Spirituality vs. Religion vs. Science vs. Philosophy, The Differences

[osgart]

Spirituality

Spiritual but not religious - Wikipedia

For me spirituality is qualities of inner being such as virtues. Virtues such as loyalty, benevolence, etc.


Religion, Science, and Philosophy define as you wish.

They are all based on world views.

They all claim to get at the truth.

They all have ideologies.

They all have moral and ethical codes.

They all tell us ways they see as best to live our lives.

They all claim to have ultimate truth.

They all define being.

Are they all at war with each the others?

Can they be harmonized?

Should they be harmonized?



For me they each have their roles and places, and none of them should be claiming to be the ultimate truth, and the one and only way to live.

They all should serve and not rule society.

 

[Altfish]

They are all based on world views.

They all claim to get at the truth.

They all have ideologies.

They all have moral and ethical codes.

They all tell us ways they see as best to live our lives.

They all claim to have ultimate truth.

They all define being.
.

Science does not claim to get to the truth. It claims to give the best CURRENT explanation for natural phenomena. It may indeed be true but our understanding is still improving.
Science does not have an ideology, science is blind.
I don't believe it has a moral code either; other than you shouldn't cheat when carrying out tests or recording results.
Science doesn't tell us how to live our lives, it may give us facts on which to base how we live our lives, but science gives no instruction.
Science certainly does not claim the ultimate truth; just look how often new evidence changes our understanding of the world.
I 'm not 100% sure what defining being is, but I doubt science claims to do that.

 

[osgart]

My apologies, but when i listen to some science spokespeople such as Lawrence Krauss, Sam Harris i hear ideologies.

Krauss has no use for philosophy, and religion. Harris would definetly have science make moral decisions for us imo.

I totally agree that science can majorly inform us of our moral choices. But i do not want to see the day when science makes moral decisions for us all.

No doubt that religion should not be making moral decisions for people either.

I see that many people have the conviction that moral culpability is all genetic, and that there is no free will. I would hate to see free will and moral culpability done away with in a rule of law.

Also many science minded people have no use for spirituality and i certainly do. Some of these science minded people are like talking to information machines. Cold hard facts and not much else. People are more than algorithms and genes. To be self aware and environmentally aware allows humanity to go against the grain of brute indifferent nature.

 

[Augustus]

Science does not claim to get to the truth. It claims to give the best CURRENT explanation for natural phenomena. It may indeed be true but our understanding is still improving.
Science does not have an ideology, science is blind.
I don't believe it has a moral code either; other than you shouldn't cheat when carrying out tests or recording results.
Science doesn't tell us how to live our lives, it may give us facts on which to base how we live our lives, but science gives no instruction.
Science certainly does not claim the ultimate truth; just look how often new evidence changes our understanding of the world.
I 'm not 100% sure what defining being is, but I doubt science claims to do that.

What you are discussing is a normative, abstract concept of science. This contrasts with the positive, real-world collection of decentralised human activities that make up the actuality of what we call science.

Science as a textbook concept, and science as a human activity subject to the gamut of human limitations and imperfections are significantly different things.

So while normative science may be as you describe, real-world science (the thoughts and actions of scientists) is not necessarily practiced that way.

 

[Earthling]

Science does not claim to get to the truth. It claims to give the best CURRENT explanation for natural phenomena. It may indeed be true but our understanding is still improving.
Science does not have an ideology, science is blind.
I don't believe it has a moral code either; other than you shouldn't cheat when carrying out tests or recording results.
Science doesn't tell us how to live our lives, it may give us facts on which to base how we live our lives, but science gives no instruction.
Science certainly does not claim the ultimate truth; just look how often new evidence changes our understanding of the world.
I 'm not 100% sure what defining being is, but I doubt science claims to do that.

I like the way you describe science. I see bits and pieces of that sort of description in the way many science minded atheists describe it but their thinking doesn't actually seem to me to match up with that, as if they give it lip service but it's not real. To me science seems like it would be a practical work in progress, whereas the science minded atheists tend to present it as a convenient ideology. An archaic description.

 

[Altfish]

What you are discussing is a normative, abstract concept of science. This contrasts with the positive, real-world collection of decentralised human activities that make up the actuality of what we call science.

Science as a textbook concept, and science as a human activity subject to the gamut of human limitations and imperfections are significantly different things.

