Why is spiritual knowledge seen as less correct then knowledge from science?

[mikkel_the_dane]

Value is entirely subjective, yes. However, there are easy questions that can get to the heart of the matter at hand here:

Which would you rather have if the plane you were on just crashed on a snowy mountain and you were the sole survivor?

1. The Bible
2. A snowsuit

...

That is a stupid analogy. Here is the more classical one as reductio ad absurdum. I was born on a cliff and all my life including now, I wonder I should jump or not.

Edit: What are you doing here?!! You should wonder if you should jump or not. Get back on the edge.

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

That is a stupid analogy. Here is the more classical one as reductio ad absurdum. I was born on a cliff and all my life including now, I wonder I should jump or not.

Edit: What are you doing here?!! You should wonder if you should jump or not. Get back on the edge.

You didn't answer which you would choose. I bet it isn't "The Bible."

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

You didn't answer which you would choose. I bet it isn't "The Bible."

Yeah, you are right and I am wrong. So what is next? What follows from that science is a limited methodology and it can't do this:
Science has limits: A few things that science does not do

Come one, only with death and science. This is stupid. It is as stupid as some other debates, where a religious person can't differentiate between objective, intersubjective and subjective.

 

[Samantha Rinne]

Scientific knowledge is objective (doesn't depend on the observer), reproducible (the experiments that led to the knowledge can be repeated) and falsifiable (an experiment that leads to a different solution invalidate, or more often, expands on, the theory).
How does spiritual knowledge fare under these criteria?
If you don't value objectivity, reproducibility and falsifiability, what are your preferred criteria for knowledge?

It's seen as objective.

But most people don't understand what this means. Because in the last 20 years, our education system has been churning out indoctrinated kids.

"Climate change is a consensus" for instance, is something many school kids believe. But consensus does not exist in this area, and even if it did, science isn't about consensus.

It's about repeated testing. Recently, science has lost this aim, and imposed orthodoxy. As an example, try being a scientist and not believing in dinosaurs, or believing in ancient aliens. 200 years ago, nobody would hassle you for your private beliefs. Wilhelm Reich was a crackpot who believed in a blue sexual energy (which made the sky blue!) called orgones. He was (largely) allowed to do his research. Today, if you don't follow the orthodoxy, you are stripped of all funding.

This isn't objective, because it allows only popular ideas to be put forward, rather than testing ALL ideas, and dismissing those that cannot be proven.

No, the real reason spiritual knowledge is scoffed at is that much of it is based on probabilities and if-then-maybe logic. This is not to say it is not factual, but for instance we perceive that if a person dies and sees all kinds of things while all vitals are flat (pronounced dead) and then comes back, then maybe there is an afterlife. If-then-maybe. We can find dozens (maybe hundreds) of such cases, but there are also devoted Catholics that just see darkness during that time. So it's always a maybe, and this makes most people dismiss it.

But no, svience is only as good as its testing is.

 

[Quintessence]

I have noticed that often spiritual wisdom/knowledge is seen as less valuable then science knowledge and I wonder why it is so?

In simple terms, it's seen as less valuable by those whose values subjectively determine this is the case. We all have values shaped by our life experiences and cultural upbringing. For some of us, that leads to valuing certain things while for others it leads to valuing other things. It just happens and is unavoidable. Those of us who are self-aware can look back at our life histories and see where our values came from and why we hold them.

For instance, whatever contrived reasons I may have for equally valuing all types of knowledge, at the end of the day the fact that I hold these values is entirely because of my upbringing. I had two parents who encouraged curiosity and exploration in all of its forms and didn't discourage me as I pursued all sorts of knowledge and inspiration. I learned how to be discerning when it comes to ways of knowing: I learned when it makes sense to use different kinds of knowledge for different purposes. I understand that time is limited so inevitably we focus on the types of knowledge we find most interesting, but depriving oneself of entire wells of inspiration is just utterly foreign to me because of my background.

I'd also like to point out that "science believers" (urgh, I hate that term) are... well... let's remember that most actual scientists are not adherents of scientism. When you describe "science believers" who refuse to acknowledge other sources of knowledge, that is scientism. Many with a strong science background, myself included, are revolted by the very idea of scientism because it is itself anti-science. It's taking subjectively derived values and using that to close off possible methods of inquiry and knowledge. That's not science, that's some sort of dogmatism.

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

Yeah, you are right and I am wrong. So what is next? What follows from that science is a limited methodology and it can't do this:
Science has limits: A few things that science does not do

Come one, only with death and science. This is stupid. It is as stupid as some other debates, where a religious person can't differentiate between objective, intersubjective and subjective.

Your link doesn't say much of anything important.

With regard to "moral judgments" - it is still best to use our intellect and empathy (all things that are present and accounted for in the reality we inhabit) to observe, measure and assess the best courses of action when dealing with one another. In other words, we're still going about it using much the same methodology as science uses... just not using the same tools or with the same reliance on objectivity.

