Spirituality

mfin

Chris Bass wrote:

Can science ever actually prove something is true?

let's say you have a hypothesis, you test it and test it and it backs up your hypothesis, does that make it true? no.

Science can say what isn't true but can only say what is likely true until proved otherwise.

You're right as you put it. That said, some people who are so disposed might read what you've said in a way that they feel also justifies their belief in the completely unprovable, which of course it does not.

rjsterry

hopkinb wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

hopkinb wrote:

bompington wrote:

What you haven't given, and neither has anyone else, is any proof (or even evidence) that the scientific method is the only way of establishing the truth.

As there are so many competing "truths" out there, I will stick to those that are at least demonstrable and testable. Other "truths" tend to be espoused by people who want other people's money and/or faith & obedience, and tend to be targeted at the vulnerable.

Sitting quietly in a church or other serene space to collect one's thoughts, or engaging in what is called mindfulness, are, I suppose, spiritual acts. Crucially though, these are personal acts, that require no devotion or subordination to a greater power, no adherence to any man-made rules, nor any desire to convert others to one's way of thinking.

We're all subordinate to a greater power and adhere to man-made rules every day of the week. Unless you have declared yourself King of Hopkinland.

Kneel before me peasant, or feel my wrath.
I thought OP was talking of spirituality, I was referring to spiritual higher powers, religious rules and subordination, proselytising.

I do not recognise your authority :P On rules, etc. what's the difference? They're just another set of commonly held beliefs.

rjsterry

mfin wrote:

Chris Bass wrote:

Can science ever actually prove something is true?

let's say you have a hypothesis, you test it and test it and it backs up your hypothesis, does that make it true? no.

Science can say what isn't true but can only say what is likely true until proved otherwise.

You're right as you put it. That said, some people who are so disposed might read what you've said in a way that they feel also justifies their belief in the completely unprovable, which of course it does not.

Why do beliefs need to be justified?

mfin

rjsterry wrote:

mfin wrote:

Chris Bass wrote:

Can science ever actually prove something is true?

let's say you have a hypothesis, you test it and test it and it backs up your hypothesis, does that make it true? no.

Science can say what isn't true but can only say what is likely true until proved otherwise.

You're right as you put it. That said, some people who are so disposed might read what you've said in a way that they feel also justifies their belief in the completely unprovable, which of course it does not.

Why do beliefs need to be justified?

I meant what I said, not something else. That what Chris had just said could be twisted round into justifying something incompatible.

It seems you're not really reading there just knee-jerking off in another direction just because the word "justifies" was used.

I wouldn't worry too much about beliefs in unprovable things not being provable, it's the way it is. It's not worth reacting to really as it's no different to me saying I have 3 hands and just because I can't prove it doesn't make it true, or make it not matter to me.

haydenm

Wheelspinner wrote:

mfin wrote:

There's nothing to be open-minded about. I'm completely interested in anything that is based on fact and things that are proven by science. Note that not having a void that needs filling by spirituality or any form of hocus pocus doesn't mean not being open-minded. When evidence of something is scientifically investigated I am completely open to the result, that is open-minded.

Possibly an odd question, but have you ever fallen in love with someone?

If so, why?

Was it just a number of facts that added up to a defined result you expected, or... what?

Yes and yes. A certain number of facts which create an emotional response in my brain. I don't think that makes it any less meaningful.

I don't see the absence of spiritual forces or God as a lack of meaning, I prefer to embrace it and find meaning in the fact there is no meaning, if that makes sense. Existentialism and all that..

tangled_metal

bompington wrote:

Ah, Scientism.

Can you prove that only things that are provable by Science are true?

If science had all the answers then spirituality would either be proven to be a thing or it wouldn't be needed at all. Perhaps spirituality fills in where science can't. So it's science's fault there's religion, spirituality and the related wars between religion. If scientists could only pull their collective fingers out and find all the answers....

chris_bass

rjsterry wrote:

mfin wrote:

Chris Bass wrote:

Can science ever actually prove something is true?

let's say you have a hypothesis, you test it and test it and it backs up your hypothesis, does that make it true? no.

Science can say what isn't true but can only say what is likely true until proved otherwise.

You're right as you put it. That said, some people who are so disposed might read what you've said in a way that they feel also justifies their belief in the completely unprovable, which of course it does not.

