19 Feb 11
2 edits
Originally posted by souvereinSorry, when I responded to huckleberryhound I was responding to his assertion that religion (as opposed to spirituality), and science need not be mutually exclusive with the answer that there is no real overlap between the two; your response to me I saw as a challenge to what I'd said to there and so implicitly (and mistakenly) assumed spirituality was meant to be synonymous with religion here. With the correction, I'll concede my response to you was way off target.
I meant (and wrote) spirituality and not religion. Religions are not driven by curiosity; they (pretend to) know already. Religions are organized and tell you how to live. Spirituality at the other hand is a personal journey. When religious people become spiritual they often get a tense relation with their old religion because they become independent and i ...[text shortened]... th fundamental questions. Cooking etc. not. Science and spirituality are at least complementary.
I haven't got a strong enough, and general enough definition of "spirituality" to say how far I agree or disagree with you on this one though.
19 Feb 11
Originally posted by DasaScience to the fundamentalist can be summed up as thus -
In an attempt to kill the reality of God ....science puts forward absurd theories of what constitutes life.
They present that life is chemicals and there reactions.
Show me a consciousness molecule.
Show me an awareness molecule.
Show me a intelligence molecule.
Show me a free will molecule.
Show me my ant.......and show me where a mind boggli ...[text shortened]... ke their crown of keepers of the truth and steal their glory...this they cannot allow.
.
1. If 'science' is harmonious with my religious beliefs then it is of course correct.
2. If 'science' conflicts with my religious beliefs then it is of course, 'false', 'dishonest', 'materialistic'........etc etc.
It's that simple.
19 Feb 11
2 edits
Originally posted by Dasa“....In an attempt to kill the reality of God ....science puts forward absurd theories of what constitutes life. ...”
In an attempt to kill the reality of God ....science puts forward absurd theories of what constitutes life.
They present that life is chemicals and there reactions.
Show me a consciousness molecule.
Show me an awareness molecule.
Show me a intelligence molecule.
Show me a free will molecule.
Show me my ant.......and show me where a mind boggli ke their crown of keepers of the truth and steal their glory...this they cannot allow.
.
so what motivates scientists to find a rational explanation for something is to “attempt to kill the reality of God” 😛
you are totally delusional if you believe this. What motivates scientists to find a rational explanation for something is usually either curiosity or for the practical benefit for discovering the truth about something.
“...They present that life is chemicals and there reactions. ...”
that’s far too simplistic. Science doesn't claim that what defines life is “ chemicals and there reactions”. There is anatomy and neurology and cellular machinery etc to consider when considering the nature of a living thing.
“....
Show me a consciousness molecule.
Show me an awareness molecule.
Show me a intelligence molecule.
Show me a free will molecule.
...”
there is none -and nobody credible in science is claiming nor implying there is. So your point is.....?
“...show me where a mind boggling complex system can come about by random accident without intelligence. ...”
natural selection isn't purely random nor does evolution impose an upper limit to how complex something can evolve to become. Therefore the immense complexity of modern life doesn't represent a slightest problem for evolution theory. In fact it can be seen as evidence for evolution! For such complexity would be exactly what would be expected from evolution steadily adding one layer of complexity on top of the other over the many millions of years life has been on Earth.
“...Because science believes they have the crown of keepers of the truth ...”
not true. No credible scientist claims to know the answers to all questions. How often do you hear a scientist say “we don't know”? Answer, often!
“...whilst meanwhile they scramble to find out what life is. ...”
not true. There is no research specifically on “what life is”. “what life is” is just a matter of definition.
The rest of your post is just total nonsense because it doesn't get these points.
Oh, and there is nothing “wrong with science”, just the idiots that claim there is.
19 Feb 11
Originally posted by Andrew HamiltonSo if they are curious to know of God, then they must go to the authority on God, and not be silly and try and find God by looking through their microscopes.
“....In an attempt to kill the reality of God ....science puts forward absurd theories of what constitutes life. ...”
so what motivates scientists to find a rational explanation for something is to “attempt to kill the reality of God” 😛
you are totally delusional if you believe this. What motivates scientists to find a rational explanation for ...[text shortened]...
Oh, and there is nothing “wrong with science”, just the idiots that claim there is.
