Spiritual Science?

[Songbird]

Do you guys think that spiritual things can be explained by science? Because it could be just a north-American cultural understanding. We don't even acknowledge the spiritual side to even exist, really.

[Sisyphus50]

Science is the study of the natural world. The spiritual is by definition, supernatural. You can't provide physical evidence for an intangible, invisible and inaudible 'aspect'.

[fy_iceworld]

You should read "DMT: the Spirit Molecule." its a scientific attempt to explain the psychedelic entheogenic phenomenon associated with ayahuasca, DMT, etc. You should read about people's visual experiences with DMT, some say its like being in another dimension.

[ChaybaChayba]

Science is the study of the natural world. The spiritual is by definition, supernatural. You can't provide physical evidence for an intangible, invisible and inaudible 'aspect'. Good poinr, but the spiritual world influences the natural world. By studying the natural world through science, we will eventually discover what the spiritual world is all about, things will add up and science will find what it was searching for all this time... God ^^ With current quantum theories the spiritual world can already be explained, if you believe in quantum theory that is.. theres still much controversy on that field and many different theories scientists don't agree on. But the main theory is that two entities seem to be connected by something 'invisible' and influence eachother nomatter where they are or how far they are from eachother. But even simple things like gravity haven't been fully understood by science..

[Shift]

Good poinr, but the spiritual world influences the natural world. How, besides human behavior?

[MrDoom]

Good poinr, but the spiritual world influences the natural world. By studying the natural world through science, we will eventually discover what the spiritual world is all about, things will add up and science will find what it was searching for all this time... God ^^ I was always under the impression that science was looking for consistent models of natural phenomena... With current quantum theories the spiritual world can already be explained, if you believe in quantum theory that is.. theres still much controversy on that field and many different theories scientists don't agree on. But the main theory is that two entities seem to be connected by something 'invisible' and influence eachother nomatter where they are or how far they are from eachother. But even simple things like gravity haven't been fully understood by science.. Quantum mystics never seem to explain how they derive their ideas from quantum mechanics. Usually, that should trigger your brain's "BS Alert".

[Oneironaut Zero]

*moved to proper forum* Science is the study of the natural world. The spiritual is by definition, supernatural. You can't provide physical evidence for an intangible, invisible and inaudible 'aspect'. Not that I necessarily disagree, but I believe this may be a bit of a premature (however popular) notion. If the spirit realm exists, it is, in fact, natural. As of right now, with no definitive answer as to whether or not it exists, people may try to define it as "supernatural." But if it is something that is - as of now - simply outside of our range of perception, it is not necessarily "supernatural," just "hidden" and or "paranormal." Through technology we are increasingly being able to find evidence of things that are outside our range of perspective. We have been doing so, exponentially, since the beginning of time. To say that that trend could not continue to bring to light forces that may have been around us all along would be a rather illogical assumption.

[Serkat]

It depends on your usage of the term "spiritual". In the US of A it seems to be strongly linked to religion and the supernatural. Here in Germany, the same word is mostly linked to the supernatural, seldomly to religion, but often even only to specific aspects of the natural. That the "supernatural" is a bollocks concept, I don't need to point out anymore. Oneironaut put it nicely. The concept of naturalism already encompasses everything that exists, so to propose a realm of the supernatural is simply to add to the natural and thereby invalidate the realm just proposed. The way I grew to use the word, lucid dreaming, dissociative and hallucinogenic drugs, psychodelic experiences, meditation and various other states of mind not listed, fall under the category of the "spiritual". And in this sense, the spiritual aspect of human existence should definitely be subjected to science so as to further our understanding of it. But I figure this thread is about angels, God and flying pirates and to that I'll just say "BULLSHIT". What do you mean, ..."just" a north-American cultural understanding? As of now, the Western civilization has the most advanced, most efficient culture ever to walk the face of earth, in terms of gaining precise knowledge of how the world works and putting this knowledge to good use (porn on the internet).

