# Are spirituality and science incompatible? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [June 18, 2005, 1:47am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-spirituality-and-science-incompatible/308771 "2005-06-18T01:47:41Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![UserID](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/87869e/32.png) [@UserID](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/UserID)\ **Post date:** [June 18, 2005, 5:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-spirituality-and-science-incompatible/308771/21 "2005-06-18T05:11:32Z")
> [@clairobscur](#): > > Actually, science does adress quite adequately the second question, with all the gory details. It’s only because people insist on assuming that there must be something else occuring, without the slightest shred of evidence, that it appears to many as an unanswered issue. :dubious: That’s just a deliberately absurd, stupid and unnecessary obfuscation of the meaning of the question, which you know quite well does not mean ‘what happens to a body when it dies.’ Try again. > [@](#): > > Well let’s just cut to the quick then shall we? Here are the questions I would venture to guess are bugging the OP: > > What is the meaning, purpose, objective of Life? > > What happens when I die? > > Science can’t address them. Thus Lib’s remark: > > “Use science to examine the universe. Use spirituality to examine reality.” ---
**Author:** ![II\_Gyan\_II](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/bbe5ce/32.png) [@II\_Gyan\_II](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/II_Gyan_II)\ **Post date:** [June 18, 2005, 5:12am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-spirituality-and-science-incompatible/308771/22 "2005-06-18T05:12:47Z")
> [@UserID](#): > > That is if one does not have one’s head stuck so far up one’s posterior that one refuses to consider the possibility that something exists beyond one’s current limited frame of reference. I am always ready to consider the possibility. What I would like to see something more tangible than simply adopting the possibility on the basis that it might be possible. So, how does one analyse metaphysics? ---
**Author:** ![UserID](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/87869e/32.png) [@UserID](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/UserID)\ **Post date:** [June 18, 2005, 6:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-spirituality-and-science-incompatible/308771/23 "2005-06-18T06:05:55Z")
> [@II Gyan II](#): > > Yes, and all he reveals is an hatred and a desire to disprove it. Listen to yourself. “All you reveal” by that sentence is an extreme lack of comprehensive reading skills. > [@](#): > > Not everyone who doesn’t believe has a dogmatic need to keep it that way. So who cares? What’s your point? > [@](#): > > And all he found out was you could either ‘make sense’ of it in one framework (allegory, spiritual meaning, “actual content of words”) Jeez, where did you get all that parenthetical nonsense? Certainly not from the article in question. > [@](#): > > or have it be ‘nonsensical’ in another framework(literal meaning, consistency). There you go with your straw man again. Take out the freaking parentheses and try again. “One interpretation of any verse or passage would render the whole story as nonsensical” is obviously what is causing you trouble. This interpretation being referred to, whatever it is, would depend entirely upon the particular passage being read and the person reading it. To overlay your own lack of comprehension and attribute the words ‘literal meaning’ or ‘consistency’ to that particular sentence is meaningless. > [@](#): > > He also expounds no he’s relating a personal experience, not “expounding”. > [@](#): > > that he had reasons that made him want to believe it, and reasons he didn’t. again with the unreferenced ‘it’. You are simplifying a complex process that you don’t understand because you never tried it. Read again the Lewis Carroll epiphany and try to imagine yourself reading the Bible with something other than contempt. You can’t. > [@](#): > > Again, he doesn’t tackle whether he believes it makes sense because he wants to i.e. the opposite side of the coin with the other side being dogmatic skeptical mode. No, the problem is YOU won’t tackle the idea that what he read made sense because IT MADE SENSE. Get it? Just because you keep saying the same thing over and over doesn’t make it true, especially when an answer was given to you in plain English twice. Your sentence doesn’t make any sense either, and if you must say it again I suggest you spend some time structuring and proofreading it. > [@](#): > > IOW, is a True Believer ready to the possibility that the Bible is false, literally and spiritually? IOW, is there a word missing from your sentence? Here, let me help. “IOW, is a True Believer ready to dismiss the possibility that the Bible is false, literally and spiritually?” Unequivocally, yes. Well, except for the literally “and spiritually” part, which is somewhat incomprehensible. ---
