Science is a fundamental aspect in human life and so is spirituality for some. Both can open up (and also close) the way an individual thinks and perceives.
However science strives to maintain objectivity whilst spirituality is subjective thus is it important to balance the two? And what happens when science is in conflict with ones belief?

Whilst another’s beliefs should not be imposed on anyone, science should at least be held as a universal basic but akin to some people’s individual beliefs some parts of science still remains theoretical.

Although beliefs should not be used to legislate a country, life is more abstract and science cannot or has yet to decisively measure certain important principles such as morality (albeit morality can be subjective).

But just because spirituality may be optional (and personal) for some unlike science which is largely compulsory and universal does that make spirituality less significant?

"Science without Religion Is Lame, Religion without Science Is Blind" – Albert Einstein: Agree or Disagree?

in every organization or unit there must be a head or motive[ driving force] and there would be parts

the reason why there is a dilemna btw science and religion is primarily bcoz of conflicting roles

spirituality should be the real drive behind science, the desire to connect more with the spiritual world and to please the deity, lets take for example, ancient kemet or egypt

did you know that the real motive for such wonderful engineering works and scientific advances in egypt were spiritual, they built pyramids because they were driven to connect to eternity because they believed in immortality, i cant start listing all the wonderful works and inventions the egyptians made, but in ancient egypt u can see a healthy combination of the two and as far as i am concerned that was the greatest scientific campaign of all time, am saying that because many of the achievements done at that time werent surpassed till like 5000 years later,

the pyramid of giza was the tallest building in the world till the mid 20th century, egyptians performed brain surgery and many other wonderful feats, their drive for excellence was as a result of their reverence for their gods

all their ancient manuscripts show a people who neva saw their scientific achievements as scientific but spiritual, the greater their achievement, the greater their reverence for god, can that be said of any modern day nation or society?

now lets compare egypt's scientific campaign with that of our europeans and americans of this industrial revolution, it is clear that we are in a greater age of science and enlightenment but there is one big difference btw this renaissance and that of egypt, we hv become arrogant or shld i say science has become the head and the God, the motive and the spirituality itself has been replaced by science

this was mainly as a result of the conditions before the renaissance, catholic priests and the pope made it somewhat of a taboo to delve into the unknown areas of science claiming it was an attempt to be like God but lo and behold when the europeans finished driving away the moors and took all the wonderful works of knowledge they left behind, they felt free in a way not because they were free but because they had been held back all their lfes and with the enrgy that was used to bar them from the unknown they launched themselves into all forms of knowledge and they systematically lost some respect for their God or shld i say their clergy men

the scientific renaissance of this modern era in reality is just a subconscious ploy to establish man as God, scientists are not looking for God, they believe they are past that, they are looking for the beginning and end of all things without the divine character, thats why so much is being invested in trying to discover human life on mars and other planets jst as if they are trying to debunk all religious creation stories

the reason for this faulty relationship btw modern day religion or spirituality and science is that the former didnt do their role well, the clergy men of medieval europe were corrupt and didnt understand the spiritual injunction they were custodians of but instead they were scared of the unknown and they operated with a strict religious code which put some form of obligation instead of a desire and thirst for the spiritual

THE REAL STANCE ANY SCHOLAR SHOULD TAKE IS THAT OF THE ANCIENT EGYPTIANS, WHEN SPIRITUALITY IS THE HEAD OF EVERY SCIENTIFIC CAMPAIGN THEN EXCELLENCE WOULD BE ACHIEVED WITHOUT ARROGANCE, PROGRESS WOULD BE MADE WITHOUT CONFUSION AND THERE WOULD BE HARMONY IN THIS UNIT CALLED HUMAN LIFE BECAUSE THE TRUE AND RIGHTFUL HEAD[SPIRITUALITY] WOULD TAKE ITS PLACE AND SCIENCE WOULD BE ONE OF ITS LIMBS IN THE DRIVE FOR HUMAN PROGRESS


@ OP THE TYPE OF QUESTIONS U ASK, I WONDER WHAT UR TRYING TO DISCOVER

E-Engineer:
in every organization or unit there must be a head or motive[ driving force] and there would be parts

the reason why there is a dilemna btw science and religion is primarily bcoz of conflicting roles

spirituality should be the real drive behind science, the desire to connect more with the spiritual world and to please the deity, lets take for example, ancient kemet or egypt

did you know that the real motive for such wonderful engineering works and scientific advances in egypt were spiritual, they built pyramids because they were driven to connect to eternity because they believed in immortality, i cant start listing all the wonderful works and inventions the egyptians made, but in ancient egypt u can see a healthy combination of the two and as far as i am concerned that was the greatest scientific campaign of all time, am saying that because many of the achievements done at that time werent surpassed till like 5000 years later,

the pyramid of giza was the tallest building in the world till the mid 20th century, egyptians performed brain surgery and many other wonderful feats, their drive for excellence was as a result of their reverence for their gods

all their ancient manuscripts show a people who neva saw their scientific achievements as scientific but spiritual, the greater their achievement, the greater their reverence for god, can that be said of any modern day nation or society?