[Sornaensis]

Do you guys think that spiritual things can be explained by science? Because it could be just a north-American cultural understanding. We don't even acknowledge the spiritual side to even exist, really. "spirituality" does not exist. It is an imaginary part of reality that stems from lack of knowledge on certain phenomenon and the human mind's knack for finding patterns in things. So the question itself is actually impossible to ask.

[Oneironaut Zero]

But I figure this thread is about angels, God and flying pirates and to that I'll just say "BULLSHIT". I wouldn't be so quick to make that assumption about this thread. Maybe it has to do with the idea of a "spiritual" (outside of the physical) energy, perhaps linked to consciousness - certainly an idea that merits more respect than those you named.

[Sornaensis]

Read above post plz, O.

[Oneironaut Zero]

Read above post plz, O. Stop stating your opinions as facts plz, Seis.

[Sornaensis]

Prove me wrong then.

[Serkat]

Well, I wouldn't know about that energy... So what do we call those states of minds I listed, if not spiritual? I figure they got to be called spiritual because they are commonly intertwined with both supernatural beliefs and religion. So that might not be perfect. But when the spiritual is equated with the supernatural, you're kind of implying that an atheist can't have a higher purpose of life that he chose for himself, or have specific spiritual experiences commonly linked to religion or drug use. Which is wrong and pretty misleading. Specific subjective experiences, such as in dreams or in meditation, just seem to me to be worthy of the designation "spiritual". I wouldn't know how to put it otherwise.

[Sornaensis]

As far as I am concerned, there is no "Spiritual realm" any more than there is a "Bannana Realm". It is absurd, unfound, and frankly annoying as hell.

[Oneironaut Zero]

Prove me wrong then. I can no more prove you wrong than I can prove that I have rather good visualization when I close my eyes. Doesn't mean I don't. If you re-read my first post in this thread, it is about not simply closing the book on a subject that we obviously have not exhausted all possible resources on. I think to do so, and to say "it isn't possible" when we are obviously in an ongoing process of discovering more and more about the universe around us, and constantly proving that we have the ability to discover more and more of the forces that surround us that we previously had absolutely no way of detecting, is premature and close-minded. The "spiritual," not in the religious sense, but at its fundamental concept has not been disproven. It cannot even be logically refuted, when taking into account our inadequate knowledge of the origin of consciousness, and the uncertainty behind near-death experiences and things of that nature. Sure, I have no problem with conceding that arguments can be made, and that there is evidence that does show that it's not possible, but when gathered fairly against the mysteries and anomalies that still loom over the heads of those areas of research, you would be less than scientific to state it as fact. Well, I wouldn't know about that energy... So what do we call those states of minds I listed, if not spiritual? I figure they got to be called spiritual because they are commonly intertwined with both supernatural beliefs and religion. So that might not be perfect. But when the spiritual is equated with the supernatural, you're kind of implying that an atheist can't have a higher purpose of life that he chose for himself, or have specific spiritual experiences commonly linked to religion or drug use. Which is wrong and pretty misleading. Specific subjective experiences, such as in dreams or in meditation, just seem to me to be worthy of the designation "spiritual". I wouldn't know how to put it otherwise. I know what you mean and why, with the lack of "sufficient" evidence, the concept could be hard for anyone to swallow. From a more scientific than religious standpoint, it would have to do with the question of whether or not there is any sort of consciousness that exists outside of the physical - not the hierarchy of "God, Angels, Heaven, Hell, Allah, etc." It is a fundamental question that has not quite been answered, even through science. Of course, I'm not so bold as to assume (as I said before) that there is no evidence against the claim, but I am fairly certain that even the scientific community, in general, does not claim to know so much about consciousness that its origin has been pin-pointed, and that even less mainstream scientists (though still scientists) still question whether or not it is actually born in the physical. Oh, and to answer your question, I would probably call those experiences "Introspective," or maybe even "cerebro-visual," more than anything else - exploring your mental state, visually, making the experience seem "supernatural."

