Spirituality the root of all evil?

[Sunnybayes]

Had an insight, shoot some holes in it...

A definition of spiritual [for the purpose of this post]: using terms that are fuzzy and not well defined yet.
A definition of science: the terms have been tested against reality very accurately and have been strongly defined.

Spirituality is necessary before you can do science.

Spirituality is your best guess before you can back it up with science.

Spirituality is faith that a concept works before you know how to tie it to reality, spirituality becomes science once it is backed up with reality.

Spirituality is the root of all evil : evil as in not seeking the truth (using fuzzy terms) and backing it up with reality.

Therefore spirituality is the root of all evil and the path to goodness and truth.

I refuse to define faith, good, evil, root, truth, and path, so this is a Spiritual insight. For example, Here's some arbitrary definitions of good, evil, root, spirituality, science , truth, path.

But it might be a useful insight since we have a subconcious intuition belief in our brains for those words.

Conclusion? Probably made several times before, but Spirituality and Science are not really in conflict, in fact they compliment and need each other.

[Max Power]

I always thought that science was about facts, proof and recordable evidence and spirituality is faith, belief, thought, soul, etc. So that would mean they are very seperate and not really of any use to each other.

Everything that I believe to be true spiritiuality has no foundation in anything scientific, I can't prove any of it to anyone, it's just something I choose to accept as real.

Max

[Shamou]

Originally Posted by Max Power

I always thought that science was about facts, proof and recordable evidence and spirituality is faith, belief, thought, soul, etc. So that would mean they are very seperate and not really of any use to each other.

Everything that I believe to be true spiritiuality has no foundation in anything scientific, I can't prove any of it to anyone, it's just something I choose to accept as real.

Max

Very well said Max... and so very apropos...

.

[Akashic_Librarian]

Hmmm its a natural conclusion but naturally flawed. Spirituality, for me, is another branch of science. Science is NOT the way to the answer, it is a route, Spirituality is also a route. Eventually science will give us a anti-gravity machine, but some mystics and psychics have claimed to levitate for many years. Same result. Different method see....Psychic can talk to Ghosts, Science can talk to Aliens...you getting me? Its all interconnected.

Therefore to say Science is Good and Spirituality is Evil is like saying Christianity is Good and Islam is Evil. Its just NOT. They are different routes to the same thing.

I don't know if I explained it right or if my message made sense but I will sum it up now:

Good and Evil are not Forces, they are Perceptions. Spirituality deals with this perception, it raises the questions like what IS good and what IS evil, Science does not do these things. But Science answers questions spirituality can not, and vice versa....

Ok i am gonna shut up now because I can't even understand myself!

[Sunnybayes]

Originally Posted by Akashic_Librarian

Ok i am gonna shut up now because I can't even understand myself!

Hehehe... That's precisely what I mean!!! You can jumble around some words and they seem to kinda make sense sometimes, but then there is a limit, and to really get some understanding you've got to challenge every assumption. You got to make sure that you really understand the words that you jumble around. You've got to really try to define the words that you're going after as best as possible.

This basically goes with Micheal's post "What's the point in discussing a word's definition?"

This is how genius think, they use metaphors at first to get an understand to help guide their thinking, but then once the metaphor has been understood then you've got to challenge it even more with reality...

And another main point was to go along with what Micheal Wrote in this post:

Hmmm its a natural conclusion but naturally flawed.

You think this because your intuitive definitions of the words that I wrote don't match my intuitive definitions. No fault though. Some people might get mad and then try to bash the other person. And "naturally flawed" I could have took that in different ways... I could have taken that personal.

And this part is were you explain your definitions:

Spirituality, for me, is another branch of science.

We actually agree on that, that was the intuitive definition that I was using, and that's what I wanted to show, and that's what I meant to say here:

Spirituality and Science are not really in conflict, in fact they compliment and need each other.

Because a "branch" means that the two ends might be different, but that they are linked. That's my intuitive definition of branch.

But sense I intentionally left it vague, we thought we disagreed, but really thought the same. That's what I mean, you've got to challenge all the words that you take for granted and don't assume that other people have the same meanings for the words.

Science is NOT the way to the answer, it is a route, Spirituality is also a route.

