Thread: Is there room for spiritualty in science?

I walked in on three of my friends having quite an interesting discussion this morning. They were arguing on whether spirituality had a place in science. These are their arguments; Friend 1, as we may call him, who was an atheist, claimed that science cannot talk on spirituality when there is no proof of it, and science cannot work with anything that has no scientific merit, Friend 2, who is both spiritual and religious, countered by stating that science is a search for answers, so how can it discount the possibility of something so common amongst people as spiritualty is, and has been since the earliest humans who could record information on a cave wall. Friend 3, who is spiritual, believes in a higher power, but I'm not sure as to whether he has a set religion or not, chimed in and said that there is evidence for spiritualty, from near death experiences, to psychic experiences, to ghosts. Though some things can be explained as mere coincidence or even as hoaxes, there is far to much unexplainable evidence to simply discount it, as that it would be irresponsible for a scientist to do so. Friend 3 went on to talk about spirituality is in itself a form science, and is only not recognised as one by the scientific community because they have chosen not too. Listening to these arguments, which where obviously more lengthy than I put in here, I want to know what people here think of it. Being open minded, and without making personal attacks on anyone person, I want to see how you all think spirituality fits in with science...

​no.

what makes you say that, if you don't mind my asking?

Until it is supported by anything asides from wishful thinking... it cannot be valid as a science. No experimentation, no empirical observations, no quantitative data.

That's the point though isn't it, I'm not saying whether its true or not, but the fact is many people do believe spirituality has a place in science, and its not just because of wishful thinking. A lot of people find the world to be somewhat scary, and so they dive into there own fantasy worlds, but when experiments are done to 'test for the existence of the paranormal', and said experiments come back with some sort of result, we cant simply put it down to coincidence and wishful thinking.

The only interest there might be in spirituality for science would be in fields like sociology, psychology, anthropology.

"Spirituality" would have nothing to contribute to physics or oceanography or microbiology. And that would be even if spirituality ever turned out to be a "thing".

yes.

But perhaps not in the way many think. Scientist are animals not more separated from emotional motivations such as curiosity and perhaps even indication of awe in other sentient species. Spiritually at an emotional level doesn't necessarily need to have anything to with supernatural; it is more to with the feelings of connectedness with others, the natural environment and awe when observing those connections. But admittingly its very definition can be difficult but I'm not sure the feeling associated with it is all that different between individuals. The awe, the deep yearning to understand are probably the same. For me I feel spiritual watching a summer storm, contemplating the trophic cascades happening in Yellowstone park where reinstroduction of a few dozen wolves are now changing the very geography of the river systems, or thinking about the incredible range of emergent properties from cell organelle to galaxies and of course our our brains ability to even consider these questions.

Carl Sagan expressed his views about the relationship between science and spirituality:
"Science is not only compatible with spirituality; it is a profound source of spirituality. When we recognize our place in an immensity of light years and in the passage of ages, when we grasp the intricacy, beauty and subtlety of life, then that soaring feeling, that sense of elation and humility combined, is surely spiritual. "

Sagan of course was an astronomer, so in contrast we also consider the views of Ursula Goodenough, a biologist, at the opposite end of the spectrum who writes in "The sacred depths of nature" that "Any global tradition needs to begin with a shared worldview — a culture-dependent, globally accepted consensus as to how things are" and further that science is the only credible method to get to that shared worldview of how things work and connected--both at the very roots of spirituality.

If I were not spiritual, I would probably have no interest in science, nor any in teaching science to children.

Adelady, True, Spirituality, if its real, would most probably not contribute a whole lot to many specific scientific studies, but that's not really what I'm getting at here. What I'm trying to say is, not whether Spirituality will contribute to a specific scientific topic, but whether it could ever be considered a legitimate part of science. No has yet proven it to not exist, so it is only reasonable that we look at it as a possibility. After all, Science is about finding the answers, not defending what we think the answers probably are.

Lynx_Fox, Your view on science and spirituality that you just posted is surly inspirational, we cannot begin to understand all the mysteries of the world we live in, but, as you say, its truly is awe inspiring.

Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox

yes.

But perhaps not in the way many think. Scientist are animals not more separated from emotional motivations such as curiosity and perhaps even indication of awe in other sentient species. Spiritually at an emotional level doesn't necessarily need to have anything to with supernatural; it is more to with the feelings of connectedness with others, the natural environment and awe when observing those connections. But admittingly its very definition can be difficult but I'm not sure the feeling associated with it is all that different between individuals. The awe, the deep yearning to understand are probably the same. For me I feel spiritual watching a summer storm, contemplating the trophic cascades happening in Yellowstone park where reinstroduction of a few dozen wolves are now changing the very geography of the river systems, or thinking about the incredible range of emergent properties from cell organelle to galaxies and of course our our brains ability to even consider these questions.

Carl Sagan expressed his views about the relationship between science and spirituality:
"Science is not only compatible with spirituality; it is a profound source of spirituality. When we recognize our place in an immensity of light years and in the passage of ages, when we grasp the intricacy, beauty and subtlety of life, then that soaring feeling, that sense of elation and humility combined, is surely spiritual. "

Sagan of course was an astronomer, so in contrast we also consider the views of Ursula Goodenough, a biologist, at the opposite end of the spectrum who writes in "The sacred depths of nature" that "Any global tradition needs to begin with a shared worldview — a culture-dependent, globally accepted consensus as to how things are" and further that science is the only credible method to get to that shared worldview of how things work and connected--both at the very roots of spirituality.

If I were not spiritual, I would probably have no interest in science, nor any in teaching science to children.

That is brilliant!

There are many shared views as well. What is important to highlight here is the word spirituality versus religious. Folks mix them up far too often!


Cheers!

