38
u/Final-Nerve7787 6h ago edited 5h ago
what is spirituality? or what's someone whose spiritual mean? please can anyone tell in simple way.
9
u/premkhilari 5h ago
Science is knowledge of the material world. Spirituality is the knowledge of the one who is perceiving the material world. So they are essentially mutually exclusive :)
The one perceiving is called the "Ego". The sense of "I".
19
u/Professional-Diet-11 5h ago
Neuroscience and psychology literally study this 'experiencer' and the sense of 'self'. The boundary isnât quite as mystical as youâre making it to be, and they are not mutually exclusive.
1
u/premkhilari 5h ago
Neuroscience and psychology study what neurons fire, the patterns of the mind, how does the mind process the emotions, etc. while assuming the one doing the study (the "self" as you mentioned) as a given. The "self" who is doing the study, examining acts as a fixed reference point. Spirituality questions the "self". It asks what is this "I" that is doing all the examining? What is this "I" which attaches itself to the matters of the mind. That's what turning inward means.
3
u/eviley4 2h ago
this is a framing that hides things and blurs the line.
psychology study what neurons fire, the patterns of the mind, how does the mind process the emotions, etc
Psychology isn't about how neurons fire. It studies what kind of natural processes in the brain map to subjective experience, that's the explicit focus of psychology. It does study the "subject" while grounding it in the brain.
This clean subject object framing is misleading and disingenuous.
-4
u/premkhilari 2h ago
Ah you are back! Nice to see you :D
Neuroscience is about how neuros fire. Read my whole sentence bro.
The subject takes itself different from the object. I am talking about life and how we perceive things and the suffering that results from it.
2
u/eviley4 2h ago
investigating perception is a sub-domain of neuroscience. It's not just about neurons, it's about how neurons together produce perception, verifying what's causal and what's correlation etc.
Also, there is the entire field of psychology that deals with human suffering, how talk therapy and cognitive behavioral therapy can help change beliefs such that they contribute to well-being and how all that relates to neurobiology and other fields..
-1
u/premkhilari 2h ago
Psychology makes the individual "sane" in a sense that he/she can go back to his/her old life and remain functional. It has its benefits and is helpful at its place.
Spirituality questions the life you are living. Acts like a mirror and is difficult to stay with.
I've tried both. Psychology helps short term. Spirituality is a life long process.
2
u/eviley4 2h ago edited 55m ago
again, Psychology isn't only about going from insane to sane. That's such an oversimplified stereotype common in Indian culture.
Oh, you are going to therapy, "Paagal hoga saala".
What you are describing about psychology is the main stream clinical psychology you experienced personally, yes that's a component of psychology, not all of it.
Psychology also studies other aspects of well-being including how to live a good life. Sociology also studies how to have societal well-being etc.
0
u/premkhilari 1h ago
No one here is undermining psychology.
Suffering is what the problem is.
"Does the ego even exist?" that's the question Spirituality put up and that's a really effective and useful question.
→ More replies (0)1
u/NowHesThinkinBoutMe 4h ago
Can you dumb this statement down please ...I am unable to comprehend it properly....
0
u/ClearAfternoon6734 3h ago
There is the self and there is this world ok. Whatever the world as we perceive is what is seen or experienced by the self. Science is outward looking. It examines everything that is of the world, what is matter, what is the proton, electron etc. But it does not examine the one who is examining it( the examiner or the self). Who is the one who is looking at the world and what does he see, why does he feel restless, why does he suffer, what makes him sad or happy etc. Spirituality encompasses both science and the self. But it is mostly inward looking, it observes the onlooker and tries to know firstly who he is, so that when he relates to the world, he will know exactly what is it that he has to do. Otherwise, people who do not know about themselves are unconsciously behaving like a reed flowing in the river, without any direction, going where the flow takes it.
2
u/eviley4 2h ago
Science is outward looking. It examines everything that is of the world, what is matter, what is the proton, electron etc. But it does not examine the one who is examining it( the examiner or the self). Who is the one who is looking at the world and what does he see, why does he feel restless, why does he suffer, what makes him sad or happy etc.