So while normative science may be as you describe, real-world science (the thoughts and actions of scientists) is not necessarily practiced that way.

Yes, theoretical science and applied science are different. But applied science is usually by engineers, capitalists, entrepreneurs, even governments; not by scientists.

 

[Altfish]

I like the way you describe science. I see bits and pieces of that sort of description in the way many science minded atheists describe it but their thinking doesn't actually seem to me to match up with that, as if they give it lip service but it's not real. To me science seems like it would be a practical work in progress, whereas the science minded atheists tend to present it as a convenient ideology. An archaic description.

See my answer in post #6

 

[Jumi]

Spirituality is about where you feel at home no matter be it good or bad, religion is too often about dogmas and who has the bigger words, philosophy is forming methods and understanding too often quite subjective, science is a subset of philosophy that came on it's own with more exact area of application and verification and it's now too different from the others to include among the other three.

 

[Marcion]

Spirituality

Spiritual but not religious - Wikipedia

For me spirituality is qualities of inner being such as virtues. Virtues such as loyalty, benevolence, etc.


Religion, Science, and Philosophy define as you wish.

They are all based on world views.

They all claim to get at the truth.

They all have ideologies.

They all have moral and ethical codes.

They all tell us ways they see as best to live our lives.

They all claim to have ultimate truth.

They all define being.

Are they all at war with each the others?

Can they be harmonized?

Should they be harmonized?



For me they each have their roles and places, and none of them should be claiming to be the ultimate truth, and the one and only way to live.

They all should serve and not rule society.

For me spirituality or Dharma is the universal human drive to want to expand the individual consciousness to cosmic proportions and satisfy all longings for infinite happiness that all living beings share.

Religions are flawed because they are hampered by geosentiment and/or socio-sentiment (tied to places and/or to cultural bias).
They are also hampered by superstitions, mythical thinking or xenophobia.
This is often the cause of conflict.

Western philosophy is mostly based on theoretical speculation whereas spiritual philosophy is mostly based on real experiments or experiences with the human mind and consciousness (as a spiritual science of mind).

Objective science is only concerned with measuring and understanding the objective world, objective phenomena, whereas spirituality is mostly concerned with the subjective world found through introspection.
Only spiritual knowledge obtained through spiritual science is true knowledge.

Within most religions there is a more spiritual or mystic faction that is more universal, so more like a spiritual science than religion.

 

[Earthling]

Yes, theoretical science and applied science are different. But applied science is usually by engineers, capitalists, entrepreneurs, even governments; not by scientists.

So, the newest cell phone, or in the past, the Internet, the Web, the personal computer, were products of applied science, but evolution, black holes, string theory, gravity are theoretical?

 

[HonestJoe]

My apologies, but when i listen to some science spokespeople such as Lawrence Krauss, Sam Harris i hear ideologies.

They’re speaking for themselves, not for science. Nobody can speak for science, just as nobody can speak for art, religion or spirituality.

I totally agree that science can majorly inform us of our moral choices. But i do not want to see the day when science makes moral decisions for us all.

Has anyone ever suggested it could or should? The concept of science making any kind of decision is simply irrational.

I see that many people have the conviction that moral culpability is all genetic, and that there is no free will. I would hate to see free will and moral culpability done away with in a rule of law.

Again, has anyone seriously suggested anything of the sort?

Also many science minded people have no use for spirituality and i certainly do.

Not by the definition of “spirituality” you gave in the OP and it’s a gross insult and personal attack on millions of people to accuse “many science minded people” of not being so. You seem to have a fundamentally flawed and extremely bigoted image of scientists that does you no credit.

 

[Augustus]

Yes, theoretical science and applied science are different. But applied science is usually by engineers, capitalists, entrepreneurs, even governments; not by scientists.

That wasn't the distinction I was making. Both are by people, and people have human flaws and imperfections. Science has no ideology, but scientists do and this influences their works and the body of scientific knowledge (a very clear example of this was scientific racialism). Science has no morality, but scientific ethics are very real and influential and some people even talk about a science of morality (i.e an objective morality). Scientists may well talk about ultimate truths, facts, etc.

Science is really the sum total of a certain type of human action and the resulting products, knowledge and cultural memory of these actions. While the sciences may try to reduce the subjective human impact on their fields, they cannot remove it or render it insignificant overall.

