifying themselves to understand the reality of the spiritual world than scientist have spent training to understand their fields. These saints have spent their whole life contemplating the spiritual life, to qualify themselves to gain insight into a different reality then the material world we live in. They can be compared to a dog breaking free from the animalistic qualities it was born with, and transforming itself to a nuclear physicist who can perceive a different reality. Qualifications to understand spirituality is not the same qualifications to understand dishwashing, or rocket science, it is in fact much more difficult. If we don’t spend the time to qualify ourselves, and similar to taking a few classes in our local university about rocket science think we can build a rocket to the moon, assume we think we can understand the spirituality reality, is simply arrogant on our behalf.

That's one big pile of bullshit.  

Okay
 

So the question is do you want to be a dog bound by the material reality imparted on you by your fellow dogs or do you want to transcend those qualities and try to qualify yourself to understand a different reality.

And there's the sales pitch.

You failed to establish what you claimed in your opening sentence, that spirituality is a distinct and separate reality.

Thank you for your responses, I really enjoyed reading and contemplating them.

[Brian37]

Hate to burst your bubble, but Christians, and Jews and, Rastafarians and Mormons and even the Orient and Asia have their claims of the divine and "spirituality". "Spirituality" again, is a gap word, a hollow word. It an argument from ignorance. Science can literally measure the electro chemical activity in the human brain when people have reactions to positive stimuli. "Positive Stimuli" doesn't mean what the think is real is is real, but the thought of it feeling good. It is the same as when you tell a kid Santa is real and they look forward to getting presents.

[Mr Greene]

Hello, nice to meet you.
Down to business.
I have yet to observe any point where 'spiritual' isn't synonymous with 'emotional' when dealing with organised religion.
Your statement that you "felt something" merely reinforces this problem and as such it is quantifiable by science, specifically psychology.
Please do your research before you make similar statements.
please enjoy your time on the forums.