What is religion? And is science spiritual?

[Mojoemojoe]

I have been wondering how religion and spirituality started and its relationship to science.

[Strange]

2 hours ago, Mojoemojoe said:

I have been wondering how religion and spirituality started and its relationship to science.

Spirituality seems to be an inherent property of the human mind. Which led people to invent religion. 

Both science and religion are attempts to make sense of the world. The difference is that science uses facts while religion is purely a product of human imagination. 

[Itoero]

8 hours ago, Mojoemojoe said:

I have been wondering how religion and spirituality started and its relationship to science.

This thread is about how religion started.https://www.scienceforums.net/topic/116094-religion-as-evolutionary-trait/

Spirituality is a broad concept with room for many perspectives. In general, it includes a sense of connection to something bigger than ourselves, and it typically involves a search for meaning in life.

6 hours ago, Strange said:

Both science and religion are attempts to make sense of the world. The difference is that science uses facts while religion is purely a product of human imagination. 

You might say science implies how knowledge grows via experimental evidence,  while in religion people don't need experimental evidence to believe in 'things'.

[dimreepr]

7 minutes ago, Itoero said:

Spirituality is a broad concept with room for many perspectives. In general, it includes a sense of connection to something bigger than ourselves, and it typically involves a search for meaning in life.

 

science doesn't look.

[Phi for All]

It seems reasonable to me that early humans encountered many things they couldn't explain, and found that their developing intelligence could imagine solutions that made sense. Those who could anticipate what might happen based on their imagination would seem almost magical. Early hunters who looked out of camp into the night shadows probably imagined lions in all of them, so the hunter who most always picked the right shadow to throw his spear into would be held in high esteem as a mighty protector. He might attribute his special knowledge to a small voice in his head, or he may be revered himself. Either way, imagination led to unobservable forces at work in our world, imo.

I think science is like the remodeling of an old house. Where gaps in skill and knowledge in building the original led to the filling in of poorer quality explanations and flat out guesswork, science tries to take a more methodical approach, removing the old and outdated, tightening up the reasoning by removing wishful thinking, and in general try to modernize old thinking by sticking with what we can observe in the natural world. So far, science has had no real problems explaining phenomena naturally, and has been so spectacularly successful in its methodology that we can practically assume a supernatural explanation is unnecessary. 

[swansont]

Mystcism and superstition were first. Having an explanation for something, even if wrong, is often preferable to having no idea, or the thought that results of natural phenomena are essentially random. Not suffering ill effects of <whatever> because you followed the proper ritual is probably pretty compelling. People continue to do it.

[Mojoemojoe]

Very informative. Thank you!

[Itoero]

On ‎22‎/‎12‎/‎2018 at 4:45 PM, dimreepr said:

science doesn't look.

Yes it does, science looks very cool.

[Silvana]

In both spirituality and science, at some point, you have to decide something is true and decide to believe based on that belief. Science has more ways to demonstrate that your belief may be right, but that hasn't always been so. For example, Higgs boson was just a theory until its existence was confirmed. In order to do that, the Hadron collider needed to be developed. So, theoretically, the existence of spiritual concepts could be demonstrated with the right equipment.

[Strange]

13 minutes ago, Silvana said:

So, theoretically, the existence of spiritual concepts could be demonstrated with the right equipment.

Really?

What equipment would that be? What could we build to detect the presence of gods or a soul or ...?

[beecee]

15 minutes ago, Silvana said:

In both spirituality and science, at some point, you have to decide something is true and decide to believe based on that belief. Science has more ways to demonstrate that your belief may be right, but that hasn't always been so. For example, Higgs boson was just a theory until its existence was confirmed. In order to do that, the Hadron collider needed to be developed. So, theoretically, the existence of spiritual concepts could be demonstrated with the right equipment.

The Higgs Boson was actually a hypothetical developed along the lines of present knowledge, which of course now has been confirmed. It was not a idea dragged out of someone's rear end, but as a result of other basic fundamental particles that obviously combine and interact to explain the universe we see and experience today. A guess certainly, but an educated guess, not a guess based on ignorance.

[Mojoemojoe]

I think a belief system is associated with spirituality. Though unexplained things can be guessed in science. It is guessed utilizing facts. I would say it is more of a prediction or forecast.

Science predicts and test.

Spirituality believes and asserts.

It seems people who believe that "science is spiritual" are people who believe in theoretical physics to the point of accepting them as absolute truths or laws. They seem to not realize the uncertainty of theory or hypothesis. They seem to not understand what science is. 

Science is not spiritual. As spirituality contradicts science. I would say they are on opposite ends of the spectrum.

Links to science journals stating facts of uncertainty. We don't know if the smallest particles are magnetic or not. Because we don't have technology to prove or disprove it. 

From first link:

Quote

The nature of dark matter (DM) and dark energy (DE) which is supposed to constitute about 95% of the energy density of the universe is still a mystery. There is no shortage of ideas regarding the nature of both. While some candidates for DM are clearly ruled out, there is still a plethora of viable particles that fit the bill. In the context of DE, while current observations favour a cosmological constant picture, there are other competing models that are equally likely. This paper reviews the different possible candidates for DM including exotic candidates and their possible detection. This review also covers the different models for DE and the possibility of unified models for DM and DE. Keeping in mind the negative results in some of the ongoing DM detection experiments, here we also review the possible alternatives to both DM and DE (such as MOND and modifications of general relativity) and possible means of observationally distinguishing between the alternatives.