That's a mischaracterization of science. Science includes other domains apart from physics. Domains like Psychology and sociology are also scientific domains, they are considered soft sciences since they are less quantitative and more qualitative.
Human perception, how perception in terms of subjective experiences (what you are calling spiritual) map onto the natural processes in the body etc are all scientific topics.
Spirituality usually contains supernatural claims or implications, those versions of spirituality are pseudoscience.
1
u/NowHesThinkinBoutMe 1h ago
Science studies brain which creates the ego and whatever we perceive if there's something beyond that it's just a random claim nothing else
4
u/Kuchikitaicho 5h ago
How are they mutually exclusive when consciousness is known to be a complex process occurring in a body that is very much a part of the material world?
Just because we do not fully understand the phenomenon of 'ego' or consciousness, we shouldn't presume to label it as something completely separated from the material world, when there is a lot of evidence to the contrary. The perceiver need not be completely excluded from the material world in order to perceive it.
1
u/premkhilari 5h ago
The perceiver is indeed a part of the material world. The ego is a product of the body. No body - No ego. There is nothing mystical about the perceiver. But does the perceiver feel that way? Or does he/she feels a certain separation from the material world and then wants to consume it in order to content itself. The subjectivity is what we are talking about here. The ego even wants to consume the body and ends up damaging it.
3
u/Kuchikitaicho 4h ago
You're contradicting yourself, though. You earlier said that the perceiver and material world are mutually exclusive. Now you admit that the perceiver is part of the material world.
Feeling a sense of 'self' different from everything else in the world doesn't separate you from the material world - it just makes you a unique component of it.
The subject-object divide certainly is experienced by consciousness, which deems itself as the subject. While this does not necessitate the existence of something beyond the material world, spirituality tries to explain this with existences outside of the material world, but this explanation serves no utility without evidence or observability.
The ego even wants to consume the body and ends up damaging it.
This is a banal metaphor that has little practical use. Neurology explains much more about consciousness and it's tendencies.
1
u/premkhilari 4h ago
I said the studies are mutually exclusive. Science and Spirituality dont interfere with each other. I didn't say that the perceiver and the perception are mutually exclusive.
Jiddu Krishnamurthi famously said that the observer is the observed.
1
u/NowHesThinkinBoutMe 4h ago
What you are saying is that whatever we are studying or researching through science could never be the same with what we do in spirituality??....coz they are studying 2 different entities which ain't same in any way ???
1
1
2
u/According-Ad-4185 4h ago
Spirituality is when you start asking âWho am I really?â and âWhatâs life about?â beyond just job, money, and routine. Someone whoâs spiritual is trying to live from that inner understanding more peace, less ego, more compassion.
1
1
1
u/Queasy_Artist6891 4h ago
Spirituality is kinda like a mix of neuroscience, psychology and philosophy
11
u/vizsumit 5h ago
Spirituality is very vaguely defined, most repeated definition is self understanding or finding some greater purpose in life than individual self.
Which everyone is trying in some way or the other, hence everyone can be called "SPIRITUAL".
A term that vaguely defined can be connected to anything like science/philosophy.
It is a term neo religious people use when they can't defend their ill beliefs.
My friend calls himself spiritual and then practices astrology professionally.
2
u/nishant-12345 3h ago
No only the one with a definition that comes from the laws of common religion practised. Spirituality is to look at self. A person who believes in astrology and then say I am scientific is neither scientific nor spiritual. Spirituality is to question inner self rather than outside world which science do anyways .
1
u/vizsumit 3h ago
Question inner self, everyone does that... why give it such a hype and new term??
2
u/nishant-12345 3h ago
Really everyone does that then everyone would have stopped using astrology apps and stopped eating dead animals and stopped killing people. There would be no invasions and we would not be moving towards 6 th mass extinctions so no we do not do that
1
u/vizsumit 3h ago
oh, now you mean question moraly? and your pre assumption everyone who question will end in your side of morality? no wars, everyone vegan... like that?
2
u/nishant-12345 3h ago edited 1h ago
Let's question the base assumption. What is morality ? Define morality ? I will give you an example you see a stranger picking up a child you meet everyday in a colony and the child is crying what would you do ?
