Religion and Ethics Forum
Religion and Ethics Discussion => Philosophy, in all its guises. => Topic started by: Sriram on December 02, 2016, 06:25:12 AM
-
Hi everyone,
Spirituality is a Science. This is a Truism...though some people might balk at the idea. :D Perhaps the oldest Science too!
Certain people might perhaps start wondering how to measure spiritual phenomena or how to detect them or what instrument to use or which method of mathematical analysis to use or how to conduct a double blind clinical test .....etc. etc. ::)
Science is a broad term, a spectrum in fact....but many people tend to confuse it with Physics. Physics is a subset of science and all sciences are not physics.
Some science are exact sciences like Physics, mathematics. Everything is very precise. Chemistry is not as exact as the other two. Biology and Medicine are even less so. Measurements and predictions are never very precise. Then come Psychology, Sociology and other sciences that are far from exact but are Sciences nevertheless.
Spirituality takes off from where Psychology ends. Nothing very exact or measurable or predictive.... but there is still a system, there are certain methods and techniques... using which certain results can be achieved and certain broad predictions can be made.
Yoga, Pranayama, Meditations, Chantings, rituals and even prayers are some of the systems and methods using which certain mental states can be achieved and a great degree of peace, happiness and hope can be achieved. In some cases, even certain physical results in the form of curing illnesses, greater physical and mental energy and motivation can be achieved.
Greater awareness, greater feeling of love and universality can be reached. Greater wisdom and understanding of other people, their motivations, their inner compulsions and so on can also be easily achieved. People can lose fear of death and look forward to the future even in old age. Loneliness can be overcome.
All these are no mean achievements by the way!! They are priceless! The benefits are immense. Most people would give anything to acquire these benefits.
Purely through physical means or medicines or by visiting a shrink these mental and emotional conditions cannot be achieved.
Religions btw are the most popular methods of achieving spiritual maturity....though they also serve other social and cultural purposes.
The secular methods as mentioned above (Yoga etc) are now becoming more popular worldwide, though some people use them parallely with religious methods. Most non religious people use such secular methods to acquire spiritual knowledge and stability. Our atheist friends can too!
Just some thoughts.
Cheers.
Sriram
-
And Sparkler claims righteousness is a science ???
Science is successful, so everyone wants to bathe in its glory, not always realising the punishing discipline involved.
-
Science - The intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behaviour of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment.
I think you are stretching the definition to a point where it's meaningless woo
-
Spirituality is a group of letters forming a word to describe, not absolutely precisely, but near enough, an aspect of human traits, or characteristics, or whatever synonym is appropriate.
It is not a science.
-
This is the old sense of 'science', isn't it? It used to mean knowledge, (German: Wissenschaft), so theology was ranked as a science. Well, OK, if you are a devotee of Aquinas, maybe. Otherwise, a pointless use of the word.
-
WHAT SUSAN SAID
:)
-
Any systematic knowledge of principles ...is Science. Any activity or method which employs a systematic preset series of steps and stages... and which results in predictable outcomes ...is Science.
Physical exercises, dieting, cooking and many other such systematic and regulated activities are all Sciences. Yoga, Pranayama and Meditations are also such systematic and well understood regimens that produce predictable results. They are definitely Sciences.
There are social sciences, management sciences and many other. Spirituality is also one such! There is no doubt about that.
Problem is that many people confuse Spirituality with religion and get carried away with mythology and legend. :)
-
Any systematic knowledge of principles ...is Science. Any activity or method which employs a systematic preset series of steps and stages... and which results in predictable outcomes ...is Science.
None of this applies to karma.Physical exercises, dieting, cooking and many other such systematic and regulated activies are all Sciences.
They all involve physical materials, and can be studied objectively.Yoga, Pranayama and Meditations are also such systematic and well understood regimens that produce predictable results. They are definitely Sciences.
They are not sciences in themselves, although the human body's reactions, chemical changes, etc can be measured by scientists and predictions made.There are social sciences, management sciences and many other.
These are behavioural skills and the human mind learns how to use them.Spirituality is also one such! There is no doubt about that.
Oh, really! Please explain - or rather try to, although I don't think you will succeed.Problem is that many people confuse Spirituality with religion and get carried away with mythology and legend. :)
The trouble is that religions think they have a monopoly on the word spiritual, but they are wrong in thinking so.
-
It doesn't follow the scientific method so isn't a science, unless you are going with a different definition of the term than is currently used which would render the word pretty meaningless.
-
Science is defined as the intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behaviour of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment.
That doesn't apply to spirituality.
-
It is also defined as
A systematically organized body of knowledge on a particular subject
and
Knowledge of any kind
Floo, (though I appeciate that this latter is deemed 'archaic' by the Oxford Dictionary)
-
Sriram,
I suppose you are talking about how science was regarded long ago when you suggest that 'Spirituality is a Science. This is a Truism.'. I don't think that spirituality is regarded so in modern science , so I would suggest that it would be an inaccurate statement, rather than a blindingly obvious statement.
Of course scientists may well observe protestations of spirituality, attempt to analyse their characteristics etc., even come to provisional conclusions as to their causes and effects.
As regards physics, this discipline underlies all the other sciences, such as biology, chemistry etc. because it deals with the underlying laws which affect all forms of matter.
As far as the demarcation between true sciences and pseudo/non sciences are concerned there is considerable debate here, so I suggest that to assert some sort of hierarchical view, in which you, rather conveniently, insert spirituality is simply your way of looking at it, and would, I suggest, be highly contested by others.
See what karl Popper thought about demarcation, for instance, or, in contrast, any of the Logical Positivists.
Or, indeed, this article:
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/pseudo-science/
You suggest that spirituality is a system, employing methods and techniques. So are many other practices which are not normally regarded as sciences at all, even if you think they are, although they may well involve the use of science at various points. E.G. ballet dancing, painting, plumbing, athletics. Your use of science, here, seems to demote the modern sense of the term to merely practising various disciplines.
The second part of what you say is associated with the benefits of the various disciplines you enumerate. With this part I would tend to agree with you. However this has nothing at all to to do with whether 'spirituality' is a science or not.
Just some thoughts.
-
Hope
How can anyone have a 'body of knowledge' about something that is entirely imaginary?
-
Hope
How can anyone have a 'body of knowledge' about something that is entirely imaginary?
