Why I believe science is true and spirituality is false

[trenton]

Although I watched many spiritual videos, deep down I still believe that this is just philosophy and science is still more objective.  I may understand some criticisms on an intellectual level, but I still hold science as true anyway.  I would like to describe my experience in this forum.  If I don't seriously question science, then philosophy can quickly be degraded into mental masturbation, preventing me from gaining real benefit from it.  This idea that science is objective has real consequences for me and it prevents me from taking this seriously.

Growing up, I was curious about how it is that I exist.  I never had an answer to these things and I felt isolated and alone.  It seems everybody is caught in minor human activities and don't even question what we are doing here.  I didn't socialize much with others and this left me to making many theories about reality.  It was rare for people to share this interest as I often flew over other people's heads.

In this process I created a philosophical or spiritual ego.  I didn't really care about truth, and other people could see through the bullshit.  This is why in my experience rationalism was often more honest than my pseudo spirituality.  Sometimes I still made metaphors about how everything is connected, but I felt delusional and it looked like philosophy was doomed to be mental masturbation for me.  How could I take intellectualizing seriously if questioning the obvious was only to make me look cool?

How should I approach spirituality given this kind of background?  Are there others in this forum like me who still hold science as true and spirituality as a mask or facade we put on?  I am currently trying to open myself to more serious questioning because without it, my growth is limited and I am fundamentally locked in the materialist paradigm because of rationalists calling out my bullshit.

[Carl-Richard]

Sit down and watch your thoughts. That is basically all there is to it. Science, spirituality, philosophy, rationality, objectivity, materialism, intellectualizing are thoughts. Can thoughts be true?

Edited April 11, 2021 by Carl-Richard

[erik8lrl]

Science is a subset of philosophy. If you don't even know what you are, then how can you know if any of your observations (science) are real? How would you know if anything exists? What is observation? What is truth? What is objectivity? What is existence? What are you? You need to see that everything's existence (including science and any concepts) hinges upon the fact that you exist. Or the fact that you think you exist.  

Why not use the scientific method to test out spirituality for yourself. You can verify every spiritual truth by yourself if you do the work. Without direct experience, spirituality will just be mental masturbation. Do the work (personal, spiritual practices, psychedelics, etc.) and verify it for yourself. Then you will have a much better understanding of what true spirituality is about.   

Edited April 11, 2021 by erik8lrl

[Consilience]

It sounds like you haven't actually had the insight into the fragility of materialism. Be very literal, what is in your experience right now? Sight, taste, touch, sound, smell, and various mental phenomena. Notice that the only thing you actually KNOW with 100% certainty is your direct, perceptive experience. Materialism holds that there is another type of substance outside of this perceptive experience, physical matter. But notice: you cannot verify whether matter is really there nor could you ever. This is because all you have in your subjective experience, all that you have is perception. That's it... Physical matter could only ever be a theory, but it is completely and utterly impossible to come into contact with, for if you were to experience physical matter, it could only be experienced as a perceptive experience and therefore never be directly experienced as physical matter.

The problem with materialism is that it takes what we observe in our perceptive experience (all science and philosophizing is done through subjective experience, aka through perception because that's all we have) and tries to rationalize a 2nd substance, physical matter. However, we don't need physical matter to explain our subjective experience. Materialism is just a model to explain subjective experience, but it is not the only model, it's completely un-provable and therefore unfalsifiable, and starts to break down when you start looking into what the science behind quantum physics shows us, or if you actually contemplate the philosophical "implications of the hard problem of consciousness" seriously. 

I actually realized that materialism was bullshit before even getting into spirituality or meditation so it's not a spirituality thing, it's a have you investigated your direct experience and the gapping holes in materialism deeply enough? You can do this all completely intellectually without spirituality. Yet once you start to realize the significance of consciousness through rigorous meditation or psychedelics, it's easily seen how little this hypothetical "physical matter" substance adds. Not only is it not needed to explain reality, but it is actually seen to be just another belief, just a perceptive experience of mind to explain the dream we call life or "reality."

Yet because of how deeply programmed and conditioned we are through our education and the collective consensus and way we speak language, scientific materialism is the equivalent deep religious indoctrination. You will find there is a literal fear response when trying to question or let go of these beliefs about reality. And make no mistake about it, materialism is not a logical conclusion based on scientific data, again look at quantum physics to look at the gapping problems from the science. Material is a belief, no different than a religious belief you and I and everyone was programmed with by our education. The question is, will you contemplate deeply enough to see through this mirage? 

