How do religious Veeky Forumsons reconcile science with spirituality?

>has you thinking you're a monkey's nephew.
that's racist.

>If I add this and this, I think I will get that.
hence why we don't believe guesses, we just see if the hypothesis holds true if it does there's some reason to believe it but with caveat.

Most people probably ditch the parts which don't fit with science. The core pieces of the popular religions still hold true.

Science deals with what we can observe, see, and measure.

Religion deals with metaphysics and unobservable things.

The problem that arises is when religion tries to explain what we observe in a way that contradicts science.

which happens all the time since spiritualism exists to give people false comfort in death.

You're dumbing down the argument to something black and white.

Your respondee claimed that what is put forth in religion is not mutually exclusive with what is put forth in the sciences, you simply said that the modus operandi of the two (broad) subjects are different, and you put forth no argument to why the two cannot be philosophically reconciled, which is the subject at hand.

I will assume that your claim comes from a place of fundamentalist atheism (which itself can be likened to a lifestyle based on faith).

I offer a proverb: "For a neckbeard to wash his hair, he must first remove his fedora"

because it's inconsistent. you're not applying a consistent approach to life because of whim really. not very scientific, padre.

I was day dreaming earlier today and I was thinking, empty space is constantly creating particles that annihilate each other, it can even move tiny objects, like gates - empty space is able to close them.

Wouldn't there be a way to just create enough matter to spray into space trough some serious engineering? In that case just feel the cosmos with billions of generators and keep the game running.

Or the problem is that dark matter is actually increasing exponentially until we'll reach the point where it gets between atomic bonds? And I guess around them it's truly game over.

OR in the trillion years we have left, given if we survive maybe we'll have time to learn what dark matter is and remove it.

The point is to survive and do lots of science.

This, desu.

I would think that politics influenced religion much like how it has influenced science, the end result is a mostly good set of principles and claims, left to the consumer who is left to think it through themselves.

First, I'll acknowledge that your implied claim that spirituality is just a sugar pill is just an oppinion, and a hereto unprovable assertion.

That said, seeing as it's completely moot, why (outside from putting on the airs of popularized philosophical elitism a-la: "oh, look at me, I believe that there is no such thing as spirituality, and everything is essentially meaningless, aren't I a big boy for """accepting""" this") would you choose to believe that there is no hope for a spiritual side of reality? I only can see three possible reasons for this choice:

A) you want to be on a philosophically trendy high horse,

B) you really, really want to believe in moral subjectivity, or

C) you're a sadomasochist, who love the gloomy outlook of the universe and eeryone in it with this frame of thought.

Consistency in methods had nothing to do with the possibility of being correct.
There is always a possibility of a better explanation.

Here's an example of point 1: you cannot experimentally prove Pythagoras' theorem, it is impossible to do exactly through experiment, so in order to best convince ourselves we use geometric theory to prove it.

Physical phenomena, however, May be more readily proved through experimentation. Say, the value of gravitational acceleration is something that is done experimentally.

Two methods of finding truth, would you call science a fraud?

Point 2: Newtonian mechanics were accepted as true until the theory of relativity was thought up and tested, there may be yet a better way to explain macroscopic motion, are you omnipotent enough to say with certainty that there is/is-not a bigger player in this? Can you say there is not something without doubt?

I mean this all in general, not as a zealot of any religion, I'm just saying that precluding something on your own notions is as close-minded as strictly believing something.

One can be both scientific and spiritual/religious/whatever, and even reconcile them with each other as well, user.

>and a hereto unprovable assertion.
more like unproved but i can't see any other reason to believe in cosmic daddies except that you can't handle the transience or pointlessness of life. so you need to invent or latch onto an invented afterlife or purpose to calm yourself.

>Consistency in methods had nothing to do with the possibility of being correct.
non-sequitur. if you get it right by guessing you didn't think it through and relied on chance. thus not scientific.

>and a hereto unprovable assertion. more like unproved but i can't see any other reason to believe in cosmic daddies except that you can't handle the transience or pointlessness of life. so you need to invent or latch onto an invented afterlife or purpose to calm yourself.

