If Gnost means that science is the rich man’s version? I am strongly convinced that understanding what science has to say about the cosmos and the mind can help (not necessarily helps!) developing a spiritual attitude by providing insight about the vastness of the universe and nature of the mind.
Saying that ‘spirituality is a poor man’s version of science about the self’ seems rather pejorative. As does ‘running the spiritual show’.
Well I’m thinking that maybe spirituality is a poor man’s version of science about the self.
What is then the “rich man’s version”? And why is that not spiritual anymore?
GdB
For me, scientific inquiry, investigation and research into the potential of man, well there is still a lot of mystery there to uncover. However scientific research takes funding to get any legitimate acceptance. Unless you have the wealth to pursue it on your own you’re going to have to convince someone to back you.
Spirituality is about yourself and your own experiences. If it makes you happy, feel better about yourself or life your relationships, you’re the only one that has to judge that. If you are happy with a spiritual experience you don’t have to worry about what anyone else thinks or have to try and convince someone else about whatever works for you.
Historian Jacques Barzun termed science “a faith as fanatical as any in history” and warned against the use of scientific thought to suppress considerations of meaning as integral to human existence.
Philosopher of science Paul K Feyerabend advanced the idea of epistemological anarchism, which holds that there are no useful and exception-free methodological rules governing the progress of science or the growth of knowledge, and that the idea that science can or should operate according to universal and fixed rules is unrealistic, pernicious and detrimental to science itself. Feyerabend advocates treating science as an ideology alongside others such as religion, magic and mythology, and considers the dominance of science in society authoritarian and unjustified. He also contended (along with Imre Lakatos) that the demarcation problem of distinguishing science from pseudoscience on objective grounds is not possible and thus fatal to the notion of science running according to fixed, universal rules.
Feyerabend also criticized Science for not having evidence for its own philosophical precepts. Particularly the notion of Uniformity of Law and the Uniformity of Process across time and space, as noted by Steven Jay Gould. “We have to realize that a unified theory of the physical world simply does not exist” says Feyerabend, “We have theories that work in restricted regions, we have purely formal attempts to condense them into a single formula, we have lots of unfounded claims (such as the claim that all of chemistry can be reduced to physics), phenomena that do not fit into the accepted framework are suppressed; in physics, which many scientists regard as the one really basic science, we have now at least three different points of view…without a promise of conceptual (and not only formal) unification”. In other words, science is begging the question when it presupposes that there is a universal truth with no proof thereof.
Professor Stanley Aronowitz scrutinizes science for operating with the presumption that the only acceptable criticisms of science are those conducted within the methodological framework that science has set up for itself. That science insists that only those who have been inducted into its community, through means of training and credentials, are qualified to make these criticisms. Aronowitz also alleges that while scientists consider it absurd that Fundamentalist Christianity uses biblical references to bolster their claim that the bible is true, scientists pull the same tactic by using the tools of science to settle disputes concerning its own validity.
Science is thus exposed to the charge that it tends to preclude other ways of knowing and having insights which humans traditionally used to understand and make sense of reality. In other words, other areas of human endeavors from art, literature, music, sociology, religion, philosophy etc. are marginalized by the dominance of science.
Scientism is the idea that natural science is the most authoritative worldview or aspect of human education, and that it is superior to all other interpretations of life. The term is used by social scientists such as Friedrich Hayek, or philosophers of science such as Karl Popper, to describe what they see as the underlying attitudes and beliefs common to many scientists, whereby the study and methods of natural science have risen to the level of ideology.
Antiscience is a position critical of science and the scientific method. People holding antiscientific views are generally skeptical that science is an objective method, as it purports to be, or that it generates universal knowledge. They also contend that scientific reductionism in particular is an inherently limited means to reach understanding of the complex world we live in. Antiscience proponents also criticize what they perceive as the unquestioned privilege, power and influence science seems to wield in society, industry and politics; they object to what they regard as an arrogant or closed-minded attitude amongst scientists.
Holism (from ὅλος holos, a Greek word meaning all, whole, entire, total) is the idea that all the properties of a given system (physical, biological, chemical, social, economic, mental, linguistic, etc.) cannot be determined or explained by its component parts alone. Instead, the system as a whole determines in an important way how the parts behave.
Ironically, precisely because science is fruitful and successful, it is now considered a threat to humans and their cherished human values.
For me, scientific inquiry, investigation and research into the potential of man, well there is still a lot of mystery there to uncover.
Yes. But what has ‘uncovered mystery’ to do with spirituality?
Gnostikosis - 27 October 2010 08:31 AM
Spirituality is about yourself and your own experiences. If it makes you happy, feel better about yourself or life your relationships, you’re the only one that has to judge that. If you are happy with a spiritual experience you don’t have to worry about what anyone else thinks or have to try and convince someone else about whatever works for you.
Some people might call that egoism, or egotism. I think I mean exactly the opposite: seeing how small you are in the great scheme of things (in which science can play a great role!), and at the same time see how precious you are, our planet, and everything crawling, walking and swimming on it. No?
Science is thus exposed to the charge that it tends to preclude other ways of knowing and having insights which humans traditionally used to understand and make sense of reality. In other words, other areas of human endeavors from art, literature, music, sociology, religion, philosophy etc. are marginalized by the dominance of science.