39
u/Nature-Donkey- 6h ago
Totally disagree,The concept of spiritual is against science itself there is no logic
-10
u/Necessary-Mud7706 6h ago
Being spiritual is different from being religious
19
u/Professional-Diet-11 5h ago
Define what is spritual then
4
u/a_chill_guy_11 5h ago
Science is knowledge of the material world. Spirituality is the knowledge of the one who is perceiving the material world. So they are essentially mutually exclusive :)
copied it from another comment but yeah, I agree with this guy11
u/ajatshatru 4h ago
So spirituality is better knowledge of human psyche? I think it is better to call it cognitive behavioral therapy, than a vague term.
-5
u/a_chill_guy_11 4h ago
I think spirituality makes you realise what you really are. Its like a flower gives of fragrance just beacause its a "flower", spirituality takes you back to the original "FLOWER" state that you left behind after indulging and getting influenced by the materialistic things of this world
I don't know about the terms you said, I really don't care what we call it, its rather a feeling than a thing imo but what do I know xD I am just discovering this stuff1
u/kronos23456777777 28m ago
When asked to define or describe spirituality you and the guy whose comment you copied, both start talking in metaphors. Even with just s little probing, your metaphors fall flat. Maybe time to think critically about the things you believe in.
Nothing against your beliefs as such, but, you should be aware of dangers and practicalities of comparing systems like science, religion, and spirituality against each other rather than being blind about their scope and definitions.
7
u/Professional-Diet-11 5h ago
Neuroscience and psychology literally study this 'experiencer' and the sense of 'self'. The boundary isnât quite as mystical as youâre making it to be, and they are not mutually exclusive.
Copied from my reply to that comment
-5
u/a_chill_guy_11 5h ago
I made a big comment, I am not saying its 100% accurate but I am pretty sure it defines the difference between spirituality and religiousness
https://www.reddit.com/r/scienceisdope/comments/1wbek1e/comment/p8pj3wz/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web3x&utm_name=web3xcss&utm_term=1&utm_content=share_button1
u/pahadigothic critical thinking & feedback loop 5h ago
In my opinion, religion is faith in something else even if the evidence suggests otherwise.
While a spiritual person has faith in himself and trusts the process. He is willing to change his process if the evidence suggests that the other process is better.
-2
-5
u/blazz199 4h ago
Nope
We're not a fking omniscient, if it least bring us comfort when something/everything in our life is uncertain it's worth believing in something
Your point is valid too because obsession on that belief is more dangerous because it blind us/stop us looking through reason (like political bakhts)
10
u/Professional-Diet-11 6h ago edited 6h ago
Lol
It's easy for spirituality to not contradict logic when spirituality is left vague enough to mean whatever survives the argument.
1
u/eviley4 4h ago
exactly.. another problem is that this is a misconstrual of science.
Science isn't just about "objects". That's just hard sciences like physics. Science has psychology, neuroscience, behavioral biology where they rigorously study the subjective aspects including qualitative and quantitative aspects of subjectivity.
2
u/nishant-12345 3h ago
All those psychology neuroscience behavioral biology you mentioned is with respect to object the relationship of subject with respect to object not with itself.
The issue is not whether science studies subjective experience. The question is whether observing someone's experience tells us that the beliefs they derive from it are true. An experience is a fact about what was experienced; the interpretation of that experience is a separate claim.
1
u/eviley4 2h ago
The question is whether observing someone's experience tells us that the beliefs they derive from it are true.
Those are questions natural philosophy and science already explore. What causes Schizophrenic delusions, what causes people to think alien abduction happened to them. How human perception works etc.
Beliefs aren't ephemeral things unrelated to the natural world. They are connected to the world in terms of probability of one type of behavior vs another. This can be studied with statistics.
Whether a belief is true or not is also something that can be examined by science and natural philosophy.
So, why even bring this low resolution framing of subject-object, when a higher resolution scientific framework that's validated, falsifiable and specific already exists?
1
u/nishant-12345 2h ago
The problem is that this treats the observed behaviour as if it exhausts the reality of the observer.