So as I see it from your response, you follow your belief for some combination of all three reasons I posed. I suppose that there is nothing left to say for it, it's just your choice, and you don't a specifically state your reason, so I can't really glean what type of person you may be. (Although I would assume the high horse one, seeing as your competing with me in an Internet argument).

>Consistency in methods had nothing to do with the possibility of being correct. non-sequitur. if you get it right by guessing you didn't think it through and relied on chance. thus not science

Non-sequitur: statement that is not connected in a logical or clear way to anything said before it

I gave an example of two theories "proven" by different methods, coming to the conclusion posed in my premise that the methods need not be the same for two theories to be correct.

But you seem to be struggling with the original argument, and that might be why you are saying that my post was a non-sequitur, no one is saying that religion or spirituality is scientific, we are merely stating that what is posed in those two topics can be reconciled with an academic and scientific understanding of reality. You can, for instance believe in a diety, and believe that V=IR. Saying that science precludes any belief is popularist, and lacks any real depth.

There are social implications of some religions/spirituality, but that's isn't the topic we are talking about, just reconciling the two ideas.

But senpai, inductions relies on "faith"

Go jump off a bridge you creationist cunt. You are actually pulling society down with your backwards beliefs

...use it to build useful shit...? Oh wait, we already did that.

That statement doesn't make any sense.

All science is based on prediction and statistics/probability, and is therefor inductive.

Despite being someone who is neither very religious nor very scientific I think I can answer this:

No matter how advanced humanity gets, and even if we were to survive for billions of years as intellectuals there will always be something we don't know---God lives there.

That works pretty well.

>All science is based on prediction and statistics/probability

thus, scarequotes.

By "faith" I simply mean the belief that the future will resemble the past.

Ignore the troll user, don't take the bait

>So as I see it from your response, you follow your belief for some combination of all three reasons I posed.
actually more like neither. i never wanted things to be the way they are , they just are. and i don't see it that way because it makes me popular (does quite the opposite) nor do i care for morality. see the problem with you is you impose what you think onto the world when it's not really there and are projecting that onto me. i figure things out (at least try) and work from there.

>But you seem to be struggling
that's you m8. the point is you can apply different reasoned methods that doesn't change they're reasoned. in fact you want a concordance of evidence. the point is science has many methodologies but they all go with the same basic approach which is get evidence. unlike religion which just asserts.

look when you're being religious you're not being scientific, you inf act have to bend scientific conclusions to fit with some holy book written by some desert dwelling weirdos.

...

Kill yourself faggot.

I believe we call it 'cognitive dissonance.'

>"you're imposing what you think on me"
I'm assuming something, here are my assumptions, which are based on:

1)

Of the two camps of belief, nihilism/atheism is more pessimistic, and religiousness/spirituality is more optimistic.

You seem to be coming from the pessimistic camp, so I'm assuming that you have a more pessimistic frame of mind.

2)

Atheism is a popular "theology" in academia, to be religious is to be laughed at (I'm not just talking about Creationist nutters).

Therefore, following this trend would make it seem to me that you're using it to gain some kind of philosophical high ground.

Please, correct me if I'm wrong. I'm not Before I continue

>desert dwelling weirdo's
let's agree not to use ad-hominem's from here forth, I wont if you wont, this isn't /pol/

>the point is you can apply different reasoned methods that doesn't change they're reasoned. in fact you want a concordance of evidence. the point is science has many methodologies but they all go with the same basic approach which is get evidence. unlike religion which just asserts.

I understand how science operates, all things start with a hypothesis (lets just call it an unproved assertion). Tests are made to render that assertion plausible, or implausible.

Religious/spiritual assertions are untestable. You are right, they are not Scientific in nature (at least as far as you or I know), and I never stated that they were.

However, that is not the issue at hand:
>"no one is saying that religion or spirituality is scientific" - Me
I understand what you are saying, but you don't need to "prove" religion/spirituality in order to reconcile it with scientific thought.

>Reconcile: cause to coexist in harmony; make or show to be compatible.

Comparing the two is apples to oranges, but as I stated before, you can believe in a diety/spiritual-reality and be an avid member in the scientific community.

In the end it's a personal choice

The right side is also the social "science" method.