now lets compare egypt's scientific campaign with that of our europeans and americans of this industrial revolution, it is clear that we are in a greater age of science and enlightenment but there is one big difference btw this renaissance and that of egypt, we hv become arrogant or shld i say science has become the head and the God, the motive and the spirituality itself has been replaced by science

this was mainly as a result of the conditions before the renaissance, catholic priests and the pope made it somewhat of a taboo to delve into the unknown areas of science claiming it was an attempt to be like God but lo and behold when the europeans finished driving away the moors and took all the wonderful works of knowledge they left behind, they felt free in a way not because they were free but because they had been held back all their lfes and with the enrgy that was used to bar them from the unknown they launched themselves into all forms of knowledge and they systematically lost some respect for their God or shld i say their clergy men

the scientific renaissance of this modern era in reality is just a subconscious ploy to establish man as God, scientists are not looking for God, they believe they are past that, they are looking for the beginning and end of all things without the divine character, thats why so much is being invested in trying to discover human life on mars and other planets jst as if they are trying to debunk all religious creation stories

the reason for this faulty relationship btw modern day religion or spirituality and science is that the former didnt do their role well, the clergy men of medieval europe were corrupt and didnt understand the spiritual injunction they were custodians of but instead they were scared of the unknown and they operated with a strict religious code which put some form of obligation instead of a desire and thirst for the spiritual


@ OP THE TYPE OF QUESTIONS U ASK, I WONDER WHAT UR TRYING TO DISCOVER

This is a nice post Engineer, we need more of your type posting in this section. I have a few comments but I'd like to see Emofine's response to you . Cheers.

PAGANISM IS THE LINK BETWEEN RELIGION AND SCIENCE. everyone knows that..

PAGAN 9JA:
PAGANISM IS THE LINK BETWEEN RELIGION AND SCIENCE. everyone knows that..

Rubbish. To an atheist, all religions are glorified cults

logicboy:

Rubbish. To an atheist, all religions are glorified cults

In its true essence, Pagnanism was never a religion. It is a way of life. Go ask that to the Hindus of India or the Japanese or the Chinese or the Natives. They will say that their beliefs are A way of life, a routine, a daily-ritual. .

The only reason as I told you before, that i am using the word Religion is because common man today is steeped in so-called established religions, that he wont understand the concept of Paganism. how culture, religion, etc are all inter-related. .

@E-Engineer

in every organization or unit there must be a head or motive[ driving force] and there would be parts

the reason why there is a dilemna btw science and religion is primarily bcoz of conflicting roles

So science and religion are vying for the head position or certain features of each just clash?

Albeit for the spiritual/religious person (well for some belonging to this populace) spirituality often takes priority.

spirituality should be the real drive behind science, the desire to connect more with the spiritual world and to please the deity, lets take for example, ancient kemet or Egypt...

This is rather interesting...but should pleasing a deity be a prime aim? I ask because what if particular deities do not want their subjects to acquire certain knowledge?...is this part of the face-off between science and religion – wanting to know more than what some systems permit?
Thus maybe it depends on the type of belief systems – for example worshiping a deity or belonging to a system that encourages more awareness of the science of the universe as opposed to adhering to a system that shuns discovery thus only serving to be an inhibitor and concealer of knowledge and science. As such some may lose faith in all belief systems and shun any notions of spirituality altogether but there are imitations which may cause some to render spirituality as a myth or blind.

But I can agree that Ancient Egypt (which is a good example) allowed for spirituality to be relevant in their sciences and perhaps were even better for it.
Spirituality is diverse and so is science – well at least the way in which one perceives the sciences – Ancient Egyptians for example.

I believe science and spirituality can have a relationship that is mutualistic but when one tries to eclipse the other or tries to make the other redundant I believe the result can be negative but more dangerous if it’s spirituality demoting science than the other way around in my opinion.

But I do wonder how are the both coupled if spirituality is subjective whereby some spirituality even contradicts each other... wouldn't that thus effect how science is understood by some individuals with a spiritual inclination?

Engineer, do you think science is limited without spirituality? Or maybe even less partial as spirituality is subjective? And do you think spirituality is empty without science?

P.S. Religion is different to spirituality but I believe the modern man has somehow conflated the two terms.

@ OP THE TYPE OF QUESTIONS U ASK, I WONDER WHAT UR TRYING TO DISCOVER

Lol honestly I really try to supress them and even regret some questions I've asked but I want to discover the truth(s) and understand different thoughts.

^again Ancient Egyptians were Pagans. infact, places like Alexandria, Cairo, etc., were a hub for Pagan scholars from around the World. .

E-Engineer:
in every organization or unit there must be a head or motive[ driving force] and there would be parts

the reason why there is a dilemna btw science and religion is primarily bcoz of conflicting roles

The only dilemna is on the part of religious institutions who insist on having their myths put on a pedestal even if it means going against common sense and public welfare. They also pick fights with science ONLY when it conflicts with their beliefs. I have never seen a sientific institution interfere with a religious body but ask yourself why there is "creationism vs evolution" EVEN THOUGH evolution doesn't deal with human origins.

E-Engineer:
spirituality should be the real drive behind science, the desire to connect more with the spiritual world and to please the deity, lets take for example, ancient kemet or egypt

Why should "spirituality" drive science? What is a "spirit"? What is the "spiritual world"? What is the "diety"? Spirituality is nothing but glorified supersttiton.
Even though they were inspired by their "spirituality" to build magnificent buildings, we are past the point of being inspired solely by immortality and the likes.