How do you evidence that claim?
-
Sriram,
I suppose you are talking about how science was regarded long ago when you suggest that 'Spirituality is a Science. This is a Truism.'. I don't think that spirituality is regarded so in modern science , so I would suggest that it would be an inaccurate statement, rather than a blindingly obvious statement.
Of course scientists may well observe protestations of spirituality, attempt to analyse their characteristics etc., even come to provisional conclusions as to their causes and effects.
As regards physics, this discipline underlies all the other sciences, such as biology, chemistry etc. because it deals with the underlying laws which affect all forms of matter.
As far as the demarcation between true sciences and pseudo/non sciences are concerned there is considerable debate here, so I suggest that to assert some sort of hierarchical view, in which you, rather conveniently, insert spirituality is simply your way of looking at it, and would, I suggest, be highly contested by others.
See what karl Popper thought about demarcation, for instance, or, in contrast, any of the Logical Positivists.
Or, indeed, this article:
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/pseudo-science/
You suggest that spirituality is a system, employing methods and techniques. So are many other practices which are not normally regarded as sciences at all, even if you think they are, although they may well involve the use of science at various points. E.G. ballet dancing, painting, plumbing, athletics. Your use of science, here, seems to demote the modern sense of the term to merely practising various disciplines.
The second part of what you say is associated with the benefits of the various disciplines you enumerate. With this part I would tend to agree with you. However this has nothing at all to to do with whether 'spirituality' is a science or not.
Just some thoughts.
enki,
First of all....what you understand by 'spirituality' is not clear. If it is about religion, God, heaven etc. ....then that is not what I consider as Spirituality (though those things may well be true and meaningful).
Spirituality for me is about Self Development. I have written about this rather extensively on here. It is about eliminating animal tendencies and acquiring more and more of 'human' or 'divine' qualities such as Love, selflessness, altruism, wisdom, universality etc.
If by following certain methods, techniques and systems we can predictably increase such qualities in ourselves...it is a 'Science'. 'Science' is not just about the study of material things. Any systematic knowledge gained is 'Science'. Any method or system by which certain predetermined results can be achieved is 'Science'.
Many fields start off being 'Art' in the sense that only some gifted people can do certain things. This could be dance, cooking, music, athletics etc.
However, if by understanding the basic principles involved, we are able to train people in these fields such that we achieve certain desired results....then all these areas could move from 'Art' to 'Science'.
It is the same with Self Development and being civilized....which is the aim of Spirituality. (I have already written about the role of religions in this)
People can be trained to discipline their mind, control their animal impulses and behave in certain acceptable ways. It may not be possible to the same extent equally with everyone....but in general, certain broad predictable results can be achieved. This is what I call a 'Science'.
Cheers.
Sriram
-
Hope
How can anyone have a 'body of knowledge' about something that is entirely imaginary?
How indeed!
-
How do you evidence that claim?
It was a question, not a claim.
-
It was a question, not a claim.
Which contains a claim about spirituality being entirely imaginary.
-
Spirituality doesn't exist outside the human mind.
-
Which contains a claim about spirituality being entirely imaginary.
What was the claim that the question contained? I don't see one.
-
What was the claim that the question contained? I don't see one.
That spirituality, the subject of the thread, is entirely imaginary
-
Spirituality doesn't exist outside the human mind.
and your evidence for this claim is?
-
and your evidence for this claim is?
Well can you prove it does?
-
Well can you prove it does?
I didn't make any claim. You did, your burden of proof. You are merely using the negative proof fallacy so beloved of Hope.
-
Sriram,
In response to your post 14:
First of all....what you understand by 'spirituality' is not clear. If it is about religion, God, heaven etc. ....then that is not what I consider as Spirituality (though those things may well be true and meaningful).
I find that the word 'spirituality' is such a vague word that I am loathe to use it about myself. It seems to be some sort of expansive concept, often relating to something deep and meaningful in what is popularly called the human psyche. The only thing I could possibly say about it of any significance is that it seems to relate to the human mind.
Spirituality for me is about Self Development. I have written about this rather extensively on here. It is about eliminating animal tendencies and acquiring more and more of 'human' or 'divine' qualities such as Love, selflessness, altruism, wisdom, universality etc.
Self development is fine and can be/is achieved in a variety of ways, although I would strongly disagree with your idea that the qualities that you list are particularly human in origin. There is plenty of evidence which clearly suggests that such things as 'Love, selflessness, altruism, wisdom, universality' are present to a greater or lesser degree in many animal species, which seems to make sense as we are an animal species too. Many animals too show elements of self control, which seems to have some correlation to the size of their brains.
http://www.livescience.com/44993-bigger-brained-animals-have-more-self-control.html
If by following certain methods, techniques and systems we can predictably increase such qualities in ourselves...it is a 'Science'. 'Science' is not just about the study of material things. Any systematic knowledge gained is 'Science'. Any method or system by which certain predetermined results can be achieved is 'Science'.
Peeling an apple or vacuuming a carpet are techniques which have predetermined results. These are not classed as the sciences of decorticatiomalum and vacutapetum. If you are using the word 'science' in such a loose way then almost anything is applicable. However what I understand by exact science is summed up admirably in this description by the Science Council:
http://sciencecouncil.org/about-us/our-definition-of-science/
and the above, of course, includes, the important systematical methodology of science.
Many fields start off being 'Art' in the sense that only some gifted people can do certain things. This could be dance, cooking, music, athletics etc.
However, if by understanding the basic principles involved, we are able to train people in these fields such that we achieve certain desired results....then all these areas could move from 'Art' to 'Science'.
It is the same with Self Development and being civilized....which is the aim of Spirituality. (I have already written about the role of religions in this)
Actually, intuitive and creative ability are of great importance in producing works of artistic merit, but much can be learned using both training and technique in executing the skills needed to produce such works. Ditto with athletics, which isn't usually called an art form. You seem to be simply talking about taking on skills which aid in the execution of the desired goal. This says nothing as to what is a science at all.
People can be trained to discipline their mind, control their animal impulses and behave in certain acceptable ways. It may not be possible to the same extent equally with everyone....but in general, certain broad predictable results can be achieved. This is what I call a 'Science'.
