This is the difference between religion and philosophy. There are conflicts between religion and science, conflicts between religion and philosophy. I think that Buddhism is a way of thinking (much near to philosophy) more than a religion and for this reason there are almost no conflicts between Buddhism and Science :)
I don't necessarily think that the objectives of science and spirituality are mutually exclusive. Both aim for a greater appreciation of the greater world/universe around us, not just our own individual interests.
Phil Tiongson Couldn't agree more - the two are not necessarily at odds or mutually exclusive. Science does come into conflict with supernatural dogma frequently however - which is a result of narrow minded spiritualism. That's why the Dalai Lama's sentiment expressed above is so moving - the flexibility of his spiritualism makes it infinitely richer because it isn't in conflict with his intellect.
The Dalai Lama's spirituality is about left-right brain integration. Demonstrating this in every day life is great, but it must be all the more easy to do so when it becomes a core value - as is the case when it arise from the core values of your spirituality.
I fail at this personally, I'm much too left-brained.... lol
Science is the antithesis of organized religion. Scientific endeavor is an individual pursuit; religions attempt to wipe out individuality. Scientific minds attempt to answer the question, "How does it function?" Religious 'minds' attempt to dictate the answer. There is no room in science for miracles, because miracles belie function. There is no room in science for mysticism, because mysticism obfuscates function.
Spirituality does not belong to religion, despite historical pretensions of those who desire to control minds by indoctrination of religious 'principles' (as if principles were malleable and dictate-able by human whim rather than naturally occurring a priori to our discovery of their existence via observing the effects of their interactions).
The relationship between spirituality and science is not dichotomous, but complementary: science is focused on observing what is occurring, and is essentially epistemological; spirituality is focused on changing what is occurring, and is essentially ethicological (to coin a term, since the term 'ethical' is overloaded). The complementation plays out in so many ways, but is the same essential relationship, that of inside looking out (spirit/ego/psyche) in relation to the outside that is observed (matter/world/physique): science:spirituality ... observation:judgment ... epistemology:ethics ... physiology:psychology ... function:intention.
Being doing. Doing being.
There is nothing mystical about this once the essential relationship between inside and outside is understood. I identify this understanding in Taoism, which was properly a philosophy from the get-go, the only example I am aware of wherein the philosophy is predicated on firm insistence on the law of identity (a thing is what it does, and behaves according to its nature) with complementarily firm rejection of miracles, and focus on answering the question, "How does it function?" rather than attempts to dictate the nature of natural facts.
Buddhism, to the extent it is rational and scientific, inherited those features from ancient Taoism, the philosophical grandparent of Buddhism on the rational side of the family. Of course, Buddhism is not wholly rational, and therein lies the rub: honest spirituality cannot coexist with religious indoctrination.
Today, Taoism has become a caricature of the intention of its progenitors; but the root of it, complementation of body and mind as an integrated whole in the pursuit of self-improvement and individual happiness without taking the sterile path of hermit-like withdrawal from the complexity of reality -- that is worth considering. Taoism is the only ancient body of thought that wholly respects -- and insists -- on the essential nature of human nature.
Spiritualism is subjective and science is objective. The subjectivity of spiritualism can manifest at odds with objective truth or it can be truth-compatible. Experiencing a transcendental high while viewing the blue dot picture of Earth taken by the Cassini probe is subjective but entirely compatible with objective truth (http://goo.gl/HnsW7c ). On the other hand, believing that the Earth is 6000 years old as part of an accepted religious dogma is a subjective frame of mind that is incompatible with objective truth.
Sean Walker I realize I am navigating against the current (for the past 200+ years) current connotations of the terms 'objective' and 'subjective'; I challenge your identification of spirituality as subjective, and (being consistent) also therefore challenge your assertion of such think as "objective truth". There are myriad reasons for my challenge, but I will attempt to codify the essentials.
