A Hindu Perspective: Science vs. Spirituality

[Alex K]

So, which is it, Krishna? Is science always over turning itself with new evidence, or is it dogmatic?

Maybe that one always has to check again and revise theories when new evidence comes in, is the dogma!
Dogmatically clinging to demonstrable evidence like the closed minded people we are...

[Krishna Jaganath]

So, which is it, Krishna? Is science always over turning itself with new evidence, or is it dogmatic?

Interesting question.

Science and scientists are two different things. Just like religion and religious people or two different things. I think it perfectly possible for the people inside of sciences to hold dogmatic beliefs on nature of the material reality, at the same time science itself is transforming. 

But the question is not about if scientists are dogmatic about science, but that scientists are dogmatic about the reality of spirituality. Which I don't blame them in any way because of course if we are talking about two different realities, how can there be ever any evidence to justify a co existence of both science and spirituality in the same reality.   

Two completely different arguments ...

[Homeless Nutter]

[...]But the question is not about if scientists are dogmatic about science, but that scientists are dogmatic about the reality of spirituality. Which I don't blame them in any way because of course if we are talking about two different realities
[...]

OR we're talking about one reality and one fantasy.

[Exian]

Well, at least you seem to understand why science couldn't possibly have anything to say on that 2nd "reality".

[Aoi Magi]

@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?

[Brian37]

Spirituality can never be understood by science. A person’s current reality or state defines their ideas and impressions of the world. For example only a few hundred years ago, most people, including scientist believed the world to be flat. If you would approach a group of scientists at that time and tell them the world was round they would have thought you were crazy. Then and even now science is bound to the reality of the particular time we live in, the idea of gravity or anything else that could prove the world was indeed round would have been dismissed as complete nonsense by the most credible scientists in the world at that time. Only when there is a drastic change in knowledge, does reality change.

When a few scientist (outliers) of that time made an effort to challenge their current reality, did things start to change, this is common with science throughout the ages, as much as we like to believe that science is progressive it is infact dogmatic. 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.

Another analogy that would apply to the world we live in today would be if aliens came to earth and observed how we performed experiments and said it is a terrible way to understand things, and continued saying we tried this thousands of years ago and it doesn’t work. Till there is a major shift in reality, every major scientist in the world would have concluded that math is the best system we have in place. Our knowledge of the world is based on our current reality and only once our reality is shifted do we have change our beliefs.

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

To explain with an analogy it would be comparable to a scientist 200 years ago talking to an alien who traveled at light speed to reach earth. What they would be sharing with each other would make no sense to either of them. To go further with the analogy, the scientists on earth would have to qualify themselves to understand the aliens, they would have to be willing to learn from the aliens about a system that in their current reality is not possible to comprehend in their wildest dreams, and if they weren’t willing to qualify themselves they would never understand the reality of the aliens, let alone try and explain it.

To main point of this essay is to reinforce the point that spirituality and science are in two very different realities. Another analogy would be the dog and the table analogy.  A dog when looking at a table stand views its purpose as something he can go to the bathroom on, a scientist on the other hand doesn’t look at a table in the same reality as a dog, he doesn’t even look at it like a piece of wood, he looks at has a group of atmos.  The dog and the scientist are in two different realities, the dog would never be able to understand the scientist. Every piece of possible evidence the dog can come up with in his current reality would only lead him to one conclusion: the table’s purpose is to go to the bathroom on.

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.

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. Relating this back to the subject of spirituality, the saint and the scientist can be compared to how a dog would answer to a nuclear physicist.  The dog would naturally tell the scientist he is crazy, there is no such thing as molecules, the Dog would say if he could talk, “can’t you see all the evidence leads to the fact the table is and will always be used for going to the bathroom on.” Just like a dog replies to a nuclear physicist, the scientist replies to the saint in the same manner, based on his reality that he currently lives in.

When we understand that spirituality and science in the material world can be compared to two different realities, 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.
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, look at me when I jump I can’t even jump 12 inches of the ground before coming down, how then can you fly to the moon. The rocket scientist would then try to explain the reason and ask the dishwasher to take some classes so he can become qualified to understand a bit more about rocket science, the boy just says no you are stupid I don’t want to waste my time with something which I know doesn’t make any sense.