Because science believes they are the keepers of truth, they do not humble themselves to accept the authority of Vedanta on the subject of God.
If they reject this authority then they will only have their speculations, and this is not the scientific approach.
Tell me....when the scientist wanted learn to mathematics, did he not submit to the lessons from the teacher without question.,...he simply accepted the authority of the mathematics book.
Since the spiritual cannot be contacted by material apparatus, they are at a loss to know anything of the spiritual nature of this cosmos, and must submit to the authority for the spiritual.....Vedanta.
19 Feb 11
2 edits
Originally posted by DasaTell me....when the scientist wanted learn to mathematics, did he not submit to the lessons from the teacher without question.,...he simply accepted the authority of the mathematics book.
So if they are curious to know of God, then they must go to the authority on God, and not be silly and try and find God by looking through their microscopes.
Because science believes they are the keepers of truth, they do not humble themselves to accept the authority of Vedanta on the subject of God.
If they reject this authority then they will only have ...[text shortened]... spiritual nature of this cosmos, and must submit to the authority for the spiritual.....Vedanta.
Don't be silly! Most people who study maths beyond reciting their times tables and adding up will testify to the contrary.
20 Feb 11
Originally posted by Dasa"So if they are curious to know of God, then they must go to the authority on God, and not be silly and try and find God by looking through their microscopes."
[b]So if they are curious to know of God, then they must go to the authority on God, and not be silly and try and find God by looking through their microscopes.
Your consistent empty assumptions are impossible. (Well they are for you, obviously).
Why do you assume scientists look for a God in what they do?
They simply make hypotheses on observations, and follow a logical route to prove or disprove them. They don't include a God theory in their committed 'honest' work. They follow a developed method of rules, which are much more up to date than Vedic rules! 😉
-m. 😉
20 Feb 11
Originally posted by mikelomThey dont follow rules....actually they break the rules of science all the time.
"So if they are curious to know of God, then they must go to the authority on God, and not be silly and try and find God by looking through their microscopes."
Your consistent empty assumptions are impossible. (Well they are for you, obviously).
Why do you assume scientists look for a God in what they do?
They simply make hypotheses on observations, ...[text shortened]... a developed method of rules, which are much more up to date than Vedic rules! 😉
-m. 😉
They say that life is just chemical reactions, and they assert this with no proof..... that's breaking the rules.
They should say when asked what is life?......' We dont know what constitutes thinking, feeling, willing, consciousness, awareness, cognition.....but where working on that to find out, so we will keep you posted and let you know when we know.
20 Feb 11
Originally posted by DasaTo add to Agerg's comment: I have always questioned textbooks whatever the subject (and sometimes found definite errors). I always try to understand what is being said and if it doesn't make sense I do not take it purely on authority. For subjects with large amounts of facts, I try to verify the accuracy of those facts via multiple sources rather than sticking to one source.
Tell me....when the scientist wanted learn to mathematics, did he not submit to the lessons from the teacher without question.,...he simply accepted the authority of the mathematics book.
I have a bachelors degree in maths.
20 Feb 11
Originally posted by twhiteheadYes that is wise to double check the facts for some books..........but the majority of the time we just pick up our cook book or car manual or road directory, and follow its directions without question.
To add to Agerg's comment: I have always questioned textbooks whatever the subject (and sometimes found definite errors). I always try to understand what is being said and if it doesn't make sense I do not take it purely on authority. For subjects with large amounts of facts, I try to verify the accuracy of those facts via multiple sources rather than sticking to one source.
I have a bachelors degree in maths.
20 Feb 11
1 edit
Originally posted by DasaYou might do that, but many of us don't. I certainly don't. And when the content is really important to me I am even more skeptical.
Yes that is wise to double check the facts for some books..........but the majority of the time we just pick up our cook book or car manual or road directory, and follow its directions without question.
20 Feb 11
Originally posted by DasaYou obviously ignore all the content of my and other people's posts because I and others have already debunked (simply by pointing out the extremely obvious facts) all the crap here you have just repeated all over again:
So if they are curious to know of God, then they must go to the authority on God, and not be silly and try and find God by looking through their microscopes.
Because science believes they are the keepers of truth, they do not humble themselves to accept the authority of Vedanta on the subject of God.