**Author:** ![II\_Gyan\_II](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/bbe5ce/32.png) [@II\_Gyan\_II](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/II_Gyan_II)\ **Post date:** [June 18, 2005, 6:31am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-spirituality-and-science-incompatible/308771/24 "2005-06-18T06:31:47Z")
You have fantastic debating skills. You just make insinuations without any actual arguments. > [@UserID](#): > > Listen to yourself. “All you reveal” by that sentence is an extreme lack of comprehensive reading skills. Listen to _yourself_. All that vitriol instead of an _explanation_. > [@](#): > > So who cares? What’s your point? The point is that not everyone who dismisses the Bible, does it because that’s their prejudiced conclusion. > [@](#): > > Jeez, where did you get all that parenthetical nonsense? Certainly not from the article in question. Indeed, from the article. He first recounts his dependence and belief in logic (‘rational thought’) as a valid guide. Then the Carroll epiphany directs him to read the Bible not as fact, but as poetry. It’s right there in the article. Hence the shift from a fact-oriented analysis i.e. consistency and literal reading to a poetic comprehension. > [@](#): > > There you go with your straw man again. Take out the freaking parentheses and try again. Why don’t you provide a précis of the article since you claim to “get it”? It might provide the right perspective. > [@](#): > > You are simplifying a complex process that you don’t understand because you never tried it. Read again the Lewis Carroll epiphany and try to imagine yourself reading the Bible with something other than contempt. Assumptions, again. “Did you stop beating your wife?” > [@](#): > > You can’t. Oops, the mind-reader has doomed me to skepticism. > [@](#): > > No, the problem is YOU won’t tackle the idea that what he read made sense because IT MADE SENSE. Get it? That possibility exists. YOU won’t tackle why it is the case that such happens to be true. > [@](#): > > Your sentence doesn’t make any sense either, and if you must say it again I suggest you spend some time structuring and proofreading it. I’ll break it down Again, he doesn’t tackle whether he believes it makes sense because he wants (it) to Clear? > [@](#): > > Here, let me help. “IOW, is a True Believer ready to dismiss the possibility that the Bible is false, literally and spiritually?” So you admit the believer is not open-minded. And you claim skeptics aren’t and deride them for that? ---
**Author:** ![Kozmik](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/8dc957/32.png) [@Kozmik](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kozmik)\ **Post date:** [June 18, 2005, 6:32am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-spirituality-and-science-incompatible/308771/25 "2005-06-18T06:32:27Z")
As Einstein said, “Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind”. ---
**Author:** ![UserID](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/87869e/32.png) [@UserID](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/UserID)\ **Post date:** [June 18, 2005, 6:45am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-spirituality-and-science-incompatible/308771/26 "2005-06-18T06:45:06Z")
> [@](#): > > UserID > Well let’s just cut to the quick then shall we? Here are the questions I would venture to guess are bugging the OP: > > What is the meaning, purpose, objective of Life? > > What happens when I die? > > Science can’t address them. Thus Lib’s remark: > > “Use science to examine the universe. Use spirituality to examine reality.” > [@](#): > > Originally Posted by II Gyan II > Then you are claiming that one can, after all, sense or analyse what is “actually out there”. > [@](#): > > Yes. > > That is if one does not have one’s head stuck so far up one’s posterior that one refuses to consider the possibility that something exists beyond one’s current limited frame of reference. > [@II Gyan II](#): > > I am always ready to consider the possibility. No you’re not, because then you said this: > [@](#): > > What I would like to see something more tangible than simply adopting the possibility on the basis that it might be possible. After saying that sentence 5 times fast backwards and forwards, it still made me laugh. Well, if you wait around long enough maybe someone will part the Red Sea for you or come floating down from Heaven to reveal All Truth. See what I mean? You’re not ready to consider anything