The thing about "science and spirituality"

#1
N.B By spirituality I'm referring to any and all aspects of primary (non-physical) consciousness. And by science I mean the current status-quo versions

If you're a self-acknowledged materialist then spirituality is something that you don't objectively perceive or that you think doesn't exist. So focusing on an intersection with it is nonsense.

If you know or at least acknowledge that spirituality exists then clearly the physical is a subset of spirituality. Then humans are one aspect of physical realities - and science i just one of the ways humans strive for understanding. Ergo spirituality encompasses science but science is a miniscule aspect of spirituality. Of course as beings doing this physical thing - science is much easier for most to delve into.

Either way the whole concept of "melding science and spirituality" seems silly.The only perspective from which I can see it as a valid idea is one that acknowledges spiritual but holds that it is something that emerges from the physical. Which to me, seems silly in and of itself.

So I come back to what I've stated in other threads. Any viable movement into exploring spirituality starts with developing (rediscovering?) sciences that are appropriate to that end.
 
#2
Oh, well this is a mess so let's get started shall we..

If you're a self-acknowledged materialist then spirituality is something that you don't objectively perceive or that you think doesn't exist. So focusing on an intersection with it is nonsense.
Using the definition you provided for spirituality let's dive right in to this. In this context I would like to think of what Sam Harris has said regarding spirituality in that it can be the love for your child, or the feeling you get from a sun set, and I don't understand why a "self-acknowledged materialist" couldn't objectively perceive that. You're saying that a die-hard materialist doesn't acknowledge the feeling his brain is having from his favorite pass time or anything that means a great deal to him? Could you elaborate that point more because, no offense, really, it sounds really silly to me if that is the point you are making. That because one doesn't share your description of spirituality one cannot perceive some type. I must have misunderstood you?

If you know or at least acknowledge that spirituality exists then clearly the physical is a subset of spirituality. Then humans are one aspect of physical realities - and science i just one of the ways humans strive for understanding. Ergo spirituality encompasses science but science is a miniscule aspect of spirituality. Of course as beings doing this physical thing - science is much easier for most to delve into.
Again, I don't see how you come to this initial thought. How is the physical clearly a subset of spirituality? Mostly focusing on your use of the emphasized word. "Ergo spirituality encompasses science but science is a miniscule aspect of spirituality" I think most "self-acknowledged materialists" considers it the other way around - where spirituality can be explained via mechanisms in our brain. A lot of people have tried to sum it up with evolutionary arguments and so forth, which I'm sure you've read a bit on. Most I think are rubbish but you can understand where they're coming from. So how is the physical a subset of spirituality to the "self-acknowledged materialist"?

Either way the whole concept of "melding science and spirituality" seems silly.The only perspective from which I can see it as a valid idea is one that acknowledges spiritual but holds that it is something that emerges from the physical. Which to me, seems silly in and of itself.
Interesting, you do actually say, "the only perspective from which I can see..." so it is your perspective, right? Not theirs. Do you get angry when somebody that doesn't share your views doesn't see from your perspective? Do you think all the similar ideas are silly? If yes, why bother writing about it because you must understand your stance on the subject would seem silly to anyone reading this that doesn't agree. If no, how far do you really expect to get with questions like this?

Moving in to your last comment,
So I come back to what I've stated in other threads. Any viable movement into exploring spirituality starts with developing (rediscovering?) sciences that are appropriate to that end.
You meant to type "any viable movement into exploring one's own spirituality" right? Are you a proponent of their being only one path for spirituality? Let's move this discussion forward shall we...
 
#3
Oh, well this is a mess so let's get started shall we..
.

The only "mess" so far is your ridiculous response so yes . .let's get this started - right.