Religion is useful for meeting spiritual needs. Eventually, the sciences of neurology and psychology may progress to the point that religion is no longer necessary, but given that psychology has devolved into a pseudoscience this is unlikely to happen any time soon.

Also, religion is an excellent defense against faith. Look what happens to every atheist who isn't actively involved in a skeptic community. They instantly fall victim to woo peddlers and conspiracy nuts.

ehh i got sick of science except for math i find that religion and tradition and morality are more interesting topics

still getting my ms in math so that i can get that gud job but like i'm gonna live my stupid life how i want to

Scientists prefer to study reality. Atheism is what reality bears out. It's that simple.

what's your specialization, user?

>I like to read books because that's how I get knowledge
>therefore, it's a waste of time to go to the gym to get healthy

This is what you sound like. If you neglect your spiritual health, you will become unhealthy and unable to benefit from science.

idk yet i'm starting in a couple weeks :)
always been a fan of math but i fell for the physics meme during hs and did my bs in it.

Dude, you cant stay on topic to save your life, if you really want an Atheist circlejerk just go back to r/Athiesm. If you want to have an intelligent argument, I'll be right here.

It was on topic. It is accurate. But it does not provide much wiggle room for the religious to insert sophistry. Science is concerned with the truth. The truth is there is no reason to believe in the supernatural, thus the 'harder' the science, the less religious they are. It is not complicated.

Aw but physics is fun! Well, the applicable stuff anyway. I'm a Mechefag, with a minor in Math, I wish I had the time to go for something more substantial in Math, but you know, money and shit.

Faith.

>Ignorance, denial and delusion

>The truth is there is no reason to believe in the supernatural.
Okay, I can get behind that, (depending on who you are and where you place your priorities).

However in that case, why pay it any mind at all? Believing that there is no God is as much a religious assertion as saying there is one.

If reconciling your beliefs (presumed atheism) with science means that you reconciling that there is no God [religious substitute] with your work in your niche in the scientific community, then more power to you. That's the answer that the thread was asking for, not

>faith based belief and evidence based belief
>not mutually exclusive
pick one

Beyond that, the differences in your beliefs become something of the social realm, and I don't think this is the place for that.

I would hope that Veeky Forums remains (for the most part) solely dedicated to scientific talk, rather than trying to roast other religious/spiritual ideologies.

yeah sometimes i remember about money and...i'm just a lazy mathfag who's sick of school

Back to r/athiesm

>Believing that there is no God is as much a religious assertion as saying there is one.

We have no reason to believe in a god; therefore, we have no need to take a leap of faith in relation to a lack of belief in an abstract concept like God.

A lack of a belief in something cannot be equated with a belief in something that had no grounding other than feels.

Is someone asked: is there a god?

I'd say; as far as we can tell, no.

Which is an accurate statement and not a faith based belief.

Every argument for God is based on feels.

There is no valid argument for God.

muh whole life is based on muh feels though user

The Torah and the Quran are both the word of god, and contain many of the important mathematical events of the universe. The Talmud and the Hadith Nabawi is garbage written by man, propagated by the 13th tribe (levites) or the synagogue of satan mentioned in book of revelations in order to manipulate people into killing eachother, and you idiots into having unproductive conversations over the nature of spirituality in the world. The bible was translated the way it was to have the same affect over the spirituality of the native English speakers. the Torah, Quran, and New testament are non-fiction whether you like it or not.

there is nothing to reconcile. at the end of the day all atomic matter is made out of pure energy, or light. that's essentially god in a nutshell and there's nothing you idiots can do to change that about every single atom in the universe.

I'm willing to make a long semi-sourcable rant on a pastepin, but these posts don't allow enough window room for me to lay it down why the D major Scale, the Hydrogen Atom, and the Seraphim Angels are essentially the same god damn thing.

Kek, you just worship a different God, "progress."

Yeah, you're human.

Most people believe in a God of some sort.

Nah, don't waste bandwidth on that nonsense.

