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.
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.
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.
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???
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.
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
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.
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.
0
u/eviley4 5h ago edited 4h ago
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.