Yes, people can be trained to discipline their minds, control some of their destructive impulses and behave in acceptable ways according to their cultural/social aspirations, and, in evolutionary terms, this may well have broadly predictable results. However, not only is this just one idea(your idea) of what 'spirituality' means, in no way does this constitute a science in its own right, and nor does it employ the methodologies inherent in modern science to any notable degree.
-
That spirituality, the subject of the thread, is entirely imaginary
Sprtirituality wasn't mentioned in the question.
-
and your evidence for this claim is?
Surely spirituality is a state of mind.
-
enki,
Even peeling an apple or cleaning the carpet can be done scientifically using certain methods and following certain principles. Anything that is done using established principles and rules to obtain specific results...is scientific.
As regards other animals also having higher level qualities...of course, I agree. I have said many times that it is a spectrum. Different animals also figure in the developmental process....not just humans. Animals also have the same qualities (Divine spark) in them to varying degrees. Higher animals have more ...lower animals have less.
But it is in humans that we are able to consciously choose the higher vs the lower qualities. Even in humans there is a broad spectrum with some humans at lower levels (nearer to animals) and some at the opposite end...and others at various levels in between.
-
Please excuse me while I grovel for a moment or two! I have read back through my posts and I used the word 'karma' in second or third post,, not 'spirituality'.
]In my defence, I think you cannot have a body of knowledge about spirituality either, although the word 'karma' fits better.
-
Hope
How can anyone have a 'body of knowledge' about something that is entirely imaginary?
Are you going to outdo Floo, and actually provide some evidence for your claim that spirituality, let alone faith, is 'entirely imaginary'?
-
Spirituality doesn't exist outside the human mind.
That's yet another claim that has never been evidenced, Floo. Who will provide evidence first, you or Susan?
-
enki,
Even peeling an apple or cleaning the carpet can be done scientifically using certain methods and following certain principles. Anything that is done using established principles and rules to obtain specific results...is scientific.
As regards other animals also having higher level qualities...of course, I agree. I have said many times that it is a spectrum. Different animals also figure in the developmental process....not just humans. Animals also have the same qualities (Divine spark) in them to varying degrees. Higher animals have more ...lower animals have less.
But it is in humans that we are able to consciously choose the higher vs the lower qualities. Even in humans there is a broad spectrum with some humans at lower levels (nearer to animals) and some at the opposite end...and others at various levels in between.
In your first paragraph, you substitute the word 'scientific' for 'science' (which is what you originally claimed). However The fact that something can employ a technique which is vaguely similar to at least part of the methodology of science does not necessarily make it scientific, much less a science, I would suggest, at least in the modern sense of the word.
Different animals have all sorts of different qualities, some far exceeding those of humans of course. I suggest that you have no evidence whatever that any qualities that you care to name in humans/other animals have their origin in a 'divine spark'.
All you seem to be suggesting here is that because humans have more complex brains they are more able to control their thinking and have greater potential in choosing actions which are beneficial to human flourishing. I have no real problem with this. However I would suggest that this aspect of human behaviour is best investigated by neuroscience, in particular, which attempts to abide by the rigour of scientific method to reach its (provisional) conclusions.
-
Ok..thanks enki!
-
That's yet another claim that has never been evidenced, Floo. Who will provide evidence first, you or Susan?
Hope,
You don't honestly believe anybody is going to take your demands for evidence seriously, do you? Nobody fails to provide evidence on quite the epic scale that you do.
-
Hope,
You don't honestly believe anybody is going to take your demands for evidence seriously, do you? Nobody fails to provide evidence on quite the epic scale that you do.
Seconded.
-
That's yet another claim that has never been evidenced, Floo. Who will provide evidence first, you or Susan?
Can you prove it exists outside the human mind, no of course you can't! You have never provided evidence, which is credible for any of your claims.
-
Would spirituality exist if there were no humans ? If so how ?
-
Of course the idea of spirituality is a product of the human mind.
-
Of course the idea of spirituality is a product of the human mind.
To be honest, I'm not sure we have a usable definition of spirituality but the OP seems to be suggesting something quite different from only a product of a human mind.
-
NS,
How do you evidence that claim?
A fair challenge – Susan’s post would perhaps have been more happily expressed as something like, “How can anyone have a 'body of knowledge' about something that is entirely indistinguishable from the imaginary?”
That said though, I’d have though that Sriram’s opening salvo of, “Spirituality is a Science. This is a Truism...” merits the same challenge as “spirituality" lacks pretty much every characteristic of science, starting with a definition of the term.
-
NS,
A fair challenge – Susan’s post would perhaps have been more happily expressed as something like, “How can anyone have a 'body of knowledge' about something that is entirely indistinguishable from the imaginary?”
That said though, I’d have though that Sriram’s opening salvo of, “Spirituality is a Science. This is a Truism...” merits the same challenge as “spirituality" lacks pretty much every characteristic of science, starting with a definition of the term.
Thank you! :) Well said, as always.
Mind you, at 80 I feel I can take plenty of liberties!!
-
usan,
Thank you! :) Well said, as always.
Mind you, at 80 I feel I can take plenty of liberties!!
By special order of the Lord High Grand Panjandrum of the Mods, you my dear can take as many liberties as you like ;)
-
Hi everyone,
There is nothing imaginary about spirituality. It involves certain theories and practices that generate very clear and predictable results in terms of human thoughts, feelings and behavior. They are often far more reliable than the so called scientific areas of psychology and psychiatry.
Cheers.
Sriram
-
Hi everyone,
There is nothing imaginary about spirituality. It involves certain theories and practices that generate very clear and predictable results in terms of human thoughts, feelings and behavior. They are often far more reliable than the so called scientific areas of psychology and psychiatry.
Cheers.
Sriram
Oh dear! ::)
-
Hi everyone,
There is nothing imaginary about spirituality. It involves certain theories and practices that generate very clear and predictable results
Got any clear and predictable examples?
-
Sriram,
There is nothing imaginary about spirituality. It involves certain theories and practices that generate very clear and predictable results in terms of human thoughts, feelings and behavior. They are often far more reliable than the so called scientific areas of psychology and psychiatry.
Any chance then of a method to distinguish your "spirit" conjecture from other conjectures that are imaginary?
-
Sriram,
Any chance then of a method to distinguish your "spirit" conjecture from other conjectures that are imaginary?