Again you are arguing with me about the definitions of the words... and that you want to because I chose not to define those words. Or maybe I misinterpreted that and thought you were arguing.

Its all interconnected.

Exactly (just stating that our definitions did agree).

Therefore to say Science is Good and Spirituality is Evil is like saying Christianity is Good and Islam is Evil. Its just NOT. They are different routes to the same thing.

I threw out some bait. I specifically asked people to bite onto in. Thanks. Usually I'll write a huge essay to make people understand. I'm trying to define good an evil objectively so that we can get some real truths going.

Just wanted to say also that people on TV and politicians will do this, use a word, fail to explain what it means, just say the word over and over again to make it sound like the person knows what he's talking about.

It goes both ways. The reader needs to care to reread and try to resolve what the person is saying, and the writer should be clear with the terms that he's throwing around or provide some links of the concepts that he's using.

I don't know if I explained it right or if my message made sense but I will sum it up now:

Good and Evil are not Forces, they are Perceptions. Spirituality deals with this perception, it raises the questions like what IS good and what IS evil, Science does not do these things. But Science answers questions spirituality can not, and vice versa....

Ok i am gonna shut up now because I can't even understand myself!

Writing a word With Capital Letters Does Not Define The Words. It gives the writer an illusion of authority for example, or I suppose it signifies that the writer acknowledges that the word has no precisely defined meaning but asks the reader to determine the meaning from the context... which I suppose is the case with every word...

Please don't take this as an attack Akashic_Librarian... I appreciate your feed back... I just wanted to make this post so I'll be able to make a point later on down the road...

[Mark Lapierre]

Originally Posted by Sunnybayes

A definition of spiritual [for the purpose of this post]: using terms that are fuzzy and not well defined yet.
A definition of science: the terms have been tested against reality very accurately and have been strongly defined.

Could you clarify what you mean by "the terms have been tested against reality very accurately"?

The meaning of spirituality is fairly amorphous, but you're really stretching it with "using terms that are fuzzy and not well defined yet." By saying "for the purpose of this post" are you redefining spirituality to mean something different in order to get us to restrict our interpretations?

Taking everything else into account it seems your definition is a definition of the use of the language of spirituality. Is that what you intended?

Originally Posted by Sunnybayes

Spirituality is necessary before you can do science.
Spirituality is your best guess before you can back it up with science.

The second line follows the first if you consider the second to mean you need to form a hypothesis before attempting to verify it. But if that's the case you've confused spirituality with rational thought. The former may contain the latter, but the latter is not dependent on the former.

It reads as if the first line is a proposition, but really it's one conclusion formed from the following two propositions.

Originally Posted by Sunnybayes

Spirituality is faith that a concept works before you know how to tie it to reality, spirituality becomes science once it is backed up with reality.

You don't need faith in a concept in order to analyse it. In fact uncertainty is the reason for many scientific experiments. The science can exist independent of spirituality, but yes, a spiritual belief can become a scientific belief.

Originally Posted by Sunnybayes

Spirituality is the root of all evil : evil as in not seeking the truth (using fuzzy terms) and backing it up with reality.

Therefore spirituality is the root of all evil and the path to goodness and truth.

You've defined not seeking the truth as one aspect of evil. How does this lead to being the root of all evil? Also, was there are typo there? Spirituality is both the root of all evil and the path to goodness and truth?

Originally Posted by Sunnybayes

Conclusion? Probably made several times before, but Spirituality and Science are not really in conflict, in fact they compliment and need each other.

I think I can see how you reached this conclusion if I take a few leaps and blind turns, but I don't agree with you. I agree that they compliment each other, but I don't agree that either one is necessary for the other.

I take a different view, which Jenny summarised. Here's an excerpt:

Science is the language of rational thought and is grounded in an objective world view. It relies upon observation and repeated testing to form its truths. Its language is literal and fact based. On the other hand, spirituality is the language of metaphorical truths and intensely personal subjective world views. It is solidly grounded upon commonly experienced individual truths of both the nature of the divine and of social order. The myths and theologies of the world’s religions explain its world views. Together science and spirituality paint a more complete picture of the world we live in than when either is viewed alone.