Using the definition you provided for spirituality let's dive right in to this. In this context I would like to think of what Sam Harris has said regarding spirituality in that it can be the love for your child, or the feeling you get from a sun set, and I don't understand why a "self-acknowledged materialist" couldn't objectively perceive that. You're saying that a die-hard materialist doesn't acknowledge the feeling his brain is having from his favorite pass time or anything that means a great deal to him? Could you elaborate that point more because, no offense, really, it sounds really silly to me if that is the point you are making. That because one doesn't share your description of spirituality one cannot perceive some type. I must have misunderstood you?
What?
- Did you put your comprehension ability on hold in order to be an "arguer without a cause"? Dang. I didn't "provide a definition for spirituality" per se. I provided an explanation of what I mean by the term in that specific post . Stretch your mind and see if you can understand the difference.
- Clearly you don't get what materialism means. Have a read-up on that will ya
- I said nothing about "die-hard (didn't watch it)

The rest of your post makes even less sense. Though, in your benefit, it's tough to carve turns when you start off tumbling down the mountain. I'd say regroup, come back and re-read my post. Then comment pro/con based on what it states. But please, spare me the diatribes that have nothing to do with what I stated. Oh and do give my best regards to Sam Harris - whoever he is. .
 
#4

The only "mess" so far is your ridiculous response so yes . .let's get this started - right.



What?
- Did you put your comprehension ability on hold in order to be an "arguer without a cause"? Dang. I didn't "provide a definition for spirituality" per se. I provided an explanation of what I mean by the term in that specific post . Stretch your mind and see if you can understand the difference.
- Clearly you don't get what materialism means. Have a read-up on that will ya
- I said nothing about "die-hard (didn't watch it)

The rest of your post makes even less sense. Though, in your benefit, it's tough to carve turns when you start off tumbling down the mountain. I'd say regroup, come back and re-read my post. Then comment pro/con based on what it states. But please, spare me the diatribes that have nothing to do with what I stated. Oh and do give my best regards to Sam Harris - whoever he is. .
This is why Saiko's threads are best ignored...
 
#5
N.B By spirituality I'm referring to any and all aspects of primary (non-physical) consciousness. And by science I mean the current status-quo versions

If you're a self-acknowledged materialist then spirituality is something that you don't objectively perceive or that you think doesn't exist. So focusing on an intersection with it is nonsense.

If you know or at least acknowledge that spirituality exists then clearly the physical is a subset of spirituality. Then humans are one aspect of physical realities - and science i just one of the ways humans strive for understanding. Ergo spirituality encompasses science but science is a miniscule aspect of spirituality. Of course as beings doing this physical thing - science is much easier for most to delve into.

Either way the whole concept of "melding science and spirituality" seems silly.The only perspective from which I can see it as a valid idea is one that acknowledges spiritual but holds that it is something that emerges from the physical. Which to me, seems silly in and of itself.

So I come back to what I've stated in other threads. Any viable movement into exploring spirituality starts with developing (rediscovering?) sciences that are appropriate to that end.
What if you neither believe that physical reality or spirituality exist. How can you really know what you "objectively perceive"?
 
#7

The only "mess" so far is your ridiculous response so yes . .let's get this started - right.

What?
- Did you put your comprehension ability on hold in order to be an "arguer without a cause"? Dang. I didn't "provide a definition for spirituality" per se. I provided an explanation of what I mean by the term in that specific post . Stretch your mind and see if you can understand the difference.
- Clearly you don't get what materialism means. Have a read-up on that will ya
- I said nothing about "die-hard (didn't watch it)



The rest of your post makes even less sense. Though, in your benefit, it's tough to carve turns when you start off tumbling down the mountain. I'd say regroup, come back and re-read my post. Then comment pro/con based on what it states. But please, spare me the diatribes that have nothing to do with what I stated. Oh and do give my best regards to Sam Harris - whoever he is. .

Nice, can't even keep it civil when somebody evokes an emotional reaction lol So, out of all the time you wasted typing you didn't answer any of my questions. Thanks for coming out, Saiko. You're a credit to the human race. And as for your nota bene about spirituality you were calling my attention to the terms of spirituality you wanted to discuss. Why call attention to it using Latin phrases you misuse then turn tail and run when I call you out on it? Perhaps learn Latin before invoking it. Now can we discuss your failure of a posting?

Oh, and this is an edit because I forgot to mention it. What did my definition of materialist not suit yours? Are we all supposed to follow your definition of it because you just lump them all in to one category.

But still, like I said before it's still pretty funny though imagining you furiously typing, emotionally charged, spewing out the baloney that didn't even answer anything I asked. Do you want to have a discussion on your terrible post or not?
 