Speaking of science in a purely normative sense of how science should be in an ideal world does not describe the reality of the entire 'scientific enterprise' as exists today and as has existed throughout history.

Put it this way, do you look at how religion influences society purely from the normative perspective of believers or based on how it exists in reality?

 

[Altfish]

So, the newest cell phone, or in the past, the Internet, the Web, the personal computer, were products of applied science, but evolution, black holes, string theory, gravity are theoretical?

They are theoretical; but when the likes of evolution is put to medical use it becomes applied.
Gravity is quite useful to know about when you are in an aeroplane, knowledge of its effects help you stay in the air!

 

[Altfish]

That wasn't the distinction I was making. Both are by people, and people have human flaws and imperfections. Science has no ideology, but scientists do and this influences their works and the body of scientific knowledge (a very clear example of this was scientific racialism). Science has no morality, but scientific ethics are very real and influential and some people even talk about a science of morality (i.e an objective morality). Scientists may well talk about ultimate truths, facts, etc.

Science is really the sum total of a certain type of human action and the resulting products, knowledge and cultural memory of these actions. While the sciences may try to reduce the subjective human impact on their fields, they cannot remove it or render it insignificant overall.

Speaking of science in a purely normative sense of how science should be in an ideal world does not describe the reality of the entire 'scientific enterprise' as exists today and as has existed throughout history.

Put it this way, do you look at how religion influences society purely from the normative perspective of believers or based on how it exists in reality?

You misunderstand what I am saying. Scientific racism (if I understand what you are getting at) was applied science driven by ideologists and governments.

Scientists don't try to limit human impact. So, as an example, Rutherford split the atom. He didn't suddenly think, "Right, let's make a nuclear bomb and wipe half of Japan out". It was military people who took his discovery and put it to a dubious use.

It's a bit like blaming the inventor of the wheel for a car crash.

 

[Earthling]

They are theoretical; but when the likes of evolution is put to medical use it becomes applied.
Gravity is quite useful to know about when you are in an aeroplane, knowledge of its effects help you stay in the air!

Yes, of course, but a scientific theory can be useful for some period if it is applied even though later demonstrated false, is this correct? Perhaps an example would be alchemy graduating to chemistry. I don't know if that's a good example, it's the only one I can think of.

 

[Altfish]

Yes, of course, but a scientific theory can be useful for some period if it is applied even though later demonstrated false, is this correct? Perhaps an example would be alchemy graduating to chemistry. I don't know if that's a good example, it's the only one I can think of.

Alchemy was always a bit like astrology, it was never based on science.
I'm struggling to think of a science (i.e. based on the scientific system of testing) that has been proven false. Yes, science changes but it is a march forward of increasing knowledge.

 

[Nakosis]

Spirituality

Spiritual but not religious - Wikipedia

For me spirituality is qualities of inner being such as virtues. Virtues such as loyalty, benevolence, etc.


Religion, Science, and Philosophy define as you wish.

They are all based on world views.

They all claim to get at the truth.

They all have ideologies.

They all have moral and ethical codes.

They all tell us ways they see as best to live our lives.

They all claim to have ultimate truth.

They all define being.

Are they all at war with each the others?

Can they be harmonized?

Should they be harmonized?



For me they each have their roles and places, and none of them should be claiming to be the ultimate truth, and the one and only way to live.

They all should serve and not rule society.

Spirituality I see as mental health. People use spirituality as a means to improve their mental health. Ways of seeing, experiencing, believing in reality to promote their mental well being.

Psychology/Psychiatry try to deal with this in a scientific way.

 

[osgart]

They’re speaking for themselves, not for science. Nobody can speak for science, just as nobody can speak for art, religion or spirituality.

Has anyone ever suggested it could or should? The concept of science making any kind of decision is simply irrational.

Again, has anyone seriously suggested anything of the sort?

Not by the definition of “spirituality” you gave in the OP and it’s a gross insult and personal attack on millions of people to accuse “many science minded people” of not being so. You seem to have a fundamentally flawed and extremely bigoted image of scientists that does you no credit.

I could not possibly speak of millions of scientists. Only what i experience of science minded people on forums, around the internet and such places.

People do mingle their ideologies with science and call it science.

All it takes is one string of bad generations of people to overthrow democracy. In the name of whatever.

I have no hate for science, and scientists to speak of.