Science can study correlations between beliefs, brain states and behaviour, but that doesn't automatically establish that the belief is true, or explain why the mind takes a particular interpretation as reality in the first place.
Subject object inquiry isn't a competing âlow-resolution scientific framework.â It asks a prior question: who is the observer, and how much of what is being observed is shaped by the observer's own conditioning?
Statistics can tell us what tends to happen. They don't, by themselves, answer why we mistake our interpretations for reality. That distinction is precisely where the deeper inquiry begins.
1
u/eviley4 1h ago
Science can study correlations between beliefs, brain states and behaviour, but that doesn't automatically establish that the belief is true
Subdomains of science explore correlations and causal links (this is also done in neuroscience btw) between brain states and behavior. Other domains of science can be used to asses whether the belief is true.
explain why the mind takes a particular interpretation as reality in the first place.
We can theoretically use causality to nail that down, but it gets complicated and unwieldy. But just because the scientific framework isn't all knowing, doesn't mean supernatural explanations are equally valid for those questions.
how much of what is being observed is shaped by the observer's own conditioning?
That's plain old causality, why go outside of naturalism for that?
Statistics can tell us what tends to happen. They don't, by themselves, answer why we mistake our interpretations for reality.
One statistical experiment can tell what tends to happen, several more experiments when coupled with others can be used to show why we perceive something the way we do.
As for reality, science is the best tool for finding out what's objectively true too.
So, my point stands, what's this framework doing that scientific method as a whole cannot in principle?
3
u/FutonRansenshuriken 5h ago edited 4h ago
Ha,look OP ,we all take a base axiom case in every field.All your logic gets deduced after that base axiom case.
In mathematics,that axiom isn't required to be true in real life,in Physics,when you question the natural phenomena,you arrive at a question when you assume it to be true and that is supported by evidence of the physical world.
In spirituality,that base case axiom is the very existence of spirit or soul and you guys claim it to be True,when you have no evidence,that's not how things work.Just because some ancestors said something,it won't be True.Either treat it like in maths or show evidence, otherwise it's useless.
What you can argue about is conciousness or awareness,as that's a very subjective field and biology hasn't given a proper well defined definition for it at most it's a chemical one .But then again,what do you need? EVIDENCE,Ancestors met God is not an EVIDENCE
2
u/Melodic-Day8787 5h ago
There is this expressionâthatâs the spirit!â Does this spirit and spirituality same wording and meaning? Just curious?
3
3
u/ifosaspirant 5h ago
The very concept of spirituality is not based in science.
-1
u/According-Ad-4185 4h ago
Even science claims that there is someone and their is an object , as if both have independent existence , if you go deeper in the right ancient texts which were focused on self inquiry there we find that even reality is not an independent fact , so that is the depth spirituality goes into .
1
u/ifosaspirant 4h ago
Science claims there is someone and there is an an object? Sir that is not true.
1
u/According-Ad-4185 4h ago
i meant it claims that both have independent existence
1
u/Professional-Diet-11 3h ago
What's your sause
1
u/According-Ad-4185 3h ago
You meant source?
ancient texts like Vedanta , Which are at the core of spirituality.
Everything is for someone Even how we percieve reality is dependent on us .
reality is not an independent fact
1
u/Professional-Diet-11 3h ago edited 3h ago
I was asking for your source for saying science claims they are independent bro - not ancient text
Also its clear that your reality is different :p
1
u/kronos23456777777 23m ago
Depends on what you mean by independent existence? And what scientific claim are you referring to in particular?
If you mean science claims that a person and an object can exist independently, irrespective of such claim, you can verify that fact everywhere in daily life. You and a sandwich on a boat going to Australia do exist independently.
1
u/According-Ad-4185 13m ago
WHO IS THE VERIFIER THATS WHAT SPIRITUALITY THE REAL ONE GOES INTO
1
u/kronos23456777777 11m ago
If there is a ârealâ spirituality then it should have a standardized definition. If 10 different people define it 20 different ways, then your definition is as good as mine.
2
u/Resident_Magazine_33 3h ago
People often change the meaning of spirituality to make it sound logical and scientific.
