What is the most important thing that will happen in the 21st century? The fusion of science and spirituality. That will happen. Why? Because this world in which we live changes, develops, progresses and evolves according to a certain law: the Law of Interpenetration of Dialectic. This law, advocated by German philosopher Georg Hegel, teaches us that "things which oppose and compete with each other come to resemble each other." If this Hegelian law is correct, science and spirituality will come to resemble each other, merge with each other, and fuse into a higher and greater "something."
Then, two questions arise in our minds: how will this fusion happen? And how can we promote this fusion? The latter is especially of great importance in the 21st century because now at the beginning of this century, both science and spirituality are faced with their limitations. So I would like to propose three strategies to promote the fusion of science and spirituality.
Strategy 1: Teach Modern Science in the Religious Community (Natural Sciences Approach)
When we learn the latest findings in the forefront of modern science, a sense of wonder naturally comes to our mind. For instance, according to the latest scientific knowledge, this universe was created from a "quantum vacuum" 13.7 billion years ago. At the beginning, the quantum vacuum created a countless number of bubbles that are called "baby universes." And most of the baby universes disappeared shortly after their birth. But among those countless baby universes, the universe in which we live has miraculously survived. A sense of wonder naturally comes to our minds when we learn this scientific fact about the creation of the universe, and this sense of wonder is indispensable for a religious mind and spirituality. Therefore, teaching the latest science is one of the best ways for people to gain a religious mind and spirituality in today's world.
Strategy 2: Deepen Modern Psychology Through the Wisdom of Traditional Religions and Spirituality (Human Sciences Approach)
The most important question for the science of psychology in the 21st century is "Who am I?" To answer this profound question, we need to explore the depths of our mind, especially the world of the subconsciousness advocated by Sigmund Freud, and the world of the collective subconsciousness advocated by by Carl Jung. But the wisdom of traditional religions and spirituality has already been exploring such worlds for the past several thousand years. For instance, Buddhism has been exploring the world of the collective subconscious through the notions of manas-vijñāna (the seventh consciousness) and ālaya-vijñāna (the eighth consciousness) for several thousand years. So, we need to deepen modern psychology through the vast wisdom of traditional religions and spirituality fostered throughout its long history.
Then, one important question arises in our minds: Where can we find and observe the world of the collective subconscious? In the Internet communities. If we look into the Internet communities, we can see and feel the world of the collective subconscious of people. Also, in the Internet communities, we can express different aspects of ourselves, multiple personalities, by using "avatars" or being anonymous. And this is one good way to find the answer to the deep question, "Who am I?"
Strategy 3: Create a New Economic Principle by Combining the Internet Revolution and the Wisdom of Compassion in Traditional Religions and Spirituality (Social Sciences Approach)
Modern capitalism has been based upon "monetary economy," which refers to economic activities of people motivated by acquiring money. That is the reason why modern capitalism tends to stimulate the greedy mind of people, and tends to become so-called "greedy capitalism." But the Internet revolution that started in 1995 has been reviving an old economic principle called "gift economy" or "voluntary economy," which refers to economic activities of people motivated by satisfying the mind, through, for instance, affection and compassion for other people. So, if we combine the Internet revolution, modern economic science, and the wisdom of compassion in traditional religions and spirituality, we will be able to create a "compassion capitalism" in the 21st century.
These are the three strategies that I propose in order to promote the fusion of science and spirituality. And this is not just a vision or strategies for the future; this is a movement that is already starting to happen in the world.
An invited contribution to the Ervin Laszlo Forum on Science and Spirituality.
We humans are both blessed and cursed with the knowledge of our upcoming mortality. This terrifying fact makes us seek out comfort. In the fleeting time we have, we want to matter, to belong to something and/or someone. In addition, we flourish with wonder and revel in the satisfaction of a long faced mystery finally making sense. Perhaps these drives account for the powerful pull of religious belief.
Here’s an amazing video in which science delivers the incredible joy that comes from being connected to something bigger than oneself. It permits us to believe in and be comforted by what is. I hope everyone enjoys this video as much as I do: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XGK84Poeynk&annotation_id=annotation_656108&feature=iv
Some of my favorite quotes from the video are:
[deGrasse Tyson]
I know that the molecules in my body are traceable
To phenomena in the cosmos
That makes me want to grab people in the street
And say, have you heard this??