Observation and experience leads to Theory. Theory leads to development of methods and techniques. Methods and techniques are used by people. These lead to desired and predictable results as per Theory. So the theory is validated.
As simple as that.
-
Observation and experience leads to Theory. Theory leads to development of methods and techniques. Methods and techniques are used by people. These lead to desired and predictable results as per Theory. So the theory is validated.
As simple as that.
That's just generalisation to avoid answering Blue's challenge. Set out a testable method to establish that spirits exist.
-
That's just generalisation to avoid answering Blue's challenge. Set out a testable method to establish that spirits exist.
It is the method and the results that validate the theory. What more do you want? You want a snapshot of the spirit or something?!! ::)
-
Observation and experience leads to Theory. Theory leads to development of methods and techniques. Methods and techniques are used by people. These lead to desired and predictable results as per Theory. So the theory is validated.
As simple as that.
I take then, Sriram, that you have little experience in research methods since it is anything but 'simple' (and I do speak from experience).
So, given this is 'simple' stuff, in relation to 'spirituality' the theory, methods and techniques are what exactly? Moreover, on what basis is it known that the selected methods and techniques are in fact suited to testing the theory: for example, sampling methods, data capture tools or that the statistical tests are suited to the data?
You've mentioned theory being validated but you've haven't mentioned the possibility that theory might be invalidated presuming, of course, that your 'methods and techniques' are sufficiently robust so as to support any conclusions regarding your theory.
-
It is the method and the results that validate the theory. What more do you want? You want a snapshot of the spirit or something?!! ::)
I'd certainly want to see something resembling a research methodology as opposed to just chucking a few research-apt terms into a sentence or two and hoping that suffices: it doesn't.
-
It is the method and the results that validate the theory. What more do you want? You want a snapshot of the spirit or something?!! ::)
if you've got any it would be a start because you have little clue on how to set up experiments
-
Hi everyone,
Refer my OP.
Spiritual philosophy and mysticism gave birth to Yoga, Pranayama, meditations and other practices. It is based on a spiritual explanation of life.
These methods are a way of eliminating our base desires, competitiveness and other animal tendencies. As our higher nature surfaces we become more selfless, loving, cooperative, humane etc. We will also become more healthy and peaceful because we will eliminate many of the negative energies (doshas) in the system.
Millions of Yoga, pranayama and meditation practitioners will confirm that all this actually happens. Scientists have confirmed that these results can actually be achieved through these practices. Schools, colleges, work places, hospitals and even prisons have introduced these practices and achieved results. People do become more peaceful, happy, selfless, healthy, humane and so on.
So...no experiments need to be set up specifically for this. It has all been confirmed time and again by millions of people around the world.
Cheers.
Sriram
-
So...no experiments need to be set up specifically for this. It has all been confirmed time and again by millions of people around the world.
I see you've abandoned the research methods approach and opted for an argumentum ad populum instead.
-
Hi everyone,
Refer my OP.
Spiritual philosophy and mysticism gave birth to Yoga, Pranayama, meditations and other practices. It is based on a spiritual explanation of life.
These methods are a way of eliminating our base desires, competitiveness and other animal tendencies. As our higher nature surfaces we become more selfless, loving, cooperative, humane etc. We will also become more healthy and peaceful because we will eliminate many of the negative energies (doshas) in the system.
Millions of Yoga, pranayama and meditation practitioners will confirm that all this actually happens. Scientists have confirmed that these results can actually be achieved through these practices. Schools, colleges, work places, hospitals and even prisons have introduced these practices and achieved results. People do become more peaceful, happy, selfless, healthy, humane and so on.
So...no experiments need to be set up specifically for this. It has all been confirmed time and again by millions of people around the world.
Cheers.
Sriram
I've done yoga and Tai Chi and felt rome benefits. I've also done relation techniques which do not involve any of the 'spititual' stuff and felt the same effects. What does this sort of thing really show about spirituality?
-
I see you've abandoned the research methods approach and opted for an argumentum ad populum instead.
Many scientists have confirmed these through experiments.
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/07/130711084920.htm
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/04/120404101824.htm
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2016/03/160309140042.htm
-
Sriram,
Observation and experience leads to Theory. Theory leads to development of methods and techniques. Methods and techniques are used by people. These lead to desired and predictable results as per Theory. So the theory is validated.
As simple as that.
I understand how scientific theory works. How though would you map anything about "spirit" onto that method?
How would you define your terms? What data would you capture? How would you test it? What peer review would you propose? What falsification test would you build into your thesis?
If you want to use the methods of science (which seems an odd choice for a conjecture you presumably think to be non-material by the way, but it's your choice) then you have all your work ahead of you still to suggest how you'd actually apply it.
-
Sriram,
Many scientists have confirmed these through experiments.
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/07/130711084920.htm
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/04/120404101824.htm
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2016/03/160309140042.htm
None of these things validate "spirit" or "karma" - they just say that people feel better for doing yoga. Fine. People feel better for playing the piano too. So what?
-
Many scientists have confirmed these through experiments.
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/07/130711084920.htm
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/04/120404101824.htm
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2016/03/160309140042.htm
So what?
These are saying no more than that some find yoga beneficial: replace yoga with any number of things and some people will report that they feel it to be beneficial on a personal basis: riding fast motorcycles, enjoying a pint with friends, listening to music, playing sport, cooking etc etc.
If this is 'spirituality' then pretty much everything that produces endorphins is therefore 'spiritual', although 'biological' would be a better description. I suspect you are over-egging your preferred choice of pudding.
-
My wife and I particpate in ballroom and sequence dancing. We, like many of our friends, enjoy doing so, and consider that all sorts of physical and mental benefits accrue from this activity. We would no more consider this a science than going to the pub and meeting a few friends there. Not sure where the 'spiritual' comes into this, but I'm sure I can find a way if I really try. ;)
-
Enki,
Not sure where the 'spiritual' comes into this...
That'll be the pub bit I expect.
-
My wife and I particpate in ballroom and sequence dancing. We, like many of our friends, enjoy doing so, and consider that all sorts of physical and mental benefits accrue from this activity. We would no more consider this a science than going to the pub and meeting a few friends there. Not sure where the 'spiritual' comes into this, but I'm sure I can find a way if I really try. ;)
It's been done .... Sufi dancing.
-
Maybe it's not what you do but whether you know what you are doing.