E-Engineer:

did you know that the real motive for such wonderful engineering works and scientific advances in egypt were spiritual, they built pyramids because they were driven to connect to eternity because they believed in immortality, i cant start listing all the wonderful works and inventions the egyptians made, but in ancient egypt u can see a healthy combination of the two and as far as i am concerned that was the greatest scientific campaign of all time, am saying that because many of the achievements done at that time werent surpassed till like 5000 years later,

All this love for ancient egypt!!! look, the ancients did good for their time, they did good for the level of civilization they had achieved back then. BUT this is the 21st century man, the Egyptians built the Kanak Temple in order to worship the sun while we know (at least theorize) that the sun is not a diety but just a big a$$ nuclear reactor. Hydrogen atoms fusing at the speed of light into helium and releasing energy that is used by photoautotrophs...bla bla bla. Compared to us, the ancient egyptians were ignorant.

E-Engineer:
the pyramid of giza was the tallest building in the world till the mid 20th century, egyptians performed brain surgery and many other wonderful feats, their drive for excellence was as a result of their reverence for their gods

We have a "building" floating above the earth. We have a robotic vehicle the size of a VW van arriving on my home planet in 3 months and I don't think "god" had anything to do with them. So what's so special about the pyramids and I don't think the egyptians performed brain surgery!!!

E-Engineer:

the scientific renaissance of this modern era in reality is just a subconscious ploy to establish man as God, scientists are not looking for God, they believe they are past that, they are looking for the beginning and end of all things without the divine character, thats why so much is being invested in trying to discover human life on mars and other planets jst as if they are trying to debunk all religious creation stories

Isn't it hubris for you to think that scientific advancement is all an attempt to debunk religious creation stories? Who is trying to discover "human life" on mars? The only "subconcious ploy" at play here is your apparent uneasiness as scientific advancement continues to put current religious stories and gods in the same realm as the Ancient Egyptian gods, the ancient summerian gods , the ancient greek gods and the ancient romans gods. Myths.
So no one is trying to find "human life" on mars, the search for life outside of earth is just one of the stages of scientific advacement and science doesn't care whose religious sensibilities are hurt. In fact, science is just a tool that makes god and his buddies impotent boogie men.

E-Engineer:
the reason for this faulty relationship btw modern day religion or spirituality and science is that the former didnt do their role well, the clergy men of medieval europe were corrupt and didnt understand the spiritual injunction they were custodians of but instead they were scared of the unknown and they operated with a strict religious code which put some form of obligation instead of a desire and thirst for the spiritual

maybe they were worshipping the wrong god, because the arabs were attaining the scientific achievements while europeans were busy killing each other over the version of jesus they would later feed the rest of the world.

E-Engineer:
THE REAL STANCE ANY SCHOLAR SHOULD TAKE IS THAT OF THE ANCIENT EGYPTIANS, WHEN SPIRITUALITY IS THE HEAD OF EVERY SCIENTIFIC CAMPAIGN THEN EXCELLENCE WOULD BE ACHIEVED WITHOUT ARROGANCE, PROGRESS WOULD BE MADE WITHOUT CONFUSION AND THERE WOULD BE HARMONY IN THIS UNIT CALLED HUMAN LIFE BECAUSE THE TRUE AND RIGHTFUL HEAD[SPIRITUALITY] WOULD TAKE ITS PLACE AND SCIENCE WOULD BE ONE OF ITS LIMBS IN THE DRIVE FOR HUMAN PROGRESS

When spirituality was the head of scientific campaign, they killed bruno and persecuted copernicus and galileo. When spirituality is the head of scientific campaign, they say don't use condoms even though AIDS is a problem in your country. When spirituality is the head of scientific campaign they b#tch about stem cell research. When spirituality was the head of scientific campaign they tried to stop Alfred Blalock from saving babies.
In short, keep spirituality in churches, temples, mosques, shrines and your house but keep it away from science and the people who don't want nothing to do with it. At the same time, individual spirituality can also lead to great achievement but the spiritual body as a whole would probably have to be dragged along kicking and screaming before accepting.

emöfine2: Science is a fundamental aspect in human life and so is spirituality for some. Both can open up (and also close) the way an individual thinks and perceives.
However science strives to maintain objectivity whilst spirituality is subjective thus is it important to balance the two? And what happens when science is in conflict with ones belief?

Whilst another’s beliefs should not be imposed on anyone, science should at least be held as a universal basic but akin to some people’s individual beliefs some parts of science still remains theoretical.

Although beliefs should not be used to legislate a country, life is more abstract and science cannot or has yet to decisively measure certain important principles such as morality (albeit morality can be subjective).

But just because spirituality may be optional (and personal) for some unlike science which is largely compulsory and universal does that make spirituality less significant?

Problems often arise with the use of a word like "spirituality". In some cases, it would be tied to mythical beings like spirits, ghosts, Gods, demons etc. In others, it could refer to emotions that are present in pretty much all people. If it is being used in the first sense, I would say it is less significant. If it is being used in the second sense, I would say I would say it is more significant than in the first sense but ultimately depends on the person and the issue under consideration.

emöfine2:
"Science without Religion Is Lame, Religion without Science Is Blind" – Albert Einstein: Agree or Disagree?

*

I disagree with this statement because science doesn't need religion to progress. In fact, religion can be said to hinder scientific progress.

@martian, oops I forgot I was in the religion section of nairaland or shld I say the antireligion section. I wld get back to you later

[i][b]This is rather interesting...but should pleasing a deity be a prime aim? I ask because what if particular deities do not want their subjects to acquire certain knowledge?...is this part of the face-off between science and religion – wanting to know more than what some systems permit?
Thus maybe it depends on the type of belief systems – for example worshiping a deity or belonging to a system that encourages more awareness of the science of the universe as opposed to adhering to a system that shuns discovery thus only serving to be an inhibitor and concealer of knowledge and science. As such some may lose faith in all belief systems and shun any notions of spirituality altogether but there are imitations which may cause some to render spirituality as a myth or blind.