I find spirituality in mathematics more than in science, things like the "golden ratio" or fractals, things like that, that inspire a sense of wonderment.

Anyone who's been anywhere near a night sky in the Australian outback knows that overwhelming sense of awestruck wonder. And there are similar kinds of amazing places all over the world. And then there are microscopes.

Perhaps I'm a bit of a toughie, but I'd never call those experiences "spiritual".

It's certainly interesting how we label things. Under my definition awe is most definitely is tied to spirituality and usually accompanied by feelings of connectedness that compel me to want to know a lot more about the night sky.

There also seems to be at least some support for the idea that regardless of what we call it, those feeling of awe and connectedness are the same regardless of the context of being an athiest (me) or religious (me a long time ago)--all that is different is our interpretation. For example there are several studies that look at self-transcendence and brain activity as well as ones that look at changes after surgery or severe injury such as this one that concludes: " Therefore, modifications of neural activity in temporoparietal areas may induce unusually fast modulations of a stable personality trait related to transcendental self-referential awareness. These results hint at the active, crucial role of left and right parietal systems in determining self-transcendence and cast new light on the neurobiological bases of altered spiritual and religious attitudes and behaviors in neurological and mental disorders." The Spiritual Brain: Selective Cortical Lesions Modulate Human Self-Transcendence

Originally Posted by Lewis Pratt

Friend 1, as we may call him, who was an atheist, claimed that science cannot talk on spirituality when there is no proof of it, and science cannot work with anything that has no scientific merit, Friend 2, who is both spiritual and religious, countered by stating that science is a search for answers, so how can it discount the possibility of something so common amongst people as spiritualty is

There seems to be some confusion as to what is meant by "spirituality" here (*). As a human need/experience, it obviously exists. It can be, and is, investigated by science. So it sounds like both Friend 1 and Friend 2 are wrong.

However, that human experience appears to relate to something intangible, if it exists at all. That would therefore be outside the scope of science, which relies on objective measurement, etc.

Friend 3, who is spiritual, believes in a higher power, but I'm not sure as to whether he has a set religion or not, chimed in and said that there is evidence for spiritualty, from near death experiences, to psychic experiences, to ghosts.

All of these can also be explained by more mundane things. At which point, Occam's Razor applies.

Friend 3 went on to talk about spirituality is in itself a form science,

The only word for that is nonsense. Where is the objective data, the analyses, the hypothesis testing, repeatability and review, etc? without those, it ain't science.

Friend 3 seems to lack scepticism and critical thinking (based on your brief description here) and accepts anecdotes as evidence. These are the opposite of what is required for science.

(*) I looked it up on Wikipedia. It starts by talking about the lack of a definition and then says, 'social scientists have defined spirituality as the search for "the sacred"' just to confirm that scientists acknowledge and research spirituality as a human phenomenon.

Spirituality is opposed to material or physical things simply by default, it is more in tune with mental or emotional communion.
In the latter aspect (sciences of the mind), science may pay it some heed.
However in the former aspects (physical sciences) they would pay it no heed whatsoever.

You could say that science and spirituality are the search for truth. One being within the other without. As such there should be no real conflict between them.

We all need to be one with ourselves on both sides, within and without.

Oh man, pavlos, that's almost spiritual.

I find spirituality on the beach, in the redwoods, on the rivers, on the golf course, in music, in theatre, in the arts as a whole. Is there science in each of them...yes to some degree. Each gives me peace, clarity, and humor, and in nature...awe.

I'm still trying to work out what you're all talking about...

Spirituality?
WTF?

Based on the foregoing I am left wondering, not if spirituality exists, but if dictionaries exist. Strange's post #14 is required reading.

Originally Posted by Dywyddyr

I'm still trying to work out what you're all talking about...

Things that make you go ... WTF

Originally Posted by Lewis Pratt

but when experiments are done to 'test for the existence of the paranormal', and said experiments come back with some sort of result, we cant simply put it down to coincidence and wishful thinking.

Citation needed. I haven't yet seen any such results that are at all convincing.

Originally Posted by Daecon

I find spirituality in mathematics more than in science, things like the "golden ratio" or fractals, things like that, that inspire a sense of wonderment.

Originally Posted by adelady

Anyone who's been anywhere near a night sky in the Australian outback knows that overwhelming sense of awestruck wonder. And there are similar kinds of amazing places all over the world. And then there are microscopes.

The sense of awe we feel in these, and may other things, is internal to us; a result of the way our minds work. There is no evidence nor reason to think that they reflect something that exists "out there".

Perhaps I'm a bit of a toughie, but I'd never call those experiences "spiritual".

And that is part of the problem: different people will label or categorize the same experience differently. You (and I) might just find it awe-inspiring else; someone calls it a "spiritual" experience; and someone else thinks it is direct contact with their God.

Again, this says more about the variety of human psychology than wider "reality".

Originally Posted by Dywyddyr

I'm still trying to work out what you're all talking about...

Spirituality?
WTF?

Yes there is such a thing...has nothing to do with religion has to do with your soul. I don't find religion having anything to do with my soul....or my "energy" or however you wish to place it. I do have a soul. It is the core of who I am. We all have a core. Sorry it isn't scientific It is within each of us. Gives us our moral core. Moral core isn't scientific...it is in us. Sir Ducky...even you have one....though....might be a struggle getting it out of you.

Originally Posted by babe

Originally Posted by Dywyddyr

I'm still trying to work out what you're all talking about...
Spirituality?
WTF?

Yes there is such a thing...has nothing to do with religion has to do with your soul. I don't find religion having anything to do with my soul....or my "energy" or however you wish to place it. I do have a soul. It is the core of who I am. We all have a core. Sorry it isn't scientific It is within each of us. Gives us our moral core. Moral core isn't scientific...it is in us. Sir Ducky...even you have one....though....might be a struggle getting it out of you.