Put another way:
Spirituality = experience of life = subjective understanding
Science = observation of life = objective understanding

That shows that both science and spirituality can provide a more complete understanding of the world than either alone, but it says nothing about either being needed by the other.

I also believe that in regards to experience of life, spirituality doesn't necessitate the supernatural aspects with which it is usually associated.

[Jenny]

Originally Posted by Sunnybayes
"Conclusion? Probably made several times before, but Spirituality and Science are not really in conflict, in fact they compliment and need each other." (Sorry Sunnybayes, having trouble inserting your quote the correct way...)

Originally Posted by Mark Lapierre

I agree that they compliment each other, but I don't agree that either one is necessary for the other.

Interesting conversation you have going on here. When examining my own thinking I understand Sunnybayes words and wonder if the reason it feels that science and religion need each other is because in order for me to understand nearly any aspect of my life I am completely dependent upon both, not necessarily aware of my dependence on both but dependent nonetheless.

Do they need each other in any objective way? I don't know. Does it really matter? The science/spirituality debate is so similar to the debate on logical thinking/emotion. Are logical thinking and emotion both necessary? In most people's view yes they are, but not in everyone's. In my opinion a life completely devoid of either logical thinking or emotion is not much of a life, the same for science and spirituality. The precise language of science will win a debate every single time but these wins in no way diminish the importance of spirituality (or emotion) in an individual person seeking to understand their life and the world around them.

[MartialDev]

Originally Posted by Sunnybayes

Had an insight, shoot some holes in it...

A definition of spiritual [for the purpose of this post]: using terms that are fuzzy and not well defined yet.
A definition of science: the terms have been tested against reality very accurately and have been strongly defined.

Spirituality is necessary before you can do science.

Spirituality is your best guess before you can back it up with science.

Spirituality is faith that a concept works before you know how to tie it to reality, spirituality becomes science once it is backed up with reality.

Spirituality is the root of all evil : evil as in not seeking the truth (using fuzzy terms) and backing it up with reality.

Therefore spirituality is the root of all evil and the path to goodness and truth.

Your post made me smile.

You have to start somewhere. If "spirituality" is the root of all evil because it is underdeveloped, can we also say that babies are the root of all evil?

[JohnPlace]

Specific religious beliefs aside, man turns to science for answers to questions which can be verified scientifically (or for which there is some hope of verification) and conversely, man may turn to mystical explanations for topics that science has little hope of addressing adequately.

For example, today's science can explain why a volcano erupts, but not why murder is wrong. The latter question may be addressed by intellectual axioms or spiritual explanations, but not by science per se.

Both science and spirtuality are essential to the human condition, since each addresses a basic human need.

[Sunnybayes]

Originally Posted by JohnPlace

For example, today's science can explain why a volcano erupts, but not why murder is wrong. The latter question may be addressed by intellectual axioms or spiritual explanations, but not by science per se.

Just for reference, here's my objective guess at it:
Sin is relative to your system

[Matthew Shea]

Originally Posted by Sunnybayes

Had an insight, shoot some holes in it...

A definition of spiritual [for the purpose of this post]: using terms that are fuzzy and not well defined yet.
A definition of science: the terms have been tested against reality very accurately and have been strongly defined.

Spirituality is necessary before you can do science.

Spirituality is your best guess before you can back it up with science.

Spirituality is faith that a concept works before you know how to tie it to reality, spirituality becomes science once it is backed up with reality.

Spirituality is the root of all evil : evil as in not seeking the truth (using fuzzy terms) and backing it up with reality.

Therefore spirituality is the root of all evil and the path to goodness and truth.

I refuse to define faith, good, evil, root, truth, and path, so this is a Spiritual insight. For example, Here's some arbitrary definitions of good, evil, root, spirituality, science , truth, path.

But it might be a useful insight since we have a subconcious intuition belief in our brains for those words.

Conclusion? Probably made several times before, but Spirituality and Science are not really in conflict, in fact they compliment and need each other.

I agree with your conclusion, but not with the way you arrived there. Your definitions of spirituality and science are way off base for starters. The way you define spirituality, for instance, does not separate it from science. Science always begins with a hypothesis, which is an untested assumption that very well may use loosely defined and unclear terms (similar to your definition of sprituality), forms a theory after testing the hypothesis, then tests the theory experimentally to either prove or disprove it. If the theory is proven, it becomes scientific fact. Spirituality can be said to have similar processes in coming to conclusions based on theories of right vs. wrong that are tested out in everyday life.