First, the original meaning of the term 'subjective' was to identify experiences which were not a matter of choice, but rather a matter of being subject to forces outside one's control. In this vein, happenings are subjective experiences. By contrast, experiments -- experiences that are chosen rather than encountered without forethought -- are objective. The franco-germanic philosophers of the 18th century caused much confusion of meaning of the terms 'subjective' and 'objective', and currently folk appear to identify 'subjective' as related to individual conscious choice, with 'objective' identified as independent of consciousness. This inversion of meaning is almost Orwellian in its viciousness regarding the power of individuals, and was motivated from two sides of the collectivist coin. On the one hand, the ancient practice of intrinsicism, whereby folk used the fact that no single individual determines all of reality as justification for (religiously motivated) attempts to assert that reality was independent of individual consciousness -- and notice that the viciousness of such creed was the attempt to take control of, and dictate, the nature of reality by authoritarian 'leaders'. On the other hand, the relatively recent practice of subjectivism, whereby folk took the same fact that no single individual determines all of reality as justification for collectivist imposition of majority rule perforce as a matter of what people believed and could impose on others by force of numbers rather than what was true in fact. In both cases, the nature of the beast is the attempt by some to impose their will on others, and in both cases, the faulty premise is that if you can get enough people to believe something, then it must be true.
Individuality, which is essentially spiritual and scientific, is not subjective, but rather, the root of objectivity.
Truth is truth. No adjectives are necessary, and the phrase 'objective truth' implies that there is truth which is not objectively discoverable -- which is what the intrinsicists and subjectivists want to be true (but it is not).
The discovery of truth requires the objective (experimental) verification of hypothesis by an individual who suspects that his/her experiences can be distilled to infer principles that hold independent of the special case experiences that the individual used to come to his/her hypothesis, which means that the discovery of truth requires an ego/spirit at root, as the navigator/driver of choice of which hypothesis to take, which experiments to perform, and how to judge the content and value of experiences in the pursuit of truth.
The discovery of truth also requires uncertainty as a precursor, which means that there is something other than the individual's ego/spirit which can be considered in relation to the individual, and is the source of experiences which the individual is (initially) subjected to, and (eventually) navigates within to discover truth by experiment.
Objectivity requires both actor and stage -- both spirit and matter, both mind and body. Truth is objectively discovered by individual mind as the inner product of experience considered by ego. Truth is recognized by verification -- by experimenting to prove that similar experiences considered in similar framework produces similar results.
Finally (and I know that this comment is long), the question of whether reality exists independent of consciousness must be addressed. The only consistent answer is 'of course not' -- because, to even ask the question, one must be conscious. Now, it is true that reality exists independent of any given individual; but without individuals, there is no reality to discuss, and the term 'reality' has no meaning in the first place.
This is difficult for many to grasp, but it is key: without the potential for thinking, there is nothing to consider in the first place. That is not to say that thinking predates reality, but it is to say that without individuals conscious of other individuals, there is no reality to speak of.
That was very long David. A lot of it was rooted in a semantic preference for the meaning of subjective. So substitute what term you choose for subjective. I am saying spirituality is a cognitive / emotional phenomenon and not intrinsic to the objective phenomenon. My sense of elation at the blue dot is a response in my mind not an actual characteristic of the planet Earth. The response in my mind is mine and yours is yours and they are likely different. This is in contrast to a scientific approach, which if we were both pursuing should lead us to equivalent truths - for example we should both arrive at the same spectrographic results.
I'm uncomfortable responding at great length to what I think was an unnecessarily pedantic challenge. However, I'll comment briefly about the point you made regarding my qualification of 'truth'. I used the term objective truth to differentiate between it and the idea of personal truths - which may well be a vague term but is a common way of referring to an individual's way of seeing the world.
I think that faith does not need the truth as well as truth does not need faith. I hope Google Translate to translate it properly and you you understand me right ...
This is the difference between religion and philosophy.
ReplyDeleteThere are conflicts between religion and science, conflicts between religion and philosophy.
I think that Buddhism is a way of thinking (much near to philosophy) more than a religion and for this reason there are almost no conflicts between Buddhism and Science :)
Saverio Brancaccio I totally agree!
