Poll:science Or Spirituality

[scameter]

I didn't know how to do a real poll, so let's just do it here:


Which one does everyone in here prefer, science and math or spirituality and the arts? And, i know it requires balance of both for accuracy, but i'm curious of everyone's own personal preference.

[sahyo]

not possible 'equal'

;)

[scameter]

me too. i personally prefer spirituality and the arts though myself, but i do like science and math too and admit that they warrant attention and observation. one can not be it's true self without the other. :)

[sahyo]

yes oil and water doesn't mix though liquid :)

[Truthbearer]

emulsify -- synthesis?

A balance of all .. is all.

Creativity in arts, in maths, science, is spirit.
Our creativity is our spirit, practising creation.

xx Pat

[scameter]

yes, but as is our ability to have faith, hope, and spirituality.

[mctonale]

I beleve in science because it can be proven by experementation.
But I beleve in spirituality because of faith. (though I am not religious)

I prefer science. because if something is true it is true. but spirituality is a belief.

Beliefs are........ subjective.

scameter - you knew I was going to say that?

Also everything (that we know) comes down to maths. (may be more relevent to other threads)

[scameter]

mctonale:you knew I was going to say that?

huh? :think:

mctonale:Also everything (that we know) comes down to maths. (may be more relevent to other threads)

I would disagree by saying that everything is derivitive from language, including math.

[Thomas Knierim]

scameter: Which one does everyone in here prefer, science and math or spirituality and the arts?

Science, math, spirituality, religion, and the arts appear to be very different fields of practice, but in the end they are all the same. They are all forms of creativity aimed at understanding and defining existence.

Cheers, Thomas

[sahyo]

They are all forms of creativity aimed at understanding and defining existence.

no :)

[scameter]

true, Thomas, but most people do not see that truth. but, i meant your own personal preference.

asheera:no

how can you validate that answer to Thomas's statement,"Science, math, spirituality, religion, and the arts appear to be very different fields of practice, but in the end they are all the same. They are all forms of creativity aimed at understanding and defining existence."?

[sahyo]

.................................................. .....................i............................ .......n...................................g

[bito]

i n g


asheera, for 'me', feeling 'ing' is sweeting-aching, as if loving desiring singing loving, yet seeing no meaning for love song to sing?

... 'same' for 'you'?

:)

[sahyo]

not possible explaining

:)

[scameter]

are bito and asheera ok, as they are really talking oddly recently it seems. <_<

[scameter]

hell now i'm sounding odd too. :lol:

[sahyo]

:lol:

:D

[scameter]

:lol:

[WilliamMckeehan]

:lol: funny

[scameter]

thanks :D

[bito]

not possible explaining

:)

clouds cool
under trees through the ivy trail
pavement

by the sidewalk
grows the lavender thistle blossom
traffic passing

large flowers
open pink perking the morning sky
stream breeze

round bushes
erect sprouting white speckle buds
rain drizzling

tiny leaves
hang low from branches overhead
sheltering dry

street light
motion stops for crossing the road
moist scenting

the bridge
arches over the freeway speeding
colors flowing

the vacant lot
abundantly sweetly unhampered
yellow sage

:)

[bito]

sc :D meter

[sahyo]

b :D ito

[scameter]

the odd couple, asheera and bito: :D <_<

nice poem asheera. although odd, all the best poems are odd, and, as Thomas knows, i appreciate and have a love for lingual beauty. :)

[sahyo]

B)

nice enjoyed sweeting scameter :)

[scameter]

asheera:nice enjoyed sweeting scameter

so, you enjoyed my complimentary remark and i'm sweet, is what i got from that. was my interpretation correct? :blink: :lol:

[sahyo]

so, you enjoyed my complimentary remark

wasn't saying enjoyed complimentary remark

and i'm sweet

wasn't saying are sweet

[scameter]

then what are you saying, every time you say something it's some confusing mumbo-jumbo! what are you saying?? i want to know, but you won't ever tell anyone, me anyways. :knockout:

[sahyo]

is ok...wasn't words sweeting

;)

[scameter]

ooooooook ;) :rolleyes: :lol:

[todd]

The greeks were saying that geometry and music is a prerequisite for philosophy. I agree

[scameter]

as do i, that makes sense.

