"Good morning Sir...this is the invitation to attend a multi-cultural initiative to promote a dialogue between science and spirituality in an unbiased way...would you please join us....by the way it's going be hosted in a MONASTERY WITH MONKS"
etc etc
No, thanks no!
My bottom line here is that no, I think that while people have their spirtuality, there should be no legitimacy for an equal ground dialogue between science and sprituality.
@franco_vazza for the vast majority of people in the world spiritually is an important part of their life. Rejecting, any dialogue on principle grounds is legal, but not helpful. Of course, it really depends on who organizes such a conference and what they mean with spirituality.
@hfalcke Hi, I think you're in the perfect position to judge, and I respect your opinion!
I am human so in me there's always dialog between emotivity, rationality, spirituality, istinctivity..and the result is who I daily am.
However, as a scientist in the public discourse, I feel the need to set clear boundaries between things: on all objective ranking, science and spirituality are not commensurable, they play in entirely different championships, and dialog will not be between equal players.
@franco_vazza Well, science provides a map of the world, hills and valleys, but it will depend on human values and choices which road you choose to travel.
I don't think "being afraid to have public discussions" is really the issue here.
Just to take a bit extreme cases, I won't be afraid to debate flat earthers, creationists (once I did a debate with UFO experts) etc... but as a scientist, at some point feel you should not legitimate a debate between science and stuff which is just not sharing the same method.
"Sprituality" obviously is not.
What is there to debate?
@franco_vazza@NatureMC How and how long should we treat elderly people at the end of their lives? You can scientifically calculate how much treatments cost, and you could define an optimization function that optimizes the best health treatment for a society based on efficiency and finances. However, healthcare started not in order to make society efficient but because of compassion, which depends on your view of how valuable a human being is. That is also a spiritual question.
@hfalcke@NatureMC
That's a good example...of a case in which I see no need of overlap or debate.
Science here and everywhere can only tell you "how" to try reaching a goal, but the goal must be set using a different set of human qualities (in this case some set of philosophical/moral values I guess , of which spirituality can be considered a specific subset).
For the "how", I don't think science/logic have rivals.
For the goals, humankind is and will be debating forever.
So a debate on what's the meaning of life and how to have a best life etc...is of course a very justifiable debate, between different philosophies, religions, and is legitimate. Like debating the skillsets of different sports or similar.
Viceversa, a debate between science and spirituality looks to me like a debate between a car mechanic and a tennis player, concerning what's in a car and how to repair it. 😅
@hfalcke@NatureMC
(just an un interesting bio detail after these exchanges: I was raised catholic although I am not anymore since a long time, I live in italy and are part of a larger active catholic family...so I have nearly daily exposure to both sides of this conversation)
@franco_vazza@NatureMC now I’m afraid we’ll have a very lengthy debate on that topic, I’m afraid, for which this probably is not the right forum and where I am not really competent about all the details involved…
In Germany we have we have for those questions an ethics council where scientists and church representatives and others are represented.
@hfalcke@franco_vazza@NatureMC one hard thing I learned as an atheist is we are far too willing... eager, even, to give up all sense of soul and god to organized religion. it's worthwhile and useful to redefine it and take it back in a way that suits yourself... well, not in a way that imposes on other folks, I mean.
@spacegeck@hfalcke@NatureMC
Paradoxically, the fascination for astronomy came to me as a reaction to the sort of void that came with becoming atheist during adolescence. So you might say astrophysics became my "organised religion" (btw sometimes it is, with its many gurus and schisms and holy wars 😅 ) .
And one of the first (in retrospective, VERY bad) book was "The Physics of Immortality" by F.Tipler.
@franco_vazza@spacegeck@NatureMC That is certainly true for others as well. Astronomy has a ability to create spiritual feelings by itself and such questions. However, I don’t think it’s able to ultimately answer them. Hence, you always need to take a leap of faith in some form or the other. With less and less astronomers, being trained in philosophy or theology even at the lowest levels, we are, however, missing out in this discussion more and more.
@hfalcke
Maybe there is this synthesis position to bridge you two: Theology has its place in all the sciences, but in Astronomy the big debates have already happened and passed into the canonical history of the field, so the remaining space is very small.
In summary: you always risk people doing theology when they start speculating about the future of the field, and its good if at least some of the actors can recognise that's what they are doing. @franco_vazza@spacegeck@NatureMC
@tobychev@hfalcke@spacegeck@NatureMC
"Maybe there is this synthesis position to bridge you two: Theology has its place in all the sciences"
well...big no on my side!
No, theology should have zero place in any science: it can well have any relevant place in people's mind, as any other philosophical belief, but I really don't see/want theology to debate science. How?
It can debate "the meaning" of a scientific result, if you want, but that's outside science.
And I am not saying that because I hate religion (well I am also not a big fan either tbh) but because there is a fundamental difference of approach, methods, boundaries, procedures.
Seriously, the scientific method (in good parts, not entirely) is built to be the antithesis of a religious belief.
We can not mix the two in the same debate, we did that for the past centuries, please, not this over again.
@franco_vazza
Did you read down to the example of what happens when scientists soeculate about the future without theological training? They just reinvented theological stories on their own, didn't realise it, and now Musk is super popular for being "rational".
I guess I see your point, if you accept the restriction that scientists should never speculate about the future of society in their role as scientists.
I don't think it's a very usual restriction, because the public is more likely to not see the difference between the vulgar and filthy 🤢speculation🤢and the pure and truthful ✨science✨. But I will happily admit this is an argument from resigned pragmatism and not pure principle. @hfalcke@spacegeck@NatureMC
"and now Musk is super popular for being "rational". well exactly, I don't think it's very popular among scientists, even al those remaining on X.
Surely scientists should not pose as eschatologists.
If the question is: "is the climate become hotter and can we stop it?" I just want scientists speaking in that room.
If the question is "should we care"? it's becomes a moral/philosophical question, to which all humans are entitled to speak.
@NatureMC
No, from the example of transhumanism it is pretty clear to me that theology itself is what's needed.
And I don't think people really object to including ethics in general, the fight is always over which set of ethical principles. @hfalcke@franco_vazza@spacegeck
@NatureMC@tobychev@franco_vazza@spacegeck I don’t think you can derive ethics in a way that is free from any ideology (or theology). So, it is better to be open and say that what your fundamental value base is and where it comes from.
@spacegeck@hfalcke@NatureMC
What is interesting is, among other sciences, astrophysics is the one that can potentially "give the heaviest cards" to the religion/philosophical debate.
What if we knew the Universe will have a big crunch tomorrow?
What if there was/not a Big Bang?
What if Avi finds alien lives tomorrow 🙄
What if JWST finds an earth replica at z=10?
What if @hfalcke first saw actual hell
with the first image of M87? (well I remember he sort of said it in the live event 😅)
@franco_vazza@spacegeck@NatureMC I fully agree and that’s why particularly astronomers should be engaged in these conversations. I must say, however, in contrast to some popular perception, even a discovery of alien life would not really shatter my Christian faith but rather my faith would guide me in how to deal with it.
@NatureMC quite the opposite, they claim the transhumanistic vision is like a natural and widespread consequence of science..which really is not as far as I can tell. But focusing on some alarming straw man to criticise science over religion is a way too often seen move, which further made me decline the event.
Add comment