ReplyDeleteThis man sits at the pinnacle of respectability. He's my ideal: Vast empathy without irrationality and dogmatic hubris.
ReplyDeleteI don't necessarily think that the objectives of science and spirituality are mutually exclusive. Both aim for a greater appreciation of the greater world/universe around us, not just our own individual interests.
ReplyDeletePhil Tiongson Couldn't agree more - the two are not necessarily at odds or mutually exclusive. Science does come into conflict with supernatural dogma frequently however - which is a result of narrow minded spiritualism. That's why the Dalai Lama's sentiment expressed above is so moving - the flexibility of his spiritualism makes it infinitely richer because it isn't in conflict with his intellect.
ReplyDeleteSorry, yet another thought on this. ;)
ReplyDeleteThe Dalai Lama's spirituality is about left-right brain integration. Demonstrating this in every day life is great, but it must be all the more easy to do so when it becomes a core value - as is the case when it arise from the core values of your spirituality.
I fail at this personally, I'm much too left-brained.... lol
Science is the antithesis of organized religion. Scientific endeavor is an individual pursuit; religions attempt to wipe out individuality. Scientific minds attempt to answer the question, "How does it function?" Religious 'minds' attempt to dictate the answer. There is no room in science for miracles, because miracles belie function. There is no room in science for mysticism, because mysticism obfuscates function.
ReplyDeleteSpirituality does not belong to religion, despite historical pretensions of those who desire to control minds by indoctrination of religious 'principles' (as if principles were malleable and dictate-able by human whim rather than naturally occurring a priori to our discovery of their existence via observing the effects of their interactions).
The relationship between spirituality and science is not dichotomous, but complementary: science is focused on observing what is occurring, and is essentially epistemological; spirituality is focused on changing what is occurring, and is essentially ethicological (to coin a term, since the term 'ethical' is overloaded). The complementation plays out in so many ways, but is the same essential relationship, that of inside looking out (spirit/ego/psyche) in relation to the outside that is observed (matter/world/physique): science:spirituality ... observation:judgment ... epistemology:ethics ... physiology:psychology ... function:intention.
Being doing. Doing being.
There is nothing mystical about this once the essential relationship between inside and outside is understood. I identify this understanding in Taoism, which was properly a philosophy from the get-go, the only example I am aware of wherein the philosophy is predicated on firm insistence on the law of identity (a thing is what it does, and behaves according to its nature) with complementarily firm rejection of miracles, and focus on answering the question, "How does it function?" rather than attempts to dictate the nature of natural facts.
Buddhism, to the extent it is rational and scientific, inherited those features from ancient Taoism, the philosophical grandparent of Buddhism on the rational side of the family. Of course, Buddhism is not wholly rational, and therein lies the rub: honest spirituality cannot coexist with religious indoctrination.
Today, Taoism has become a caricature of the intention of its progenitors; but the root of it, complementation of body and mind as an integrated whole in the pursuit of self-improvement and individual happiness without taking the sterile path of hermit-like withdrawal from the complexity of reality -- that is worth considering. Taoism is the only ancient body of thought that wholly respects -- and insists -- on the essential nature of human nature.
Spiritualism is subjective and science is objective. The subjectivity of spiritualism can manifest at odds with objective truth or it can be truth-compatible. Experiencing a transcendental high while viewing the blue dot picture of Earth taken by the Cassini probe is subjective but entirely compatible with objective truth (http://goo.gl/HnsW7c ). On the other hand, believing that the Earth is 6000 years old as part of an accepted religious dogma is a subjective frame of mind that is incompatible with objective truth.
ReplyDeleteSean Walker I realize I am navigating against the current (for the past 200+ years) current connotations of the terms 'objective' and 'subjective'; I challenge your identification of spirituality as subjective, and (being consistent) also therefore challenge your assertion of such think as "objective truth". There are myriad reasons for my challenge, but I will attempt to codify the essentials.