But I can agree that Ancient Egypt (which is a good example) allowed for spirituality to be relevant in their sciences and perhaps were even better for it.
Spirituality is diverse and so is science – well at least the way in which one perceives the sciences – Ancient Egyptians for example.

I believe science and spirituality can have a relationship that is mutualistic but when one tries to eclipse the other or tries to make the other redundant I believe the result can be negative but more dangerous if it’s spirituality demoting science than the other way around in my opinion.

But I do wonder how are the both coupled if spirituality is subjective whereby some spirituality even contradicts each other... wouldn't that thus effect how science is understood by some individuals with a spiritual inclination?
[/b]
ur concern on this matter is understandable, but u have to understand that spirituality is so vast that no school of thought or religion seems to grab it all

to understand the terms spirituality and science better, let me give u an example
imagine going to bed and waking up in a place quite different from ur home or ur environment, just imagine waking up in a garden or forest where everything seems to be available for u, everything like water, food and imagine having some new desires in that new world of yours, desires which are easily fulfilled, what would be the first thing u wld think upon getting there? simple- who brought me here and why did you bring me here, being in that type of pseudoworld, u wld know that the purpose of ur appearing there is beyond u and u either get to know who is responsible and love the person for that or hate him for that

being in such a world, everything u do wld be done with the beginning and the end in perspective, the beginning being ur arrival there and the end which wld be finding the answers u seek and where u are supposed to go, this perspective is what we know as spirituality, religion is as a result of this perspective but it operates on a man made set of rules which the adherents believe wld please their creator, science is just the usage of the gifts u have to enjoy ur life and to surmount whateva challenges u face, science is put in a greater perspective when one desires to know the beginning and the end and when one understands that he or she is here for a reason, if the motive of science is just honor or a nobel award then it wont be that powerful, if the motive for science is actually to find the beginning and the end, then that is noble and i believe many scientists have the latter as a motive for their work but modern day science has a little problem, they want to discover everything without believing there actually was a conscientious decision to create life and existence [ simply put, they dont believe in GOD


Engineer, do you think science is limited without spirituality? Or maybe even less partial as spirituality is subjective? And do you think spirituality is empty without science?

P.S. Religion is different to spirituality but I believe the modern man has somehow conflated the two terms.
[/i]

science is limited without spirituality but the average eye cant see that,maybe because we are overwhelmed by such modern inventions that we now think we are gods, come to think of it, diseases are still killing people even though better medicare is available, we still face many other problems in life. and the most important thing is that we havent really reached the height of true civilization which in reality is just being able to live in peace and love with ur neighbor not building 200 storey buildings and sending men to the moon as we all think

my above statement might raise the thought in ur mind, " but humanity is at its greatest height ever"
well think what wld have happened if the ancient kemetians carried their scientific spiritual campaign on till date, if it wasnt for complacency that set in and allowed other nations to conquer them, the egyptians wld have been living in mars by now, it might sound like an extreme analysis but just think of it,

5000 years ago, people performed brain surgery, pharoah menes diverted the course of the nile something that baffled hydraulic engineers as late as 1905, sculptures were made with such incredible artistry and realism, feminine cosmetics as profound as modern day ones were used, mighty temples were built
even the medieval world [4000 years later] didnt surpass their standard of living, then imagine that scientific spiritual campaign continuing for 1000, 2000,3000,4000 years and see the height we wld have reached

true spirituality cant exist without science because true spirituality embraces every thing on earth, from our innate desire to know to every natural and mineral resource, but ask urself,how many religions have embraced true spirituality
people make the mistake of equating spirituality with institutions such as the medieval catholic church and some other religious institutions, the reality is that spirituality has not been fully achieved, even some trusted and notable spiritual men still let their own insecurities impede their thinking process

what will u say abt the ancient arochukwu shrine, it was so powerful that northern emirs in precolonial nigeria said that 'God lives there', but the arochukwu people were involved in killing of twins, do you think that God wanted such, they believed that twins were for animals only and any twin shld be taken to the forest so the aniimals can take them back, in my own village pythons are not killed, there are so many taboos in different societies but in reality those taboos stem out of a lack of understanding of some things and most importantly they stem out of one of the greatest obstacles of spirituality which is RELIGION [i hope u arent confused, but that is the truth]. let me live u with a quote " the earth is the Lord's and its fullness thereof"

thehomer:
I disagree with this statement because science doesn't need religion to progress. In fact, religion can be said to hinder scientific progress.

I agree, that quote makes it sound like only religion can make science valid. I do think the guy had "spiritual" feelings towards his work do I searched for the letter where that quote came from. Maybe it will also quiet the thiests who take quotes out of context in order to show that he believed in "god".

http://www.sacred-texts.com/aor/einstein/einsci.htm

[b]For example, a conflict arises when a religious community insists on the absolute truthfulness of all statements recorded in the Bible. This means an intervention on the part of religion into the sphere of science; this is where the struggle of the Church against the doctrines of Galileo and Darwin belongs. On the other hand, representatives of science have often made an attempt to arrive at fundamental judgments with respect to values and ends on the basis of scientific method, and in this way have set themselves in opposition to religion. These conflicts have all sprung from fatal errors.