My "moral core" is based on my beliefs (for want of a better word), and shaped by my experiences and knowledge.

This "spirituality" thing... is it anything like a lemon-flavoured banana-shaped dolphin?
So far they're both about as relevant as each other to me.

'Spiritual' surely relates to the perceived world of spirits - invisible entities that influence the affairs of humans.
For instance the desert night was believed to be full of spirits - both good and bad - in the imagination of nomads of ancient times.
In that sense, science and spirituality are incompatible.
We need a better word to describe the wonder of science.

Originally Posted by ox

We need a better word to describe the wonder of science.

Awesome!

Originally Posted by Lewis Pratt

I walked in on three of my friends having quite an interesting discussion this morning.

By the way, are you Friend 1, Friend 2 or Friend 3?

Originally Posted by Strange

Originally Posted by ox

We need a better word to describe the wonder of science.

Awesome!

How about breathtaking!

Originally Posted by Lewis Pratt

Being open minded, and without making personal attacks on anyone person, I want to see how you all think spirituality fits in with science...

I don't believe it does. I have no problem with someone being religious and working within the sciences so long as their faith does not cloud their logic or corrupt their reasoning.

Originally Posted by Lewis Pratt

but the fact is many people do believe spirituality has a place in science

Show me the scientists who believe this. I guarantee you they will be outnumbered by those who believe science and religion mix like oil and water. In addition "many people" believe many things. That does not lend that idea credibility. "Many people" used to believe in Zeus and slavery and that women shouldn't vote and that drilling holes in skulls cured mental illness. As we grow, the many usually turn out to be the ignorant masses.

Originally Posted by Lewis Pratt

when experiments are done to 'test for the existence of the paranormal', and said experiments come back with some sort of result

Maybe. How does that indicate the existence of the paranormal? If I believe ghosts are magnetic and I run a magnetometer over a piece of magnetite, that doesn't prove it's a frozen ghost.

Originally Posted by Lewis Pratt

After all, Science is about finding the answers

No, it isn't. It's about ruling out the worst answers. In most observations of what could be considered paranormal or spiritual in nature, the existence of ghosts and angels ARE the worst possible explanation. Science is about setting aside those notions and finding what is more probable. In the end, that may or may not turn out to be the "answer", but is the best we could do with the technology at hand.

A better explanation for spiritual experiences may lie in the neurosciences and a better explanation for ghosts...well, I have yet to see anything remotely convincing that a ghost exists.

Originally Posted by ox

Originally Posted by Strange

Originally Posted by ox

We need a better word to describe the wonder of science.

Awesome!

How about breathtaking!

I like Magnificent or Wondrous. more so the latter.

Originally Posted by Dywyddyr

Originally Posted by babe

Originally Posted by Dywyddyr

I'm still trying to work out what you're all talking about...
Spirituality?
WTF?

Yes there is such a thing...has nothing to do with religion has to do with your soul. I don't find religion having anything to do with my soul....or my "energy" or however you wish to place it. I do have a soul. It is the core of who I am. We all have a core. Sorry it isn't scientific It is within each of us. Gives us our moral core. Moral core isn't scientific...it is in us. Sir Ducky...even you have one....though....might be a struggle getting it out of you.

My "moral core" is based on my beliefs (for want of a better word), and shaped by my experiences and knowledge.

This "spirituality" thing... is it anything like a lemon-flavoured banana-shaped dolphin?
So far they're both about as relevant as each other to me.

why did you take the real explanation that DID explain and end it with that?

You're last statement was unneeded. Your personal moral code DOES have a basis to your morality and your beliefs. We all have some element of spirituality. It is not shameful, nor does it rule us....Having a conscious is a form of spirituality , or self awareness or the broader aspect of things around us. Nothing wrong with that Sir Ducky

Originally Posted by ox

Originally Posted by Strange

Originally Posted by ox

We need a better word to describe the wonder of science.

Awesome!

How about breathtaking!

Sorry! LIFE IS BREATHTAKING Science is an awesome adventure

Originally Posted by babe

Originally Posted by ox

Originally Posted by Strange

Originally Posted by ox

We need a better word to describe the wonder of science.

Awesome!

How about breathtaking!

Sorry! LIFE IS BREATHTAKING Science is an awesome adventure

If life did not include breathtaking, we'd suffocate.

Originally Posted by babe

why did you take the real explanation that DID explain and end it with that?

Because I didn't see an explanation.

Your personal moral code DOES have a basis to your morality and your beliefs.

Is that not a tautology?

We all have some element of spirituality.

Do we?

Having a conscious is a form of spirituality

Please show that is so.

Your previous post:I do have a soul. It is the core of who I am. We all have a core.[/quote]
You mean a personality?
Defining characteristics?
I have no idea what you mean by "soul".

"Soul" and "spirituality" has contexts both in theistic and non-theistic terms, in case that was not apparent yet.

Spirituality has **** all to do with religion under some definitions. Can you all just realise you are using spiritual in a wide variety of ways. Viewing this is ridiculous. You are all smart enough to know much better.

Originally Posted by ox

We need a better word to describe the wonder of science.

Is the term "Self-transcendence" already adopted by science so bad?

I find it rather descriptive of the experience without the mumbo-jumbo superstitious overtones.

science accept spirituality in its own way... but spirituality cannot accept science...

Originally Posted by Dywyddyr

I have no idea what you mean by "soul".

It is a music genre that is closely related to rhythm and blues, characterized by intensity of feeling and earthiness.

Higgs Boson is not known to science but studied to find its validity in the scheme of the big bang theory. Spirituality not known to science but should be studied much the same as anything else. Science is supposed to mean the study of phenomenon. I think room for study of everything in life is a given. Maybe when we find Higgs Boson we find spirituality. LOL.