ReplyDeleteFirst, the original meaning of the term 'subjective' was to identify experiences which were not a matter of choice, but rather a matter of being subject to forces outside one's control. In this vein, happenings are subjective experiences. By contrast, experiments -- experiences that are chosen rather than encountered without forethought -- are objective. The franco-germanic philosophers of the 18th century caused much confusion of meaning of the terms 'subjective' and 'objective', and currently folk appear to identify 'subjective' as related to individual conscious choice, with 'objective' identified as independent of consciousness. This inversion of meaning is almost Orwellian in its viciousness regarding the power of individuals, and was motivated from two sides of the collectivist coin. On the one hand, the ancient practice of intrinsicism, whereby folk used the fact that no single individual determines all of reality as justification for (religiously motivated) attempts to assert that reality was independent of individual consciousness -- and notice that the viciousness of such creed was the attempt to take control of, and dictate, the nature of reality by authoritarian 'leaders'. On the other hand, the relatively recent practice of subjectivism, whereby folk took the same fact that no single individual determines all of reality as justification for collectivist imposition of majority rule perforce as a matter of what people believed and could impose on others by force of numbers rather than what was true in fact. In both cases, the nature of the beast is the attempt by some to impose their will on others, and in both cases, the faulty premise is that if you can get enough people to believe something, then it must be true.
Individuality, which is essentially spiritual and scientific, is not subjective, but rather, the root of objectivity.
Truth is truth. No adjectives are necessary, and the phrase 'objective truth' implies that there is truth which is not objectively discoverable -- which is what the intrinsicists and subjectivists want to be true (but it is not).
The discovery of truth requires the objective (experimental) verification of hypothesis by an individual who suspects that his/her experiences can be distilled to infer principles that hold independent of the special case experiences that the individual used to come to his/her hypothesis, which means that the discovery of truth requires an ego/spirit at root, as the navigator/driver of choice of which hypothesis to take, which experiments to perform, and how to judge the content and value of experiences in the pursuit of truth.
The discovery of truth also requires uncertainty as a precursor, which means that there is something other than the individual's ego/spirit which can be considered in relation to the individual, and is the source of experiences which the individual is (initially) subjected to, and (eventually) navigates within to discover truth by experiment.
Objectivity requires both actor and stage -- both spirit and matter, both mind and body. Truth is objectively discovered by individual mind as the inner product of experience considered by ego. Truth is recognized by verification -- by experimenting to prove that similar experiences considered in similar framework produces similar results.
Finally (and I know that this comment is long), the question of whether reality exists independent of consciousness must be addressed. The only consistent answer is 'of course not' -- because, to even ask the question, one must be conscious. Now, it is true that reality exists independent of any given individual; but without individuals, there is no reality to discuss, and the term 'reality' has no meaning in the first place.
ReplyDeleteThis is difficult for many to grasp, but it is key: without the potential for thinking, there is nothing to consider in the first place. That is not to say that thinking predates reality, but it is to say that without individuals conscious of other individuals, there is no reality to speak of.
That was very long David. A lot of it was rooted in a semantic preference for the meaning of subjective. So substitute what term you choose for subjective. I am saying spirituality is a cognitive / emotional phenomenon and not intrinsic to the objective phenomenon. My sense of elation at the blue dot is a response in my mind not an actual characteristic of the planet Earth. The response in my mind is mine and yours is yours and they are likely different. This is in contrast to a scientific approach, which if we were both pursuing should lead us to equivalent truths - for example we should both arrive at the same spectrographic results.
ReplyDeleteI'm uncomfortable responding at great length to what I think was an unnecessarily pedantic challenge. However, I'll comment briefly about the point you made regarding my qualification of 'truth'. I used the term objective truth to differentiate between it and the idea of personal truths - which may well be a vague term but is a common way of referring to an individual's way of seeing the world.
I think that faith does not need the truth as well as truth does not need faith. I hope Google Translate to translate it properly and you you understand me right ...
ReplyDelete