Now, even though the realms of religion and science in themselves are clearly marked off from each other, nevertheless there exist between the two strong reciprocal relationships and dependencies. Though religion may be that which determines the goal, it has, nevertheless, learned from science, in the broadest sense, what means will contribute to the attainment of the goals it has set up.But science can only be created by those who are thoroughly imbued with the aspiration toward truth and understanding. This source of feeling, however, springs from the sphere of religion. To this there also belongs the faith in the possibility that the regulations valid for the world of existence are rational, that is, comprehensible to reason. I cannot conceive of a genuine scientist without that profound faith. The situation may be expressed by an image: science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind.

Though I have asserted above that in truth a legitimate conflict between religion and science cannot exist, I must nevertheless qualify this assertion once again on an essential point, with reference to the actual content of historical religions. This qualification has to do with the concept of God. During the youthful period of mankind's spiritual evolution human fantasy created gods in man's own image, who, by the operations of their will were supposed to determine, or at any rate to influence, the phenomenal world. Man sought to alter the disposition of these gods in his own favor by means of magic and prayer. The idea of God in the religions taught at present is a sublimation of that old concept of the gods. Its anthropomorphic character is shown, for instance, by the fact that men appeal to the Divine Being in prayers and plead for the fulfillment of their wishes.[/b]

Einstein himself didn't realise just how advanced science would become judging by what he said here.

"To be sure, when the number of factors coming into play in a phenomenological complex is too large, scientific method in most cases fails us. One need only think of the weather, in which case prediction even for a few days ahead is impossible. Nevertheless no one doubts that we are confronted with a causal connection whose causal components are in the main known to us. Occurrences in this domain are beyond the reach of exact prediction because of the variety of factors in operation, not because of any lack of order in nature."

This is for the people[b] who fear MOGs.

"The more a man is imbued with the ordered regularity of all events the firmer becomes his conviction that there is no room left by the side of this ordered regularity for causes of a different nature. For him neither the rule of human nor the rule of divine will exists as an independent cause of natural events. To be sure, the doctrine of a personal God interfering with natural events could never be refuted, in the real sense, by science, for this doctrine can always take refuge in those domains in which scientific knowledge has not yet been able to set foot.

But I am persuaded that such behavior on the part of the representatives of religion would not only be unworthy but also fatal. For a doctrine which is able to maintain itself not in clear light but only in the dark, will of necessity lose its effect on mankind, with incalculable harm to human progress. In their struggle for the ethical good, teachers of religion must have the stature to give up the doctrine of a personal God, that is, give up that source of fear and hope which in the past placed such vast power in the hands of priests."
[/b]

@PAGAN9JA I hear you however in today’s definition religion qualifies as the worship of “god(s)” ( albeit spirituality doesn’t necessarily satisfy that term – spirituality is more exploratory mostly of oneself whilst religion is largely fixed and followed by a collective hence spirituality is moreso subjective unlike religion which objectifies that in which by nature could or should exist as a subjective matter. If religion is static it cannot evolve with the world talk less of science so I thus wonder about spirituality....

They will say that their beliefs are A way of life, a routine, a daily-ritual.

What if the system proves to be ineffectual? Do believers thus change it or do they seek other alternatives? Isn’t one of the major differences between “religion” and science is that science can be revised?
Must people remain loyal to a system that doesn’t seem to be working?

PAGANISM IS THE LINK BETWEEN RELIGION AND SCIENCE.

Expand please...





*Interesting replies so far I’ll respond when I’m more freer.*

Logicboy ,
Are you following? Big SCIENCE says there is God, small science says there is no God. Can you see why?

ckkris:
Are you following? Big SCIENCE says there is God, small science says there is no God. Can you see why?

What?

Science and religion are very incommpatible.
Science is a quest for understanding. It is not a belief system.
Religion starts from an asumption of absolute knowledge, often presumed to have been revealed by an unseen and often mysterious diety or dieties. Science, on the other hand, starts from a position of zero knowledge and then seeks to ask questions that may lead to understanding. science makes no claim to absolute knowledge. Science is more of a series of questions than answers.That makes science self-correcting.
Also, religion and spirituality are not one and the same. Religion is assumed, by those who practice it, to be a means of reaching a well defined or ill-defined spiritual goal. As for this spiritual goal, the goal post seems to shift from one sect,political or cultural era to another.
The use of the word"spirituality" in modern times,to often define or justify religious belief, to me, is a fruadulent one.
In ancient cultures such as egypt,science and religion were one and the same. scientific knowledge was clothed in religious garb and the priests were the scientists of their day.

It is important to stress that not all egytpians were advanced in knowledge, it was only the elite preisthood, who never considered science as something that could be ultimately beneficial to the wider population. They saw it as rare spiritual gifts which they used to oppress the population. They hoarded their knowledge,often till their deaths.

Therefore, spirituality, in this sense, is the reason the Egyptian science, except for the ego-inspired temples and pharoahnic monuments, did not survive ,and left no long lasting benefits to mankind.

plaetton: Science and religion are very incommpatible.
Science is a quest for understanding. It is not a belief system.
Religion starts from an asumption of absolute knowledge, often presumed to have been revealed by an unseen and often mysterious diety or dieties. Science, on the other hand, starts from a position of zero knowledge and then seeks to ask questions that may lead to understanding. science makes no claim to absolute knowledge. Science is more of a series of questions than answers.That makes science self-correcting.
Also, religion and spirituality are not one and the same. Religion is assumed, by those who practice it, to be a means of reaching a well defined or ill-defined spiritual goal. As for this spiritual goal, the goal post seems to shift from one sect,political or cultural era to another.
The use of the word"spirituality" in modern times,to often define or justify religious belief, to me, is a fruadulent one.
In ancient cultures such as egypt,science and religion were one and the same. scientific knowledge was clothed in religious garb and the priests were the scientists of their day.