-
It's been done .... Sufi dancing.
Not the way we do it, it isn't. :) We have enough trouble doing natural spin turns, never mind double reverse spin turns in the waltz to even attempt sufi dancing. ::)
-
Hi everyone,
Science does not mean only people in white coats working in laboratories....! ::)
Anything that has a specific method and system.... and the workings of which are understood and which are repeatable with predictable results....is a Science. It can be Yoga or meditation or dancing or singing or chanting or walking or even socializing.
In fact, religions often use music and singing, dancing, eating certain foods and so on to achieve certain mental states. They even advocate socializing, group meditations and chantings.
So..yes..many of the things that you people speak of can also be beneficial. There is a science behind them all.
The point is that the science behind many of our normal activities are not yet understood...rather the common man does not understand them. The science behind Yoga, Pranayama and meditations are however well understood to such an extent that very specific results can be achieved through very specific methods. Even temple visits, rituals, prayer, pilgrimages etc. have a science behind them.
And the science behind these techniques is a spiritual one in which the nature of the lower self is understood and the methods to discipline it is also understood.
Some of the methods may seem similar to workouts while others are meshed in with our normal day to day lives. But they all have a clear purpose behind them...though normal folk may not understand them as such....which really does not matter at all. Everyone need not understand the purpose behind drinking milk or eating apples..as long as they do it.
Cheers.
Sriram
-
Hi everyone,
Science does not mean only people in white coats working in laboratories....! ::)
Nobody said it did, so this is a straw-man.
Anything that has a specific method and system.... and the workings of which are understood and which are repeatable with predictable results....is a Science. It can be Yoga or meditation or dancing or singing or chanting or walking or even socializing.
I think you are using 'science' loosely, and no doubt there are many aspects of our daily lives that involve 'science': so we know there are biological reasons why some activities 'feel good' just as these days (thanks to graphite shafts and the use of titanium in the club-heads) science allows us to make more efficient golf clubs compared to old wooden variety, But care must be taken to avoid slipping in claims of 'science' that aren't suited to the methods of science, since to do so would be using the fallacy of equivocation by using the term ambiguously.
If feeling 'spiritual' involves certain conditions within our brain then that could be investigated, subject to an appropriate definition of terms and suitable methodology, but if the claim involves some kind of non-natural agency then you'd need a method suited to that: but this wouldn't be 'science' as science is currently understood.
In fact, religions often use music and singing, dancing, eating certain foods and so on to achieve certain mental states. They even advocate socializing, group meditations and chantings.
Indeed they do - these are ritualistic methods of reinforcing the message by encouraging group compliance via special procedures, words, songs, clothes etc etc. For example, I was went to an RC funeral once (my only experience of an RC service) and was astonished at the amount of ritualistic behaviour involved, people getting down on there knees and then up again at certain points or them suddenly all saying the same thing in a kind a call and response process with the priest. I suppose this works on an 'if I'm doing all this stuff there must be something behind it' basis.
As someone whose interest in sport is minimal I'm also very aware of the same thing going on when people on golf courses wear clothes they wouldn't be seen dead in elsewhere or, even worse, hearing someone on Radio 4 summarising a cricket game using a wheen of odd words and terms that only those in the know understand (why, in the case of cricket, they can be bothered in the first place is another mystery). That certain groups have their bespoke rituals isn't especially remarkable or significant: just 'par for the course'.
So..yes..many of the things that you people speak of can also be beneficial. There is a science behind them all.
The point is that the science behind many of our normal activities are not yet understood...rather the common man does not understand them. The science behind Yoga, Pranayama and meditations are however well understood to such an extent that very specific results can be achieved through very specific methods. Even temple visits, rituals, prayer, pilgrimages etc. have a science behind them.
Only where it involves aspects that are science-apt
And the science behind these techniques is a spiritual one in which the nature of the lower self is understood and the methods to discipline it is also understood.
Only if you define 'spiritual' in terms that are science-apt, else it ain't science no matter how much you'd like it to be the case.
Some of the methods may seem similar to workouts while others are meshed in with our normal day to day lives. But they all have a clear purpose behind them...though normal folk may not understand them as such....which really does not matter at all. Everyone need not understand the purpose behind drinking milk or eating apples..as long as they do it.
Nutrition, be it drinking milk or eating apples (or anything else) is an essential behaviour for survival, although sadly not for everyone, and is yet another area where humans have developed an approach that adds pleasure to the need: so we see a plethora of cuisines and resources to support them. I suppose you could call eating and drinking for survival 'purposeful', in a nutritional sense, but I suspect that you are using the term 'purpose' differently.
-
East is East, and West is West, and never the twain shall meet. I can't see any benefit in associating 'science or scientific method' with 'spirituality and religious methods'. The former tends to be outward looking, objective, information based with subjective models and the latter tends to be inward looking, withdrawing beyond the subjective and transformation based. There are two other words which might serve better but they too have their weaknesses:
Gnosis..... Knowledge of spiritual mysteries.
Mysticism .... Belief that union with or absorption into the Deity or the absolute, or the spiritual apprehension of knowledge inaccessible to the intellect, may be attained through contemplation and self-surrender.
-
The problem is that we tend to categorize and dissect so much that we artificially separate many things and place them out of context of the real world.
Both religion/spirituality and Science have been put in categories far separated from one another as though they are different worlds. We then choose which world we would like to associate with. This is nonsense.
Spirituality and religion are a natural part of our culture and our personalities and they help us develop. This development and its process have a scientific basis with a deep understanding of our psychology, inner minds and inner personalities. They are all connected.
-
We need to seperate things and have clear definitions of things to make meanings clear or else language just becomes meaningless. To classify spirituality, dance, song, golf, syncronised swimming etc as science blurs the distinction between those type of activities and activities invoving the scientific method and should, in my view, be avoided these days.
-
We need to seperate things and have clear definitions of things to make meanings clear or else language just becomes meaningless. To classify spirituality, dance, song, golf, syncronised swimming etc as science blurs the distinction between those type of activities and activities invoving the scientific method and should, in my view, be avoided these days.
Categorization is necessary only for the purpose of specialized study and learning. It cannot become our world view....which is what it seems to have become. The Zoom-In tendency dominates.
With more and more narrowed definitions and narrowed perspectives, we lose the ability of integrating our views and seeing the world as a total reality....where everything meshes together...including science and spirituality.