On your next point, spirituality is absolutely not necessary before science. All that's necessary is a curiousity about how the world around you works.

Regarding the next couple points, spirituality doesn't necessarily deal with the question of "how," as science typically does, but rather "why" and "what are the moral implications." In that way, the two disciplines often deal with different aspects of the same issues. Often, knowing how something works can shed insight on a particular aspect of spirituality and can lead to innovations that have spiritual implications, but it doesn't change the basic spritual precepts.

Take human reproduction, for instance. Humans have only recently come to a good understanding of how it works. This has led to innovations such as birth control, abortion, pre-natal medicine and a host of other scientific and medical advances. They all have spiritual implications in that they all may potentially affect the next generation of children, which is something we need to take very seriously and we need to do right by them. In this case, science is what explains how things work and enables innovations that give us better control over reproduction, sprituality gives us the guidance to use all that knowledge for the betterment of humanity.

So, in that way, the two disciplines can indeed be complimentary, but they are not dependent on each other, nor is spirituality the "root of all evil." The lack of knowledge is not evil, per se, nor is it a good thing. Evil is the use of knowledge (or lack thereof) for personal gain at the expense of others. Sprituality merely distinguishes good from evil, it is not at the root of either. The root of evil, I would argue, is our human tendency for self-gain at others' expense.

[AndyMartin]

The problem here is that science cannot be explained without the self-referential consciousness that gives rise to the ability to conduct scientific inquiry -- something that science itself cannot explain. Though it does observe much of what occurs concurrent to consciousness and the life process, it cannot explain the existence of either. Spirit -- that self-referential consciousness -- cannot be explained by science though all of science is contained within it. And until we stop guessing at what spirit is we will get no closer to understanding that mystery, which means we will only understand science within a limited context that excludes the domain of interior experience.

Spirituality -- the systematized attempt to answer that question, to explain the interior experience in terms of external objects -- has never been based on formalized methods, and so the answers to what spirit is are as varied as the questioners. And the success of those questioners at living an ethical life is as varied as the quality of those answers. But the self-avowed "spiritual" tend to view themselves as living a higher standard, though they are living only a best guess with no formalized process to validate that guess. Hence, many terrible deeds have been perpetrated by people who have called themselves spiritual. And many atrocities have been perpetrated by people who freely embrace the non-spiritual life.

If anything is the root of evil, I guess it's being so catastrophically predisposed as a race to poor judgment and bad faith. Being self-aware, making judgment between good and evil, acting in accordance with some subjective interpretation of good and evil. In other words, being human.

That sort of makes it hard to cast the first stone...

[Nwyvre]

Perhaps this reply will be far to simplified but it is my view.

Christianity is a belief system for those afraid of going to hell.
Spirituality is a belief system for those who have already been there.

[Shamou]

Originally Posted by Akashic_Librarian

Eventually science will give us a anti-gravity machine,

It already has...it's called an airplane...

.

[Nelson]

A definition of spiritual [for the purpose of this post]: using terms that are fuzzy and not well defined yet.

Back in 9th grade I was in Speech and Debate class. The attacking side would always get to choose the definitions of a word or phrase. As a member of the attacking side the obvious goal is to twist the meaning of the words to suit your argument. That's exactly what you've done here.

Your logical conclusion that spirtuality is evil is flawed because you defined spirtuality yourself instead of having an agreed upon definition. The word you should use in place of spirituality is "ignorance", because that is what you described.

According to Wikipedia, Spirituality is defined as: Spirituality, in a broad sense a concern with matters of the spirit, is a wide term with many available readings. It may include belief in supernatural powers, as in religion, but the emphasis is on personal experience.

Since Wikipedia can be edited by the enitre Internet populace this is a good example of an agreed definition.

Are the codes in religions such as Thou shall not steal or Thou shall not bear false witness the root of all evil?

Is your own personal experience the root of all evil?

To get even more specific: Is the belief in supernatural powers or anything listed in the Wikipedia definiton a direct cause or closely related to the cause of someone raping another person?

My answer is No.