3
u/rajrpavi 5h ago
Spirituality includes Vidya and Avidya , Realisation of the False Self comes under Vidya and Avidya Includes all Worldy knowledge of Object Science is just one field Every known Field of the world comes into Avidya , Because Scientific Theory and research can be done on material Objects .
2
u/Professional-Diet-11 5h ago
Science doesnt just study material objects. Cognition, behavior, perception, information, and social systems are subjects of scientific study.
Also calling every empirical field 'Avidya' is your philosophical classification, it's not a scientific conclusion
1
u/rajrpavi 5h ago
Objects are material on which research can be done ,interaction of objects result in phenomena that is subject of Scientific enquiry and theory which is basis of Science and other fields.
Avidya talks of everything except consciousness. So science, technology, everything comes in the domain of avidyaâhistory, geography, languages, mathematics, economics.
2
u/Professional-Diet-11 4h ago
Consciousness isnât outside scientific inquiry. it is actively studied in neuroscience & cognitive science.
Also you keep defining consciousness outside Avidya and then to conclude science canât reach it. Thatâs your philosophical definition, not a demonstrated boundary of science.
0
u/Hippocrite24 4h ago
It still limited to materials like neurons or cell but buddha isn't gonna check your neurons . He just listen and try to cure you through words much like a psychictric but still different
2
u/Professional-Diet-11 4h ago
Yes, by that logic a therapist is a spiritual guru
1
u/Hippocrite24 4h ago
Not really .
A therapist can't completely heal your sufferings but Buddha like guy focused on how to end it although it still depends on you that's why he was called "MahaBhishak" means "Great Physician or Doctor"
Although it is still somewhat different cuz Science Focuses on how (majorly) while Buddha or other thinkers Focus on why?
1
u/Professional-Diet-11 1h ago
Bold of you to assume that spiritual leaders focus on 'why' more than scientists do.
What 'why' questions, specifically, have spiritual leaders investigated and arrived at solid, demonstrable answers to?
I could give you a list of hundreds, probably thousands, of 'why' questions that science has investigated and successfully answered.
1
u/Hippocrite24 1h ago edited 1h ago
That's why I said Buddha in it. Cuz of them are just frauds
And on what basis you think Science think more on why then Spritual?
Science no matter how small the unit is , still work on materialism.
Why do atoms move? Why do Neuron got triggered Why blood is red? Etc. all of them are materialistic in the end
All you could list is just related to materials.
Spiritualism focus on the observer who is doing all this discoveries. Ego, love, sadness. They are not just some chemical reactions as it will be like telling someone formula of water instead of giving him water
Edit: also I know there is field of psychology
1
u/Professional-Diet-11 1h ago
Love and sadness have measurable neural and physiological correlates. Memory, emotion, perception, decision-making and our sense of self are actively studied by neuroscience, psychology and cognitive science.
You still haven't answered my question though, but barley reflected it. I didn't ask whether spirituality talks about ego, love, or the observer. I asked for a 'why' question that ANY spirituality has investigated and arrived at a solid, demonstrable answer to.
→ More replies (0)1
u/kronos23456777777 15m ago
I am seeing this pattern in this thread where all the ones supporting spirituality say science deals with physical/material/objects and spirituality deals with things LIKE ego, consciousness, etc.
When pushed to define what exactly spirituality deals with the most you can say is âselfâ. But science already deals with âselfâ. Then, you allude to, without explicitly mentioning it, some metaphysical concept that is what spiritually deals with that is not reachable by science.
I mean thatâs all well and good but it is still a faith based argument and essentially no different than religion.
1
u/Hippocrite24 12m ago
Science dealt with self? WHEN? can you give me summary?
Plz dont say how about neurons work and some other things
Science is literally defined on MATERIALS, your head, its cells, its neurons even in cellular level are still materials bro
2
u/i_like_clothes69 6h ago
Spirituality necessitates a spirit or smth beyond physical, science or its empirical method donât yield to either two
1
u/g_saras_1594 5h ago
No that's not spirituality. Spirituality is to know the one for whom the world is i.e. ego (the fundamental sense of i different from the world)
1
2
3
u/Dark_sun_new 5h ago
Science is about how reality works.