We need to ask ourselves which reality are we in, do we acknowledge the saints, and believe in what they are saying or not. If we chose not to read the lives of saints and take their experiences as something real and we don’t try to qualify ourselves by the practices and lessons given to us by these saints, how can we ever expect to understand their reality?
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. The extent of their “trying” would be like if a dishwasher takes a few classes in their local university and says look I’ve taken classes now in rocket science, I’m qualified, and still what I think you are saying about going to the moon is crazy.

With any other major scientific discovery in science, the scientists have always made the necessary adjustments to qualify themselves to understand the world better, but when it comes to religion this idea of qualification is nonexistent. 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.

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.  

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. If so read the stories of saints, follow their advice, qualify yourself and you will start to perceive an altogether different reality.
Science can never explain religion, it would be the same as a dog explaining why a table is actually something made up of atoms and can be used in a variety of ways other than to pee on. Only when the dog asks a teacher, who has the qualifications and is able to view the table in a different reality, to show the dog a different way of looking at the table, can the reality of the dog change, if not, the dog will always be confined to his reality.

Disclaimer:
Not all scientist come to the same conclusions, and some claim to be scientists while in reality they are really not. It is the same in spirituality, sometimes you will come across saints and teachings of saints who have qualified themselves to understand a different reality, and sometimes it is possible to come across dogs claiming to be nuclear scientists. How one comes across a true saint can’t be explained by this reality, just like many things in life, it can be a variety of many factors, sometimes also referred to as luck.  

As countless experiments in science has proven, sometimes you have to get lucky. It is the same in spirituality, sometimes you have to get lucky to find the truth. But just like in science, we keep trying, and one day Eureka! After countless searching, one day we find the Perfect Master, the perfect nuclear physicist who can take us out of the dog state into a higher reality of how we perceive our lives.
This essay also does not go into detail about different religions, the idea of morals, or any other major topics discussed in the world today about spirituality. It is only meant to establish that science and spirituality are in two very different realities, and that science cannot explain spirituality, without first qualifying themselves.

Yes, it already is understood by science, hate to burst your bubble, but "spirituality" is a superstitious word, a gap answer. It is a failure to understand our biological reactions to seeing things that makes us feel good.

Our feelings are not coming from any divine entity. They come from our species evolution.

I would recommend two books by Victor Stinger "God the failed hypothesis" and "The New Atheism". 

Human psychology explains why humans have false perceptions. You can truely feel something but not know the biological cause that makes you feel something. There are no gods doing anything, there are merely humans mistaking nature for magic.

[Brian37]

And do me a favor, don't pull the fucking race card with me. I make the same argument to ALL religions worldwide. And there are atheists WORLDWIDE who have left every religion. There are Indian atheists, Arab atheists, Mexican atheists, black atheists and white atheists.

[The Grand Nudger]

The book I would recommend is Auto Biography of an Yogi by Paramhansa Yogananda. It can be found on the internet for free, don't need to pay for it. I would never recommend anything to anyone if I have not a direct experience with it. The sad fact is I have been to a temple and felt nothing, I have been to a church and felt nothing, but when I read this book I did feel something. This was the spark that made me try and qualify myself. 

Do what you will with it. Thanks.

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?

[Brian37]

This gives me a deep appreciation for the good side of evolution, what believers would call "spirituality"......... The difference is that I accept the reality of where my feelings come from, I simply don't assign the good in nature to gap answers. Why did that cat do what it did? Because evolution produces cooperation and sometimes when we see the positive cooperation in evolution, we mistake it as being magical.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aBW5dfRoG7Q

[Krishna Jaganath]

The book I would recommend is Auto Biography of an Yogi by Paramhansa Yogananda. It can be found on the internet for free, don't need to pay for it. I would never recommend anything to anyone if I have not a direct experience with it. The sad fact is I have been to a temple and felt nothing, I have been to a church and felt nothing, but when I read this book I did feel something. This was the spark that made me try and qualify myself. 

Do what you will with it. Thanks.

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.