[WilliamMckeehan]

well.. ya i dont know anything about that :lol: :lol: so i dont really know how to reply to it but sure the greeks were smart :D

[WilliamMckeehan]

oh and asheera ....your answers are way too interesting :think: i dont understand um but ... ya keep up the good replys :lol: :lol:

[sahyo]

i dont understand

wHOopi

:lol: :lol:

:D

[scameter]

:lol:

[WilliamMckeehan]

:lol:

im guessing that is a good thing? <_<

[scameter]

of course, what else could it be, Will? :D

[WilliamMckeehan]

;) well i wasnt sure so i thought i might ask but as long as its a good thing then...



wHOopi all the way i guess :lol:



i dont know what that has to do with science or

[sahyo]

wHOopi all the way i guess :lol:

yes :lol:



i dont know what that has to do with science or

not wHOopi?

[WilliamMckeehan]

nope wHOopi is not science or spirituality lol :lol: :lol:

[scameter]

wHOopi is an emotion of happiness, usually, unless it is expressed dryly. :D

[sahyo]

nope wHOopi is not science or spirituality lol :lol: :lol:

:lol: as though can separating wHOopi? :lol:




.............:D

[sahyo]

wHOopi is an emotion of happiness, usually, unless it is expressed dryly. :D

hehe

not just wHOhoHOopi?

[sahyo]

will
scameter

called
science
spirituality

not

clouds cool
under trees through the ivy trail
pavement

by the sidewalk
grows the lavender thistle blossom
traffic passing

large flowers
open pink perking the morning sky
stream breeze

round bushes
erect sprouting white speckle buds
rain drizzling

tiny leaves
hang low from branches overhead
sheltering dry

street light
motion stops for crossing the road
moist scenting

the bridge
arches over the freeway speeding
colors flowing

the vacant lot
abundantly sweetly unhampered
yellow sage

wHOopi

ing

?

[WilliamMckeehan]

ummm ok im a little lost but cool words anyways asheera :D

[sahyo]

im a little lost

ok... :D mmmmmm

ta

[scameter]

:blink: :lol:

[WilliamMckeehan]

*shrugs* ... this is not going anywere :lol:

[strawfield]

I think Science is the langage of understanding what surrounds us and the arts is the language of understanding whats within us.

[sahyo]

*shrugs* ... this is not going anywere* :lol:



:thumbsup:

[sahyo]

scameter :lol:

[scameter]

i agree somewhat strawfield, but i think that science should not be placed in correlation with language as they are very different, even merely the title of language. i think science is the rationale and the logic of man exerted onto the material existence. i think the arts are what truly make us human, as Nietzsche also said, as they cover up the very harsh truth of life's pointlessness, although i don't think life is pointless Nietzsche did, with untruth. we live behind veils of untruth, of lies. the arts, music, language, religion, all a means of essential escaping from this pointless existance, in Nietzsche's view that is.

[Owen]

scameter:
Which one does everyone in here prefer, science and math or spirituality and the arts? And, i know it requires balance of both for accuracy, but i'm curious of everyone's own personal preference.


Your grouping is not exclusive.

I prefer science and logic and mathematics and the arts, but, I reject spirituality of any kind.

What makes you believe that there are any spiritual things??

Owen

[scameter]

what makes you exist?

[zewc]

i have to sit on the fence here and say that it requires a balance of both. science is great to explain about the materials in life, matter and such, but as astronomers know, that all the matter that makes up you and me is only 5% of the total mass/energy of the universe.

The 95% is made up of stuff that we simply dont know. For me this is where spiruality comes into practice...

so....

I trust in science in so much as it helps me understand my spiritual side.

[MidnightSun]

i agree...

by the way have u heard about theory that where are smaller components than protons neutrons and electrons? Those components are energy, spiritual thing.

[zewc]

HI. I have heard a lot of theories about spiritual energy comprising the very element of the universe....these ideas have existed for as long as man has been able to think.

There are particles that are smaller than protons and neurtron, SUB-ATOMIC particles such as quarks, gluons, neutrinos and many many more.