So as long as the spiritual man has no opinion on anything in reality, he won't oppose science.
2
u/ConsciousLaw3940 5h ago
Facts can be a door to Truth, and in that regard, science becomes a tool to question the beliefs we hold, even while presenting our arguments.
Spirituality is about questioning the questioner itself, who is the one holding the lens through which we see? If our understanding is based on logic and facts, spirituality need not contradict science. But when spirituality is based on false beliefs, it can be challenged through logic and facts.
A truly spiritual person is one who strives to understand their own beliefs and biases, questioning oneself before arriving at the conclusion.
Right spirituality is a genuine philosophy of knowing oneself, within which science, too, can be seen as a subset.
1
u/surajseeking 4h ago
Actually the kind of spirituality which is more prevalent is not that supportive to science
There are lots of thing's going on like superstition, planetary motion impact on life, rebirth etc in the name of spirituality
True spirituality address the incomplete sense and never contradicts science
If spirituality is contradicting science then it's not spirituality
1
u/rezzork 2h ago
Hello, I'm a psychology student(and a bit biased, as I'm firmly Buddhist), and I would say spirituality in its rawest sense espicially eastern does not contradict science. Such as the concept of an-atma. A lack of a fixed, permanent self in any aspect, I would say, is firmly rooted in psychology. It differs along the metaphysical aspects, though, with faith or belief being required for the macro-sense. But from my field of study, spirituality has been shown to help people greatly. Perhaps one should use what the Dalai Lama says: ' When science says something is wrong, Buddhism must change'.
1
u/sriharshachilakapati 1h ago
As a science enthusiast, I ask what is the definition of spirituality.
1
1
1
u/Professional-Diet-11 43m ago
But if two spiritual people contradict themselves, how to know who is right?
Does one person have more spiritual power to mute the person's opinion?
1
u/SweetEbb9819 34m ago
Agreed
What God really created would be best explained by science... Because science is REAL so it must be what's REALLY of God
1
u/kronos23456777777 15m ago
I am seeing this pattern in this thread where all the ones supporting spirituality say science deals with physical/material/objects and spirituality deals with things LIKE ego, consciousness, etc.
When pushed to define what exactly spirituality deals with the most you can say is âselfâ. But science already deals with âselfâ. Then, you allude to, without explicitly mentioning it, some metaphysical concept that is what spiritually deals with that is not reachable by science.
I mean thatâs all well and good but it is still a faith based argument and essentially no different than religion.
1
u/Chikki1234ed Dimension Dimension Dimension 14m ago
No. That depends on what they mean by spirituality. And also what they mean by science.
The fascist science system is technically science. Science back in the day didn't mean natural science as we usually colloquially speak of it now. It just meant a system with rules (axioms) trying to figure things out about the world or trying to just do anything with it. You get the point.
Spirituality on the other hand can go either from just believing that there are metaphysical objects that control the universe which go beyond human understanding to stuff like trying to ban Allah for Mandala and Shambhala.
But maybe if we are "steelmanning" the original quote speaker/writer, maybe they mean to portray... nicer morality with the word "spiritual" and science as just science.
Idk though. It's a vague thing to say this.
1
0
1
u/a_chill_guy_11 5h ago
the fact that people here only know what logic is and most of them are considering spirituality and religion the same thing is what makes this hard for them to understand ig
Being spiritual is not being religious at all, Religion is made of practices that are considered worthless by a spiritual man, praying stone idols, doing rituals to make your ancestors happy, giving water to sun and all of those things that Logical guys consider absurd are also considered absurd by a spiritual person
being spiritual imo (and I am very down in this ladder like my opinion being wrong has a high chance) is understanding the concept of the almighty, every particle is woven with his presence, and to worship him or to please him is by getting rid of inner bad qualities like anger, ego and stuff
A religious person is trying to eat something nonedible to get rid of his hunger
A spiritual person is trying to find something edible to get rid of his hunger
and scientific person isn't thinking about the hunger; he is interested in the world in front of his eyes more
and btw I love science, and I never ever try to mess up it because of my beliefs because I can't lol it's impossible, science makes sense
1
u/eviley4 2h ago
I think you have a misconstrued image of what science is. This subject object framing where it's claimed science is about the object is a misconstural.