Originally Posted by Stargate

Higgs Boson is not known to science but studied to find its validity in the scheme of the big bang theory. Spirituality not known to science but should be studied much the same as anything else. Science is supposed to mean the study of phenomenon. I think room for study of everything in life is a given. Maybe when we find Higgs Boson we find spirituality. LOL.

The existence of the Higgs Boson (which is used to strengthen the Standard Model) has been confirmed by CERN in March 2013.
Hence the fact that Peter Higgs and François Englert received the Nobel Prize in Physics a few days ago.

Originally Posted by blackscorp

science accept spirituality in its own way... but spirituality cannot accept science...

I'm not so sure about that. We're as dismissive of religion as religion is of us. The two really are not compatible with one another in very many ways.

Originally Posted by Stargate

Higgs Boson is not known to science but studied to find its validity in the scheme of the big bang theory. Spirituality not known to science but should be studied much the same as anything else.

The Higgs particle is studied because there was something within Higgs field theory which explained why some fundamental particles have mass when they shouldn't. God does not fit such a niche. If you want to study spirituality, it must be on a scientific level (ie, psychology or neuroscience or cellular chemistry), but you cannot simply say that since we can't explain God, we must study him. We don't understand unicorns and leprechauns and we shouldn't dedicate scientific resources to that pursuit.

Some things just belong outside the realm of scientific endeavor.

Originally Posted by Stargate

Science is supposed to mean the study of phenomenon. I think room for study of everything in life is a given. Maybe when we find Higgs Boson we find spirituality. LOL.

Again, the two things are not equal. One represents a blank space in the field of physics, the other is nothing more than a collective imagining. We could dedicate scientific resources to studying art as well, but not if it is some wishy washy philosophical "why". Only if we are able to accept that God may be nothing more than a biological need for security in the face of the vast unknown. If you think science is going to find a big bearded guy hiding in the clouds, you're being silly.

Originally Posted by Cogito Ergo Sum

The existence of the Higgs Boson (which is used to strengthen the Standard Model) has been confirmed by CERN in March 2013.
Hence the fact that Peter Higgs and François Englert received the Nobel Prize in Physics a few days ago.

Just as an aside, I'm not a crying kind of person, but when I watched Peter Higgs weep at the announcement of the discovery of the Higgs boson, I had to dry my eyes. Much like with the Mars rover landing, I felt like I was really a part of something historical. Anyone who says science lacks emotion didn't stay up until 3 am with a cup of coffee to watch Curiosity plummet to the Red Planet.

IMHO spirituality contradicts known science.......so no compatibility with the two#

Originally Posted by Flick Montana

Originally Posted by blackscorp

science accept spirituality in its own way... but spirituality cannot accept science...

I'm not so sure about that. We're as dismissive of religion as religion is of us. The two really are not compatible with one another in very many ways.

Originally Posted by Stargate

Higgs Boson is not known to science but studied to find its validity in the scheme of the big bang theory. Spirituality not known to science but should be studied much the same as anything else.

The Higgs particle is studied because there was something within Higgs field theory which explained why some fundamental particles have mass when they shouldn't. God does not fit such a niche. If you want to study spirituality, it must be on a scientific level (ie, psychology or neuroscience or cellular chemistry), but you cannot simply say that since we can't explain God, we must study him. We don't understand unicorns and leprechauns and we shouldn't dedicate scientific resources to that pursuit.

Some things just belong outside the realm of scientific endeavor.

Originally Posted by Stargate

Science is supposed to mean the study of phenomenon. I think room for study of everything in life is a given. Maybe when we find Higgs Boson we find spirituality. LOL.

Again, the two things are not equal. One represents a blank space in the field of physics, the other is nothing more than a collective imagining. We could dedicate scientific resources to studying art as well, but not if it is some wishy washy philosophical "why". Only if we are able to accept that God may be nothing more than a biological need for security in the face of the vast unknown. If you think science is going to find a big bearded guy hiding in the clouds, you're being silly.

You are mentioning god, but we are talking about spirit. Do you see them as the same?

Originally Posted by Stargate

Higgs Boson is not known to science but studied to find its validity in the scheme of the big bang theory. Spirituality not known to science but should be studied much the same as anything else. Science is supposed to mean the study of phenomenon. I think room for study of everything in life is a given. Maybe when we find Higgs Boson we find spirituality. LOL.

is already found...

Originally Posted by Flick Montana

Originally Posted by Cogito Ergo Sum

The existence of the Higgs Boson (which is used to strengthen the Standard Model) has been confirmed by CERN in March 2013.
Hence the fact that Peter Higgs and François Englert received the Nobel Prize in Physics a few days ago.

Just as an aside, I'm not a crying kind of person, but when I watched Peter Higgs weep at the announcement of the discovery of the Higgs boson, I had to dry my eyes. Much like with the Mars rover landing, I felt like I was really a part of something historical. Anyone who says science lacks emotion didn't stay up until 3 am with a cup of coffee to watch Curiosity plummet to the Red Planet.

I can imagine that, when you have worked for more than 30 years on an idea that marks a revolution in modern physics and you see that they confirm your hypothesis as valid, then only emotions might express the satisfaction you feel.

Originally Posted by Stargate

You are mentioning god, but we are talking about spirit. Do you see them as the same?

According to Merriam-Webster, "spirit" is a synonym for the Christian God.
"Spirit" is a word with so many meanings that it makes a debate quite difficult.

Originally Posted by Stargate

You are mentioning god, but we are talking about spirit. Do you see them as the same?

That depends, are you going to start redefining words to fit your argument?

God is referred to a the "holy spirit".

