Picking Sides: Science or Spirituality
Posted in Spirituality on May 23rd, 2007 by JennyFor years I’ve found the division between science and spirituality troubling. People around me seemed to divide into two camps; those who believe science is the means to truth and understanding and those who believe truth and understanding are possible only through religion and/or a strong spiritual life. I’ve often watched debates between these two groups get ugly – typically ending with angry declarations as to which side is ignorant and which side is on their way to hell.
I usually steer clear when these conversations are raging, as it’s been my experience the people involved have already cemented their perspectives and I don’t feel either side is all wrong or all right. However this changed when Mark over at The Winding Path offered a possible way of viewing science and spirituality I’d never considered. He proposed that spirituality is how we experience life and science is how we understand it. This rippled in my thinking and I was intrigued.
At first this question was hard for me to consider too deeply because the implication seemed to be that the rational thought and the hypothesis of science were somehow more true or better than the intuitive faith and oftentimes metaphorical truth of spirituality and religion. As I slowly pondered this I came to a conclusion that for the first time allows spirituality and science to equally co-exist in my thought process. I now believe they both offer a valid understanding of life’s truths, they just do it through different paths.
Science is the language of rational thought and is grounded in an objective world view. It relies upon observation and repeated testing to form its truths. Its language is literal and fact based. On the other hand, spirituality is the language of metaphorical truths and intensely personal subjective world views. It is solidly grounded upon commonly experienced individual truths of both the nature of the divine and of social order. The myths and theologies of the world’s religions explain its world views. Together science and spirituality paint a more complete picture of the world we live in than when either is viewed alone.
Put another way:
Spirituality = experience of life = subjective understanding
Science = observation of life = objective understanding
For instance, science tells us that men and women are attracted to each other for a variety of reasons; such as waist/hip ratio, finger size, waist/shoulder ratio, facial symmetry, scent and so forth. Spirituality offers the concept of a “soul mate”, finding one’s divine nature through the ritualized practices of tantric sex, it turns marriage into a spiritual union, gives rules on how individuals should approach relationships and defines what relationships are socially appropriate via more than one of the ten Christian commandments for example.
It is through combining the knowledge and perspectives of spirituality and science that I find an understanding of human nature, my own in particular, that makes sense. Is it, as Mark later asked, time to consider a new paradigm that blends the two?
Related Posts:
Understanding Religion and Spirituality
May 24th, 2007 at 1:52 am
Nicely summarised Jenny
May 24th, 2007 at 10:25 am
Thanks Mark. It’s a long way from where I started.
May 27th, 2007 at 9:07 pm
[…] as everyone involved understands the language). I had a discussion with Jenny about this and she summarised it very well. __________________ Take a stroll down The Winding Path and let me know what you think of the […]
May 28th, 2007 at 12:38 am
[…] but I don’t agree that either one is necessary for the other. I take a different view, which Jenny summarised. Here’s an excerpt: […]
September 7th, 2007 at 7:44 am
I like the “science is how we understand life”. The statement doesn’t really imply whether we really understand it or not. It just says: science describes HOW we understand it.
That idea that “Science is the language of rational thought and is grounded in an objective world view. It relies upon observation and repeated testing to form its truths. Its language is literal and fact based. ” - doesn’t really apply to science anymore. Not since quantum physicians realized that there is no such thing as an objective world, objective observation, there is no such thing as matter and fact - there is only an infinite field of possibilites and what Consciousness makes out of it at any given “moment in time”.
Science is part of the illusion that Consciousness creates - as is spirituality more or less. Consciousness (the ultimate, infinite consciousness) is the only “objective reality”…
But then, what the bleep do we (k)now
September 7th, 2007 at 5:17 pm
Halina: I feel I must point out that the suggestion that “quantum physicians realized that there is no such thing as an objective world” is not correct. There is the Copenhagen Interpretation of quantum mechanics, however the suggestion that it denies an objective world stems from misunderstanding, as does the suggestion that it states that consciousness affects reality. Those misunderstandings fueled both the Consciousness causes collapse theory, which is what the rest of your comment suggests you’re referring to, which is *not* considered a scientific theory, and the Objective collapse theory, which is incomplete, but which *does* affirm that there is an objective reality, and that observers have no special role.