Personally i do not wholly beleive that spirituality is rooted in matter, but rather in the mind, which for me transcends space-time. As per my previous message, the 95% of the energy-mass budget that us astrophysicists have no idea about provides the perfect canvass inwhich to formulate ideas about what it is...i could really go on here, but for me, i like the idea that Descartes created, the idea of "dualism" and that there is a balance of mind and matter. Matter is only 5% of the universe, and i beleive that mind/spirituality is part of the other 95%. We use the matter to help us learn (i.e. through evolution) until we reach the stage in our existance where we understand. click.

:wacko:

[zewc]

by the way have u heard about theory that where are smaller components than protons neutrons and electrons? Those components are energy, spiritual thing.

I found in one of my old philosophy books and idea by Leibnitz that i think you might be refering to.

For Leibnitz, the universe is built up of units of force. Every body in the universe is consits of different arrangements of these units of force, which he termed monads, or force-atoms.

Each monad is eternal, it cannot be created or destoryed. It is also pretty much separate from the universe, or in other terms, each monad contains within itself the entire universe. Thus, since the monad has no "windows" all this it becomes is contained within it from the beginning.

He then goes on to describe monads as having differnt types of clarity. Monads that "make" rocks are very cloudy, those that make humans are less cloudy, and those that make up god are the clearest of all.

He also states that each of these monads possess free will and are able to arrange themselves into whatever pattern they desire. Thus, when they arrange into humans, humans also have free will.

Interested? Im afraid that I find his ideas a bit archaic (he did live in the late 1600's!) but thought provoking. And i find this idea somewhat similar to the topic of converastion over in the "atoms are spaceships" room.

:thumbsup:

[MidnightSun]

Well atom stuff is not finished yet, a lot of theories and not so much time, dont worry, we will find out it one day. Less headache :) .

[Thomas Knierim]

Zwec: As per my previous message, the 95% of the energy-mass budget that us astrophysicists have no idea about provides the perfect canvass inwhich to formulate ideas about what it is...

i could really go on here

Please do so.

Dark matter has been a cosmological mystery for some time. But somehow we came to accept it as such. A missing piece of the jigsaw puzzle. A white spot on the map which was enigmatic yet clearly defined. We knew there is some form of gravity-inducing principle (matter?) that –although it wasn’t yet explained– has a good chance of being explained by a grand unifying theory (GUT) in the future and that such a theory would also answer the question of the ultimate fate of the universe. Then they discovered dark energy. This had me completely flabbergasted and I feel a bit like it’s back to square one in cosmology. Now, what the dickens is dark energy? I know it is not known, but what is your best guess, your closest approximation, your fanciest theory?

Cheers, Thomas

[MidnightSun]

bad emotions casts bad energy into space ;)

[sonrisa]

& if you send bad energy into space it'll come back & bite you in the butt.

1st Law of Thermodynamics (tho not in those exact words)

the love you take is equal to the love you make- Paul McCartney

:)

[venom mama]

for myself i have to say i'm more of a spiritual/artistic person. there are alot of victims when it comes to science. think of all the animals experimented on in labs today. the animals sent up into space with no way to return. the creatures all through history tortured just to satisfy one's curiosity.

art is about love and beauty and peace. i'm a good bit bohemien in my way of thinking.

[sonrisa]

a bohemian redneck?

that's either a 1st or a contradiction in terms :)

[venom mama]

yes

[scameter]

well but see venom, science wasn't always like that, and in my opinion doesn't have to be like that. the Greeks were both artistic and scientific, as were most Eastern cultures, not seeing a definite seperation in the two like we do. everything was done from a wonderlust about life, from art to war to sex to science to anything else; an extentsion of themselves. freely. and it is a pity that we are as we are now.

[MidnightSun]

yeah, those Greeks were great.

[scameter]

:D yep. well, not completely; do not forget that they were very warlike and had slaves and the like, but the ones that were good were very good.

[MidnightSun]

:lol: i would say they were warlike coz they only defended themselves ,but yeah, Greeks were nice.

[scameter]

lol not quite. Greeks invaded alot.

[MidnightSun]

They were fighting a lot with themselves. For example sparta's and athens coalitions, but they never started war ,remember Persians, they declared war ,not Greeks, and the best defence is to atack...logical :)

[scameter]

well, i don't really agree that the best defense is a good offense, i think the best defense is a good defense. and, the Greeks invaded constantly. they colonized many lands, like the Roman peninnsula and parts of northern Africa, and islands in the Mediterranean and Aegean.

