Hi everyone,
There seems to be an impression on here that people who understand some science are very intelligent and have access to some deep knowledge that others don't have.
This might have been true to a large extent in earlier generations when there was some degree of discord between science and religions (mainly Abrahamic religions). Many people did not understand or even accept science and its discoveries. They were still rooted in religious mythology. So, some feeling of 'superior knowledge' among people of science was perhaps understandable.
Not any more!
Science is today commonplace. Millions of people are graduating in science and engineering every year world over. Knowledge of basic Cosmology, genetics, evolution etc. is widespread.
However, a widespread interest in spirituality is also in evidence at the same time. Youngsters are clearly not satisfied with a microscopic view of the world. They want to go beyond science. They are trying through Yoga, meditations, discussions, introspection to expand their own minds so as to be able to find answers to more involved questions.
So, merely quoting science and expecting that to put off spiritual aspirants is naive. We need to think beyond science and that requires changing from a microscopic view to a broader perspective. Merely demanding 'evidence' will not help.
https://tsriramrao.wordpress.com/2019/01/13/beyond-science/
Cheers.
Sriram
Science is a tool for looking at and learning about the natural world. As such it has been eminently successful, not least because it is our best way of achieving objective results. It sits happily alongside ratrionality and logic. In this sense only is it superiot to any other method. As far as I know no one has claimed anything different to this basically. I suggest you are building up your very own magnificent strawman.
The whole idea of spirituality is a personal thing which affects people in a myriad of different ways because it is so obviously subjective. As such it may well bring benefits to the individual(comfort, stability, discipline) but it is just as likely to encourage disadvantages(frustration, bias, limitations), especially in its more extreme forms.
It is not that it is beyond science, just that its conclusions are impervious to the tools of science. In other words, science doesn't deal with the subjective.
Science only make an entrance when the spiritual person starts making objective claims which cannot be verified in any objective way. E.G. that there is some sort of conscious life force which exists in a different dimension but which pervades everything. It is at this point that science is entitled to make an entry as this objective claim can quite legitimately be challenged on the grounds of rationality and evidence.
It is at this point that such claims are found wanting, except of course to the spiritualist who happily accepts them on their own subjective level, no science or rationality needed.
My own position is that whatever the spiritual person's interpretation of their own sense of spirituality is, as long as it harms no one(including themselves). then it is not my business. It only becomes my business when that person seeks to persuade me that they are in possession of some sort of ultimate truths which I should recognise. It is then that I challenge them, and if they cannot answer that challenge or seek to evade that challenge, then I can, with confidence, dismiss their so called ultimate truths as at the best just a possibility and at the worst as hot air.
After all, I do not seek to impress or impose upon others my own sense of spirituality, because it essentially a personal thing and not amenable to any sort of objective or analytical discussion.
