[HappytheStripper]

Spirituality is important to a majority of scientists in the United States elite research universities .. says the researcher of a new study on religion. These scientists are confounding the prevailing opinion that academics aren’t religious.

More than half of scientists in all disciplines identified themselves through research .. as being spiritual to some degree .. although not necessarily affiliated with a specific religion.

Natural Science vs. Social Science

Early study findings also indicate that more social scientists engage in religious practices than natural scientists.

Ecklund’s study results indicate what she calls an “academic reversal,” in which social scientists are more likely to be affiliated with organized religion than natural scientists. Her findings are in direct contrast with earlier studies, which indicated a lesser degree of religiosity among social scientists than natural scientists.

“She reverses the thing that we’ve all been basing a lot of our premises on — that is, that social scientists are the village atheists of the academy,” said John Schmalzbauer, a sociologist at Missouri State University in Springfield.
In contrast with the natural sciences, the direct connection with humanity experienced in the social sciences may allow for a greater acceptance of encounters with religion or spirituality, said Schmalzbauer. There is more openness, he said, in “areas of the social sciences that are more interpretive, that place more emphasis on meaning, and culture and worlds people inhabit, which makes them more cousins to the humanities.”

Interest in religion has increased among social scientists, Ecklund hypothesized, “because of changing culture in the social sciences, and a resurgence in the study of religion in some of these disciplines, sociology and political science in particular.” She cites the role that religious groups have played in recent U.S. elections: “You can’t study politics any more without taking religion seriously.”

Ecklund emphasized that her results are not final and that demographic factors appear to play a role in the higher rates of religiosity among social scientists.

More Spirituality .. Less Religion

“There are a lot of people out there who don’t believe in God, that consider themselves to have some spirituality,” Ecklund said, adding that it’s not the case that religion and spirituality are the same thing. “Rather than leaving religion altogether, many scientists have instead pieced together a personal spirituality,” Ecklund said.

“We discovered that even those who were not part of a specific Buddhist affiliation still considered Buddhist principles and practices an important part of their understanding of spirituality,” Ecklund said. One scientist who participated in the research said he meditates “to feel that I am a human being and all that entails.”

The idea of being spiritual — not religious — is increasingly popular among the scientific community as well as in American culture at large, said David Yamane, an assistant sociology professor at Wake Forest University. The spirituality label is safer for cultural and intellectual elites who value autonomy, he said, “because they can pursue it largely on their own terms.”

Many scientists who are politically liberal don’t want to associate with religion because of its conservative valence today, Yamane said.

Historically, there are no boundary disputes between spirituality and science, unlike religion and science, he added. “Hence, today, social scientists — to the extent that they orient themselves to the sacred — may be even more attached to spirituality than natural scientists,” said Yamane.

The study results reflect the search by academics for meaning outside of science, said Ecklund. Spirituality is “a way to remind oneself that there is something outside the utilitarian entrance to the academy,” she said.
“They’re managing each project, getting grants, publishing articles, teaching and they need something to feel like they are not just cogs in a big machine,” Ecklund said, adding that scientists seem to want to keep their research and their spiritual and religious lives separate. “But when it comes to teaching, things are more fuzzy,” she said. “Particularly in the social sciences where we’re discussing society and how people behave — the students will bring up these issues, and the faculty member will have to figure out how to engage.”

By not taking into account a population’s religious or spiritual experience, the social scientist’s concept of the group will be incomplete, said Carole Rayburn, a clinical psychologist in Silver Springs, Md., who also holds a master’s degree in divinity.

“If sociologists who are dealing with whole populations leave out the religious or theological side, then they are looking at a more barren, less warm, less sanguine situation. They are not getting perhaps the full idea of what it means to be caring for humanity, caring for others,” she said. Rayburn said she believes there is an essential interplay between the social sciences and the observable world, a theory she called “theobiology.”
“Every scientist believes in something intangible,” said Rustum Roy, Professor of Science Technology, and Society Emeritus at Pennsylvania State University. “How can a physicist come up with his real dreams about string theory if he doesn’t go inward?”
Roy said that on a fundamental level, religion is about taking action. In contrast, he said, “science demands no behavior toward society or other humans.”

Old ways no longer work

“Finding ways to incorporate spirituality in research is one of the biggest challenges we face,” said Margaret Benefiel, a lecturer in interdepartmental studies at Andover Newton Theological School in Newton, Mass.

There are prescribed research methodologies for scientists, said Benefiel. “Often when they follow the standard research methods, they find that there is not space for spirituality,” she said. “We can’t just use the old template of one research methodology that worked for science 50 years ago, that doesn’t work when we’re looking at spiritual issues,” said Benefiel, also CEO of ExecutiveSoul.com, an organization that trains leaders to make better decisions through spiritual leadership.
“I think in the 1950s, it would have been hard for a sociologist to use their own religious experiences to give them insight into data,” said Schmalzbauer. “I think that would have been less acceptable then than it is now.”