[Adamq8]

All you ever known is perceptions about the world and thoughts/images/sensations about you and your body, there is tho one thing that has been aware of all these things as far back as you can remember, and if you look, you see that you changed radically throughout the years but one thing has remained the same, that one thing is what you refer to as "I"

Which points to conciousness. 

And the funny thing is, the most intimate and personal and even shared thing we humans have is conciousness but science has not figured out this one thing, hence the hard problem of conciousness. 

But it is only a hard problem of conciousness when looked through the materialists paradigm which naively assumes that we only see a copy of the world and even that our real skull is far beyond all the stars and the world that you see because this is just a representation and fake and the real world of matter lies outside us, which we never will be able to verify. 

Science is studying behaviours of nature and what not, but it does not say anything about the underlying nature of things.

Science can actually create gadgets and technology without knowing the true nature of things.

There is where philosophy actually comes in.

It is extremely dangerous when scientist assume that Science is the best and can explain everything and make assumptions on stuff they have no clue about.

Science is studying the content of the perceptual screen but it does not study that which is underlying all of our phenomena. 

Thats why we have the worldview we have because intellectual elites have assumed that the metaphysic materialism is the one true one but evidence for a long time has proved otherwise as well, also why we are obssesed with things and material stuff, metaphysical materialism do not help raise the well being of mankind at all.

They assume electrical currents in the neurons in your brain can account for conciousness and experiences like smelling a rose and tasting choclate etc. 

But they cant account for any experience at all or show how it is done. 

Hence the hard problem of conciousness. 

Nature and the universe is mental in its true nature.

You can have awakening experience where it is recognized that all is conciousness, conciousness is fundamental. 

Everything is Mind.

[Roy]

4 hours ago, trenton said:

How should I approach spirituality given this kind of background?  Are there others in this forum like me who still hold science as true and spirituality as a mask or facade we put on?  I am currently trying to open myself to more serious questioning because without it, my growth is limited and I am fundamentally locked in the materialist paradigm because of rationalists calling out my bullshit.

I approach it in a utilitarian sense, which can be seen as selfish or egoic, but whatever. Think about how is pursuing these endeavors is actually going to change your life for the better, and in turn make you into a beacon of truth and love to improve the world?

Honestly ask yourself  - Do you want to practice philosophy and spirituality because you want to mentally masturbate and horde the truth to yourself? Or do you want to genuinely improve the way you live and potentially help others by proxy of having deeper understanding or "truth".

Contrast it to what "science" and rationality have done for you in your life. How much has science and rationality really helped in this regard?

[Jodistrict]

Science and materialism are not the same.    Science finds patterns in nature and ideally expresses them in mathematical  equations.  Materialism is an ontology, and hence part of metaphysical philosophy.   You can believe in God or be an atheist and still solve Schrodinger’s equation.   The equations don’t assume any particular ontology.   I spent my entire career in science and technology and was a scientific materialist. That changed over a year ago when I took 5-meo-DMT.   Since then, experience and contemplation  have solidified my change in perspective.    

[Someone here]

It's not that science is true. It's that the science method is easier to empirically verify. And do you want to buy into the verification paradigm? Then only accept facts that are empirically verifiable. Whether it comes from science or spirituality or even religion. 

[Carl-Richard]

15 minutes ago, Someone here said:

It's not that science is true. It's that the science method is easier to empirically verify. And do you want to buy into the verification paradigm? Then only accept facts that are empirically verifiable. Whether it comes from science or spirituality or even religion. 

“A scientist, an artist, a citizen is not like a child who needs papa methodology and mama rationality to give him security and direction; he can take care of himself, for he is the inventor not only of laws, theories, pictures, plays, forms of music, ways of dealing with his fellow man, institutions but also of entire world views, he is the inventor of entire forms of life.”
― Paul Karl Feyerabend, Science in a Free Society

“The only principle that does not inhibit progress is: anything goes.”
― Paul Karl Feyerabend

Love epistemological anarchism <3

[The Buddha]

Yes, but more. Science is true, but more. Much more, infinite more. Can u understand? Science= YES; Infinite other things = YES. Why are they opposite, all paths are It's path.

[Tim R]

2 hours ago, Carl-Richard said:

“A scientist, an artist, a citizen is not like a child who needs papa methodology and mama rationality to give him security and direction; he can take care of himself, for he is the inventor not only of laws, theories, pictures, plays, forms of music, ways of dealing with his fellow man, institutions but also of entire world views, he is the inventor of entire forms of life.”
― Paul Karl Feyerabend, Science in a Free Society

“The only principle that does not inhibit progress is: anything goes.”
― Paul Karl Feyerabend

Love epistemological anarchism <3

Never heard of "epistemological anarchism" but I love it❤ this virtually screams "Terence McKenna"?