There are also the many-worlds interpretations which reject the concept of waveform collapse, and those interpretations also have plenty of supporters and detractors.
But the main point is that the suggestion that consciousness has an effect on reality has *no* scientific backing. There may be scientists who agree with it, but that doesn’t make it scientific, and it will remain unscientific until it is defined in testable terms.
September 7th, 2007 at 10:14 pm
Halina: Also, I believe you meant “quantum physicists” not “quantum physicians”. Though the idea of quantum physicians is great; doctors healing patients at the quantum level. The ultimate in healing, even better than nanobots! (Ok, enough sci-fi for me…) Well, ultimate until we find out if there’s something beyond the quantum level
September 8th, 2007 at 1:38 am
Mark, yes I did mean quantum physicists
Clearly, you know A LOT about this stuff and I apparently don’t. What I do know, not from theory, not from books, but from direct experience is that Consciousness does indeed create what we believe to be reality, down to the smallest detail, including science, including this discussion. Science is indeed part of the Illusion.
I appreciate your response and also I don’t think it makes any sense to continue the discussion - we play different Games so to speak and are bound to see things very, very differently.
Which is beautiful!
If you’re curious about what I mean by Games, Illusion etc. check out my website.
Many greetings -
September 8th, 2007 at 8:16 pm
Hi Halina,
I am curious as to how you define consciousness and is there a reason you spell it with a capital C? Do you view consciousness as something active (hence saying “…does indeed create what we believe…)? If so, is it unique to each individual or do you ascribe it to the notion of a collective consciousness and that’s why you capitalize it?
Anyhow, thanks for commenting.
Mark,
I’m busy reading…
September 9th, 2007 at 2:03 am
Hi Jenny
Thanks for asking - and for reminding me that we (people in general) assign different meanings to the same words and that’s part of our communication!
To me Consciousness is all there is, the only reality that is. You could say that it’s the same as God, or Oneness. So yes, it’s certainly active, and infinitely more than what we experience as our personal consciousness/awareness or what some experience as “collective consciousness”. I see each of us as different aspects or “parts” of that Consciousness… Separated and then again not separated…
Of course, it’s rather limited how much of it I can understand with my “personal” consciousness, and it’s rather impossible to talk about too - it’s difficult to describe inner experiences in words.
September 9th, 2007 at 5:38 am
Hey Halina,
Can you suffer through a few more questions?
Thanks for responding. Yes, I also am always amazed at how differently people can interpret the same word.
So, if Consciousness is rather like God and “there is only an infinite field of possibilites and what Consciousness makes out of it at any given “moment in time”’ what role do you as an individual play in your life? Do you believe objective facts have any relevance in your life/thinking or do you not believe objective facts exist in any form? Do you believe that people have an independent “self” or “soul”?
Thanks for taking the time to respond. I’m interested in hearing your thoughts.
September 9th, 2007 at 6:23 am
Hi Jenny!
Oh my, these are big questions… they don’t get much bigger, do they?
As I see it, the only objective fact/reality is Infinite Consciousness and from my present perspective my understanding of it is - well, quite finite!
My role as in individual…hm… there are stages when my job is to act as separated from Consciousness and experience illusion and there are stages when my role is to re-connect with Consciousness and both create and experience illusion…
After spending some 30 years in exploring such matters, the model of reality/illusion/consciousness/individuals etc. that I find most supportive and surprisingly close to what I feel and experience as the truth is the one proposed by Robert Scheinfeld in his Busting Loose work. You might want to read his book - that would provide you with much more context and much more profound answers to your questions than these very general statements of mine.
I could of course write my own book, but then, since he’s done the work already, I’d rather spend my time writing fiction!
Warm greetings -
September 9th, 2007 at 11:37 am
Thanks for trying to explain Halina.