beyond playing word games on a forum. As to not wanting to consider a possibility on the basis that it might be possible: that’s just not true, you do it every time you form an opinion about any event you didn’t witness or make a decision to take an umbrella to work in the morning because it might rain. Actually, it’s a more a matter of pride and cowardice than some lofty intellectual consideration. Most people who discard God are just too chickensh\*t to admit their entire structure is faulty and might have to be torn down. Plus they don’t want to look uncool to their friends or appear unintelligent. > [@](#): > > So, how does one analyse metaphysics? I don’t know. Who said anything about ‘metaphysics’? I’m all up into reality. ---
**Author:** ![II\_Gyan\_II](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/bbe5ce/32.png) [@II\_Gyan\_II](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/II_Gyan_II)\ **Post date:** [June 18, 2005, 7:32am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-spirituality-and-science-incompatible/308771/27 "2005-06-18T07:32:53Z")
> [@UserID](#): > > See what I mean? No. I said I’m open to that possibility which means it is in the list of possibilites. There are also OTHER possibilities. Give me a reason why I select any one of them. > [@](#): > > As to not wanting to consider a possibility on the basis that it might be possible: that’s just not true, Straw man. Adopting a possibility as the definitive answer is not the same as being open to it. Let me make this more accurate. I don’t know if the Christian metaphysic _is_ possible. When I say something might be possible, I mean that I don’t know that something IS impossible. A real difference. > [@](#): > > you do it every time you form an opinion about any event you didn’t witness or make a decision to take an umbrella to work in the morning because it might rain. Based on prior experience and assumption of induction. > [@](#): > > Most people who discard God are just too chickensh\*t to admit their entire structure is faulty and might have to be torn down. And it can be said that ‘True Believers’ are too afraid to let go of the edifice of hope, security and fulfillment that they have constructed. No progress here. > [@](#): > > I don’t know. Who said anything about ‘metaphysics’? I’m all up into reality. Metaphysics is about the nature of reality. Fine, let’s just stick to ‘reality’ if that’s the term you prefer. ---
**Author:** ![Argent\_Towers](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/e8c25b/32.png) [@Argent\_Towers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Argent_Towers)\ **Post date:** [June 18, 2005, 7:37am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-spirituality-and-science-incompatible/308771/28 "2005-06-18T07:37:11Z")
Now that this has turned into a genuine debate, rather than a discussion, I’ll jump in again to address a few things. First, about the earlier question of theoretical science versus non-theoretical, the way I think of it is things like how water turns into ice and how cell division occurs, versus things like the “big bang” and “singularity” and “black holes.” One is easily observable and can be done by us in a lab - the other relies mostly on mathematical equations and is not very tangible or demonstrable. Also, I don’t want this to be an argument, I really do want it to be a discussion. I want science people to talk about their perspective, and spiritual people to talk about theirs, but there’s no reason to clash over them - this is about compatibility, remember. I’d like to hear from more spiritualists, particularly Buddhists or anyone with a similar philosophy. It’s not neccessary to restrict the discussion to any one type of religion, but I am more interested in discussing spirituality in a broader sense, not so much in the context of the Bible. I have nothing against the Bible but I want to hear how it personally affects your spirituality, and how you see it working with or going against science, if you’re going to talk about it. I think you can be religious without believing in any one particular religion. ---
**Author:** ![comrade33](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/e99b99/32.png) [@comrade33](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/comrade33)\ **Post date:** [June 18, 2005, 7:39am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-spirituality-and-science-incompatible/308771/29 "2005-06-18T07:39:51Z")
i have only one thing to add. read the tao of physics. mindbending to say the least. ---
