Spiritual philosophy part 1

14 A The World according to the Spirit, tries to answer questions about the meaning of life and to bridge the gap between theology, philosophy and science. I read numerous books that tried to define a framework for the elusive spirit and supernatural phenomena by applying tangible and verifiable scientific principles.

These books express the hope that there is such a connection. Some even tried to model it into a scientific framework. The people responsible became outcasts in purely scientific circles, though perhaps in silence admired by scientists for their courage. They were enthusiastically received by large groups of people that were interested in the implications science had for their world view.

These attempts to explain spiritual matters and the latest scientific insights as to their relevance to questions about the meaning of life have been fairly accessibly phrased in popular academic books, lacking any mathematical formulae or strictly scientific use of language.

I read many books without finding the answer to my questions. However, they did provide an insightful overview of leading scientific theories. There are two types of rational choice: mathematics, relating to construed concepts, and philosophy, relating to pure concepts.

As a science, philosophy follows the hard logic of language instead of formulae. The question: What is the meaning of life?, is as old as the first human being that could reflect and analyse. Libraries can be filled with the books discussing this question from various cultural and religious points of view.

Their approaches differ. They may focus on man alone, on man and his relation with fellow human beings, on man and nature, on man and language, on man as image of God, on man and his knowledge and understanding of his environment, et cetera. The strictly scientific approach of philosophy makes it quite inaccessible to interested outsiders.

The jargon and highly intellectual use of language result in the interested uninitiated to be unable to follow the strictly logic theories. They drown in a sea of abstract and intellectual use of language. They get the impression philosophy is a game of words, relations and abstract problems.

They can only grasp the basic ideas, after other people have explained them to them in simple and daily used words. I am not trying to dismiss philosophy as pompous intellectual wordplay, consisting of various analyses that only carry meaning in academic studies and making itself irrelevant to the normal world by formulating ideas so critically, loftily and intellectually.

More info www.bigbangevolution.com