Science vs Spiritualism debate.
Let me explain something today which is one of the most discussed topics in the internet forum i.e. Science vs Spiritualism debate?
One of the debates that we mostly get to read in the internet is 'if science and spiritualism' should be merged or if spiritualism should be explained from the perspective of science or if spiritualism can be validated from science?
To answer this few questions, let me first introduce you to all the above mentioned topics.
1) Science is an english word derived from 'scientia' which basically means knowledge. So what is the source of knowledge of science? Empiricism is the source of knowledge of science because empiricism means sense experience and it distinguishes true knowledge against philosophical speculations and dogmas.
2) Spiritualism is about 'spirit'. Spirit as per biblical term is all about metaphysical existence of any person. It is just like ghosts. The holy spirit does more good then bad. From the perspective of Hegel, spirit is now what you call soul. Soul and spirit are two different things. Spirit somehow relates to consciousness but the soul is above consciousness. Soul never descends but consciousness does.
The very translation of "adhyatma" to spiritualism is plain wrong. How can atma be translated to spirit at the first place. The fallacy is simply inherent in the translation so how can the essence be the same because the meaning itself gets changed.
Science is an empirical knowledge or wisdom but adhyatma is metaphysical wisdom. Science believes what it observes therefore, matter is true for science because matter is empirical. Its simple, science doesnt believe in god because science cannot prove god through empirical means. How can god be proven through the four corners of the laboratory? The idea is simply not plausible nor feasible.
Therefore, trying to merge science and adhyatma or spiritualism in laymen terms is not possible. How can two different things be interpreted by a same perception. I believe the playing field of both domains are different therefore, it is absolutely not a good idea to explain the nature of reality i.e. ultimate truth through empiricism. It is like trying to create a castle out a dough because dough is all you have.
One of the debates that we mostly get to read in the internet is 'if science and spiritualism' should be merged or if spiritualism should be explained from the perspective of science or if spiritualism can be validated from science?
To answer this few questions, let me first introduce you to all the above mentioned topics.
1) Science is an english word derived from 'scientia' which basically means knowledge. So what is the source of knowledge of science? Empiricism is the source of knowledge of science because empiricism means sense experience and it distinguishes true knowledge against philosophical speculations and dogmas.
2) Spiritualism is about 'spirit'. Spirit as per biblical term is all about metaphysical existence of any person. It is just like ghosts. The holy spirit does more good then bad. From the perspective of Hegel, spirit is now what you call soul. Soul and spirit are two different things. Spirit somehow relates to consciousness but the soul is above consciousness. Soul never descends but consciousness does.
The very translation of "adhyatma" to spiritualism is plain wrong. How can atma be translated to spirit at the first place. The fallacy is simply inherent in the translation so how can the essence be the same because the meaning itself gets changed.
Science is an empirical knowledge or wisdom but adhyatma is metaphysical wisdom. Science believes what it observes therefore, matter is true for science because matter is empirical. Its simple, science doesnt believe in god because science cannot prove god through empirical means. How can god be proven through the four corners of the laboratory? The idea is simply not plausible nor feasible.
Therefore, trying to merge science and adhyatma or spiritualism in laymen terms is not possible. How can two different things be interpreted by a same perception. I believe the playing field of both domains are different therefore, it is absolutely not a good idea to explain the nature of reality i.e. ultimate truth through empiricism. It is like trying to create a castle out a dough because dough is all you have.
Comments
Post a Comment