Science is not only compatible with spirituality; it is a profound source of spirituality. When we recognize our place in an immensity of light-years and in the passage of ages, when we grasp the intricacy, beauty, and subtlety of life, then that soaring feeling, that sense of elation and humility combined, is surely spiritual. So are our emotions in the the presence of great art or music or literature, or of acts of exemplary selfless courage such as those of Mohandas Gandhi or Martin Luther King, Jr.
The notion that science and spirituality are mutually exclusive does a disservice to both.
Carl Sagan, The Demon-Haunted World: Science as a Candle in the Dark,
6
Enjoy being online again!
Welcome to the community of good people who base their values on evidence and appreciate civil discourse - the social network you will enjoy.Create your free account
6 comments
Feel free to reply to any comment by clicking the "Reply" button.Spirituality evolves just like everything else in the world. The great driver behind the evolution of spirituality today is science. Yes, most primitive spirituality is better known as religion and most still practice it, but that is changing at an ever increasing rate. I would like to point out that there are still primitive forms of science around as well. Many forms of primitive science still exist under the guise of spirituality (crystals, singing bowls, etc.) but that will evolve as well. The most advanced forms of spirituality today mirrors humanism along with modern psychology. That's the type my Seminary teaches. There is no conflict with science in post modern spirituality, we depend on it.
Seminarian
Level 7
July 1, 2018
1
I think a big problem with this is that there are two different definitions of 'spiritual' at play here. The 'spiritual' that Sagan appears to be talking about is the sense of strong emotion, the feeling of interconnectedness. The other 'spiritual', that of religious dogma, belief without evidence, faith, is very antithetical to science, and absolutely mutually exclusive, though it is so pervasive in our society that even otherwise great scientific minds fall prey to it on occasion.
DonThiebaut
Level 7
June 28, 2018
2
It’s true they are two different understandings of the word but why is that a problem?
@skado Because people conflate the two. I have often heard people saying things like 'science and religion aren't exclusive- Sagan (or other scientist) said so!', which is troubling on a number of levels.
It often is a misunderstanding, for one, as pointed out here. But it also is an appeal to authority, a logical fallacy. And it's a dangerous thing to believe, as it allows religions to hijak scientific credentials in an effort to expound upon the authority-appeals even further, as well as leading people to think that one doesn't need to be skeptical to be scientific.
@DonThiebaut
It only does that if you let it. It doesn’t do that to me, and apparently didn’t to Sagan. I think Sagan’s version is the better established way of thinking, and I’m not for a minute letting the newcomers chase me from my cultural heritage. Superstition is the new kid on the block, not the owner of our language.
@skado Sure, but the problem is that people are letting it do that to them. That's why we gotta speak up and set them straight whenever we see that kind of faulty reasoning. Sagan isn't the problem, people's interpretation of Sagan is.
Apparently dogmatic religious belief and scientific rigor can live side by side in the same person. As an example there was Georges Lemaitre, a Catholic priest who theorized what is today called the Big Bang.
If you think about it, there is no reason at all that a church person can not use the scientific method in investigating nature. Why would they not be able to do so? In fact, about half of scientists believe in God.
@DonThiebaut
Yes, I think it’s good to speak up, and let people know there are better ways to interpret that kind of expression.
@WilliamFleming That's why I said "otherwise great scientific minds", because of course they still can utilize the scientific method. They are just failing to do so with regards to religion. That can sometimes (though certainly not always) lead to failures in other areas regarding science. The act of taking it on faith is inherently unscientific, and getting into the practice of taking it on faith can lead to bad habits.
Excellent, excellent post! Thank you very much.
WilliamFleming
Level 8
June 28, 2018
2
Enjoy being online again!
Welcome to the community of good people who base their values on evidence and appreciate civil discourse - the social network you will enjoy.Create your free account
Share this post
Related Groups More
World Music
1359 members
Categories
Agnostic does not evaluate or guarantee the accuracy of any content. Read full disclaimer.