[MidnightSun]

i agree with u scam ,but Greeks though diffrent..thats why we are smarter buddy ;)

[scameter]

we aren't smarter than anyone else has ever been. we have no intelligence, no life. just life, nothing. hard, putrid. disgusting, blinding to the aware eye. there is no "smart".

[MidnightSun]

D o u always have to argue me?

[scameter]

lol no, but it does seem what i'm best at. :P and, by you posting your opinions on this board you are leaving them subject to scrutinization, including mine :D

[MidnightSun]

Noone agress with me,oh well :( Gonna look somewhere else...

[scameter]

hey! i do agree with that! :lol:

[MidnightSun]

WHY YOU LITTLE! :boxing:

[scameter]

:twoguns: :D

[venom mama]

yes, fight.

[scameter]

ok: :boxing: :boxing: :twoguns: :twoguns: :D

[Jori]

I believe that philosophy and religion (call it spirituality if you like), not science and psychology, is the hope of mankind. Unlike the first two, the last two cannot tell us where we should go. Efficiency and productivity is not the answer to our problems. We have to know where to be efficient and productive at. The first two, not the last two can tell us that. We can set goals, but philosophy and religion will tell us the right goals.

[scameter]

From your point of view that is true. But i think that everything in the mind should exist and be applied, science and philosophy equally with psychology and religion. All are here, and thus are important and necessary. :) Oh and btw, don't confuse religion with spirituality. They are completely different, spirituality lacking the dogma of religion, and religion lacking the spirituality and freedom of spirituality.

[Smurf]

yes but religion and philosophy cannot advance without the inout of science and psychology and vice versa science and psychology cannot advance without the guidence and thinking processes of philosophy and religion.

[scameter]

I agree. Well partially. I think all of them can advance individually; they are better to do so together, but individually is possible. I prefer natural philosophy; it is essentially a blend of naturalistic nature observation and philosophical contemplation and thought, lacking the scientific dogma of mathematical representation which in the end limits your sight to mere math. :)

[Smurf]

Yes i know but should we try to use only one of these things? if all of them work together then can't we put them all together and maximise our advance through life, although to what goal is uncertain.

[scameter]

Yes, definitely. But not one is more important than another, remember that. And also remember what i said on one of the topics in "Religion", that individual relativity, living life humanly and passionately, and to be wise and virtuous must be applied to everything. :)

[kurt]

Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind.
- Albert Einstein, in The New Convergence

i believe spirituality and science are so completely intertwined, that to me, the two are almost indiscernible

[scameter]

True. But, what is important is the persistance of spirituality in both. :)

[scameter]

Right, which Einstein would definitely agree with. :)

[scameter]

Yes, but he also spent alot of his time thinking that humanity should have an all-imcompassing view of existence, not merely science or any other specific field.

[kurt]

patience my friend, we still have quite a journey still ahead of us. even though right now we are a bit stagnant in our evolution, i feel very optimistic about our future.

[scameter]

I'm glad you can. :)

[locomotive]

science is spiritual whatever that is and math is an art.

[scameter]

lol

[scameter]

That is art. Not math. Even if math was used, it is not mathematical or logical; it has colouration, which is illogical; it has shape abnormally, which is illogical, and it was created for an artistic purpose, which is illogical. It is art.

[scameter]

Neither am I dogmatic or absolutist. I merely posed an opinion, and tell me, how long did you actually consider it before drawing your "absolute conclusion"? 'quantum quasi crystals...a superimposition of 21 plane waves travelling in 21 evenly spaced directions arround the compass...bessel 21'... That is all it is. Science, with the help of math, to grant us what we think is the only possible view of the heart of existence in this "quantum" world. But, ask yourself why you/they so desire to see this?

[Kether]

I believe in spirituality because of faith.
Spirituality and faith are not synonymous, or even similar. They appear to be because religion brings both together, but one can easily exist without the other.
I define spirituality as essentially meaning subjectivity - our emotions, our art, our wisdom, our morality. Faith, on the other hand, means dogmatic, restrictive belief. What is good about faith? I fail to see how it qualifies as an argument in favour of spirituality. On the contrary, faith does not produce good spirituality. We need objective knowledge about the universe upon which we can base our spirituality, and the best form of this is science. True science – with its spirit of enquiry – is incompatible with faith.