Ecklund is now conducting several hundred one-hour-long interviews with a subset of the respondents to explore the religious and spiritual tendencies of scientists in greater depth. Following the interview phase of the research, Ecklund said she plans an in-depth analysis of scientists’ affinity to spiritual and religious practices.
“My sense so far with this group is that spirituality may be more important to them than traditional measures of religiosity, and that is in just the beginning stages of analyzing the survey,” said Ecklund.



Source:Science & Theology News

[harmonygirl]

Hi Happy, that is interesting, I happened to barely catch the front page of Scientific American while I was at my grocery store check out and there was something there on positive thinking! (which may be along the same lines, I didn't get the magazine)

[Mohan.C]

Originally Posted by WithoutMe "dictates"!!! So, u mean all this seeking & searching is hardwired?? If so, why is it hardwired?? For Survival? For Survival not just in the form of a Homo Sapien Sapien (survival as a species, survival as the biological entity), but more so, survival as in the mental image (with all its good/bad & its memories, its inheritance of the entirity of the Human Experience thru its conditioning) that we make of ourselves?? See here i am talking abt two entities, one is the biological enitity with all its genetic mappings & its neurological pathways, & the second is the mental image that is made by the reflections thru memory, morality, &he entirity of Human Experience (thru its conditionings).... out of searching a way for the survival of the first entity, was borne the second entity which gets more & more solidified... & as one knows that death is inevitable for the 1st entity, no wonder we need the continuity & 4 that we depend more & more on this second enity, whereas it is what has evolved over the basic biological entity.... i dont know whether i have been able to make it clear, but i'v tried... lol!

Not hardwired for survival. If you find a physics problem complicated then you're interest in the problem grows you are trying to understand it. Like that we are trying to understand ourselves. Because we also are a part of the universe. It is not immorality we are trying to attain. Infact we are trying to attain nothing. Because it is not attained it is given. Humans have evolved into beings of intelligence. And this intelligence prompts us.

To which I ask, Can one expereince something of which one has no knowledge of?

No not experience. One cannot even experience. Can you experience death. But you have knowledge of it. Nirvana is complete independence. which seems like a pseudo reality. But you can see death in a person. May be you can see the person who has got the gift of nirvana(I have not seen one, neither do I have any hope of seeing one).

What? "It is the way it is"??? How do u know so?

Because I have realised I am human.

[WithoutMe]

Originally Posted by Mohan.C No not experience. One cannot even experience. Can you experience death. But you have knowledge of it.

So, u have knowledge of death... beats me! Then plz enlighten me on what death is?

& what yur answered wud be more apt if i had asked u: "can one have knowledge of something without experiencing it?", whereas what I actually asked u was: "can one have experience of something one has no knowledge of".... so me thinks, that there is a possibility of yur misreading my question!

As far as my experiences go, I have seen ppl going in2 a state where they dont react to others, society has told me that this state is called "death" (that is naming & definition for the purpose of categorization), that's all I am informed with. But that's information, more so a bunch of description which I have seen to occur in others, but its not something that I have felt with my own body (biological self), coz I have not died yet.... lol! Now if i have not experienced something, that is, if I have not felt something as in happening in my very system, how do i lay claim to the authenticity of the information that I seem to talk abt. Thus, in this case, what "death" is to me, is a bunch of descriptions regarding it, or what I call it as "information", but the knowledge of it, well that i donot have that!

Originally Posted by Mohan.C Nirvana is complete independence. which seems like a pseudo reality. But you can see death in a person. May be you can see the person who has got the gift of nirvana(I have not seen one, neither do I have any hope of seeing one).

If something is "complete independence" (my emphasis on the word "complete"), how can u experience it, coz experiencing something brings in the relationship of that which u r experiencing with the one who is experiencing it. Thus, in every experience, there will always be a relation, of whatever type that may be (depending on many other factors).

Thus, Nirvana, if is, will be a state where there will be no expereince, coz only in that, can there be no division of the subject & the object, & thus, in Nirvana, u will not even know that u r experiencing it, coz to know, again brings in the duality (even the duality of "cause" & "effect"), & how can "complete independence" be in duality!

Thus it is, that in Nirvana, if is, one will be in a state of absolute not-knowing, it will be a state which doesnot act in the domain of experience, & hence, Nirvana, if is, is incommunicable.

So, Can there be an experience of that which u have no knowledge of?

You simply cannot be in Nirvana, & know u r in Nirvana, coz the fact of the matter is, if u know, it certainly is not Nirvana!

Originally Posted by Mohan.C Because I have realised I am human.

Now, there is a big difference betwn being "human" & in what is the species, Homo Sapien Sapien.
Hope u realise that!

Regards,
wM.

[WithoutMe]

All there will be is not-knowing, not even the interpretation of not-knowing, coz to interpret it, will bring in the duality... & infact in the first place, one will not even know that one is in the state of not-knowing, coz to know that, will again bring in duality!

So, one will not feel ignorant, coz ignorance can come only when one knows that one doesnot know, & then when one wants to know..... whereas, as i stated, one will not even know that one doesnot know! SO, there will not even be any wanting or need to know!

Terming it, naming it, as Nirvana (or whatever) again brings in the duality, coz then there remains all the other states where there is no Nirvana.... so, there will be no Nirvana, not even the no-Nirvana, -- no affirmation, no denial of anything, coz u have to first know something to later affirm or deny it based on yur knowledge!

