Part of the reason science and spirituality have separated in the Western world was because the findings of empirical science undermined traditional sources of spirituality. Christianity is difficult to maintain when geology and biology undermine the claims of the Bible, or when psychology undermines claims of the Church. Orthodox Christianity has managed to survive relatively unscathed, but this is largely because of the way it tends to cede the material realm to science and reason.
There were hints, even before the days we know as the Englightenment, that spirituality and reason were incompatible. Although I could cite various sources, my favorite book along these lines was written by Karen Armstrong, called _A History of God_. Armstrong points out that conceptions of God changed dramatically over time, but the attempt to reach God through reason was a particularly poignant failure. Like you, she favors a more mystical approach to religion.
But the resolution to this problem you are explicitly suggesting - a resolution which fuses mysticism and science - ultimately results in a complete reforging of the spiritual world in acordance with what has been found scientifically:
If God is sacred, and God is what exists, then the universe is sacred. Or if the universe is unfeeling matter, but love is a molecule, that molecule is sacred. Or if love is not a molecule, but rather the *meaning* of that molecule within a mind, then the brain is sacred. Or if the brain is not a mind, but a mere transient machine that gives rise to metality and experience in concert with sensory organs, a circulatory system, and a complete biological framework, then the forces which gave rise to this being are sacred. And when these things are finally understood, then the biological laws of nature are Mother, and the unseeing forces of cosmic time are Father - though trying to use these words to convey their emotive meaning sacrifices scientific clarity in a way that, I suspect, most people will never really understand.
Honestly, I really like this reforging. And why not? In my limited understanding of history, it seems mankind has always tried to refine its ideas of the supernatural and metaphysical, so why not try an approach more infused with scientific fact and discuss theories that have a divine leaning?
Science and spirit were separated because the Vatican - who rules the world but is not always seen to do so - means "prophecy".
Prophetic folks are called seers, they see. The Vedas means the same sort of thing, and is still used in Latin and Italian verbs 'to see'.
There is the prophecy, or Vatican that will uncover all the mysteries... the book of Revelation is about this. The priest class orchestrates things. Religion is a faith-based belief and can be inserted under the metaphysic umbrella. Today's religion is divisive, sentimental and moralistic on purpose.
Metaphysics requires intellect and is universal. It underlies everything, always, truth that never changes. Ever. It's beautiful.
The three levels of reality as expressed by the Kabbalist and Kemetic trees of life show the interplay of body, mind, and spirit — manifest in science, philosophy, and spirit. I will not use the word religion because I see it to mean binding, while the former two are process, tools to develop oneself with aim to evolution. Religion seems to seek stagnation and makes claim to perfect theory without experiment, it claims finality and prefers to give answers blindly. There are of course difference between religions, but that spirited expansion quality tends to occur only outside their reach.
Also, the divide between spirit and science seem to be a breaking apart in order to synthesis; a form of cultural alchemy.
Part of the reason science and spirituality have separated in the Western world was because the findings of empirical science undermined traditional sources of spirituality. Christianity is difficult to maintain when geology and biology undermine the claims of the Bible, or when psychology undermines claims of the Church. Orthodox Christianity has managed to survive relatively unscathed, but this is largely because of the way it tends to cede the material realm to science and reason.
There were hints, even before the days we know as the Englightenment, that spirituality and reason were incompatible. Although I could cite various sources, my favorite book along these lines was written by Karen Armstrong, called _A History of God_. Armstrong points out that conceptions of God changed dramatically over time, but the attempt to reach God through reason was a particularly poignant failure. Like you, she favors a more mystical approach to religion.
But the resolution to this problem you are explicitly suggesting - a resolution which fuses mysticism and science - ultimately results in a complete reforging of the spiritual world in acordance with what has been found scientifically:
If God is sacred, and God is what exists, then the universe is sacred. Or if the universe is unfeeling matter, but love is a molecule, that molecule is sacred. Or if love is not a molecule, but rather the *meaning* of that molecule within a mind, then the brain is sacred. Or if the brain is not a mind, but a mere transient machine that gives rise to metality and experience in concert with sensory organs, a circulatory system, and a complete biological framework, then the forces which gave rise to this being are sacred. And when these things are finally understood, then the biological laws of nature are Mother, and the unseeing forces of cosmic time are Father - though trying to use these words to convey their emotive meaning sacrifices scientific clarity in a way that, I suspect, most people will never really understand.
Honestly, I really like this reforging. And why not? In my limited understanding of history, it seems mankind has always tried to refine its ideas of the supernatural and metaphysical, so why not try an approach more infused with scientific fact and discuss theories that have a divine leaning?
Hey… you got your chocolate in my peanut butter!
Science and spirit were separated because the Vatican - who rules the world but is not always seen to do so - means "prophecy".
Prophetic folks are called seers, they see. The Vedas means the same sort of thing, and is still used in Latin and Italian verbs 'to see'.
There is the prophecy, or Vatican that will uncover all the mysteries... the book of Revelation is about this. The priest class orchestrates things. Religion is a faith-based belief and can be inserted under the metaphysic umbrella. Today's religion is divisive, sentimental and moralistic on purpose.
Metaphysics requires intellect and is universal. It underlies everything, always, truth that never changes. Ever. It's beautiful.
Thank you and good night.
The three levels of reality as expressed by the Kabbalist and Kemetic trees of life show the interplay of body, mind, and spirit — manifest in science, philosophy, and spirit. I will not use the word religion because I see it to mean binding, while the former two are process, tools to develop oneself with aim to evolution. Religion seems to seek stagnation and makes claim to perfect theory without experiment, it claims finality and prefers to give answers blindly. There are of course difference between religions, but that spirited expansion quality tends to occur only outside their reach.
Also, the divide between spirit and science seem to be a breaking apart in order to synthesis; a form of cultural alchemy.