**Author:** ![UserID](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/87869e/32.png) [@UserID](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/UserID)\ **Post date:** [June 18, 2005, 8:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-spirituality-and-science-incompatible/308771/30 "2005-06-18T08:17:11Z")
> [@II Gyan II](#): > > You have fantastic debating skills. Thank you. 🙂 > [@](#): > > All that vitriol instead of an _explanation_. No, all that vitriol with the _extra added bonus_ of brilliant and illuminating insights! > [@](#): > > The point is that not everyone who dismisses the Bible, does it because that’s their prejudiced conclusion. So what? Start another thread and see if someone wants to debate it, it’s not a subject addressed by anyone here but you. > [@](#): > > Indeed, from the article. He first recounts his dependence and belief in logic (‘rational thought’) as a valid guide. I know you want very much to put words in his mouth and say he **gave up** logic and rational thought, and you’re going to lump him in with believers, etc. blah blah because that’s so much easier than trying to wrap your brain around the possibility that an intelligent rational person might consider something you can’t understand as being logical and rational?? Go ahead, it doesn’t make it true but if it makes you feel better that’s ok. > [@](#): > > Then the Carroll epiphany directs him to read the Bible not as fact, but as poetry. It’s right there in the article. Right. Poetry, something other than a filthy tome written to brainwash the masses, for the first time. And the first time you admitted that is what he actually said. > [@](#): > > Hence the shift from a fact-oriented analysis i.e. consistency and literal reading to a poetic comprehension. \*\*fact-oriented analysis i.e. consistency and literal reading \*\* are your words put into the author’s mouth. Again. Poetic comprehension with the removal of prejudice, yes. > [@](#): > > Why don’t you provide a précis of the article since you claim to “get it”? It might provide the right perspective. Nah. Not my job. It’s up to truth-seeking adults to supply the right perspective for themselves when they read. > [@UserID](#): > > You are simplifying a complex process that you don’t understand because you never tried it. Read again the Lewis Carroll epiphany and try to imagine yourself reading the Bible with something other than contempt. > > You can’t. > [@](#): > > Assumptions, again. “Did you stop beating your wife?” No, just a well educated guess. Tell me you search the scriptures for truth and edification and I’ll retract it. > [@](#): > > Oops, the mind-reader has doomed me to skepticism. No, the post reader has read your posts. > [@](#): > > Again, he doesn’t tackle whether he believes it makes sense because he wants to i.e. the opposite side of the coin with the other side being dogmatic skeptical mode. It’s your coin, if those are the only two sides you want to put on it. > [@UserID](#): > > No, the problem is YOU won’t tackle the idea that what he read made sense because IT MADE SENSE. Get it? Just because you keep saying the same thing over and over doesn’t make it true, especially when an answer was given to you in plain English twice. Your sentence doesn’t make any sense either, and if you must say it again I suggest you spend some time structuring and proofreading it. > [@](#): > > That possibility exists. YOU won’t tackle why it is the case that such happens to be true. It’s not my job to convince you of anything. I offered enlightenment, entertainment, that’s as far as it goes. If there is something you want to find, you will find it. If you want to know the truth, it is there for the asking. Frankly, it’s impossible to tell at this point. You are so intent on playing word games you’ve lost yourself in a sea of ambiguity with that last sentence, and the one below this. Truth isn’t the prize or the objective. WE both know that. > [@](#): > > I’ll break it down > > Again, > he doesn’t tackle > whether > he believes it makes sense > because > he wants (it) to > > Clear? NO. It’s nonsense. You want to infer this person could be an imbecile who willfully pitches logic and reason out the window in order to believe made up crap because it feels good, then you get pissed because he doesn’t tell you that in words as an explanation for his conversion. > [@](#): > > IOW, is a True Believer ready to the possibility that the Bible is false, literally and spiritually? > [@](#): > > IOW, is there a word missing from your sentence? Here, let me help. “IOW, is a True Believer ready to dismiss the possibility that the Bible is false, literally and spiritually?” Unequivocally, yes. Well, except for the literally “and spiritually” part, which is somewhat incomprehensible. > [@](#): > > So you admit the believer is not open-minded. How sarcastic of you. > [@](#): > > And you claim skeptics aren’t and deride them for that? Yes. ---