There’s too much religious baggage tied to the word Spiritual, so I'd rather use the word amazeballs when I look up at the night sky

Originally Posted by blackscorp

Originally Posted by Stargate

Higgs Boson is not known to science but studied to find its validity in the scheme of the big bang theory. Spirituality not known to science but should be studied much the same as anything else. Science is supposed to mean the study of phenomenon. I think room for study of everything in life is a given. Maybe when we find Higgs Boson we find spirituality. LOL.

is already found...

Ok, I should have said Higgs Boson was not found, however the theory was pursued and they found it, (although not quite)that explains science. Why cannot the same principle be applied to everything else? Would that not be scientific? Spirit has been acknowledged by many people across the world.

Originally Posted by Stargate

Originally Posted by blackscorp

Originally Posted by Stargate

Higgs Boson is not known to science but studied to find its validity in the scheme of the big bang theory. Spirituality not known to science but should be studied much the same as anything else. Science is supposed to mean the study of phenomenon. I think room for study of everything in life is a given. Maybe when we find Higgs Boson we find spirituality. LOL.

is already found...

Ok, I should have said Higgs Boson was not found, however the theory was pursued and they found it, (although not quite)that explains science. Why cannot the same principle be applied to everything else? Would that not be scientific? Spirit has been acknowledged by many people across the world.

I don't acknowledge spirit I just think its... in between the ears...

Originally Posted by Stargate

Spirituality not known to science but should be studied much the same as anything else. Science is supposed to mean the study of phenomenon.

And what do we study, exactly?
Which part of Flick's post did you miss?

Originally Posted by Flick Montana

Again, the two things are not equal. One represents a blank space in the field of physics, the other is nothing more than a collective imagining.

Blackscorp

I don't acknowledge spirit I just think its... in between the ears...

At least you have found it, not a bad place to start a study.

Originally Posted by Stargate

Why cannot the same principle be applied to everything else? Would that not be scientific? Spirit has been acknowledged by many people across the world.[/FONT][/COLOR][/SIZE]

The same principle could be applied to other things if you can find some objective evidence.

And what do we study, exactly?

Spirit,

Science should come up with a theory and look for it the same way they did with Higgs Boson. is spirit a particle?

Originally Posted by Stargate

Spirit,

Science should come up with a theory and look for it the same way they did with Higgs Boson. is spirit a particle?

And how do you suggest we detect, measure or otherwise observe this thing?

Originally Posted by Strange

Originally Posted by Stargate

Why cannot the same principle be applied to everything else? Would that not be scientific? Spirit has been acknowledged by many people across the world.[/FONT][/COLOR][/SIZE]

The same principle could be applied to other things if you can find some objective evidence.

Lots of people are saying there is more to the human than just physical, thats a good place to start, maybe they are right, maybe not. I would like to think that scientifically we could search and find or not find.

how can one help with something useful,when one does not even understand what a spirit is. that the situation of someppl here.

Originally Posted by Strange

Originally Posted by Stargate

Spirit,

Science should come up with a theory and look for it the same way they did with Higgs Boson. is spirit a particle?

And how do you suggest we detect, measure or otherwise observe this thing?

With minds like yours and others.

Originally Posted by merumario

how can one help with something useful,when one does not even understand what a spirit is. that the situation of someppl here.

We did it with antimatter, Higgs Boson, Black Holes, Atoms. humans are flexable.

Originally Posted by Stargate

Spirit,
Science should come up with a theory

Pardon?
Theory: A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world, based on knowledge that has been repeatedly confirmed through observation and experimentation.^[1][2] Scientists create scientific theories from hypotheses that have been corroborated through the scientific method, then gather evidence to test their accuracy.

"Spirit" is NOT well-substantiated.
"Spirit" has NOT been repeatedly confirmed (has it been conformed at all?).
"Spirit" has NOT been observed.
"Spirit" has NOT been shown to be available for experimentation.
What evidence do we have for "spirit"?

is spirit a particle?

We have zero evidence for spirit; that makes it somewhat premature on deciding whether or not it's a particle.

Originally Posted by Stargate

Originally Posted by Strange

Originally Posted by Stargate

Spirit,

Science should come up with a theory and look for it the same way they did with Higgs Boson. is spirit a particle?

And how do you suggest we detect, measure or otherwise observe this thing?

With minds like yours and others.

That is not good enough. Science relies on objective data and testable, i.e. quantitative, predictions. How do you get that from "minds like yours"? What, exactly, do you propose to measure? And how?

Originally Posted by Dywyddyr

Originally Posted by Stargate

Spirit,
Science should come up with a theory

Pardon?
Theory: A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world, based on knowledge that has been repeatedly confirmed through observation and experimentation.^[1][2] Scientists create scientific theories from hypotheses that have been corroborated through the scientific method, then gather evidence to test their accuracy.

"Spirit" is NOT well-substantiated.
"Spirit" has NOT been repeatedly confirmed (has it been conformed at all?).
"Spirit" has NOT been observed.
"Spirit" has NOT been shown to be available for experimentation.
What evidence do we have for "spirit"?

is spirit a particle?

We have zero evidence for spirit; that makes it somewhat premature on deciding whether or not it's a particle.

Science is not stagnated or rigid, it is flexable. The argument for spirit is worth a scientific study.

Originally Posted by Stargate

Science is not stagnated or rigid, it is flexable.

Science is a methodology: it studies what can be studied.

The argument for spirit is worth a scientific study.

I'll try a simpler tack: what is there to be studied?
We have ZERO EVIDENCE of "spirit".
There is nothing that can be studied.

Originally Posted by Stargate

The argument for spirit is worth a scientific study.

Then provide some evidence suitable for scientific study.

Lots of people give experiences of spirit, yet we cannot see it, the Russians have, so they say, invented a machine to see some sort of matter when a person is dying. Animals have given signals when a person is dying, I think there is a lot for science to start with.