It is important to stress that not all egytpians were advanced in knowledge, it was only the elite preisthood, who never considered science as something that could be ultimately beneficial to the wider population. They saw it as rare spiritual gifts which they used to oppress the population. They hoarded their knowledge,often till their deaths.

Therefore, spirituality, in this sense, is the reason the Egyptian science, except for the ego-inspired temples and pharoahnic monuments, did not survive ,and left no long lasting benefits to mankind.

i think you are speaking out of emotions or out of the general perception. .there were loads of commonmen who were scholars/scientists in Ancient Egypt. it was not just the priestly class. the same goes for Greec, China, India and other parts.

i even had a thread here on Nairaland to one such Egyptian "woman" scholar. .

emöfine2: @PAGAN9JA I hear you however in today’s definition religion qualifies as the worship of “god(s)” ( albeit spirituality doesn’t necessarily satisfy that term – spirituality is more exploratory mostly of oneself whilst religion is largely fixed and followed by a collective hence spirituality is moreso subjective unlike religion which objectifies that in which by nature could or should exist as a subjective matter. If religion is static it cannot evolve with the world talk less of science so I thus wonder about spirituality....

you are obviously referring to established religions who do not change. monotheism :the abrahamists go by the book. they eat,drink, sleep, sh.it and have babies by it. some Pagan religions got a better chance to evolve than the others, solely because their material world was expanding. Take my very own Maguzawa religion for example. we hardly fought any serious war in our heyday before islam. we were mostly stagnant. and by the time islam came, we were undergoin frequent fluctuations of decline, prosper and decline again after the Fulani jihad. so we didnt really have any scope to develop the belief system further or to write treatises form new sects, etc. The Yorubas on the other fought more wars then us, expanded, civilized, etc. so there religion too became more complex then ours and their spirituality further developed. However their expansion, etc was all regional, so it didnt go to further extents.

The Greeks and Hindus on the other hand built great Empires and Nations. the y formed great civilizations, republics, universities, governments, etc so their religion and spirituality expanded further. The Greeks had sects like the Pythagoreans, etc. The Hindus have millions of sub-sects. Infact the Hindu Pagan faith is probably the largest in the world today. Their spirituality expanded to such a level that many sects such as Buddhism, Jainism, and Sikhism, further went on to establish their own religions. Hinduism is infact, still expanding further.. (by expansion i do not mean gaining converts. Pagan religions do not normally accept converts, because it is attached to the local ethnicity and culture. By expansion, i meant the expansion of Spiritual Knowledge.)

so as you see, Pagan religions need time to expand and the only way is for them to remain stable and nurtured in their respective areas. This is also one reason i wish to see Nigeria as a Pagan Nation in the near-future.

However for simple Tribal communties engaged in forestry, fishing, agriculture, etc, their Spiritual beliefs do not require expansion because they are content. Their simple spiritual beliefs suits their simple thinking and lifestyle. Contentment is one of the Greatest of Virtues.

emöfine2:
What if the system proves to be ineffectual? Do believers thus change it or do they seek other alternatives? Isn’t one of the major differences between “religion” and science is that science can be revised?
Must people remain loyal to a system that doesn’t seem to be working?

I dont get you. Our systems have never been ineffective. You will always notice that Pagan Civilizations reach a very large height (their Golden Age) and then suddenly the monotheists reduce their civilizations to rubble. E.g., the INcas, the Greeks, etc. .

emöfine2: Expand please...

you see, the atheists concentrate only on the material world or the material science. they completely neglect the Spitirtual World. The monotheistic abrahamists on the other hand, completely throw away the Sciesnces in the bin. They disregard nature, etc (i dont need to go into details. adam & eve theory, the Sun and other planets revolve around the Earth, the Earth is flat, etc.).

The Pagans on the other hand regard bothe the materialistic and the Spiritual World. The materialisitc is the tangible elements and the Spiritualistic is the intangible element. Infact it would be wrong on the atheists part to completely disregardthe Spiritual World because it is the driving force of our Universe. why else do you think humans have still stuck on to religion inspite of so many advances Belief in Spirituality can never die out unless we die out ofcourse.

so as I was saying, we Pagans try to understand the Sciences in order to reach the Spiritual World, E.g., we do divination based on Astronomy, astrology, Nature Worshi[p/ rituals, etc. .
you know the rest.

infact we Pagans had already known the World is round, revolves around the Sun, there are other planets, their names, paths metc, in the days when telescopes never even existed. Infact the Pyramids of Egypt and South America, apart from being religious and burial places, where also Astronomical devices based on geometrical calculations, etc. The Pyramids of Giza are place right below 3 important stras/planets, i am not sure. .

There are so many other such things around the world which i cant describe in a few words. We dwell in the Occult . .

@thehomer

Problems often arise with the use of a word like "spirituality". In some cases, it would be tied to mythical beings like spirits, ghosts, Gods, demons etc. In others, it could refer to emotions that are present in pretty much all people. If it is being used in the first sense, I would say it is less significant. If it is being used in the second sense, I would say I would say it is more significant than in the first sense but ultimately depends on the person and the issue under consideration.

Quite interesting. I believe you are right concerning different definitions stapled to spirituality – there can be an “inner”(self) and “outer”(universe) facet regarding spirituality...