**Author:** ![UserID](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/87869e/32.png) [@UserID](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/UserID)\ **Post date:** [June 18, 2005, 8:47am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-spirituality-and-science-incompatible/308771/31 "2005-06-18T08:47:43Z")
LEARNING TO THINK SPIRITUALLY How to perceive God; Truth in Paradox by A.S.A. Jones > [@](#): > > Learning to think spiritually isn’t about accepting the supernatural. I am referring to that part of the human intellect that allows the mind to understand things that are not readily made obvious or explicitly stated. It is the same skill involved in interpreting poetry or in detecting the nuances that are present in higher literature. Most people already have this ability; they just need to learn how to apply it when it comes to the issue of God. > > If you are an atheist who is interested in seeing if he can tune into God, I recommend that you first read “The Tao of Pooh” by Benjamin Hoff. It’s short, sweet and easy to understand. Atheistic in its philosophy, this book will put you on the path to understanding truth in paradox. A paradox is that which appears to contradict, but upon closer examination, really does not. “The Tao of Pooh” removed much of my arrogance and knocked the owl right out of me, effectively diminishing two barriers that had allowed me to shut God out of my perception. ---
**Author:** ![II\_Gyan\_II](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/bbe5ce/32.png) [@II\_Gyan\_II](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/II_Gyan_II)\ **Post date:** [June 18, 2005, 9:09am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-spirituality-and-science-incompatible/308771/32 "2005-06-18T09:09:11Z")
> [@UserID](#): > > I know you want very much to put words in his mouth and say he **gave up** logic and rational thought, and you’re going to lump him in with believers, etc. blah blah because that’s so much easier than trying to wrap your brain around the possibility that an intelligent rational person might consider something you can’t understand as being logical and rational?? You just keep on throwing out accusations. Must be very easy to reassure yourself when you already supplied the other person’s basis and prejudices. > [@](#): > > Go ahead, it doesn’t make it true but if it makes you feel better that’s ok. Finally, some true insight. Now, only if you were consistent in applying it. > [@](#): > > \*\*fact-oriented analysis i.e. consistency and literal reading \*\* are your words put into the author’s mouth. Again. Poetic comprehension with the removal of prejudice, yes. He has admitted that his readings of the Bible before New Year 1998, treated it as a “proposal of fact”. Have YOU properly read the article? > [@](#): > > No, just a well educated guess. Tell me you search the scriptures for truth and edification and I’ll retract it. I strive to seek Truth everywhere. > [@](#): > > If there is something you want to find, you will find it. Are you saying this is a strictly true generalization? I can think of 101 mundane things for which this doesn’t seem to apply. > [@](#): > > Truth isn’t the prize or the objective. WE both know that. Eh? Truth is the objective. > [@](#): > > You want to infer this person could be an imbecile who willfully pitches logic and reason out the window in order to believe made up crap because it feels good, Yes, that _could_ be the case. I don’t know that it ISN’T. His own words, below, provide some support for that scenario > [@](#): > > I reasoned that if we could educate our populations and continue to make advances in medicine, agriculture and energy production, we would one day have the mythical Eden as our reality. > …(snip)… > I busied myself with one diversion after another, trying to fill my life with meaningless activity in order to forget how meaningless it was. In my desperation, I grew self-righteous and indignant. I was secretly envious of the morons who seemed blissfully unaware of their own meaninglessness. I wanted to shake them awake and get them to see how worthless their lives really were. > …(snip)… > My anti-Christian arguments became my ultimate diversion to a hopeless life. > …(snip)… > The Bible didn’t make sense to me. But why did it make sense to others? What were they seeing that I didn’t? Did they so desperately want there to be a God that they had deluded themselves into thinking that there was one? These words strongly suggest that above all, he wanted to end his suffering; that he hated nihilism and desperately wanted meaning, as the means towards his goal. It also suggests that he did not sincerely believe these other statements > [@](#): > > If our life is the result of randomness and chance, it is meaningless, no matter how we try to convince ourselves otherwise. > > That was fine with me. I was prepared to live my life by this truth and discovered that the prospect of a life without meaning can be a very freeing experience. > [@](#): > > then you get pissed because he doesn’t tell you that in words as an explanation for his conversion. I’m not pissed off because, irrespective of the truth, of course he WON’T admit it. If his belief is predicated on hope, security and fulfillment, acknowledging and admitting it as such, is admitting to himself that his belief isn’t True. BTW, just in case you have assumed that I’m a materialist/physicalist or atheist, I’m not. ---