Last edited:
#8
Here is the Wikipedia article on Materialism. Please tell us all, Saiko, where your definition lay within this framework? Because denying the existence of spirituality isn't listed. Not once ever to do with materialism. It certainly discusses spiritual practices, more so in a religious context and saying that materialism is in contrast to spiritualism, among others, but no where does it deny it's existence.

Please, Saiko, if you think you know what you're talking about then let's keep the insults out of it and discuss it thoroughly.
 
#10
This is why Saiko's threads are best ignored...
I don't think they should be ignored, but his condescendence does disencourage me a bit to engage in conversation with him. It's hard to talk when the other person says your replies are ridiculous or the such. Perhaps we should explain to Saiko that his way of replying isn't the best one to promote debate (in our opinion, at least).
 
#11
I'm actually curious for other's input on this. Is it best to just put this user on mute?
I don't see much substance in the OP to talk or argue about. The argument isn't clear to me (that is, I can't put it into premises and conclusions), and some assumptions seem to me to be unwarranted or are left with little support. So, in the end, I don't know what to say. If I were forced to say something though, I would say It's his opinion, and that seems to be it.
 
#12
Having read Saiko's posts prior to this thread and this thread included, it's clear to me Saiko has righteous indignation towards the physical world, science and materialism.
 
#13
I don't think they should be ignored, but his condescendence does disencourage me a bit to engage in conversation with him. It's hard to talk when the other person says your replies are ridiculous or the such. Perhaps we should explain to Saiko that his way of replying isn't the best one to promote debate (in our opinion, at least).
He tends sets his OPs up with assumptions and rules so he can react as he did to Travis. Never-the-less

Either way the whole concept of "melding science and spirituality" seems silly.
Are you referring to the work of Sheldrake, Radin and Parnia here? The vast majority of scientists operate outside the realm of spirituality (non-overlapping magisteria, if you will).
 
#15
........

Pot
Kettle
Black
Contrary to the perception most might have, I harbor no ill towards immaterialism. You just have not been listening as carefully as you lead yourself to believe.
I have to wonder what drives this unbridled fascination with me to the point that you are compelled to speak when you have nothing of consequence to say? That's a rhetorical question.
 
#16
Contrary to the perception most might have, I harbor no ill towards immaterialism. You just have not been listening as carefully as you lead yourself to believe.
I have to wonder what drives this unbridled fascination with me to the point that you are compelled to speak when you have nothing of consequence to say? That's a rhetorical question.
I wonder why you feel compelled to speak of science and research when you admit to being absolutely ignorant of its core methodologies. Could zealotry have something to do with it? ;D
 
#17
I wonder why you feel compelled to speak of science and research when you admit to being absolutely ignorant of its core methodologies. Could zealotry have something to do with it? ;D
If I were a zealot I'd would have a blog, go to TAM every year, join a skeptic club, write books and articles on skepticism. That's what a zealot might do. If I felt compelled to speak out I'd be doing that much much more. But I know how to hold my tongue that's something you've yet to learn judging from posts you've made on other forums.

I've noticed two over arching things about the way you reply in certain circumstances. You do have a talent for dodging certain truths about yourself when they are brought to light and twisting someone's reply to suit yourself.
Now as the self described bs police who shines the light of clarity where ever it's needed, why don't you run along and start policing.
 
#18
What if you neither believe that physical reality or spirituality exist. How can you really know what you "objectively perceive"?
lol. To someone who really believes that neither exist, then questions of science/spirituality(da -primary consciousness) probably won't be of much interest.

And thanks. You're the only poster who responded with anything that is relevant to the OP. And points for "shade." ;)
 
Last edited:
#20
Having read Saiko's posts prior to this thread and this thread included, it's clear to me Saiko has righteous indignation towards the physical world, science and materialism.
Uh-huh. Well given that what you think of as clear often comes across as an opaque stew of mucky water, I supposed I shouldn't be surprised. Yet . I am. Hello . .I'm in physical form, keying on a physical device. Enjoying physical sex. I mean ??? lol.

Okay, you're not completely wrong. When it comes to the topics of reality/existence, I do find materialism ridiculous. So there you go . I guess 0.25 out of 3 isn't a taootally bad score. :D
 
Top