[Sagan]
The beauty of a living thing is not the atoms that go into it
But the way those atoms are put together
The cosmos is also within us
We're made of star stuff
We are a way for the cosmos to know itself
Here is an interesting link:
http://www.transpersonalstudies.org/ImagesRepository/ijts/Downloads/The Role of Spirituality in Mental Health Interventions A Developmental Perspective.pdf
http://www.transpersonalstudies.org/ImagesRepository/ijts/Downloads/The%20Role%20of%20Spirituality%20in%20Mental%20Health%20Interventions%20A%20Developmental%20Perspective.pdf
A friend posited to me...what if science reaches the point where it can prove the existence of God, the soul, Heaven, Hell. He said that then scientists would have to believe. And I agreed and said that faith would also be dead. After all, what's the point in faith when you have proof?
There is nothing creative about the basis of the religious rationale. Religion uses the method of evidence, not proof, but reiterated evidence over thousands of years. The evidence is the testimony of eyewitnesses, the kind of evidence upon which courts of law have condemned millions of men for centuries. The charlatans and false witnesses in both camps are too well known to require citing. For religion the corroborative evidence of first-hand witnesses over thousands of years is too overwhelming to be easily dismissed. Their first-hand accounts, called mystical experiences, are subjective, and cannot be replicated. For this reason a dispassionate court has to use the preponderance of the evidence, but the flood of written accounts of mystical experiences and epiphanies is so overwhelmingly huge and continuous to this day, that no rational man can ignore them, except by a deliberate effort of will, not reason.
No one disputes that mystical experiences happen. Really, all your testimony is evidence of is the existence of these experiences and what they are like. What is disputed is the conclusions they draw about the nature of reality from these experiences. We know the experiences happen, we just think your explanations of what they mean are made up and fallacious.
Why not apply the scientific method to understanding mystic experiences? Why prefer this religion over such a use of the scientific method?
I hate to say it, but you really don't seem to understand the perspective of me and people like me. Your posts are just erecting straw men. Seriously, what I doubt about religion is not the existence of religious scientists like Francis Collins or the existence of mystical experiences. Other than saying only ignorant people deny the scientific method and then proceeding to knock it in the way I described, you haven't refuted anything that I and those like me think.
For nonreligious people like myself, we reject, say, Francis Collins religious beliefs on the same grounds we accept his contributions to science - on the evidence. There is sufficient evidence and careful, controlled, peer-reviewed experimentation to back up Francis Collins (and his team's) work. There really isn't evidence to back up his ideas in The Language of God and much of it seems to be made up as to reconcile/merge his religious and scientific views. Note that we are not rejecting that he may have had spiritual experience, but as you say these are beyond his powers to explain and we do reject him attempting an explanation by making things up.
This is where the conflict lies. People requiring evidence in the lab but not in church. Between those who apply evidence to religion/spirituality and those who don't.
What do you even mean by "different levels of abstraction"? Also, the world is concrete and tangible, why abstract about it? You should at least check if you ideas about the world are really true. Even with spiritual experience.
Look, I am an atheist. I don't believe in heaven, God, Yahweh, Vishnu, Thor, some kind of universal spirit, karma, or anything else that you people want to foist off on me. Is spiritualism real? No. It's a word used to describe real experiences that people have trouble putting into words. You want a spiritual experience? Go on a month long hike and contemplate how amazingly big the world is. That'll do the trick. But there are plenty of other ways; mostly based on people's own experience of the world. My point is merely that so-called spiritual experiences are not all that mysterious.
You want to tell me I don't get it? Go ahead. It will help me tell which of you have functional brains.
It isn't that we all have a belief system that works for you and that's okay. One could easily have a belief system that work for them and is total nonsense. It is about actually trying to understand what is going on in the world. Since we share the same world, our understanding of it more or less ought to be the same.
I wonder, can you name one spiritual belief, one element of your belief system, that 8arrows would likely not share yet still displays "real knowledge and understanding" about the world?
"You want a spiritual experience? Go on a month long hike and contemplate how amazingly big the world is."
Or do any number of spiritual exercises from an number of religions. Thanks for your advice, but I'll take advice from people with less emotional problems and ego than you.
I don't appreciate your comment about "emotional problems and ego"; though. Combined with your prior comment it sounds an awful lot like you are saying I have problems because I am an atheist. I don't think that's what you are saying, but it's a cliche that I hear all the time and it's rather offensive.
I don't think there is anything wrong with seeking out spiritual experiences. I admit I get excited whenever people tell me that spiritualism is SO GREAT. But that's because I have outlets for my needs and I don't think there is any reason to pretend that there is some meaning to the universe.