**Author:** ![Liberal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/848f3c/32.png) [@Liberal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Liberal)\ **Post date:** [June 18, 2005, 10:09am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-spirituality-and-science-incompatible/308771/33 "2005-06-18T10:09:27Z")
> [@Argent Towers](#): > > Is the “universe” not real? It is not. See [this discussion](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=303953). ---
**Author:** ![Liberal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/848f3c/32.png) [@Liberal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Liberal)\ **Post date:** [June 18, 2005, 10:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-spirituality-and-science-incompatible/308771/34 "2005-06-18T10:11:51Z")
> [@II Gyan II](#): > > This just sounds like a revisionist rearrangement. What is the difference between universe and reality? The universe is temporal, existential, and contingent. Reality is eternal, essential, and necessary. ---
**Author:** ![marshmallow](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/df705f/32.png) [@marshmallow](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/marshmallow)\ **Post date:** [June 18, 2005, 11:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-spirituality-and-science-incompatible/308771/35 "2005-06-18T11:00:17Z")
It appears to me that many people in this thread are using a [god of the gaps argument](http://www.don-lindsay-archive.org/creation/god_of_gaps.html) to justify their belief in the spiritual. From a purely faith centered viewpoint this seems shaky. You’ll run into problems as science probes and understands more and more of the brain (certainly the most complicated machine so far discovered). It would seem better to simply take the spiritual as a matter of pure faith and not use holes in science’s understanding of the world as a crutch for your belief. I mean, isn’t that the point of **faith** anyway? You know, believing without needing physical proof or logic. As for science being in bed with the spiritual…if demons, angels, spirits, and god(s) have no measurable influence upon our universe then science can’t do anything with them and thus I suppose they are incompatible. However, if you can show that Satan is actually subverting my thoughts as I sleep then this could open up whole new fields. As for your problem with meaning, life only has the meaning you give it. Since you have internet access and are going to college you should consider yourself lucky to be born in a nation that is so resourceful and full of opportunities. If you constantly tell yourself that life is meaningless then it will become meaningless for you. If you go out and make the best of it then you’ll be much happier, I assure you. But this is all coming from dirty heathen… ---
**Author:** ![Argent\_Towers](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/e8c25b/32.png) [@Argent\_Towers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Argent_Towers)\ **Post date:** [June 18, 2005, 11:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-spirituality-and-science-incompatible/308771/36 "2005-06-18T11:27:24Z")
I’m not talking about “God” in the sense of Western religion. I never said anything about demons, Satan, or anything like that. Of course you can’t explain away gaps in science by “faith in God.” I’m discussing a broader overarching theme of spirituality in the sense of their being some kind energy force connceting all mankind with nature and the rest of the physical world (and perhaps universe.) Like “the force” in Star Wars. ---
**Author:** ![marshmallow](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/df705f/32.png) [@marshmallow](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/marshmallow)\ **Post date:** [June 18, 2005, 11:34am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-spirituality-and-science-incompatible/308771/37 "2005-06-18T11:34:06Z")
If this force connects everything physical then we should be able to detect it. Otherwise, how could it connect physical things? ---