With regard to "aesthetic judgments" - as my analogy pointed out, these are completely unnecessary for survival - which MUST be the very top priority for any organism that wishes to continue its living experience. As such, it doesn't matter what anyone deems aesthetically pleasing or not. Tell me one way in which it truly matters what anyone thinks is more enjoyable as an aesthetic.

With regard to "not telling you what to do with scientific knowledge" - why is this a stumbling block? This is how the VERY BEST tools work. You are told exactly what is going to be output with inputs X and Y, and then the sky's the limit with your application of that idea. Anything and everything your imagination can come up with to utilize those facts is yours for the discovering. I work in Market Research, and have a strong background in coding/programming. The most useful functions are NOT those that try to "do everything" - not by a long shot. It is much, MUCH better to have many multiple, small functions that stick to their individual tasks, and in that way, the function you wrote for one thing can actually be applied to many, many other tasks - all because it isn't restricted to "X" task because you built in all sorts of other specifics to "X."

And lastly - "Science doesn't draw conclusions about supernatural explanations" - what a joke! Adding this to the list only distances this "article" from any amount of seriousness. "Supernatural explanations" aren't even known to represent any form of reality! That's the first thing that must be overcome. And until such time as that is overcome, there is absolutely no reason to even draw conclusions about "supernatural explanations." What are you even drawing conclusions about?! Hahaha...

 

[icehorse]

I have noticed that often spiritual wisdom/knowledge is seen as less valuable then science knowledge and I wonder why it is so?

Why do science believers refuse to acknowledge that spiritual teachings, that can be found many thousands of year back is lesser the science that has only been around for a few hundreds years?

Something is not right.

Science is an approach used to answer certain types of questions. Spirituality is an attempt to answer a different type of question. What I see happening in this forum and elsewhere, is that some religious people attempt to use religious (or spiritual), teachings to try to answer scientific questions. Religion is simply the wrong tool to address matters of science.

An analogy would be that if you have a hammer and a screwdriver, you ought to use the hammer to pound nails and you ought to use the screwdriver to screw screws. It's just a mistake to try to use the screwdriver to pound nails.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Your link doesn't say much of anything important.

With regard to "moral judgments" - it is still best to use our intellect and empathy (all things that are present and accounted for in the reality we inhabit) to observe, measure and assess the best courses of action when dealing with one another. In other words, we're still going about it using much the same methodology as science uses... just not using the same tools or with the same reliance on objectivity.

With regard to "aesthetic judgments" - as my analogy pointed out, these are completely unnecessary for survival - which MUST be the very top priority for any organism that wishes to continue its living experience. As such, it doesn't matter what anyone deems aesthetically pleasing or not. Tell me one way in which it truly matters what anyone thinks is more enjoyable as an aesthetic.

With regard to "not telling you what to do with scientific knowledge" - why is this a stumbling block? This is how the VERY BEST tools work. You are told exactly what is going to be output with inputs X and Y, and then the sky's the limit with your application of that idea. Anything and everything your imagination can come up with to utilize those facts is yours for the discovering. I work in Market Research, and have a strong background in coding/programming. The most useful functions are NOT those that try to "do everything" - not by a long shot. It is much, MUCH better to have many multiple, small functions that stick to their individual tasks, and in that way, the function you wrote for one thing can actually be applied to many, many other tasks - all because it isn't restricted to "X" task because you built in all sorts of other specifics to "X."

And lastly - "Science doesn't draw conclusions about supernatural explanations" - what a joke! Adding this to the list only distances this "article" from any amount of seriousness. "Supernatural explanations" aren't even known to represent any form of reality! That's the first thing that must be overcome. And until such time as that is overcome, there is absolutely no reason to even draw conclusions about "supernatural explanations." What are you even drawing conclusions about?! Hahaha...

I like all your emotions.

Now let us do this as for proof or if you like rational and only rational arguments and evidence. You prove that your world view is correct and mine is wrong. If you can do that, I will learn from it.
Note that you are going up against 2000+ years of trying to do that and the result of try to do this, is not what you would like:

Cognitive relativism consists of two claims:
(1) The truth-value of any statement is always relative to some particular standpoint;
(2) No standpoint is metaphysically privileged over all others.

Cognitive Relativism | Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy

It is simple:
You are right with proof, rational arguments and evidence, yet I am still here.
Now in the end, what your model can't explain is relativism.

 

[Heyo]

What is true and useful to you in spiritual teaching? Guess you will say spiritual teaching is not true or useful.......not so easy to have a serioues conversation then.

I simply don't know what spiritual teachings are. I can't make statements about their truth or usefulness.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Science is an approach used to answer certain types of questions. Spirituality is an attempt to answer a different type of question. What I see happening in this forum and elsewhere, is that some religious people attempt to use religious (or spiritual), teachings to try to answer scientific questions. Religion is simply the wrong tool to address matters of science.