Why do beliefs need to be justified?

depends on the belief i suppose.

if, like R Kelly, I believe I can fly and i jump off a building that probably won't end well.

chris_bass

mfin wrote:

Chris Bass wrote:

Can science ever actually prove something is true?

let's say you have a hypothesis, you test it and test it and it backs up your hypothesis, does that make it true? no.

Science can say what isn't true but can only say what is likely true until proved otherwise.

You're right as you put it. That said, some people who are so disposed might read what you've said in a way that they feel also justifies their belief in the completely unprovable, which of course it does not.

Everything is completely unprovable though - just some things are more likely than others.

Some people believe that the qur'an is proof of god, they believe that the poetry of it can only have come from god, that there are prophecies in it that can only have come from god, that there are scientific miracles etc etc this is their evidence in the same way that people who believe in some of science's theories have evidence (more compelling evidence if you ask me however!)

rjsterry

Chris Bass wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

mfin wrote:

Chris Bass wrote:

Can science ever actually prove something is true?

let's say you have a hypothesis, you test it and test it and it backs up your hypothesis, does that make it true? no.

Science can say what isn't true but can only say what is likely true until proved otherwise.

You're right as you put it. That said, some people who are so disposed might read what you've said in a way that they feel also justifies their belief in the completely unprovable, which of course it does not.

Why do beliefs need to be justified?

depends on the belief i suppose.

if, like R Kelly, I believe I can fly and i jump off a building that probably won't end well.

Just an odd choice of word, I thought. As though one's beliefs have to meet a certain standard to be valid.

As I've said, what people believe is not half as interesting as the fact that they do believe in things that are not only difficult to understand but do not inhabit the material world. That's quite a leap to be able to even conceive/imagine that there may be things that we cannot perceive.

I'd argue that the ability to imagine and believe in something for which there is no or little evidence, and which others say is impossible/cannot exist is what has led to most of our great discoveries.

morstar

Spirituality is an evolutionary imperative as evidenced by the fact it is evident in all cultures across the globe over thousands of years. It's all tied into morality and curiosity and just part of the make up of being human.
That it can manifest itself in an externalised belief system is just us trying to make sense of an existence we can't fully understand.
It doesn't have to manifest itself as a belief system but to deny any sort of inner spirituality means you are either on a scale of psychopathy or in denial of evolution.
It's no different to when people say the dress up to look good for themselves and not to attract. You are completely denying the essence of evolution and why you are compelled to want to look attractive. You might think it is for your own benefit but it is programmed behaviour over which you have little control.
Spirituality is scientific. Feeling good is scientific.

haydenm

morstar wrote:

Spirituality is an evolutionary imperative as evidenced by the fact it is evident in all cultures across the globe over thousands of years. It's all tied into morality and curiosity and just part of the make up of being human.
That it can manifest itself in an externalised belief system is just us trying to make sense of an existence we can't fully understand.
It doesn't have to manifest itself as a belief system but to deny any sort of inner spirituality means you are either on a scale of psychopathy or in denial of evolution.
It's no different to when people say the dress up to look good for themselves and not to attract. You are completely denying the essence of evolution and why you are compelled to want to look attractive. You might think it is for your own benefit but it is programmed behaviour over which you have little control.
Spirituality is scientific. Feeling good is scientific.

I'm not sure I agree. I think that inner spirituality is a byproduct of our evolutionary need to answer important questions rather than a specific evolutionary trait in itself. To me, the greatness nature and the universe (in a pure rational form) is directly interchangeable for what a lot of people would call spiritualism and fulfills the same purpose essentially.

If you take the view that there is no greater order, universal plan or 'meaning of life' I can't see how it's denying evolution to transfer your 'spirituality' onto admiring the marvel of the universe without spiritualism?

tangled_metal

Admiring nature sends the universe could be taken as a form of spirituality. Whether you agree or not I feel there is a spirituality in my appreciation of nature. I hold no religious affiliations and don't ascribe any power to this appreciation. It's simply what makes me sit on the edge if a crag and look out across morecambe bay for some time. Or on a quiet Lakeland hill looking set the views. It's still a form if spirituality.

haydenm

Tangled Metal wrote:

Admiring nature sends the universe could be taken as a form of spirituality. Whether you agree or not I feel there is a spirituality in my appreciation of nature. I hold no religious affiliations and don't ascribe any power to this appreciation. It's simply what makes me sit on the edge if a crag and look out across morecambe bay for some time. Or on a quiet Lakeland hill looking set the views. It's still a form if spirituality.

