Science and Spirituality

[butterbridge]

This isn't directly a gay-related topic.
I am trying to choose words carefully when talking about science and spirituality. Terms like scientific fact can be misleading; things scientists determine as "fact" only hold true based on currently known observations of phenomena, it is possible at any time to observe new aspects of said phenomena which is apparently contrary to the established "fact" thereby scientists must revise the known "fact" so it fits with all known observations. and Spirituality doesn't necessarily mean religion and religion doesn't necessarily mean spirituality; they are closely linked but the way I see it is a religion is the institution (doctrines, rituals, teachings, etc.) created by a group of humans to express and explain communal spiritual beliefs and try to integrate humans into the community and to attempt provide a people with a kind of code of ethics which benefits not only themselves but those around them. Whether or not those specific teachings are right/wrong/fair/unfair is highly subjective, and probably a different discussion from what I am asking.

**Feel free to discuss and/or call me out on my use of terminology because I feel it is important and fundamental to establishing a reference frame for discussion.

Disclaimers aside, I have lately been thinking about Science and Spirituality/Religion. It irritates me when people think the pursuit of scientific knowledge is the quest to debunk religious beliefs and human spirituality. As a man of science, I feel that science's aim is to further our understanding of the universe in which we live. Yes it is true that modern scientific knowledge casts a lot of doubt on ancient myths and some religious doctrines but (the vast majority of) scientists are not cackling diabolically in laboratories trying to disprove the existence of divine entities. In addition to that, ancient stories and teachings warp and change over generations as they are retold, retranslated and their meanings interpreted differently as the society progresses, so its not unreasonable for historical and/or religious figures to be given supernatural abilities. I was just wondering how people feel science and religious practices fit together in our human experience.

There are many fuzzy areas between the realm of empirical scientific observations/knowledge and many spiritual "truths" depicted in religions (whether or not they are actually true or not is probably also a different discussion). For example: in many religions humans are described to have auras or halos that most people cannot see; we also empirically know of a huge spectrum of light waves beyond our visible spectrum and that electrical pulses flow through our nervous system. We also know that anytime there is an electrical pulse, there is a magnetic field. So it makes sense for humans to have some kind of weak magnetic/electrical field surrounding them, but I think its not fair to say whether or not this field is or isn't the spiritual aura. All I can pull out of that with any certainty is that there are parallels to the known science and the described spirituality.

There are also fantastic parallels to modern physics in Taoism and Hinduism. Granted I am not an expert and don't claim to be one; I took ONE class at a lower division general education level on the worlds religions where we looked at Judaism, Christianity, Islam, Taoism, Buddhism and Hinduism. We spent a lot of time on the Abrahamic religions and had to brush over a lot of Buddhism in the interest of time. My favorite unit by far in that class was Hinduism. I started seeing a lot of parallels to the Hindu mythos when I took a class called The Cosmos where we looked at Relativity and Quantum Mechanics with a simplified focus.
One thing that was fascinating was the Hindu notion of the age of the universe. I can't say an exact time but the way my professor described it was: imagine a dove carrying a silk handkerchief flying over Mt. Everest once a day. The amount of time it takes for the mountain to eroded down to a flat plain by the dove is one unit of time and the time between the universe's beginning and end is divided into four of these units. Whether or not that is an accurate description on those ages, it is still a fascinating thought exercise especially when we know that the universe is 13.7 billion years old.
(Side note: the Big Bang is a bit of a misnomer and I can go into that later.)

One thing my mom has always wondered is how does our solar system fit into biblical teachings? I am not a bible expert, but she said that when Jesus went into the desert and returned, nobody knew where he went and could not find traces of his journey. She asked would it be possible then, if he went to Mars? It is a desert and nobody would have been able to trace his journey. it may sound contrived but at the same time that too is an interesting thought exercise. IS Heaven simply a spiritual place or does it have some kind of physical existence? Would we travel to the Andromeda galaxy if we go to Heaven? Nobody really has the answers but you can't easily say those possibilities are incorrect either.

My main reason for posting this topic is to see what other people think and to explore concepts and ideas. I am not trying to debunk anyones beliefs or start a flame war or anything.

[Etheric]

This is always an interesting and often touchy subject (understandably, since you're delving into worldviews, and there is little else people will fight as fiercely for as their worldview).

Science can be as much of a religion as any kind of spirituality. Science and spirituality generally aspire toward the same goals: to learn about life and the world around. What makes either a religion is the codification of beliefs into strict doctrine, rituals or teachings that are generally seen as infallible, unchangeable, and/or solely valid (and it's that latter part that tends to get it into trouble).