[Serkat]

As far as I am concerned, there is no "Spiritual realm" any more than there is a "Bannana Realm". It is absurd, unfound, and frankly annoying as hell. I'm not arguing with that. I'm not talking about realms. Just specific states of mind and specific mental experiences that are outside the norm. In particular those states of mind that would make someone think there is a supernatural aspect to them, if he wouldn't know that it's just a state of mind and not an actual different reality. Like exactly what this forum is about... lucid dreaming and all those practices I listed. I would call them spiritual practices, without implying some sort of non-natural aspect to them. Just something you can do to induce alternate states of mind. States of mind that cut the connection between "you" and "the natural" and would therefore easily make an uneducated Middle Ages person think they are in fact supernatural.

[Sornaensis]

Oneironaut oyu just proved my point: Those mysteries CREATE "spirituality"; once we figure them out then what?

[Oneironaut Zero]

Oneironaut oyu just proved my point: Those mysteries CREATE "spirituality"; once we figure them out then what? And you proved mine. You are assuming that they are something that will be "figured out" as anything other than exactly what they seem to be.

[Sornaensis]

Why wouldn't they be?

[Oneironaut Zero]

Why wouldn't they be? The simplest answer would be because I'm not so arrogant as to assume that we have discovered every force in the universe, and am able to admit that, in all likely-hood, that are plenty that we have yet to identify. I also understand that a lot of things that the scientific community have held as undisputed truths are being turned on their ear. Physical "laws" are being broken, constantly, nowadays. It has come to the point where holding on to archaic principles, while comforting, is not exactly realistic without conceding to possible alternatives.

[Sornaensis]

What the hell are you rambling about? I don't think we are communicationg right... I said: - Spirituality is based on unknown things - Unknowns become knowns through scientific observation and study My thoughts: - Of course we have not discovered every frce in the universe! But I'm not so arrogant to assume that because we do not know something it immediately makes the unknown "outside the natural world" or at the same time pretend I know what the phenomenon is. But what I do know is that it will eventually be figured out.

[Oneironaut Zero]

What the hell are you rambling about? Now now, no need to get nasty, Seis. Whenever you need me to clarify something for you, all you have to do is ask. First you said (in form of fact) that: "spirituality" does not exist. It is an imaginary part of reality that stems from lack of knowledge on certain phenomenon and the human mind's knack for finding patterns in things. And then you say: - Of course we have not discovered every frce in the universe! But I'm not so arrogant to assume that because we do not know something it immediately makes the unknown "outside the natural world" or at the same time pretend I know what the phenomenon is. You are, by your initial statement, pretending you know what the phenomenon is not. The fundamental idea of a "spirit" (regardless of what word you want to define it as) is a sort of energetic 'identity' of ourselves that exist outside of the physical. How can you say that "spirituality does not exist" and then ask me "what the hell" I'm "rambling" about, when I say that - acknowledging the fact that we are already beginning to discover things that are rendering many traditional scientific principles unsound - your stating it as something other than "spiritual" may be wrong? Maybe our disconnect was your misunderstanding of what I meant when I said: "You are assuming that they are something that will be "figured out" as anything other than exactly what they seem to be," but I thought it was pretty clear.

[Sornaensis]

No. Anything that is unknown is to be made known. That is what science does. Unless there is conclusive evidecne that whatever the event is cannot be explained through science (Which is inheretly impossible to prove) then it just remains an unknown phenomenon. Simple as.

[MrDoom]

Here's a question: What's the difference between: a)One thing which has no evidence suggesting its existence, cannot be observed, and is apparently beyond scientific analysis, and b)Another thing which does not exist? Absence of evidence is evidence of absence. In any case, a thing in such a state is irrelevant to human existence anyways.