Good point, spirituality or mindfulness can be the same whatever angle you come at it. For religious people appreciating a view it's still an effective form of mindfulness, which is where I think a lot of people really benefit from religion (not that I would know). For me spirituality implies a certain sense of meaning or higher power rather than accepting biological emotional responses to an infinitely complex but 'logical' world, but there doesn't seem to be any real definition

morstar

That's my point. Spirituality is a broad thing that is fundamentally part of the human condition. It just has many manifestations. It's that awe, wonder and moral makeup of what we are.

tangled_metal

Spirituality doesn't have to be religion. Mindfulness is a fashionable term that means nothing but means a lot to practitioners. It's not defined and can mean anything and everything. Simply thinking about what you need to do today some call mindfulness. It's become a phrase with too much attributed to it which IMHO makes it meaningless as a "thing".

If you're into yoga, the breathing / meditation aspect could be called mindfulness or spirituality or just exercise. Take your pick of what you think it is.

Martial arts, that can be a form if mindfulness or spirituality. If that's how you understand your art form / style. Tai chi is often thought of as a meditative exercise. It's a fighting style where the slow form it's training for the fast form that's fighting. What's the difference? Those older people dancing around slowly are doing fighting training routines. Speed it up you're blocking, locking and striking your opponent. One is easy to understand at meditation or spirituality but the other isn't. It's the same motion.

haydenm

Tangled Metal wrote:

Spirituality doesn't have to be religion. Mindfulness is a fashionable term that means nothing but means a lot to practitioners. It's not defined and can mean anything and everything. Simply thinking about what you need to do today some call mindfulness. It's become a phrase with too much attributed to it which IMHO makes it meaningless as a "thing".

If you're into yoga, the breathing / meditation aspect could be called mindfulness or spirituality or just exercise. Take your pick of what you think it is.

Martial arts, that can be a form if mindfulness or spirituality. If that's how you understand your art form / style. Tai chi is often thought of as a meditative exercise. It's a fighting style where the slow form it's training for the fast form that's fighting. What's the difference? Those older people dancing around slowly are doing fighting training routines. Speed it up you're blocking, locking and striking your opponent. One is easy to understand at meditation or spirituality but the other isn't. It's the same motion.

I'm not cool enough for mindfullness practitioners so I'm not best placed to judge, but I mentioned mindfullness along with spirituality because they are both quite undefined and seem to mean the same thing in a lot of cases. Although spirituality seems to have a fair amount of madness lumped in with it (Gwyneth Paltrow style) which is probably unfair, and mindfullness will be no better either.

I'm currently reading Nausea- Satre at the moment so it's difficult to think straight...

tangled_metal

I've started to bullet journal which is explained as organisation with mindfulness. It's a particular style of planning that you use with looking back at what you've done / achieved and linking forward at what you need to do / achieve. It's this looking at it that counts at mindfulness. Bunkum!

haydenm

Tangled Metal wrote:

I've started to bullet journal which is explained as organisation with mindfulness. It's a particular style of planning that you use with looking back at what you've done / achieved and linking forward at what you need to do / achieve. It's this looking at it that counts at mindfulness. Bunkum!

I bought a dotted notepad for that purpose and never used it, I should probably start...

tangled_metal

HaydenM wrote:

Tangled Metal wrote:

I've started to bullet journal which is explained as organisation with mindfulness. It's a particular style of planning that you use with looking back at what you've done / achieved and linking forward at what you need to do / achieve. It's this looking at it that counts at mindfulness. Bunkum!

I bought a dotted notepad for that purpose and never used it, I should probably start...

Do try it out. You might not get into it, I didn't at first. I started it January but only wrote the monthly log pages send didn't use it until April or may then i stopped it. I restarted it August halfway through the month and have got into it.

Keep it very simple then try out things. I did that zest the back until I found what I liked and used. Then i moved it to the front and used it properly. That way I developed the journal I liked, used and found useful. Still early days though.