-
Categorization is necessary only for the purpose of specialized study and learning. It cannot become our world view....which is what it seems to have become. The Zoom-In tendency dominates.
With more and more narrowed definitions and narrowed perspectives, we lose the ability of integrating our views and seeing the world as a total reality....where everything meshes together...including science and spirituality.
Don't think so pal. only in your own head!
-
It is the method and the results that validate the theory. What more do you want?
We want you to say what the method is.
-
This is the old sense of 'science', isn't it? It used to mean knowledge, (German: Wissenschaft), so theology was ranked as a science. Well, OK, if you are a devotee of Aquinas, maybe. Otherwise, a pointless use of the word.
Thanks wiggi. Sriram's (and NM's) waffling should end there. The word of course derives from the Latin Scientia, from scio, meaning "I know".
However, etymology does not overwhelmingly determine the modern usage of the word, which has a much more precise meaning. The precise techniques of modern science are not at all aided by attempts to re-instate historical meanings of the word which only result in vacuous babblings.
-
"knowledge of any kind"
(though I appeciate that this latter is deemed 'archaic' by the Oxford Dictionary)
Well, if you appreciate that, why the hell do you insist on trying to apply archaic definitions to the clearly defined modern usage of the word?
-
Thanks wiggi. Sriram's (and NM's) waffling should end there. The word of course derives from the Latin Scientia, from scio, meaning "I know".
However, etymology does not overwhelmingly determine the modern usage of the word, which has a much more precise meaning. The precise techniques of modern science are not at all aided by attempts to re-instate historical meanings of the word which only result in vacuous babblings.
It does confuse discussions especially as religions and their language are past oriented and scientific method is relatively recent. The Vedas are a source of Indian spirituality and Veda means knowledge but not the sort which modern day science is associated with.
-
We want you to say what the method is.
Check out the OP please.
-
Any practice that employs prescribed and clearly defined methods to achieve specific results is a Science. Nothing old or outdated about that. ::)
-
Any practice that employs prescribed and clearly defined methods to achieve specific results is a Science. Nothing old or outdated about that. ::)
And nothing particularly scientific about that, I would suggest. I'll give you just three examples which satisfy your conditions, any one of which I would suggest is a far cry from science:hairdressing, producing a curriculum vitae, any flat pack assembly. If you genuinely see these as sciences, then I suggest the number of sciences that you would accept is almost endless...and to my mind rather meaningless.
-
And nothing particularly scientific about that, I would suggest. I'll give you just three examples which satisfy your conditions, any one of which I would suggest is a far cry from science:hairdressing, producing a curriculum vitae, any flat pack assembly. If you genuinely see these as sciences, then I suggest the number of sciences that you would accept is almost endless...and to my mind rather meaningless.
Absolutely.
-
Check out the OP please.
Why? It doesn't have a method in it?
-
Any practice that employs prescribed and clearly defined methods to achieve specific results is a Science. Nothing old or outdated about that. ::)
Homeopathy employs "prescribed and clearly defined methods to achieve specific results", the specific results being selling water to marks for lots of money. It's not a science.
The real point of science is to invent models that describe the real world and then to test them to see if they work. How does that apply to spirituality. Where's there model? Where are the tests?
-
Homeopathy employs "prescribed and clearly defined methods to achieve specific results", the specific results being selling water to marks for lots of money. It's not a science.
The real point of science is to invent models that describe the real world and then to test them to see if they work. How does that apply to spirituality. Where's there model? Where are the tests?
If Homeopathy achieves prescribed results...then it is a Science. But your contention is that it does not cure illnesses, which means it is not a Science (according to you).
-
And nothing particularly scientific about that, I would suggest. I'll give you just three examples which satisfy your conditions, any one of which I would suggest is a far cry from science:hairdressing, producing a curriculum vitae, any flat pack assembly. If you genuinely see these as sciences, then I suggest the number of sciences that you would accept is almost endless...and to my mind rather meaningless.
As I have mentioned earlier, certain activities are art because only some people can perform them. But the moment the principles are understood and specific methods are prescribed to achieve certain desired results....it becomes a Science.
Science is also...
'A systematically organized body of knowledge on a particular subject.'
In that sense, even hairdressing, producing a CV, maintaining a library etc. can be a Science....in the sense that anyone following certain methods can produce similar results.
-
As I have mentioned earlier, certain activities are art because only some people can perform them. But the moment the principles are understood and specific methods are prescribed to achieve certain desired results....it becomes a Science.
Science is also...
'A systematically organized body of knowledge on a particular subject.'
In that sense, even hairdressing, producing a CV, maintaining a library etc. can be a Science....in the sense that anyone following certain methods can produce similar results.
Is there anything that can be then described as not a science?
-
Yes...anything that does not have a prescribed method and which does not produce consistent results! I have already mentioned 'art' as one of them.
-
Science is also...
'A systematically organized body of knowledge on a particular subject.'
In that sense, even hairdressing, producing a CV, maintaining a library etc. can be a Science....in the sense that anyone following certain methods can produce similar results.
Where in that definition does it mention methods which produce results?
-
Yes...anything that does not have a prescribed method and which does not produce consistent results! I have already mentioned 'art' as one of them.
I don't see any mention of consistent results in your quoted description.
-
If Homeopathy achieves prescribed results...then it is a Science.
It achieves the prescribed result of bilking vulnerable people. That doesn't make it science.
But your contention is that it does not cure illnesses, which means it is not a Science (according to you).
It is not a science because it does not use scientific principles.
-
It achieves the prescribed result of bilking vulnerable people. That doesn't make it science.
It is not a science because it does not use scientific principles.
jeremyp...you're tying yourself into knots over this!
If Homeopathy doesn't work...it is not a science. If it works in accordance with their theory and methods...it is a Science. In any case, we are not discussing homeopathy and its effectiveness.
If any activity can be developed into a system with a clear method producing predictable and consistent results, it is a Science.
Guys...get used to it!
-
This is all about the definition of the word "science". Any system or model that is unfalsifiable should be excluded as it misleads people - often intentionally.
-
If any activity can be developed into a system with a clear method producing predictable and consistent results, it is a Science.
Guys...get used to it!
Are you trying to infer anything about the beliefs associated with spirituality by wanting it to be considered a science?