Originally Posted by Stargate

Lots of people give experiences of spirit, yet we cannot see it,

How will you make objective measurements to confirm or refute these sightings?

the Russians have, so they say, invented a machine to see some sort of matter when a person is dying.

Citation needed.

Animals have given signals when a person is dying

Citation needed.

I think there is a lot for science to start with.

You haven't done a very good job of showing it so far. A few unsubstantiated tales.

Originally Posted by Strange

Originally Posted by Stargate

The argument for spirit is worth a scientific study.

Then provide some evidence suitable for scientific study.

Maybe we could start with the human body and see where it leads since that is where this phenomenon seems to find its origin.

Originally Posted by Stargate

Maybe we could start with the human body and see where it leads since that is where this phenomenon seems to find its origin.

<sigh>

What about the human body? We already have a huge amount of data about the human body. It has been measured, weighed, scanned, chemically analysed, dissected, tested and examined. No sign of "spirit".

What do you suggest? And, please, no more similar vague statements. If you cannot specify one single objective measurement that could be made, then just drop the subject. You are wasting everyone's time and embarrassing yourself.

Originally Posted by Stargate

Lots of people give experiences of spirit

"Data" is not a plural of "anecdote".

yet we cannot see it, the Russians have, so they say, invented a machine to see some sort of matter when a person is dying

A device which not been shown (let alone "proved") to have any science behind it.

I think there is a lot for science to start with.

In which case you don't know much.

Originally Posted by Strange

Originally Posted by Stargate

Maybe we could start with the human body and see where it leads since that is where this phenomenon seems to find its origin.

<sigh>

What about the human body? We already have a huge amount of data about the human body. It has been measured, weighed, scanned, chemically analysed, dissected, tested and examined. No sign of "spirit".

What do you suggest? And, please, no more similar vague statements. If you cannot specify one single objective measurement that could be made, then just drop the subject. You are wasting everyone's time and embarrassing yourself.

How do we measure the spirit in alcohol? I think the alcohol is embeded in the fruit is it not so?

Originally Posted by Stargate

Originally Posted by Strange

Originally Posted by Stargate

Maybe we could start with the human body and see where it leads since that is where this phenomenon seems to find its origin.

<sigh>

What about the human body? We already have a huge amount of data about the human body. It has been measured, weighed, scanned, chemically analysed, dissected, tested and examined. No sign of "spirit".

What do you suggest? And, please, no more similar vague statements. If you cannot specify one single objective measurement that could be made, then just drop the subject. You are wasting everyone's time and embarrassing yourself.

How do we measure the spirit in alcohol? I think the alcohol is embeded in the fruit is it not so?

Stargate, are you trolling? How old are you if I may ask?

Originally Posted by Stargate

How do we measure the spirit in alcohol?

I really hope you're trying to be funny.

Originally Posted by Stargate

How do we measure the spirit in alcohol?

Alcohol is sometimes referred to as "spirit". The concentration can be measured in a variety of ways, giving more or less precise quantitative answers.

I think the alcohol is embeded in the fruit is it not so?

No.

How is any of this relevant?

i would want to believe that the moment a spirit is studied then its no longer a spirit. spirituality should maintain its boundaries....that is if there is.

Originally Posted by Strange

Originally Posted by Stargate

How do we measure the spirit in alcohol?

Alcohol is sometimes referred to as "spirit". The concentration can be measured in a variety of ways, giving more or less precise quantitative answers.

I think the alcohol is embeded in the fruit is it not so?

No.

How is any of this relevant?

All I am really saying is there is a place for everything, known and unknown, scientific and spiritual, seen and unseen. I just do not see anything going one way.

Okay, so let's talk about vaguely defined concept X, with its plethora of variant supposed meanings. Is it curved, or edged? Maybe both? What color is it? does it make a noise?
The other day my mechanic told me I had blown a seal. I said "Hey, leave my personal life out of this!"

Originally Posted by Stargate

All I am really saying is there is a place for everything, known and unknown, scientific and spiritual, seen and unseen.

Maybe. But science only deals with things that can be measured objectively. Your "spirit" does not seem amenable to that.

Originally Posted by Stargate

All I am really saying is there is a place for everything, known and unknown, scientific and spiritual, seen and unseen. I just do not see anything going one way.

And what's the proper place for fictional?

Originally Posted by Strange

Originally Posted by Stargate

All I am really saying is there is a place for everything, known and unknown, scientific and spiritual, seen and unseen.

Maybe. But science only deals with things that can be measured objectively. Your "spirit" does not seem amenable to that.

I am not trying to convince you, I know I think optimally because I believe in science and I belive in spirit. There is room for you and there is room for me.

Originally Posted by Stargate

Originally Posted by Strange

Originally Posted by Stargate

All I am really saying is there is a place for everything, known and unknown, scientific and spiritual, seen and unseen.

Maybe. But science only deals with things that can be measured objectively. Your "spirit" does not seem amenable to that.

I am not trying to convince you, I know I think optimally because I believe in science and I belive in spirit. There is room for you and there is room for me.

One should not believe science.
One should understand science.

Originally Posted by merumario

i would want to believe that the moment a spirit is studied then its no longer a spirit. spirituality should maintain its boundaries....that is if there is.

LOL. I too have problems with the root word "spirit," in the very word and am tempted to dismiss it out of hand for that reason.
--

I found a researcher Elain Howard Ecklund (last name taken with marriage another topic about burdens of women) who's studied some of the questions about spirituality in scientist:

I'll post a few tidbits from a paper done in 2007 after several years of surveys 1600+ and more targeted interviews with 275 scientist working in University level across many disciplines:

-"over 60 percent of professors in these natural and social science disciplines describe themselves as either atheist or religiously agnostic."
-"About 52 percent of scientists see themselves as having no religious affiliation"
-"Scientists who are not religious justify their inattention to religion through language that stresses the irrelevance of science to religion. Those not raised in religious homes, the case for the majority of scientists without religious affiliation, also emphasize their lack of experience with religion."