[Kether]

As implied in the last post, I do not regard science and spirituality as incompatable or opposed. On the contrary - our best spirituality and subjectivity needs to be based on truth, which can be viewed through science. And science is fundamentally a product of our subjectivity, though it is one of its most objective products.

[Smurf]

Science is the sail, Spirituality is the rudder :P

"The Prophet"

[scameter]

Seeing truth through science....hmm, an odd concept indeed. Why is religion/faith/dogma so wrong? What if, and please try to resist falling into shock, the ideas to which a religion is based are actually good, rational, compassionate, and human to say the least, and that the religious "dogma" and faith are actually appointed to the religion out of respect, not obligation or boredom?

[MidnightSun]

Believes/religion must fit science.

[Kether]

Religion, faith and dogma inhibit objective questioning, because they foster bias in their favour. Moreover, when dogmas are held to be essential for goodness, they will be upheld in society at all costs - even when science proves them wrong. Faith means that anything that questions or refutes a dogma should be suppressed. Goodness is based on knowledge, and thus to suppress forms of acquiring knowledge is to suppress goodness.

[scameter]

How could science possibly prove the objective meaning questioning wrong? It is subjective and physical, not metaphysical. Yes, many religions have dogma that is restrictive and/or biased, but what if indeed a religion's rules and laws weren't dogmatic or limiting? What if they were actually unlimiting? Science seems rather dogmatic to me; it is limited to mathematical conception. Darwin didn't use mathematical formula to discover evolution; he merely observed it. Simply. Ask yourself why it is that science and logic try so hard to destroy religion? That is one of the largest philosophical issues regarding science; it's effect on religion and spirituality (which unfortunately is partially due to the hypocritical paranoia of so-called religious Christians trying to evade something that if they had true faith would pose no threat). Science has nothing to do with religion. I'm not saying they're mutually exclusive, but they are different. Science attempts to describe and formalize the things in this world into conceptuality in order for us to understand without much time, with use of referencial terms and theories. Religion is metaphysical; it doesn't deal with the physical. Or, if it does, it deals with it in regards to spirituality. Religion (not church mind you) is a formalization of spiritual and transcendental philosophical ideals; science should pose no threat, and actually should be complimentary, to this, merely explaining and describing the world through the natural eyes of logic. This could not possibly defeat religion and spirituality in any way, unless the practitioner's faith was hypocritical and lacking in sincerity. The reason people find logic and science and math to be so concrete and liberating is because it takes little effort; from birth, we are trained to use logic. Our bodies do it naturally, with tasks of all kinds such as walking, talking, and eating. And so, it of course comes naturally, and when something logical or mathematical or scientific is memorized and is able to be applied with efficiency by an individual, it gives said individual a certain demeanor of power over other people, an ability to prove themselves, to conquer something. Science, unfortunately, to people is no longer for pleasure or to satisfy the enjoyable quality of natural curiosity of our existence; it no longer bears philosophical aspects. It is merely for two things: the ability for one to have power over other people through the memorization of a formula/theory, and for such theories to be applied efficiently to both makes life fuller of luxury and for the gaining of money. Or, if people do indeed enjoy it, they forget to see it philosophically; they lack sight of the production consequence of their application, only seeing the mechanism and as their memorization and efficient application of it as a conquering effect, which is unfortunate.

[locomotive]

I don't get what the benefit is of this metaphysical thing. If it has meaning then it is a part of a system and therefore something for science.

[Ronagon]

I don't get what the benefit is of this metaphysical thing. If it has meaning then it is a part of a system and therefore something for science.

The word "metaphysical" simply means "over-arching".

The "meta-" part has to do with "over", "through", or "across", and the whole word basically means looking at things in an overarching, philosophical, logical, meaningful sense.

[locomotive]

so it would be something for science.

[Ronagon]

so it would be something for science.

Well, very often it's something for science, but you can think metaphysically in any field. After all, all fields revolve around philosophy. Even plumbers think metaphysically.

After all, you think metaphysically when you think in terms of "the big picture" and about the implications for what you are doing. In this way, a plumber has to think about the implications for all the various choices he makes in terms of how to construct or repair plumbing... because the function of plumbing is to perform an important function, and the flow of water has its own unique properties, depending on whether it's flowing upwards, downwards, or being split into multiple pathways.