-
If any activity can be developed into a system with a clear method producing predictable and consistent results, it is a Science.
Guys...get used to it!
Unfortunately for you, Sriram, your persistent misuse of the word in its modern meaning rather backfires on you. In seeking to imply that Spirituality is an activity that " can be developed into a system with a clear method producing predictable and consistent results" you are faced with the anomaly that all religious systems fail to produce 'predictable' results. Yoga etc certainly can produce a change in consciousness, as can the spiritual exercises of St Ignatius or St John of the Cross. But there's no provable consistency, any more than drinking many pints of alcohol will produce a provable consistency of effect in most people who drink such amounts - not even to the point of being completely drunk. Many effects could be observed, including extreme vomiting. There are a likely to be changes of consciousness, but not predictable ones.
There is a discipline to correlate such mental and physical states: it is called phenomenology, and that falls short of being a science.
Your reason for trying to foist this archaic and vacuous meaning on the word science is, I suspect, rather akin to that of biblical fundamentalists, and their talk of "Creation Science". They realise they live in a culture where scientific enquiry in the true modern sense is a dominating and respected feature of modern life, and wish to claim the word 'Science' for themselves, in a spurious attempt to gain respectability for their cranky ideas - to be more 'scientific' than the scientists themselves. However, the modern discipline of science was simply a development of what was previously called natural philosophy, and that had a specific aim and scope. Science asserts a certain kind of authority: here is a systematic approach which will reliably advance our understanding of the natural world. But the knowledge is always provisional: every idea, every assumption is subject to challenge, to question and possible refutatation.
-
This is all about the definition of the word "science". Any system or model that is unfalsifiable should be excluded as it misleads people - often intentionally.
And that beautifully and succinctly sums up the whole matter.
-
In that sense, even hairdressing, producing a CV, maintaining a library etc. can be a Science....in the sense that anyone following certain methods can produce similar results.
It is quite touching to see you desperately holding on to this flaccid, woolly definition of the word, and it confirms that your real desire to reinstate an archaic usage has a psychological origin which you haven't fully admitted to yourself.
-
1. Methods like Yoga, Pranayama, meditations produce results that are not just general in nature. They are used even by medical experts and psychiatrists to achieve certain specific results. They are used in prisons and in cases of abnormal behavior of children to achieve desired results. Depression and related mental conditions have been treated successfully through such methods. Even many chronic physical ailments have been treated successfully through such methods. So....these methods do have clear and specific effects. You can't brush them off so casually.
2. Falsifiability is being questioned even by scientists regarding its usefulness in the current situation where science is increasingly faced with phenomena that are far beyond its self imposed scope and methodology. Please check out certain threads in the Science section.
3. There is nothing archaic about considering certain specific methods as Science as long as they are repeatable and predictable results are achieved. See 1 above.
4. Restrictive definitions don't make Science more useful. It only makes more and more phenomena fall outside its scope, making a clearer understanding of life that much more difficult.
-
My mum was a scientist, as she did lots of knitting. Predictable, tick, repeatable, tick. Is there a Nobel Prize in the offing? Hang on, she did a lot of washing up as well, repeatable, predictable results. There must be more.
-
1. Methods like Yoga, Pranayama, meditations produce results that are not just general in nature. They are used even by medical experts and psychiatrists to achieve certain specific results. They are used in prisons and in cases of abnormal behavior of children to achieve desired results. Depression and related mental conditions have been treated successfully through such methods. Even many chronic physical ailments have been treated successfully through such methods. So....these methods do have clear and specific effects. You can't brush them off so casually.
That they are useful, I wouldn't question, and certainly worth trying out in the hectic modern world. Whether they are more useful than, say, gardening, or simply going for a country walk, I rather doubt. I don't think going for a country walk could be considered a science, though you might do a bit of botanising on the way, and botany is a science.
-
jeremyp...you're tying yourself into knots over this!
If Homeopathy doesn't work...it is not a science. If it works in accordance with their theory and methods...it is a Science. In any case, we are not discussing homeopathy and its effectiveness.
If any activity can be developed into a system with a clear method producing predictable and consistent results, it is a Science.
Guys...get used to it!
Homeopathy was just an example. Another better one would be the earlier cited "assembling flat pack furniture". It unambiguously meets all of your criteria and yet only an obtuse person would describe it as science. Your definition is far too broad to be meaningful.
-
Homeopathy was just an example. Another better one would be the earlier cited "assembling flat pack furniture". It unambiguously meets all of your criteria and yet only an obtuse person would describe it as science. Your definition is far too broad to be meaningful.
Some would say assembling flat pack furniture was a black art.
I think the problem here is that people are mistaking processes as "science". Certainly science looks to investigate and define processes, but you wouldn't define them, in isolation, as science.
-
We should stop confusing Science as an investigative methodology with Science as a systematic process towards a desired goal. The first one often leads to the second.
-
We should stop confusing Science as an investigative methodology with Science as a systematic process towards a desired goal. The first one often leads to the second.
Ahem, it is you that is creating that confusion :o
-
Ahem, it is you that is creating that confusion :o
No confusion. Spirituality is a Science!
-
No confusion. Spirituality is a Science!
Rubbish! ::)
-
No confusion. Spirituality is a Science!
You've all your work just to define spirituality, before you can claim science.
-
Rubbish! ::)
Seconded!!
-
Somehow...the more some people deny my argument...the more I am convinced that I am correct! :)
-
Somehow...the more some people deny my argument...the more I am convinced that I am correct! :)
the saddest thing about this is, you think you have an argument.
-
Somehow...the more some people deny my argument...the more I am convinced that I am correct! :)
Please pay attention to what Slashcuba said so succinctly, before you wish to dilute the modern meaning of Science. "Spirituality" in itself is a vague term, and can mean anything from a sense of artistic sensibility to the yogic practices which you are no doubt specifically referring to.
In the broadest spectrum of the world religions of history, you might say that the human sacrifices of the Aztecs and the Incas constituted 'spirituality' - I'm sure those ancient peoples thought they were appeasing the spirit world by slicing away at young virgins with obsidian knives.