Regards,
wM.

[WithoutMe]

And affirming or denying something based on yur knowledge (where the knowledge is drawn from experience) is judgement. So, u will not even be judging it, or for that matter judging anything. Now without judgement, there will just not be any good or bad or u. But u will not be an immoralost, coz u will not be against morality, coz in the first place, u will not even know what 'morality' is.

Thus, u will not be for anything, nor even against anything! u will not just know, what is this thing! & u will not even know that u donot know anything!

So, if any1 anywhere is talking or writing anything abt Nirvana, he certainly doesnot know anything abt it. Then what the heck am I doing here?

Regards,
The-One-Who-Doesnt-Know-What-He-Is-Writing-Now.

lol!

[KAC]

Nirvana is not experience. Nor is it knowledge.

First the Three marks of Existance.
Dukkha - All is Suffering. Or All is Dissatisfactory. All is change.
Anicca - All is Impermanent. Anicca Arises because of Dukkha.
Anatta - No Ego survives death, No Ego is seperate from the body, and/or the soul and the body are one in the same, so therefore there is no perment self. All is interconnected. Anatta arises from Anicca.

# "Now this, monks, is the noble truth of suffering: Birth is suffering, aging is suffering, illness is suffering, death is suffering; union with what is displeasing is suffering; separation from what is pleasing is suffering; not to get what one wants is suffering; in brief, the five aggregates subject to clinging are suffering. # Now this, monks, is the noble truth of the origin of suffering: It is this craving which leads to renewed existence, accompanied by delight and lust, seeking delight here and there; that is, craving for sensual pleasures, craving for existence, craving for extermination. # Now this, monks, is the noble truth of the cessation of suffering: It is the remainderless fading away and cessation of that same craving, the giving up and relinquishing of it, freedom from it, non-reliance on it.

Nirvana is ceasation. Often it is attributed to the ceasation of desire, the cause of all suffering. Therefore is the Ceasation of suffering, but it spans much more than just that.

One whom is in the state of Nirvana exists pure. One whom accepts the three marks of existance, and lives the Eightfold path, lacks ego. For to hold to one's Ego is to hold to the cause of Desire, and therefore suffering.

Interest begest Expectation. Expectation begets Desire. Desire begets suffering. Therefore the key to avoid suffering is to avoid interest.

The practice of detached observation is often employed to this end. However simple detachment is not enough. One accepts that full detachment is impossible, that one is interconnected. One practices the Eightfold path to grow to understand how one can simply be without complete detachment.

There is much more to Nirvana than is widely comprehended, and that I could not form into words. But that's the basics of it.

[mkirkpatrick]

Originally Posted by harmonygirl Guille and WM, great quote battle (Tolstoy was a fav, although not as much as Doestoyevski, and of course, MG). Guille, if we agree, I will have to check to see if Satan is iceskating to work! WM, I actually think that one of the fundamental characteristics of humans is a drive to understand their environment and put it in context. This is true from orphans in Kenya to Nepalese monks to Spanish students. This is the reason for religion and politics and capitalism, etc. I think that our asking "why?" might just be encoded genetically. (hence the need for different forms of organization that don't seem to characterize animals or plants) We understand different things at different points in our life, so I am not saying that once understood, the matter is resolved. There is growth, evolution, incorporating of new experiences, which result in different understandings. With your previous post, I have started to wonder if a fundamental difference between men and women is how they think (because no one I know thinks that understanding involves conquest!). Could there be a fundamental difference in the way we are hard-wired, that is not a part of social conditioning? hmmm.....I wonder. My undestanding of the Let Go precept is that in order to obtain enlightenment, you must release yourself from desire, which brings about pain (pain of not getting as well as the pain of getting, sometimes!). I don't think that survival is incompatible with enlightenment, I mean you don't have to be sitting on a mountain top somewhere, existing on berries. You can put understanding into practice, whatever you do, however you live. I think we are both, nature and part of nature (of course, I think everything's connected, but that's a whole other conversation) When you say nature is immortal, do you mean it is infinite? Don't you think that change is inevitable? If you are living, hopefully you are experiencing new things all the time, so you are synthesizing these new experiences into your awareness and hence, changing. Isn't this in our nature? I don't believe there is a problem in what is, it's just that life isn't stationary. Maybe we talk about change to consider who we want to be, what options are open to us and try to achieve balance? Oneself is always oneself, but never the same.

Have just this moment read your post Harmony,just want to say thanks for
it,most uplifting.
regards michael.

[harmonygirl]

Thanks for the reassurance, Michael. Having not perfected the letting go aspect, I sometimes wonder if I should be speaking at all!

[mkirkpatrick]

Originally Posted by harmonygirl Thanks for the reassurance, Michael. Having not perfected the letting go aspect, I sometimes wonder if I should be speaking at all!

You are indeed most welcome Harmony,I have been in the business of letting
go for over thirty years now,and sometimes I think that there is more now left than before I started??So dont be too hard on yourself,give yourself a break,"have a kit kat".

kind regards michael.