All that aside it is interesting how close science gets to what are perceived as primarily spiritual ideas. The old belief in magic, for instance. In its purest form, magic is simply the ability to change the environment through the use of intention alone (not necessarily instantly or theatrically). This is very similar to what I've heard about quantum physics experiments that seem to show that a situation changes on a quantum level just by being observed; you as a person can change the nature of a situation just by observing it. This doesn't necessarily prove or disprove magic, but just shows how spiritual idea and scientific observation can seem to orbit around a common theme.

The mind is something I find particularly fascinating. Eastern philosophies have been exploring it for years, and have come up with some pretty amazing findings: Shaolin monks can train themselves to withstand body-breaking blows and other trauma, some Buddhist monks can actively raise their core temperature or slow their heartbeat to almost nothing through meditation alone, a few Qi Gong masters seem to, limitedly, be able to manipulate physical objects using just mind and energy. Modern science is only now starting to observe and explain some of these phenomenon, and it seems that both perspectives are hinting that we are capable of far more than we know. There is a quote that I can't remember that basically says "While the West was exploring the world outside, the east was exploring the world within," and its fascinating when they seem to meet.

Relatedly is the idea of energy as mentioned. Many healing techniques, such as Reiki, are based on the principle of manipulating energy around the body, as well as the martial arts feats described above. In fact, the idea of a life energy is pervasive in cultures, with qi in China, prana in India, mana in Hawaii, lung in Tibet, and the Force in a galaxy far, far away (insert chuckles). Science seems to be expanding on this with experiments on brainwaves and bioelectromagnetism.

As for the disappearance in the desert, apart from possible terrestrial explanations, I'd even add the possibility of remaining in the same space but entering an alternate universe or different plane of existence. The idea for the former assuming there are other universes that could be considered laterally parallel to our own. The idea for the latter assuming that one can raise or lower one's own vibration to a different part of a reality spectrum (i.e. moving oneself to a plane with a higher or lower frequency than physical matter). It's an interesting query, and, standing on its own, it has some intriguing possibilities.

It is a shame when people view science and spirituality as an exclusive dichotomy. In truth, science and spirituality are part of the same whole, and can be used to refine each other. Personally, I see no incompatibility between scientific and spiritual pursuit, but, in the end, that is up to the individual to decide.

[butterbridge]

I agree with you very much that science and religion can coexist and are possibly even two sides of the same thing. I believe that humans are spiritual in nature and need to express and explore it somehow. We need religion and there is nothing wrong with the variety we see on Earth. It is wonderful to have so many different views, different perspectives and ideas; we to have discourse and explore those ideas but we need to do it intelligently and be open to new ideas. I strongly disagree with war, discrimination and persecution under the banner of religion, which sadly happens all too often.
*steps down from soapbox*

One book I started reading is the Tao of Physics. I am an incredibly slow reader and I have only gotten about 40 pages in so far. But it is interesting, even in the introduction; the author was saying modern physics is bringing a lot of eastern views into western science. I don't have the book here atm to elaborate further and would prefer not to try to go from memory and paraphrase it incorrectly. But soon I can elaborate on that a bit further.

One idea I discussed with my professor is keeping kosher on a Star Trek starship. He found that to be a great thought exercise; the main reason to keep kosher (please correct me if I am wrong) is to separate foods so the essence of one does not taint the essence of the other because certain food should not be mixed. The one I can think of right now is eating mammal meat with a dairy product, which is a big no no. They originate from animals and have the essence of those animals but, what if the food were artificially synthesized? Say in a Star Trek replicator, where matter is materialized from raw energy and atoms. The meat was never alive, never part of any creature and only mimics real meat, so is it safe to mix synthesized meat and dairy? How do the rules of keeping kosher apply to alien foods, what if we discover some creature that isn't quite mammal, reptile, avian or fish? how can we utilize that?

[Etheric]

I could totally jump on that soapbox and run with commentary on society and religion, but I think in some ways that's tired and preaching to the choir, so I'll refrain.

Ya got me on kosher replication. I'm not familiar enough with the rules and ideas behind kosher foods to even venture a guess. The all knowing wikipedia gives a myriad of reasons, but I'll leave that up to whoever actually knows about it.
Another question to pose: since replicated foods were never alive, do they still have the same nutritional or health properties as natural food (characters often tend to comment on the different quality between replicator and real food)? Is it possible that there something like a life force component to once-living food?

Food is actually an interesting subject, although not directly bearing on the topic at hand.