Here's the neat part:
"When asked “to what extent do you consider yourself a spiritual person?” about 66 percent of the natural scientists and about 69 percent of the social scientists describe themselves as spiritual.This means there is a population of scientists who say they have no religious affiliation but who do see spirituality as important. Indeed, about 39 percent of those without a current religious affiliation still consider themselves spiritual. In addition, over 22 percent of the scientists who are atheists are spiritual. And over 27 percent of the scientists who are agnostic are spiritual."

(guess I'm in that spiritual atheist group)

"And what did these respondents mean by spirituality? Analyses of the in-depth interviews reveal definitions that vary from “a vague feeling that there is something outside myself” to “a deep andcompelling, other-centered worldview that directs how research and interactions with students are conducted.” Definitions of “religion” and “spirituality” are not benign constructs for this population. Among university scientists such distinctions often carry a moral weight. For example, one chemistry professor describes having “the feeling that [religion] doesn't really work in that it ends up being a mechanism by which people's thoughts and lives are controlled or meant to be controlled.” This same professor, when asked to compare religion and spirituality, says that spirituality is “more flexible and personal, and a lot less judgmental. In fact, she explains, “[W]hen I think of a spiritual person, the word ‘judgment’ doesn't even pop into my mind.” For many of those who consider themselves spiritual, spirituality means simply having a larger purpose or meaning that transcends daily concerns. For many of the natural scientists, in particular, knowledge of the spiritual comes directly from their work. For example, according to one physicist

'When I travel to observatories...and when I finally just have enough time to try to think of my place in the world and the universe and its vastness, it’s then that I feel the connection to the world more than I do, say, sitting here in my office. And so that for me, that’s the closest I can come to a spiritual experience.'

This excerpt and the many others like it show that, for some scientists, rather than science replacing religion, spirituality may be replacing religion."


Her conclusions:
"1) Scientists are not very religious compared to the general public, although a significant minority is religious.
2) Scientists are surprisingly interested in spirituality.
3) While most are ambivalent about discussing religion in academic settings, a significant minority is seeking resources to engage students about religion.
4) University scientists who do view religion or spirituality as important are beginning to play a crucial role in mediating dialogue between the scientific community and the broader American public."

She has other work but this was the only complete paper I've found so far (argg....sh fk sh...paywalls....).

http://religion.ssrc.org/reforum/Ecklund.pdf

Originally Posted by Stargate

Originally Posted by Strange

Originally Posted by Stargate

Spirit,

Science should come up with a theory and look for it the same way they did with Higgs Boson. is spirit a particle?

And how do you suggest we detect, measure or otherwise observe this thing?

With minds like yours and others.

About the only way you can show any evidence of an actual human spirit that exists on it's own you would need to find a way to get a human consciousness to exist outside of a human body. Like maybe transferring this "soul" or "spirit" to a robot and killing the human body it came from. Can we start by looking for yours?

Originally Posted by Stargate

I know I think optimally

Arrant nonsense.

because I believe in science

But you don't know much about it.

and I belive in spirit

In other words you don't "believe" in science.

I consider "spirituality" to be whatever gives you a warm, glowy feeling behind your stomach when you contemplate, well, stuff.

Whether that stuff is the mythology of whatever religious belief you follow, or the beauty of an aurora in the northern or southern sky, or even just appreciating certain works of art or the mysteries of science on the supermacroscopic or ultramicroscopic scale (are they even words?)

Originally Posted by Stargate

I am not trying to convince you

I didn't think you were. You were saying that science should be applied to "spirit"; I was just asking you to clarify how that could be done.

I know I think optimally

The evidence suggest otherwise.

because I believe in science

What is "belief in science"?

Originally Posted by Stargate

I know I think optimally

LYNX
I find your post very interesting, why, because I am not religious at all but I am spiritual, and yes spirituality may be replacing religion.

Originally Posted by Strange

Originally Posted by Stargate

I am not trying to convince you

I didn't think you were. You were saying that science should be applied to "spirit"; I was just asking you to clarify how that could be done.

I know I think optimally

The evidence suggest otherwise.

because I believe in science

What is "belief in science"?

Some of it I believe, and some of it I know, just the same with spirit. Just because science has not confronted it as yet does not mean it will not be done in the future.
The worst thing that can happen to mankind is if they close the mind.

Originally Posted by Dywyddyr

Originally Posted by Stargate

I know I think optimally

This one is easy, don't agree and you still could be wrong.

Originally Posted by Stargate

Originally Posted by Dywyddyr

Originally Posted by Stargate

I know I think optimally

This one is easy, don't agree and you still could be wrong.

No that would still only be if he agreed.

Originally Posted by Stargate

This one is easy, don't agree and you still could be wrong.

Except that I'm not.
Not only do you not think "optimally" you have shown a proclivity to not think rationally.

Case in point:

Originally Posted by Stargate

Some of it I believe, and some of it I know, just the same with spirit.

You don't know about "spirit".

Just because science has not confronted it as yet does not mean it will not be done in the future.

Since there is no evidence to investigate science is hardly likely to look at it.
Or maybe you "think" that, after a few millennia of claims and zero evidence some will miraculously appear.

The worst thing that can happen to mankind is if they close the mind.

Who's closing their mind?
That wouldn't be an assumption on your part, would it?

You have been asked repeatedly what evidence there is and what science could investigate, you have repeatedly failed to offer anything but generalisations and empty claims.