An analogy would be that if you have a hammer and a screwdriver, you ought to use the hammer to pound nails and you ought to use the screwdriver to screw screws. It's just a mistake to try to use the screwdriver to pound nails.

Or in reverse.

 

[exchemist]

Well, that is not science. That is philosophy/religion. And that is not the only version. That are also those who believe that science is objective useful and better that other human behavior.

I short and we have been here before. If you start looking at the posters on this forum, you will find this difference between the 2 kind of science. Practical science and science embedded as a part of a correct* worldview. It doesn't have to be correct*, it can be objective, true, rational and so on.

Yes of course, physicalism is a worldview, not just a scientific position, so it is inevitably philosophical.

This is precisely what exasperates me about the type of question @Amanaki is asking. He is trying to portray science as a form of philosophy or worldview that is in some way opposed to religion, when it is just a (uniquely successful) methodology for understanding nature.

 

[Spirit of Light]

Science is an approach used to answer certain types of questions. Spirituality is an attempt to answer a different type of question. What I see happening in this forum and elsewhere, is that some religious people attempt to use religious (or spiritual), teachings to try to answer scientific questions. Religion is simply the wrong tool to address matters of science.

An analogy would be that if you have a hammer and a screwdriver, you ought to use the hammer to pound nails and you ought to use the screwdriver to screw screws. It's just a mistake to try to use the screwdriver to pound nails.

I agree with you here spiritual teaching explain the spiritual realms and Are not much concerned with science (physical world) of it, whereas science only focus on the physical world. Those two should not be mixed, ( I know I do that to often) but we should focus on spiritual growth or science. Both both in the same time.

To truthfully, spiritual people should not worry about a hence, and science should not worry about spiritual teaching.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

I simply don't know what spiritual teachings are. I can't make statements about their truth or usefulness.

And you can't know them unless you accept subjective answers to subjective problems.
There are 3 kinds of truth and usefulness: Objective, intersubjective and subjective. If you can't differentiate between the 3 and try to apply one to one of the others, it becomes meaningless.

 

[Spirit of Light]

I simply don't know what spiritual teachings are. I can't make statements about their truth or usefulness.

Bible, Quran, and so on are spiritual teachings, sure you heard about them

 

[Polymath257]

Bible, Quran, and so on are spiritual teachings, sure you heard about them

OK, more detail. WHAT is spiritual about them? What distinguishes spiritual teachings from, say, moral teachings? or wisdom literature?

 

[icehorse]

Bible, Quran, and so on are spiritual teachings, sure you heard about them

I have to disagree on this point. I think that we also ought to separate spirituality from religion. I think religious people often claim that spirituality is somehow "handled" by religion. Yuck!

For my money, "keep your religion away from my spirituality!"

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Yes of course, physicalism is a worldview, not just a scientific position, so it is inevitably philosophical.

This is precisely what exasperates me about the type of question @Amanaki is asking. He is trying to portray science as a form of philosophy or worldview that is in some way opposed to religion, when it is just a (uniquely successful) methodology for understanding nature.

No, he is asking how come some people use science, not your science, to claim that other worldviews are wrong.
It is not just this thread.
Try to open your eyes and follow some of the reasoning of the "objectivists". That is where it ends. All knowledge, truth and so on must be objective to make sense. The joke is, that the claim is subjective.
Learn to spot the following:
The misrepresentation of subjectivity as objective is not limited to religious people. It is also present in some non-religious people.
In sociology the principle is this as paraphrased: "Unreal beliefs can have real consequences".
The idea that you should only look for the misrepresentation of subjectivity as objective in religious people is, what stops you to understand the question?
I have noticed that often spiritual wisdom/knowledge is seen as less valuable then science knowledge and I wonder why it is so?
You can't answer that with science, yet in this thread and others the "objectivists" try and they fail, because "value" as per the question is subjective.

 

[Spirit of Light]

I have to disagree on this point. I think that we also ought to separate spirituality from religion. I think religious people often claim that spirituality is somehow "handled" by religion. Yuck!

For my money, "keep your religion away from my spirituality!"

If you despice religion that much,how did you end to in a religioues forum? That is a mystery to me.....

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Yes of course, physicalism is a worldview, not just a scientific position, so it is inevitably philosophical.

This is precisely what exasperates me about the type of question @Amanaki is asking. He is trying to portray science as a form of philosophy or worldview that is in some way opposed to religion, when it is just a (uniquely successful) methodology for understanding nature.

Not precise enough. .. understanding some aspects of nature.

 

[Heyo]

Bible, Quran, and so on are spiritual teachings, sure you heard about them

Yeah, heard about them, mostly referred as religious teachings. They are rarely true but obviously useful. They have been successfully used as tools of oppression for millennia.
Why are they seen as less correct. The teachings have been tested and found lacking.