In its essence, science tells us life is hard. The longer you live, the more pain you will suffer. Discouraging, at best. Religion, at its best, attempts to rationalize the pain. It provides hope for a hopeless condition. Life is a loose - loose. As soon as you are born, you start to die. It is biology.
Religion is not about biology. It is philosophy. For some, religious philosophy works. For others, not so much. Atheists seem just as happy to die without a promised wonderland. The religious cannot contemplate live without some promised salvation. But none of this stops the ultimate progression. Both are just coping mechanisms. Religion attempts to control what humans fear. Those who reject religion, are just accepting the fear. Atheism is not for everybody; especially the weak. Religion doesn't work for everyone as well, but it is unlikely to go away. Most humans need a crutch.
Meditation is a spiritual practice passed down for thousands of years, and is backed by science. There is one example to prove that it is possible, for another, try this:
http://www.hopkinsmedicine.org/press_releases/2006/07_11_06.html
I belong to several online communities dedicated to various things and I assure you that the proselytizers, bible thumpers and mindless spewers of prefabricated arguments coupled with Bible verses aren't well received. It's not that we're mean, or anti-religion. It's just, if you bring something to the table you'd best be ready to defend it logically and intelligently.
I see absolutely no reason to even attempt to merge science and superstition, regardless of what Hegel observed. The argument, "You become what you fight," is somewhat valid, as you will learn your enemy's tactics.
I don't believe that religion and science are in competition. Science attempts to answer questions by applying a prescribed methodology. Religion attempts to answer those same questions by making shit up and expecting people to just unquestionably swallow it.
The only common ground I see between science and religion is the human brain's temporal lobe. That appears to be where spirituality resides.
"Religion attempts to answer those same questions by making shit up and expecting people to just unquestionably swallow it."
Thank you
Web portals, ISPs and other parts of the web are not going to give away their services for free. Web designers will not give away their services, products offered on the web still have costs for production and maintenance. There are still electric costs, bandwidth costs, time and energy inputs. People have to make a living.
People have always been willing to help others. On the other hand, capitalism throughout the ages and its various formats has never quite been "compassionate." By our very natures we desire acknowledgment of the worth of our gifts, the value of our labor, the measure of our intellect. Pure altruism is probably unobtainable.
But generosity has always been a notable and worthy character trait. While we may not create a compassionate capitalism, perhaps we can be less capitalistic and more generous as it is in our means to do so, willing to be more grateful for our blessings.
Yes, the scientist has a good handle on the truth, at least up to orders of error and statistical certainty. Spirituality doesn't have much of a handle on the truth, or anything other than BS for that matter.
"Yes, the scientist has a good handle on the truth, at least up to orders of error and statistical certainty. Spirituality doesn't have much of a handle on the truth, or anything other than BS for that matter."
Very much the same quote used by religious movements to discourage opposition views.
Tell me, when will science start their version of the inquisition and crusades? The reason I ask is, I'm both scientist and spiritual believer, so I'll need to choose a side.
Science is nothing more than an organized religion of its own. The only truth we're getting out of it is a shared delusion among ourselves. How can anyone speak of truth, when we've been arguing over what "truth" really is since before the Greeks.
Don't act high and mighty, my friend, we're all still kids in the sandbox.
To expect someone who has never had a religious experience to understand the point of religion is rather like expecting someone who has been deaf from birth to understand the point of listening to Beethoven. Best not to engage them in debate, but encourage them to find a way to experience it for themselves. Then there will be something to discuss.
well is this a true statement.
drinking blood and eating flesh may have some pagan dogma within it dont you think.
and the idea someone had to die to save humanity. sounds pagan to me.
and a angry god that has chosen people and nations. again sounds pagan to me.
and a god that takes sides in a war. again sounds pagan to me.
then we have a god of wrath that demands atonement. get my drift here.
sounds like a melting pot to me of a bit of each.
which proves the author's point.
I also think Hegel was mistaken. Things that oppose each other for long enough usually merge when one has pretty much conquered the other. Democracy and monarchy did not come to resemble one another. Parliamentary power slowly squeezed out the power of kings. Christianity and paganism did not form a synthesis; Christianity replaced paganism... regardless of whether the saints were a recharacterization of nature spirits. That's co-option, not synthesis.
My money is on science, but it will be interesting to see what the future holds. Peace.