In truth, we human beings cannot help but think metaphysically.

[scameter]

Hmm...I like that, Ron. To me, what you just said is evidence of our ability, and indeed our state of consciousness, to think philosophically by nature, which is why those so attached to science and logic, thinking themselves seperate from the metaphysical or philosophical state, are ignorant. I suppose, that "spiritual" should suit more in how I was thinking of metaphysical, which I thought meant "above the physical" or "beyond the physical".

[scameter]

Objectivity. :)

[locomotive]

[QUOTE]philosophically by nature, which is why those so attached to science and logic, thinking themselves seperate from the metaphysical or philosophical state, are ignorant. I suppose, that "spiritual" should suit more in how I was thinking of metaphysical, which I thought meant "above the physical" or "beyond the physical". [QUOTE]
It's not that they are attached to science and logic, it's that they are attached to knowledge whitch is a world wide problem. First you observe then you use logic.

[scameter]

How can you not be attached to knowledge?

[Kether]

What if … a religion's rules and laws weren't dogmatic or limiting? What if they were actually unlimiting?
It is impossible for a religion to not be dogmatic. ‘Religion’ is not the same as ‘spirituality’: religion means faith. And faith means dogmatism.
Science attempts to describe and formalize the things in this world into conceptuality in order for us to understand without much time, with use of referencial terms and theories. Religion is metaphysical; it doesn't deal with the physical.
Faith closes the mind far more than reliance on formulae or conceptuality ever could. Such conceptualisations respond to the nature of causality in the world more closely than any other form of knowledge. Faith, on the other hand, does not mimic causality in the way that logic does, and doesn’t try to. It is belief for the sake of belief, not for the sake of knowledge – even if the believer does not know this. Where belief in a certain doctrine becomes an end in itself, the believer is willing to sacrifice questioning, and in doing so sacrifice knowledge.

[scameter]

No. Faith doesn't mean dogmatism. Religion's strict politics makes it have dogmatism; it was meant to be an order of people who thought philosophically on spiritual and theological issues relating to both their teachings in which they hold belief and to life in general. And, also, there is one vital quality science lacks that, unfortunately, church lacks: wisdom. Philosophy, as was so in Greek society, should be present in all fields, including both science and religion.

[locomotive]

yet the curch doesn't wan't to philosophize about the teachings only the meaning of those teachings.

[scameter]

You're right; which is it's fault.

[Kether]

Faith
Pronunciation: 'fAth
Function: noun
1 a : allegiance to duty or a person : LOYALTY b (1) : fidelity to one's promises (2) : sincerity of intentions
2 a (1) : belief and trust in and loyalty to God (2) : belief in the traditional doctrines of a religion b (1) : firm belief in something for which there is no proof (2) : complete trust
3 : something that is believed especially with strong conviction; especially : a system of religious beliefs

[scameter]

I see you emphasized some of that definition, Kether. That was very unnecessary. Obviously, with dictionary words, they pose several different options for the definition to the word, and obviously this is for the choosing of the individual, for his/her specific need of the specified word. To you, obviously, the emphasized section is your view; mine, is the entirety of 1 as well as 3.

[Kether]

Then I suppose the definition of 'faith' is relative - a subjective matter of personal preference. In which case, we've been arguing over two different things. I see no way in which we can refute each other's definitions, so I won't try to.
You seem to be equating faith with spirituality - something that I don't consider dangerous, so I agree with you over that point. As for my definition of faith, as dogmatic belief - do you consider that a good thing? Or a necessary thing? Or part of spirituality?

[Kether]

"Firm belief in something for which there is no proof (2) : complete trust." You can have this without it being imposed on you be religious doctrine.
Maybe so. This kind of 'faith' has been one of the most destructive forces in the history of humanity, even when it has not been faith in religion. Belief for the sake of belief, regardless of the evidence - a sure path to disrespect for the truth. As I said earlier: where belief in a certain doctrine becomes an end in itself, the believer is willing to sacrifice questioning, and in doing so sacrifice knowledge.

[scameter]

I personally do not think faith is dogmatic, especially not inherently. It is too often translated into a dogmatic system in the form of religion, but faith it's self is belief, which is not dogmatic; it is too simple to be dogmatic. Spirituality shares this lack of dogmatism, which is why I equate faith/belief with spirituality. Religion is too political.