And I would prefer that religion stay widely discredited in the scientific community, occupying an ever shrinking pocket of legitimacy both in academia and elsewhere. The thread asked how scientists reconcile science with spirituality. My desire is to stop in from time to time to disprove any argument which appears rational so that it may be exposed as illegitimate and those on the fence will err on the side of rejecting superstition and unfounded beliefs in magical sky beings or supernatural transcendence of being past death.

i bet you believe in einsteins theory of relativity.

so how's that model of the universe being 4% physical matter, and the rest of the universe being a mixture of 96% dark matter and dark energy?

you realize at the end of the day that's just a 96% margin of error you idiots fell for.

>I have no actual arguments for god so I just loosely define everything as god so if people have belief in anything I can consider it a hole in one.

Still the best theory have given the evidence. Your feelings are not a good reason to reject it

i believe it's irrational to not believe in consciousness existing outside of matter, as there's thousands of years of human history that can much be proven by pissing on an indian burial mound sends out some bad spirits

You need to take a leap of faith in order to assert that there is no God as well. You cannot use the scientific method to prove or disprove it, so the whole issue is, again, moot.

The only truly logical philosophical conclusion therefor is Agnosticism.

I really don't feel like having this fight, but if you want to put on a fedora, I'll put on whatever pic related is called.

Kek, nice strawman.

Anyone who makes the argument that belief is bad because it stifles progress, scientific or otherwise, obviously believes there is objective value to that progress. Such is a fallacious assessment, but one many in the sciences live by.

Real science doesn't evoke religion, unless your talking about Bill Nye, or Meme Degrasse Tyson.

>occupying an ever shrinking pocket of legitimacy both in academia and elsewhere.

So you're just an angry atheist who wants his fee-fees to not be hurt by telling him he's not and cannot be demonstrably proven, same as anyone else.

Dude you're just an ad-hominem monster, you've discredited yourself to me at least, take whatever lurkers you've convinced, they were already on your "side".

The angry phase was like 15 years ago now. At this point I'm in the easy coasting phase where I non-chalantly discredit religious sophists for fun.

That's atheists mate

i once again reiterate, it is entirely foolish to dismiss the idea that consciousness depends on matter to exist. it is exactly the other way around, matter would NOT exist without consciousness.

this is a theory for idiots, and not the best theory since it has a 96% MARGIN OF FUCKING ERROR.

>admits to being an angry atheist
>admits to shitposting

>inb4 "no no no user I'm totally not shitposting, dis is what is da troof, see, Carl Sagan said it, it must be true."

Literally every thought through the human mind is spurred by feels.

If you hate feels, you just as well end it.

You have not demonstrated this point in any way at all. All science points to the fact that you are just your body.

I like how you knew in exactly what way your green-texting was fallacious before you even finished the post but you continued anyway.

How do atheist Veeky Forumsons reconcile the fact that computer instructions are absolute with debuggers that can arbitrarily change code and data all at the hands of magical irrational spaghetti neckbeards in the clouds that are somehow invisible to the data?

Wow if you dont feel something similar to spiritualy knowing how big and incredible universe is, that we are a part of it as much as starts and planets are, that somehow we are the way that universe has to know itself, that we are made of start dust and everything is perfectly connected... you are empty inside. Change god for big bang, miracles for the unnexplicable things that there are still out there etc.. i mean the fucking universe is greater than any god created but simply human beings... trying to understand the universe is a trip way more spiritual than any religion.

created by simply human beings*

And why do we need to call those feelings 'spiritual?' Why can we not call them what they are? Awe, reverence, oneness? Spirituality has an etymology relating to the spirit. It seems, given that people who do not believe in a spirit can also feel these feelings, that we can come up with a better word.

Cool, interesting reply, use the word you like more or create a new one, at the end the feeling will be the same. The word we use is irrelevant for me.

To me*

Ultimate kek. Think creationism is valid

Nice bait

spiritual health has to be a real thing before you can get unhealthy from it.

>You need to take a leap of faith in order to assert that there is no God as well.

Do you need to take a leap of faith there isn't an invisible leprechaun-on-unicorn gay orgy playing out behind you and followed you all day?

Or rather do you need to take a leap of faith to not believe that Zeus lives on the top of Mt Olympus or that Osiris was torn into 14 pieces?

Non-religious dude here:
They simply say "God made it that way." Doesn't matter why or how, that's all they need to believe.

>I need my false beliefs to save me from existential crisis.

>strawman

>tu quoque