[Nahm]

8 hours ago, trenton said:

How could I take intellectualizing seriously if questioning the obvious was only to make me look cool?

If the genuine interest is looking cool, just roll with that. ‘Get your fill of it’ so to speak, do what you like to look cool. Later, that interest might evolve into an intuitive curiosity of what that ‘me’ is, and what that experience of ‘looking cool’ actually is. Imo you’re rather ineffably amazingly cool already, but it’s not my opinion that matters. 

8 hours ago, trenton said:

How should I approach spirituality given this kind of background? 

Science is inspecting, seeing what a thing is. Approach spirituality scientifically, rather than philosophically. Inspect the actuality of the very ‘background’. In direct experience now, what is that? 

[roopepa]

9 hours ago, trenton said:

Although I watched many spiritual videos, deep down I still believe that this is just philosophy and science is still more objective. 

What exactly does science say about reality? What does it say about consciousness? Matter? Time? Being and nothingness?

It seems to me that you are actually bying the materialist paradigm, not "science". You are veiling your metaphysical assumptions as science and objectivity.

There is philosophy beyond scientific method. For example, what is direct experience? This cannot be answered by scientific method, as science appears within direct experience.

9 hours ago, trenton said:

How should I approach spirituality given this kind of background?

I believe the problem here is what you think spirituality is. Spirituality is not really just thinking and philosophizing. It's not about knowing and being right. At least for me, it would make a lot more sense to think of spirituality as a feeling-thing. What makes you connected to life & reality? What gives you that childlike wonder? What makes your body fill with joy and true depth?

If it is science, so be it. The real center of spirituality is feeling, the connection to the depths of reality. Science is just the tool.

 

[SpiritualAwakening]

Start inquiring into the Why, stop agreeing to the how.

[Inliytened1]

@trenton Truth is found through curious exploration where neither science or mysticism is favored.

 

[trenton]

9 hours ago, Carl-Richard said:

Sit down and watch your thoughts. That is basically all there is to it. Science, spirituality, philosophy, rationality, objectivity, materialism, intellectualizing are thoughts. Can thoughts be true?

8 hours ago, erik8lrl said:

 

@Carl-Richard 

Sorry I can't remove the other quote.

One of the challenges I have that is limiting me is the constant background that doubts efforts like these.  Without this background paradigm nagging at me, I could ground myself in direct experience.

Now on the question "can thoughts be true?"

 Thoughts can be true from a certain point of view.  For example, I can say the door is white.  There are other ways to look at the door, but I am describing my experience of the door rather than through an X-Ray for example.  I could more accurately say that there is a perception that the door is white.

Taking into account all other perspectives, my thoughts are not really 100% true.  All thoughts can be doubted because they are true from a limited perspective.  This leads to bias in that I could prefer one  view over another.

Thoughts are true from a narrow perspective, but false from a broad, multi perspective view.  I am wondering about a perspective that can account for all perspectives in reality without any bias whatsoever.  Without a method to determine what is true or false, I would not hold one view as higher than another because all of them are imaginary.

If I have no method to determine what is true or false, then I am left with present experience.  Everything else is concept and imagination because there is a bias toward which method should be used and who created the method.

If I only have this experience and the rest is concept, then I must be imagining that there is anything beyond direct experience.  There is this perception and to add anything beyond it is concept and theory.

[trenton]

9 hours ago, erik8lrl said:

Science is a subset of philosophy. If you don't even know what you are, then how can you know if any of your observations (science) are real? How would you know if anything exists? What is observation? What is truth? What is objectivity? What is existence? What are you? You need to see that everything's existence (including science and any concepts) hinges upon the fact that you exist. Or the fact that you think you exist.  

Why not use the scientific method to test out spirituality for yourself. You can verify every spiritual truth by yourself if you do the work. Without direct experience, spirituality will just be mental masturbation. Do the work (personal, spiritual practices, psychedelics, etc.) and verify it for yourself. Then you will have a much better understanding of what true spirituality is about.   

Science must be a subset of philosophy because of the philosophies of rationalism and logical positivism.  If I don't what I am, then this does not negate the fact that experience is still happening. 

How do I know if any observations are real?  I could use the naked eye, a radar, an X-Ray, a microscope, and much more.  Which perspective is the most accurate representation of reality?  If all of them are perceptions, then none of them can be truer than another.  To argue that X-Ray is truer than radar would be silly.