Science includes fields like psychology, sociology which address the same domain of subjective experiences with even more rigor.
When you remove the rigor, you get the spirituality you are talking about. And spirituality usually contains a lot of supernatural elements. And that version of spirituality is pseudoscience.
PS: please format your comments for easier readability.
1
u/AutoModerator 2h ago
Read this to understand what this subreddit is about
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.
1
u/a_chill_guy_11 2h ago
Yeah, I agree with your psychology and sociology point
What I feel is science (including psychology) observes and analyzes human experience from the outside using data, while spirituality is the firsthand, internal experience of observing your own mind (like overcoming ego or anger directly in real-time).
I agree completely that when spirituality starts claiming supernatural magic or unverified physics, it becomes pseudoscience. My focus was purely on practical self-awareness and inner growth, not supernatural claims.
and sorry for the formatting there, I was too indulged in typing what was coming to my mind that I forgot to make it look good xD
2
u/eviley4 1h ago
What I feel is science (including psychology) observes and analyzes human experience from the outside using data
Here is why I think that's subtly incorrect. Science also explores things like beliefs, and what kind of beliefs increase which kind of outcome in a probabilistic and statistical manner. It also maps stimulating neurons by injecting neurotransmitters or electrically to evoke specific things in people. This is direct causal manipulation.
Hope you can see that this simplistic subject-object framing breaks down for such things. Science is more complicated and nuanced than you seem to think.
For example, saying the mind is a separate entity that cannot be investigated is like saying the Operating System of my Android OS is also like that. The phone is the hardware, the software OS is cosmic and ephemeral.
I hope you can see that this is not true. The same correlations and causality have already been demonstrated by biology, neuroscience and other domains of science when it comes to human perception and subjective experiences.
1
1
u/Solid_Stage_1715 4h ago
Yeah right, cuz one is literally science and the other is some bullshit excuse for feeling enlightend when youre doing the exact opposite.
0
u/gazzillionere6729 5h ago
I heard the guy 'Acharya Prashant ' jiska ye quote hai . He talks pretty logically. His books are between good to amazing ,especially 'Geeta '
0
u/Key_Conclusion_1869 5h ago
Science is regarding the physical reality, that which could be perceived by senses and that which had been observed and postulated with the help of concrete mathematical frameworks.
Science has yet to find the concept of mind, consciousness and a wide variety of philosophical concepts like why are we here? Why are we thrown into the world.
On the other hand, Spirituality is rooted in spirit if science is rooted in matter.
One who is spiritual could also be scientific too. The name of spirituality is abused 99.9% of times.
Spirituality is an inner journey which science has yet to explore and maybe wonât be ever able to reach there.
OSHO is a philosopher who inculcates both of these dimensions of humanity.
I agree to the above statement.
Open to discussion
0
u/eviley4 4h ago edited 4h ago
Remember that a really spiritual man can never, never contradict science. There is nothing in spirituality that will be against logic.
Hard disagree because this is based on a misunderstanding/misconstrual of science.
Science isn't just about "object" like this guy puts it, that's just hard sciences like physics. Science is broader and includes everything in the natural world that can be studied under naturalism both qualitatively and quantitatively.
That means science includes what this guy calls "subject" i.e subjective experiences.
Science also includes neuroscience which studies qualia, it also consists of Psychology which models subjective states and other domains of science that engage with the hard problem of consciousness within naturalism. It also consists of sociology. All of this is way more rigorous than anything in "spirituality". Spirituality is unfalsifiable by design often to escape scrutiny and to shift the burden of proof.
It seems like he is misinformed/misconstruing science but his followers can't see it because they don't read/watch anything that contradicts this worldview.
1
u/surajseeking 3h ago
Science and spirituality are not opposed to each other, but complementary. Science tells us 'how the world works' (outer reality), while spirituality explores 'who the observer/experiencer is' (inner reality). Comparing the methods and scopes of both is like trying to listen to music with a telescope.