Do you think emotions can guide one to a/the truth?


@E-Engineer

did you know that the real motive for such wonderful engineering works and scientific advances in egypt were spiritual, they built pyramids because they were driven to connect to eternity because they believed in immortality

Immortality as a goal in today’s world has not necessarily been erased as science have and is still finding means in which to prolong human life besides wouldn’t immortality (in our current physical state) allow for specific gods to be made redundant?
Thus does not immortality betray a god-complex?

@E-Engineer

to understand the terms spirituality and science better, let me give u an example
imagine going to bed and waking up in a place quite different from ur home or ur environment, just imagine waking up in a garden or forest where everything seems to be available for u, everything like water, food and imagine having some new desires in that new world of yours, desires which are easily fulfilled, what would be the first thing u wld think upon getting there? simple- who brought me here and why did you bring me here, being in that type of pseudoworld, u wld know that the purpose of ur appearing there is beyond u and u either get to know who is responsible and love the person for that or hate him for that

The scenario I equate “spirituality” with is adoption.
A curious child upon discovering they were adopted may desire to find their natural mother in order to find out more about their origin and even to find out more about themselves so the child is thus left with the question...where does one begin to search for their natural mother?

Religion is contentment. Contentment with what another has presented as the revealed “truth”

Spirituality is explorative and about discovery which is in parallel to science.

If I was in that world you have painted with “desires which are easily fulfilled” first of all I would ask what purpose am I supposed to serve and I would be very apprehensive not amazed that my desires are being easily fulfilled – what’s the catch? would be the second thing going through my mind and of course who brought me there.

if the motive of science is just honor or a nobel award then it wont be that powerful, if the motive for science is actually to find the beginning and the end, then that is noble and i believe many scientists have the latter as a motive for their work but modern day science has a little problem, they want to discover everything without believing there actually was a conscientious decision to create life and existence [ simply put, they dont believe in GOD

Should the motives behind science be noble or just delivering facts regardless of motives...if not that kinda betrays emotion which is interesting...
“god” is synonymous with religion, maybe source would thus be a more neutral term...and science does seek to find a/the “source” conversely some religion does not believe in some of the components of science.

science is limited without spirituality but the average eye cant see that,maybe because we are overwhelmed by such modern inventions that we now think we are gods

I actually think it’s because there’s a lack of understanding of past inventions…much knowledge has indeed been hidden unfortunately.

Hhmm...science and spirituality actually have the same objective – discovering truth
Science operates (or has only been able to operate thus far) on a material level.
Spirituality on the other hand operates on the immaterial level.
Science seeks for universal truth whilst spirituality may find truths that only hold for certain individuals however some personal truths may indeed serve the general population/universe.
Material science is limited but spirituality may also be limited to a specific individual(s).

my above statement might raise the thought in ur mind, " but humanity is at its greatest height ever"

Lol that thought has never crossed my mind.

5000 years ago, people performed brain surgery, pharoah menes diverted the course of the nile something that baffled hydraulic engineers as late as 1905, sculptures were made with such incredible artistry and realism, feminine cosmetics as profound as modern day ones were used, mighty temples were built

There is something I find rather fascinating about those who were/are not technologically dependent or as technologically advanced by today's standards yet still quite advanced .

true spirituality cant exist without science

+1

people make the mistake of equating spirituality with institutions such as the medieval catholic church and some other religious institutions

+1

Immortality as a goal in today’s world has not necessarily been erased as science have and is still finding means in which to prolong human life besides wouldn’t immortality (in our current physical state) allow for specific gods to be made redundant?
Thus does not immortality betray a god-complex?

the goal of the ancient egyptians wasnt to make themselves immortal, they were already fully convinced abt life after death and they seemed to have a vivid mental picture of what it was like unlike our modern day scientists who still grapple with the fact that there is life after death, modern scientists trying to prolong human life do so because they want immortality in this physical realm and hv this fear of the unknown[ life after death],

while ancient egyptians did not mummify their corpses or build pyramids in order to prolong life, they already knew and were wholly convinced that their ancestors and deceased were living in the after life and they performed this wonderful feats in order to appease and show respect to their ancestors whom they believed were watching


its just similar to you moving on with your life and leaving your parents house, ur parents might want to keep ur stuff intact or just show respect to ur favorite items and ur younger siblings wouldnt want to mess up and do things u abhor even if u r absent because they know u will find out and u wouldnt like it, this my dear was the perspective of the ancient egyptians

@Martian

We have a "building" floating above the earth. We have a robotic vehicle the size of a VW van arriving on my home planet in 3 months and I don't think "god" had anything to do with them. So what's so special about the pyramids and I don't think the egyptians performed brain surgery!!!

But that’s exactly the point...even in today’s world with all these technological breakthroughs...no one in this often touted most technological advanced era has yet to produce those pyramids again …now isn’t that slightly odd?...imagine what type of materials those Ancient Egyptians were using...and what knowledge they possessed...I doubt the materials that was employed back then could have been more advanced than the apparatus that exist today yet such architecture cannot be replicated...I wonder why.

ckkris: Big SCIENCE says there is God, small science says there is no God. Can you see why?

Martian: [b] "The more a man is imbued with the ordered regularity of all events the firmer becomes his conviction that there is no room left by the side of this ordered regularity for causes of a different nature. For him neither the rule of human nor the rule of divine will exists as an independent cause of natural events. To be sure, the doctrine of a personal God interfering with natural events could never be refuted, in the real sense, by science, for this doctrine can always take refuge in those domains in which scientific knowledge has not yet been able to set foot.