I know observation is real because it is happening, and can come in many forms.  In this case I am using observation, experience, and perception interchangeably.  All observations must be equally real because they exist.

What is objectivity is a good question.  Who gets to say what is objective?  If we favor one point of view over another, then this is already subjective.  If I say that objectivity exists, then this is pure conjecture because it can't be proven if all experience is subjective.

I am thinking that my direct experience is proof that existence exists.  If there are things outside of my experience, then existence is bigger than me.  This would mean that I am this awareness and this experience, but I am only a part of existence.  If I assume that I am separate from this experience, then this is emotion and conjecture because there is no proof that I am the awareness of the experience, but not the experience.

I am interested in neuroscience because it suggests that reality is a hallucination.  The hallucination is happening within me, and I would have to imagine that there is an objective reality outside of this hallucination.  If I am hallucinating reality, then how can I be separate from it?  If I am hallucinating this experience, then all experience is happening within me, not outside of me.  I think I am that which is hallucinating reality.

I have been using the scientific method on spirituality.  I tried meditation and it has eased my anxiety to the point that anxiety medication is becoming ineffective on me and making no difference.  I also tried the guided meditation that I am God multiple times.  The experience gets deeper and more intense each time I do it.  If I do this exercise 30 times will I experience God?  This is a scientific hypothesis that I am testing now.

In the back of my mind I often assume that I am being misguided and the people who buy into materialism are not.  Why do I assume this?  It is easy to pick up the assertion that materialistic science is objective again.

[trenton]

I would like to mention that I have one objection to science which is the same as religion and politics.  The reason I don't want to convert to any religion in particular is because it limits me to a narrow perspective and prevents me from seeing reality from many angles.  This leaves me locked in a belief box forever until I die.  Life is more interesting when viewed from many angles.

One reason I don't like science is that it is hyper specialized.  This can lead me to locking myself into a narrow perspective with the rest of reality being unknown.  If I want to explore life enough for me to enjoy it to the fullest, hyper specialization is not the way to it because it is too limited.

One reason I dislike politics is because I lock myself into a narrow perspective and often assume it to be true or the best.  In this way I can see a pattern continuing.  No matter what method I use to approach life, I don't want it to be strict, narrow, and limiting.  This will lead to me feeling incomplete because I hold a part of reality as if it is all of reality.

A narrow perspective can't solve reality.  In this way I can tell it is untrue and limiting because of how closed it is.  How can I approach life from many angles if science of materialism does not let me do that?

[trenton]

@Consilience I never heard of "the hard problem of consciousness" until this thread.  I should probably check it out.

I would like to know how the materialist paradigm effects people outside of spirituality.  I can see that it is creating a limitation on spiritual growth, but how else does it affect people?  If I can see this from outside a spiritual perspective, it would help me to take it more seriously.

In this case I mean the belief that there is a material reality beyond perception.  How does this affect people when it is held to the equivalent of religious indoctrination? 

The first affect is the fear response to questioning the underlying paradigm of science.  This is because reality seems less real when there is only perception and no material matter beneath it.  In this way it is not rational to reject this questioning, it is emotional. 

Are there other affects?  One reason I don't take this contemplation seriously is because I don't see the significance of these materialistic beliefs.  What would society look like without them?

[erik8lrl]

 

2 hours ago, trenton said:

 If I don't what I am, then this does not negate the fact that experience is still happening. 

@trenton The concept of experience itself is rooted in the self. If you do not exist, then what is experience?  The ultimate question of anything will always be "What am I?" because everything hinges upon this. Notice how non of the questions matter if you do not exist because they all rely on your existence. If you want deeper insights, you need to ask more meta-questions, you can go much deeper. What is observation itself? What is existence itself? What is the concept of truth itself? for example. Self-inquiry is a good method for you if you are more intellectual-minded. Keep asking questions about one thing until there are no more questions to ask. It is possible to have deep spiritual awakenings through inquiry alone.

You are not gonna even scratch the surface if you are only doing 30 minutes of meditation. If you want to gain more profound experiences, Either you have to increase your practice intensity or try other things (psychedelics, yoga, breath work, other spiritual practices) until one gives you a glimpse of higher consciousness. Once you have a glimpse, you will naturally realize how limited the materialistic paradigm is and began the journey to true spirituality. Your belief in science/rationality is mainly rooted in the lack of direct spiritual experiences. Do the work and verify everything as a true scientist would. If you want to know with 100% certainty what reality is and how it works, the only way is through direct experience of awakening into higher consciousness. Science will not lead you there because it is deeply limited.    

Edited April 11, 2021 by erik8lrl