 

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S027311771730248X

From second link:

Quote

3 Dark Matter Particle Detection

Great efforts have been made to detect various hypothetical dark matter particles by using solid-state track detectors. The solution to the problem of missing mass in the universe is of significance in theoretical physics, astrophysics, and cosmology. More detailed explanation of this subject is beyond the main scope of this handbook. The reader is referred to the articles written by Price (2005) and Cecchini and Patrizii (2008), from which more information can be obtained.

https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/earth-and-planetary-sciences/dark-matter

https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/computer-science/bosons

From fourth link:

Quote

From a practical point of nuclear chemistry we accept the commonly used model that the nucleus is composed of only protons and neutrons.

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/B9780124058972000033

Edited January 3, 2019 by Mojoemojoe

[Itoero]

Aren't Quantum interpretations spiritual...in a sense?

[Strange]

42 minutes ago, Itoero said:

Aren't Quantum interpretations spiritual...in a sense?

In what sense?

[iNow]

48 minutes ago, Strange said:

In what sense?

In the gullibility sense

[Itoero]

2 hours ago, Strange said:

In what sense?

An interpretation of quantum mechanics is an attempt to explain how the mathematical theory of quantum mechanics corresponds to reality.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interpretations_of_quantum_mechanics

People often use spirituality to explain reality. Spirituality can be a way of giving meaning to or explain reality without direct scientific evidence. Quantum interpretations and quantum gravity models are based on scientific evidence but they are not scientific evidence... Quantum interpretations and quantum gravity models (Holographic principle) are rather spiritual science. They explain and give meaning to reality but are not 'proven'.

[iNow]

4 minutes ago, Itoero said:

They explain and give meaning to reality but are not 'proven'

More broadly, that which is complex and not easily grasped has (for millenia) been used by peddlers of woo to convince laymen to buy into their silliness. QM is just the latest to be used in this way. Deepok Chopra is making a killing do it, but he's hardly alone.

[Strange]

2 hours ago, Itoero said:

An interpretation of quantum mechanics is an attempt to explain how the mathematical theory of quantum mechanics corresponds to reality.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interpretations_of_quantum_mechanics

Yes.

2 hours ago, Itoero said:

People often use spirituality to explain reality.

Non sequitur

2 hours ago, Itoero said:

Spirituality can be a way of giving meaning to or explain reality without direct scientific evidence. Quantum interpretations and quantum gravity models are based on scientific evidence but they are not scientific evidence... Quantum interpretations and quantum gravity models (Holographic principle) are rather spiritual science. They explain and give meaning to reality but are not 'proven'.

This approaches dangerous levels of incoherence. Please try harder.

[Itoero]

16 hours ago, Strange said:

This approaches dangerous levels of incoherence. Please try harder.

I'll try.   Spirituality is imo used when people form new theories. A theory or model basically gives meaning to something or it explains this and its based on scientific evidence but it demands observable evidence to be 'proven'.

When Einstein developed general relativity he used his spiritual mind which was fed by a huge amount of knowledge. General relativity was a theory that needed observable evidence to improve the scientific validity.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tests_of_general_relativity

The same is valid for interpretations, theories and models...they demand sufficient experimental evidence to really put their mark on the world of science.

19 hours ago, iNow said:

QM is just the latest to be used in this way.

Isn't this because many things in QM go in against our logic and we can't 'quantize' gravity?

[iNow]

3 minutes ago, Itoero said:

Isn't this because many things in QM go in against our logic and we can't 'quantize' gravity?

No, I think it’s more about gullibility. It’s just easier to use things which go against our everyday experience and common sense to pull a fast one on the gullible. QM certainly fits that bill.

[zapatos]

10 hours ago, Itoero said:

 

When Einstein developed general relativity he used his spiritual mind which was fed by a huge amount of knowledge. General relativity was a theory that needed observable evidence to improve the scientific validity.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tests_of_general_relativity

 

He did? Can you provide some sort of citation? I'd love to read about that. I'm not even sure what a "spiritual mind" is.

[zapatos]

 

[beecee]

6 minutes ago, brecvema said:

It sounds a lot like 'Ha - Le - Lu - Ya' . You probably won't be able to hear it if you don't have headphones with a good frequency response and range.

Do, Re Mi Fa So La Ti Do.....

Quote

 

I am very aware of pareidolia. As a mixing engineer I am trained to be very wary of it while mixing music. One of the first things I learned when mixing was to put aside my emotions and expectations and to not project 'what I want to hear' into the sounds. Just let the sound show you what it is. I mix music a lot. like almost 24/7.

After a while you become very sensitive to the sounds of phasing and the patterns of polyrhythmic harmony. I recognized a polyrhythmic pattern in this audio and isolated it.

 

I am certainly not questioning your skill as a music mixer. What I question is your presumption that it is anything other then just a simple coincidence.

Edited January 6, 2019 by beecee

[Strange]

7 hours ago, brecvema said:

I am very aware of pareidolia. As a mixing engineer I am trained to be very wary of it while mixing music. One of the first things I learned when mixing was to put aside my emotions and expectations and to not project 'what I want to hear' into the sounds. Just let the sound show you what it is. I mix music a lot. like almost 24/7.

After a while you become very sensitive to the sounds of phasing and the patterns of polyrhythmic harmony. I recognized a polyrhythmic pattern in this audio and isolated it.

It sounds a lot like 'Ha - Le - Lu - Ya' . You probably won't be able to hear it if you don't have headphones with a good frequency response and range.

 

But you made up this sound. Presumably so you can hear what you want in it, to support your delusions/beliefs.

[Strange]

9 hours ago, brecvema said:

I am very aware of pareidolia.

That doesn't make you any less susceptible to it. Which is why science doesn't rely on subjective impressions.

9 hours ago, brecvema said:

As a mixing engineer I am trained to be very wary of it while mixing music.

I spent many years working in the sound industry. I never heard of musicians, engineers or producers needing to be wary of pareidolia.

Unfortunately, you seem to have used up your newbie limit of posts on spamming the forum. Bad choice.