Originally Posted by seagypsy

Originally Posted by Stargate

Originally Posted by Strange

Originally Posted by Stargate

Spirit,

Science should come up with a theory and look for it the same way they did with Higgs Boson. is spirit a particle?

And how do you suggest we detect, measure or otherwise observe this thing?

With minds like yours and others.

About the only way you can show any evidence of an actual human spirit that exists on it's own you would need to find a way to get a human consciousness to exist outside of a human body. Like maybe transferring this "soul" or "spirit" to a robot and killing the human body it came from. Can we start by looking for yours?

About the only way you can show any evidence of an actual human spirit that exists on it's own

Do you know that there is a woman that died but her blood keep growing outside of her body? I think her name is Henrietta Laxa. Do you know that every, or almost every vaccine that is created uses her blood to experiment?
I have noticed you use the term "soul" and "spirit" in the same context; it makes me think it doesn’t have a meaning for you, am I right?
The human spirit does not exist by itself; it lives in a human body, at least mine does.
Is subjective consciousness the same as objective consciousness? You seem to link them, I may be misunderstanding you.

Originally Posted by Stargate

Do you know that there is a woman that died but her blood keep growing outside of her body? I think her name is Henrietta Laxa. Do you know that every, or almost every vaccine that is created uses her blood to experiment?

This is yet another typically sloppy appeal-to-the-woo post from you.
1) The woman's name was Henrietta Lacks.
2) It's not her blood, it's cells from a cancerous tumour.
3) "It keeps growing". This is because [t]hey could be kept alive and grown - this implies that they don't simply do it on their own, but require assistance.

The human spirit does not exist by itself; it lives in a human body, at least mine does.

So what, exactly, is the "human spirit"?
If you mean our intellect, emotions, fears, passions, and creativity, then it's a tautology.
If that's not what you mean then what are you talking about and what evidence do you have for it (again)?
You keep making claims, but that's all you do.

Okay, so some of you have made a lot of interesting points, others, I'm afraid, seem to be both closed minded and arrogant. Dywyddyr, I'm looking at you. You presume to know that Stargate's speculations have no merit. But how can you know? Just because you cant prove a spirit exists, doesn't mean it cant. Unless you CAN prove that there isnt such thing? because id love to hear it. The fact of the matter is, science has experimented within the spiritual realm, and there have been results. STRANGE, You asked for some kind of basis for science to investigate spirituality, something tangible, which is a most reasonable request. The fact is, for a spirit to be scientifically proven, science would have to broaden its views. Until quantum physics, science has not dared to look at things that could not be tested without the five senses, but that doesn't mean there's nothing there. If a spirit exists, we can already say with a fair bit of certainty that its not going to be some organ in your body. So it would have to be connected to something outside "our world" (the world we perceive with the five senses). The spirit, if it exists in most of the ways people seem to think it does, would influence our world in some way. I was reading a few posts back about some kind of machine the Russians supposedly used to see certain 'effects' after a person dies. Well, your eyes, or a video camera, will do. If you have seen something die, or put it on camera (as in my case, a rat on a night vision camera at three in the morning, be caught and killed in a mouse trap), you may be in the right situation to be lucky enough to literally see 'the light leave there eyes'. I'm talking about an actual light source. Now, I'm not expecting everyone to believe this story, its a 'you really have to be there' kind of moment, but that's an example. experiments could be done to see if a soul really does leave the body. How about visions, where people literally predict an event before it happens, and have a habit of doing so? couldn't we accompany someone who has such gifts, record there visions, and see the outcome? That's just two possibilities. The options are many, to be sure. "Science is a religion, and unfortunately its followers can sometimes be just as dogmatic"

Originally Posted by Lewis Pratt

others, I'm afraid, seem to be both closed minded and arrogant. Dywyddyr, I'm looking at you.

Yeah?

You presume to know that Stargate's speculations have no merit.

Ah, I presume to know do I?:
Is that why I have persistently asked for evidence from Stargate?

Just because you cant prove a spirit exists, doesn't mean it cant. Unless you CAN prove that there isnt such thing?

Oh, assumptions again.
Why should we consider something UNLESS there is evidence for it?
How would science investigate something which isn't available for study?
Have I stated that spirit doesn't exist? Anywhere? Or have I asked?

The fact of the matter is, science has experimented within the spiritual realm, and there have been results.

Really?
Links please.

IOW stop making false accusations and post something with substance.

PS: clue to most of the above - I've asked. (And f*ck all has been forthcoming except for unsubstantiated claims).

Originally Posted by Lewis Pratt

Unless you CAN prove that there isnt such thing?

Science does not prove negatives. If it did, it would be religion. The only way you can accept the crap you call evidence for a spirit or soul is if you completely destroy science as we know it and make it something that accepts delusion as evidence. But we already have something that does that, its called religion.

Lewis pratt

As I mentioned before your type of mind is the mind I am speaking about, "open" as opposed to a static mind. Man I love the way you approach the discussion. I can assure you there are lots of people with open minds, I am so glad you have the vision. Science is science; it can go in any direction it is willing to go. We humans on the other hand can only begin with ourselves as a starting point.

Originally Posted by Stargate

Lewis pratt

As I mentioned before your type of mind is the mind I am speaking about, "open" as opposed to a static mind. Man I love the way you approach the discussion. I can assure you there are lots of people with open minds, I am so glad you have the vision. Science is science; it can go in any direction it is willing to go. We humans on the other hand can only begin with ourselves as a starting point.

Science is a method. Science is static. By your standard, if you think science, a static method can go in any direction it wants, as if it is a living thing, perhaps math can too and if we get really open minded 2+2 will equal 79.

Originally Posted by Stargate

Science ... can go in any direction it is willing to go.

Repeated bullshit.
You have already been informed why this is incorrect.

We humans on the other hand can only begin with ourselves as a starting point.

Whut?