But I am persuaded that such behavior on the part of the representatives of religion would not only be unworthy but also fatal. For a doctrine which is able to maintain itself not in clear light but only in the dark, will of necessity lose its effect on mankind, with incalculable harm to human progress. In their struggle for the ethical good, teachers of religion must have the stature to give up the doctrine of a personal God, that is, give up that source of fear and hope which in the past placed such vast power in the hands of priests."
[/b]

Remarkable.

Also thanks for sharing the full quote that I embedded in my OP.

By the way Martian what is your opinion regarding "spirituality" that isn't governed by a divine entity or personal god?

@Platteon

Therefore, spirituality, in this sense, is the reason the Egyptian science, except for the ego-inspired temples and pharoahnic monuments, did not survive...

Interesting...I guess when the spiritual disposition of a nation/individual changes that must completely affect the sciences it’s combined with...


@PAGAN9JA interesting write up

I dont get you. Our systems have never been ineffective. You will always notice that Pagan Civilizations reach a very large height (their Golden Age) and then suddenly the monotheists reduce their civilizations to rubble. E.g., the INcas, the Greeks, etc. .

I was thinking out loud but there are systems that don’t work and instead of scrapping it completely some people revise it i.e. a ritual to invoke rain may involve the sacrifice of a chicken...if the rain fails to come then the adherents may go back to the drawing board and may conclude they used the wrong colour chicken as opposed to scrapping it completely etc...that’s kinda what I meant by ineffective.

emöfine2: @PAGAN9JA interesting write up


I was thinking out loud but there are systems that don’t work and instead of scrapping it completely some people revise it i.e. a ritual to invoke rain may involve the sacrifice of a chicken...if the rain fails to come then the adherents may go back to the drawing board and may conclude they used the wrong colour chicken as opposed to scrapping it completely etc...that’s kinda what I meant by ineffective.

oh i see. . Again it all depends on the method, the person performing the rituals and other factors. usually if it doesnt work, they try to develop new methods or improvise on the old one and most of all, try to find out WHY it went wrong. we do not really go by the book because we dont have any. some more advanced Pagan religions have books, but they are not LAW. they are merely guidelness or opinions, etc written on it or a written catalogue of the religion, since most Pagan faiths are passed on Orally, through artefacts, sites, etc. .

What I understood as Spirituality from E-engineer was that it was Curiousity, which of course drives the search for knowledge.

Boith Science and Religion are man's attempt to find knowledge. Religion often is the social realm that holds explanations for reality, man's existence, the nature of his curiousity, society etc. Its kind of an ancient attempt at philosophy as we know it. Also has a role of preserving societal order , status quo OR vent for social change.

For example, Sumerian priests could accurately predict eclipses, yet placed a mystical shroud over such knowledge and exercised immense power which influenced social behaviour, gave authority a legitimacy and other social rites.

Same with the Egyptians, the priests were the intelligentsia. They had scribes, mathematicans, architects, doctors. So religion presents answers, just as modern science does. So its inevitable for both to clash and conflict.

While Science is one dimensional and narrow, religion is more dynamic, diverse, appealing; it goes beyond just finding truth (or what it believes to be), its a basis for ethical values, defines essence of life etc.

emöfine2: @Martian
But that’s exactly the point...even in today’s world with all these technological breakthroughs...no one in this often touted most technological advanced era has yet to produce those pyramids again …now isn’t that slightly odd?...

The point is..... building pyramids(massive elaborate tombs) is not productive, it would be a waste of time and resources, so why should anyone bother to build on?. The reason you find it odd is s that you have this preconceived idea that the feat can't be replicated but you ignore the fact that the kind of people who can afford a "worthless" task like building a pyramid in this day and age are spending their money on worthwhile endeavors like these....

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/rocket-launched-elon-musk-spacex-international-space-station-article-1.1082971
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2012/03/120325-james-cameron-mariana-trench-challenger-deepest-returns-science-sub/

What's the point of building pyramids when society doesn't hold the same sacred beliefs as the ancients?? The ancients wanted to ensure their future fame by building those tombs but in contemporary times, men build libraries and leave endowments bearing their names. e.g Andrew Carnegie,Rockefeller,Gates...

emöfine2: @Martian
imagine what type of materials those Ancient Egyptians were using...and what knowledge they possessed...I doubt the materials that was employed back then could have been more advanced than the apparatus that exist today yet such architecture cannot be replicated...I wonder why.

It cannot be replicated because no one wants to waste time building a massive tomb which will en d up being a waste of land, labour and resources? Also, people that can build pyramids have already built things on a larger scale that are even more complex that those tombs.
The pharoahs aligned their tombs with the sky, well, today private citizens can have their ashes deposited in space. Who needs pyramids?
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/blast-me-off-scotty-private-spacecraft-sends-ashes-of-star-trek-actor-into-orbit-7778897.html

Kay 17:
For example, Sumerian priests could accurately predict eclipses, yet placed a mystical shroud over such knowledge and exercised immense power which influenced social behaviour, gave authority a legitimacy and other social rites..

Really?...

emöfine2:
what is your opinion regarding "spirituality" that isn't governed by a divine entity or personal god?

I haven't thought about it much but I think it entails emotions and sentiments about the things we value or hold sacred. Maybe whatever we attach some aethestic value to evoke that "spiritual" emotion. The other type of "spiritual" with its magic beans and totalitarian sky wizards is just crazy talk to me.