In the Christian tradition, we know that San Juan de la Cruz was well into self-flagellation, as were the notorious flagellants of the middle-ages. Ostensibly, these practices were to imitate the sufferings of Christ, and no doubt they produced changes in consciousness. The real science comes in when we realise that, after intense pain, the body produces endorphins which in turn induce a sense of euphoria. Added to which there is the psycho-somatic component of feeling that the participants are doing the will of God and therefore may be on the way to paradise. The latter concept perhaps explains the behaviour of that revolting 'saint' who liked to lick the sores of lepers, and lick their arseholes, claiming that such activities produced in her the most ecstatic spiritual joy. Again, true science can explain the pathology, but to claim that such 'spirituality' is 'science', I think even you would agree is stretching definitions a bit too far.
Again, there is the spirituality of the practices of Zen Buddhism, which directly contradict your own concepts, since though there are meditative techniques advocated, there is no direct or expected correlation between performing such postures etc. and the likelihood of "Satori". In fact, it is an axiom of Zen that "if you try to get 'it', it will elude you".
In short, 'spirituality' is a mixed bag. I don't doubt the Hindu tradition is replete with discliplines and systems. Why can't you be content with calling them such, instead of this neurotic need to appropriate the word "science" for them, which is neither helpful to true science, nor to getting anyone interested in the corpus of religious experience to which you are apparently alluding.
-
Please pay attention to what Slashcuba said so succinctly, before you wish to dilute the modern meaning of Science. "Spirituality" in itself is a vague term, and can mean anything from a sense of artistic sensibility to the yogic practices which you are no doubt specifically referring to.
In the broadest spectrum of the world religions of history, you might say that the human sacrifices of the Aztecs and the Incas constituted 'spirituality' - I'm sure those ancient peoples thought they were appeasing the spirit world by slicing away at young virgins with obsidian knives.
In the Christian tradition, we know that San Juan de la Cruz was well into self-flagellation, as were the notorious flagellants of the middle-ages. Ostensibly, these practices were to imitate the sufferings of Christ, and no doubt they produced changes in consciousness. The real science comes in when we realise that, after intense pain, the body produces endorphins which in turn induce a sense of euphoria. Added to which there is the psycho-somatic component of feeling that the participants are doing the will of God and therefore may be on the way to paradise. The latter concept perhaps explains the behaviour of that revolting 'saint' who liked to lick the sores of lepers, and lick their arseholes, claiming that such activities produced in her the most ecstatic spiritual joy. Again, true science can explain the pathology, but to claim that such 'spirituality' is 'science', I think even you would agree is stretching definitions a bit too far.
Again, there is the spirituality of the practices of Zen Buddhism, which directly contradict your own concepts, since though there are meditative techniques advocated, there is no direct or expected correlation between performing such postures etc. and the likelihood of "Satori". In fact, it is an axiom of Zen that "if you try to get 'it', it will elude you".
In short, 'spirituality' is a mixed bag. I don't doubt the Hindu tradition is replete with discliplines and systems. Why can't you be content with calling them such, instead of this neurotic need to appropriate the word "science" for them, which is neither helpful to true science, nor to getting anyone interested in the corpus of religious experience to which you are apparently alluding.
Dicky,
Thanks for that.
Religions are different and religious practices are different I agree. But all these practices, if understood in context are all meant for the same purpose of reducing our ego related individuality and to increase our 'higher' qualities. The underlying principle is the same in all religions.
When Zen says that "if you try to get 'it', it will elude you". what is meant is that the Ego will start dominating the practice and therefore the purpose will not be served. After a certain stage of development, 'Letting Go' is the most effective spiritual practice.
Fundamentally, all spiritual practice is about Self Development, as I have pointed out many times. It is about increasing certain qualities in ourselves while eradicating certain others. Various religions do it is various ways depending on the culture and mental level of the people. The principle is the same.
So...what appears as a mixed bag is only the many ways in which the same goal is reached. Different paths leading to the same goal. Like the same nutrition level can be achieved by eating wheat and veggies prepared in various ways. The basic science is the same.
Cheers.
Sriram
-
Dicky,
Thanks for that.
Religions are different and religious practices are different I agree. But all these practices, if understood in context are all meant for the same purpose of reducing our ego related individuality and to increase our 'higher' qualities. The underlying principle is the same in all religions.
When Zen says that "if you try to get 'it', it will elude you". what is meant is that the Ego will start dominating the practice and therefore the purpose will not be served. After a certain stage of development, 'Letting Go' is the most effective spiritual practice.
Fundamentally, all spiritual practice is about Self Development, as I have pointed out many times. It is about increasing certain qualities in ourselves while eradicating certain others. Various religions do it is various ways depending on the culture and mental level of the people. The principle is the same.
So...what appears as a mixed bag is only the many ways in which the same goal is reached. Different paths leading to the same goal. Like the same nutrition level can be achieved by eating wheat and veggies prepared in various ways. The basic science is the same.
Cheers.
Sriram
the stench of this shit is seeping through my screen
-
Dicky,
Thanks for that.
Religions are different and religious practices are different I agree. But all these practices, if understood in context are all meant for the same purpose of reducing our ego related individuality and to increase our 'higher' qualities. The underlying principle is the same in all religions.
When Zen says that "if you try to get 'it', it will elude you". what is meant is that the Ego will start dominating the practice and therefore the purpose will not be served. After a certain stage of development, 'Letting Go' is the most effective spiritual practice.
Fundamentally, all spiritual practice is about Self Development, as I have pointed out many times. It is about increasing certain qualities in ourselves while eradicating certain others. Various religions do it is various ways depending on the culture and mental level of the people. The principle is the same.
So...what appears as a mixed bag is only the many ways in which the same goal is reached. Different paths leading to the same goal. Like the same nutrition level can be achieved by eating wheat and veggies prepared in various ways. The basic science is the same.
Cheers.
Sriram
So you'll get back to us when you have a definition then ?
-
Some would say assembling flat pack furniture was a black art.
Yesterday I watched some workmen in our office assemble some new lockers in about half a day. In that time they assembled more furniture than is in my entire house. They were clearly very practiced.
I think the problem here is that people are mistaking processes as "science". Certainly science looks to investigate and define processes, but you wouldn't define them, in isolation, as science.
Agreed.
-
We should stop confusing Science as an investigative methodology with Science as a systematic process towards a desired goal. The first one often leads to the second.
It would be a lot easier not to confuse them if you didn't keep insisting on calling the second case "science" when it isn't.