TED Conversations

Mathew Naismith


This conversation is closed. Start a new conversation
or join one »

Are science & spirituality one and the same?

I believe they are it’s just they use different deductive reasoning processors to evaluate to become further aware, what do you think?


Showing single comment thread. View the full conversation.

  • thumb
    Mar 16 2013: I have another way to define the difference:

    Science is the way we know things.
    Spirituality is the way we feel about things.

    By "know" I mean perception through physical means.
    By "feel" I mean emotional perception.

    We can have feelings about what we know that determine our attitude towards what we know - like, dislike, fear, dread, expect, enjoy. These feelings often cause us to ignore what we know (hopefully, not), or interpret it differently, and they drive practical conclusions from our knowledge - give us direction to act. Motives are not derived from mere knowledge.
    • thumb
      Mar 16 2013: G'day Arkady

      Perfect within my understanding, they are one of the same. My question is how did just matter create comp-lex thinking on it's own & where did matter & anti-matter come from in the first place? Not out of thin air surely becaus that's illogical!!!!

      • thumb
        Mar 16 2013: Matter and anti-matter are two kinds of matter. Science does have evidence that particles and anti-particles can appear from vacuum (not from thin air). "Thin air" and "vacuum" are not "nothing". To have "quantum vacuum fluctuation" one needs, at least, space and time.

        Circular reasoning, when conclusion is assumed in one of the premises or when consequence is necessary for the cause to exist, is invalid. There are no logical answers or rational explanations to these things. Such statements are inherently uncertain and lack meaning. Meaning and certainty come from "spirit" - our emotional perception of reality.

        Examples of circular statements: "if God created everything that is, seen and unseen, then who created God?" "Can God almighty create a rock too heavy for him to lift?" "Is benevolent and almighty God willing and able to eliminate evil?" "Can omniscient and omnipotent God who knows what will happen change the future?" "The universe created itself from nothing" "There was time when there was no time", "just say NO to negativism", "protect the rights of unborn women!", "I pray God to save me from his followers", etc., etc.

        I don't expect any meaningful conclusions from these "deep thoughts". Nonsense - that's all it is. Just make an emotional choice and stick to it. But don't say that your choice is "rational".
        • Mar 16 2013: To explain the first circular statement, you should take a look at Principle of Causality. That principle states that there is always a first uncaused cause in a chain of effect and cause. It is impossible to have an infinite chain of cause because that is illogical.

          How do you define space and time? Is space and time something spirit like or matter?

          And yes about your "quantum vacuum fluctuation", if vacuum is something, it is possible to have matter and anti-matter come from it because something can come out from something. However, something cannot come out from nothing, this is a logical thinking. Then where did the first particle(or a dense mass) come from which created big bang??
          Surely something cannot come from nothing!
      • thumb
        Mar 16 2013: @Christopher An
        If I understand anything about physics, space and time cannot have any meaning without moving massive particles. Space is used to describe position of bodies relative to each other, and time is used to describe the movement. So, space and time could not have "existed" or been defined before matter. They are properties of material world - not "spiritual". To have "vacuum" we must have space. To have "fluctuation" we must have time. I can believe that particles can appear from quantum vacuum fluctuations. But quantum vacuum is not "nothing".

        I can believe that matter appeared from "nothing" if somebody tells me what this "nothing" is. The problem is that once you give it a definition, it's "something", not "nothing". One cannot give a definition of "nothing". And without such definition the phrase "the universe came from nothing" is meaningless.

        So, in my view, the universe did not come from "nothing", but rather "something certain" appeared from complete uncertainty. I find it consistent with quantum physics.
        • Mar 16 2013: Wow that was a great answer! That cleared up a lot of questions I had previously!!
          Thanks a bunch
    • thumb
      Mar 16 2013: lovely and very much Einsteins own sense on this question

Showing single comment thread. View the full conversation.