Ironically, precisely because science is fruitful and successful, it is now considered a threat to humans and their cherished human values.
Yes, but why, according to you? (And not according to many opinions you find on the internet). Where does this dominance of science come from? Is science in no way better than the other disciplines you mention? In which area is it the best, in which it isn’t?
Just to make clear my stand: I do not plead for scientism (no, don’t paste from Wikipedia!), but I am not an anti-scientist either. There are more nuanced ways of looking at the relation between science, values, society and the meaning of life, don’t you think?
If Gnost means that science is the rich man’s version? I am strongly convinced that understanding what science has to say about the cosmos and the mind can help (not necessarily helps!) developing a spiritual attitude by providing insight about the vastness of the universe and nature of the mind.
Saying that ‘spirituality is a poor man’s version of science about the self’ seems rather pejorative. As does ‘running the spiritual show’.
But maybe I do not understand what you mean?
GdB
Gnost: “spiritualism is a poor man’s science”
My remarks were in response to your question of what then a rich man’s spiritualism might be.
Came to mind the Priest King, running the spiritual show (Church of England) and warrior priests getting rich from crusades (Knigths Templar). And today, establishing a mega church demanding generous tithes in return for salvation.
It was not a serious analytical statement, but perhaps does contain a kernel of truth in the sarcasm.
My remarks were in response to your question of what then a rich man’s spiritualism might be.
Came to mind the Priest King, running the spiritual show (Church of England) and warrior priests getting rich from crusades (Knigths Templar). And today, establishing a mega church demanding generous tithes in return for salvation.
It was not a serious analytical statement, but perhaps does contain a kernel of truth in the sarcasm.
OK.
I do hope that, stripped off sarcasm, you don’t see this church as spiritual…
Science is thus exposed to the charge that it tends to preclude other ways of knowing and having insights which humans traditionally used to understand and make sense of reality. In other words, other areas of human endeavors from art, literature, music, sociology, religion, philosophy etc. are marginalized by the dominance of science.
Ironically, precisely because science is fruitful and successful, it is now considered a threat to humans and their cherished human values.
Yes, but why, according to you? (And not according to many opinions you find on the internet). Where does this dominance of science come from? Is science in no way better than the other disciplines you mention? In which area is it the best, in which it isn’t?
Just to make clear my stand: I do not plead for scientism (no, don’t paste from Wikipedia!), but I am not an anti-scientist either. There are more nuanced ways of looking at the relation between science, values, society and the meaning of life, don’t you think?
So what is your own, non-Wikipedia-view on this?
GdB
Is science (serious inquiry into the nature of the universe) or technology (use of gadgets) taking over? Seems to me that answer is technology, not science, that is replacing the human values and morals. The threat of science is only to the spiritualist who’s notions of the universe are slowly being debunked by science. But to the average technology user, scientific inquiry is usually limited to using the dial on a toaster to produce darker or lighter toast. Not much to do with morals or values. How could science compete for moral values, other than demanding intellectual honesty?
My remarks were in response to your question of what then a rich man’s spiritualism might be.
Came to mind the Priest King, running the spiritual show (Church of England) and warrior priests getting rich from crusades (Knigths Templar). And today, establishing a mega church demanding generous tithes in return for salvation.
It was not a serious analytical statement, but perhaps does contain a kernel of truth in the sarcasm.
OK.
I do hope that, stripped off sarcasm, you don’t see this church as spiritual…
GdB
Oh no, on the contrary, wealth and the pursuit thereof seems to have a curious side effect of destroying morals and values, even those acquired from spiritualism.
For me, scientific inquiry, investigation and research into the potential of man, well there is still a lot of mystery there to uncover. However scientific research takes funding to get any legitimate acceptance. Unless you have the wealth to pursue it on your own you’re going to have to convince someone to back you.
Yes, doing science takes money.
But science isn’t limited to the doers.
For the average person it is a matter of absorbing the science that others have achieved though their books, media and such that has been made available - something I believe’s a worthy past time. Especially, those souls actively engaged in musings about the spiritual within our earthly physical world {or the spirit v. flesh interface… from a non woo perspective}.
Yes. But what has ‘uncovered mystery’ to do with spirituality?
For me is has to do with finding a sense of awe and wonder with science. Being able to make practical use of science to discover something new. Versus a scientist who I don’t really know discovered
Gnostikosis - 27 October 2010 08:31 AM
Spirituality is about yourself and your own experiences. If it makes you happy, feel better about yourself or life your relationships, you’re the only one that has to judge that. If you are happy with a spiritual experience you don’t have to worry about what anyone else thinks or have to try and convince someone else about whatever works for you.
Some people might call that egoism, or egotism. I think I mean exactly the opposite: seeing how small you are in the great scheme of things (in which science can play a great role!), and at the same time see how precious you are, our planet, and everything crawling, walking and swimming on it. No?
GdB
Egoism? Self interest… Perhaps. I feel as one works towards improving oneself they are more capable of helping others when needed.
If I don’t see to my own faults I’m just as likely to screw-up the next guy as help them. IMO as we improve ourselves we can lead by example or help others through the same problems we’ve face. You have to take some interest in your self to acknowledge and work on fixing your own faults.