**Author:** ![cosmosdan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/a6a055/32.png) [@cosmosdan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/cosmosdan)\ **Post date:** [June 18, 2005, 12:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-spirituality-and-science-incompatible/308771/38 "2005-06-18T12:35:10Z")
> [@UserID](#): > > No, all that vitriol with the _extra added bonus_ of brilliant and illuminating insights! really? and when will that be starting? It will be a refreshing change from your posts up till now. > [@](#): > > I know you want very much to put words in his mouth and say he **gave up** logic and rational thought, and you’re going to lump him in with believers, etc. blah blah because that’s so much easier than trying to wrap your brain around the possibility that an intelligent rational person might consider something you can’t understand as being logical and rational?? > > Go ahead, it doesn’t make it true but if it makes you feel better that’s ok. This part is kinda funny. You have consistently made conclusions about **II Gyan II** ’s posts that are baseless and inaccurate and then make this statement. It’s a joke right? > [@](#): > > No, the post reader has read your posts. The post reader has interperted the post with his or her own brand of prejudice., and now insists that the conclusions based on that prejudice are fact. All the while hurling accusations of\*\* II Gyan II\*\* being closed minded. It’s a laughable bit of hypocrisy. > [@](#): > > Truth isn’t the prize or the objective. WE both know that. They may be other words that are just as legitimate in place of truth, but the truth is indeed the objective. Someone said it would set us free. ---
**Author:** ![cosmosdan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/a6a055/32.png) [@cosmosdan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/cosmosdan)\ **Post date:** [June 18, 2005, 1:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-spirituality-and-science-incompatible/308771/39 "2005-06-18T13:00:20Z")
> [@Argent Towers](#): > > I’m not talking about “God” in the sense of Western religion. I never said anything about demons, Satan, or anything like that. Of course you can’t explain away gaps in science by “faith in God.” I’m discussing a broader overarching theme of spirituality in the sense of their being some kind energy force connceting all mankind with nature and the rest of the physical world (and perhaps universe.) Like “the force” in Star Wars. Regarding the OP. I believe science and spirituality are perfectly compatible. Both require a commitment to the truth. What is and what is not true based on the information we have so far? {realizing how very limited that information is} What are the latest theories about how things work? You’ll find a lot of posters on the board who seem to think that anything that cannot be disproven by science and cannot be properly tested under acceptable scientific standards is irrelevant and serves no purpose. I ask, is imagination a nessecary link in the chain of science? Is our ability to wonder and question the boundries of our knowledge a nessecary link? We imagined the ability to fly for centuries before our understanding took it from mythology to the Wright brothers. Science cooperates with the spiritual quest by helping us to dispell mythology and replace it with truth. The struggle is that science has little interest in what remains untestable and rightly so. Spiritual truth is something born within from your own experience. It is something you can discuss with others but never give to others. They have to choose it for themselves. Go forward based on what you percieve to be the truth, whether it’s a spiritual inkling or a moral conviction. I was inclined to believe what you mentioned above. There is a force that connects all creation. For me that meant that all creatures were a part of me and I had to choose what to do with that understanding. I am begining to look at it differently. It’s not so much that there is something that connects all of us. It’s more that there is nothing that seperates us except our belief in that speration. We embrace the illusion and live accordingly. ---
**Author:** ![Liberal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/848f3c/32.png) [@Liberal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Liberal)\ **Post date:** [June 18, 2005, 4:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-spirituality-and-science-incompatible/308771/40 "2005-06-18T16:35:31Z")
> [@mstay](#): > > It appears to me that many people in this thread are using a [god of the gaps argument](http://www.don-lindsay-archive.org/creation/god_of_gaps.html) to justify their belief in the spiritual. Who would they be? [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-spirituality-and-science-incompatible/308771.md?page=1) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-spirituality-and-science-incompatible/308771.md?page=3)