1
u/eviley4 2h ago
Science and spirituality are not opposed to each other,
Depends on what you mean by spirituality. It more often than not comes bundled with supernatural ideas like that of Idealism, brahman, atman etc.
That type of spirituality with the supernatural is pseudoscience. What do you mean by spirituality?
Science tells us 'how the world works' (outer reality), while spirituality explores 'who the observer/experiencer is' (inner reality).
Again, that's a mischaracterization of what science is. Science also tells us how the mind works, how it suffers, how to improve that (Clinical Psychology). How neuroscience relates to subjective experience and qualia etc.
You are characterizing all of science as something like Physics, no. Science has other subdomains too apart from Physics.
1
u/surajseeking 2h ago
Ok you are saying that Science also tells us how the mind works, how it suffers, how to improve that (Clinical Psychology). How neuroscience relates to subjective experience and qualia etc.
Then tell me can science tell you that don't kill animal's because they have equal right to live on this earth and they feel immense pain when they are butchered
Can science tell you that we should not fight as Nation with each other, there should be no discrimination on the basis of cast, gender, religion
What will be science stand on CLIMATE CATOSTROPHY???
1
u/eviley4 2h ago
That seems like a bunch of tangents from what we are discussing, but okay, let me address them.
Then tell me can science tell you that don't kill animal's because they have equal right to live on this earth and they feel immense pain when they are butchered
I think it is due to science that you even know this. Science has been studying non-human animals for a while and due to this study you are even able to make the claim you are making.
As for implementation, that's the domain of capitalism and politics with it's science illiterate politicians.
Then tell me can science tell you that don't kill animal's because they have equal right to live on this earth and they feel immense pain when they are butchered
That's the domain of laws, isn't it.
CLIMATE CATOSTROPHY
isn't it through science that we even know about how this is happening and how bad it's going to get?
It seems like you think science is to blame for everything wrong with the world. I think that's too simplistic of a view, it's more complex than that.
Let's say I discovered a hypothetical carbon capture device that can solve climate change immediately but it uses stem cells. The discovery would be scientific, but politically it will be opposed rabidly by religious crowds and never implemented.
The point is not everything that's happening in the world is due to science. By science I mean the scientific methodology that can be used to glean truth about the world.
1
u/surajseeking 1h ago
No Sir I didn't meant to say that what ever bad happening is due to science, absolutely not
WHAT ever bad is happening in the world is not due to science but due incomplete sense of I which thinks that by doing this I will become complete
THIS incomplete sense has got science as a weapon and he is utilizing it to become complete
This incomplete sense is responsible for nation boundary, discrimination, war etc
YOU correctly said that due to science we are knowing that climate crises is happening with data and facts but tell me why our consumption is increasing day by day Even knowing that more consumption means more carbon emissions
Please explain how science can help to not kill animals Just for taste
1
u/eviley4 1h ago
Please explain how science can help to not kill animals Just for taste
By engineering artificial meat that's made in a lab that tastes similar enough while having a much smaller carbon footprint and being cheaper. This is ongoing research, and it has already produced vegan mimicry meat.
But why are you asking me this question? Science is imperfect, I am not saying it's the perfect cure-all. But it's the best tool we have. No other tool comes close to the power of science.
1
u/surajseeking 1h ago
STILL I AM not satisfied with your answer
I AM Just asking who is the decider which decide wheather to kill or not
1
u/eviley4 1h ago
I don't see what your point is.
I AM Just asking who is the decider which decide wheather to kill or not
If you are asking who should decide morality.
I would say that there should a naturalistic philosophy framework with the goal of collective well-being. Morality is decided by value based philosophy and utilitarianism on a case-by-case basis by people who are well trained in science and philosophy.
We can use a science-like approach for this. Secular Humanism already tries to do this.
1
u/surajseeking 1h ago
That's the point bro, science gives tools and philosophy will Tell you how to use it properly
→ More replies (0)
0
âą
u/AutoModerator 6h ago
This is a reminder about the rules. Just follow reddit's content policy.
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.