If they reject this authority then they will only have ...[text shortened]... spiritual nature of this cosmos, and must submit to the authority for the spiritual.....Vedanta.
“....So if they are curious to know of God, ...”
they are not. Science is not about being “ curious to know of God” .
“....then they must go to the authority on God,...”
there is no valid “authority on God” just as there is no valid “authority on the tooth fairy”
“.... and not be silly and try and find God by looking through their microscopes....”
nobody, including scientists, look for “ God by looking through their microscopes” 😛
“....Because science believes they are the keepers of truth, they do not humble themselves to accept the authority of Vedanta on the subject of God. ...”
no, if anything, we can say that “they 'humble' themselves by NOT believing they are “the keepers of truth” “.
“....If they reject this authority then they will only have their speculations, and this is not the scientific approach. ...”
No, if they reject religious dogma then that is implicitly one of the minimum requirements to the “scientific approach”.
“...Tell me....when the scientist wanted learn to mathematics, did he not submit to the lessons from the teacher without question.,...he simply accepted the authority of the mathematics book. ...”
the maths teacher and a maths book is usually correct most of the time and this can be VERIFIED just by checking the maths.
This contrasts with religious dogma that is not open to verification.
“...Since the spiritual cannot be contacted by material apparatus, they are at a loss to know anything of the spiritual nature of this cosmos, ...”
what “spiritual nature of this cosmos”? Where is the evidence for this? -there is none.
20 Feb 11
Originally posted by Dasa“...They dont follow rules....”
They dont follow rules....actually they break the rules of science all the time.
They say that life is just chemical reactions, and they assert this with no proof..... that's breaking the rules.
They should say when asked what is life?......' We dont know what constitutes thinking, feeling, willing, consciousness, awareness, cognition.....but where working on that to find out, so we will keep you posted and let you know when we know.
haven’t you heard of the “scientific method”?
“...actually they break the rules of science all the time. ...”
which ones? And, you being completely ignorant of science, how would you know this?
“...They say that life is just chemical reactions, ...”
they don't simply believe “life is just chemical reactions”; what about anatomy and neurology?
“...and they assert this with no proof ..”
where do credible scientists “assert this with no proof” that “life is just chemical reactions”?
I challenge you to show a web link that shows that they deny that life CANNOT include anatomy and neurology!!!!
“...They should say when asked what is life? ...”
No, they shouldn't. That is not a 'scientific' question (not 'scientific' in the narrow sense of not being a question that can be answered using scientific method) but a question about a definition.
20 Feb 11
There are lots of versions of "religion" and also lots of versions of "Science."
In Science, for example, there was indeed a tradition that nothing was worth discussion that was not observable and reducible in principle to the laws of pysics. Against that tradition, others argue that there is no topic outside the scope of scientific invesigation, provided by that we understand the principles of logic, evidence and experiment.
A key problem is of course to define the terms on which we rest our investigation. Some Christians have, since the mid Nineteenth Century, insisted on the literal truth of the Bible, but many Christians strongly disagree and before the Nineteenth Century most would not have thought the issue important. The first thing the emperor Constantine noted when he had the notion to legalize Christianity in the Roman Empire was the difficulty of establishing which people could legitimately claim to be Christian and the vitriol with which rival Christian groups despised the subtly distinct opinions of their rivals. Meanwhile, even if we could organize and resolve some of the issues around Christianity, there are other faith groups whose views would remain unaffected by the debate.
Within this murky context, useful science has been done in the study of religion. My favourite is The Varieties of Religious Experience by William James. It is just impressive that he successfully pins down very clear terms for his study and presents his material in a manner that few believers would necessarily argue against. A huge amount of work on religion has been done within the field of Anthropology which does meet scientific criteria. Sociology again has much to say about religion.
For this debate to go anywhere at all useful, I am afraid it will have to narrow its terms of reference and be more explicit about which versions of both "science" and "religion" it refers to.
20 Feb 11
Originally posted by Proper KnobNo no no.....it should be like this
Science to the fundamentalist can be summed up as thus -
1. If 'science' is harmonious with my religious beliefs then it is of course correct.
2. If 'science' conflicts with my religious beliefs then it is of course, 'false', 'dishonest', 'materialistic'........etc etc.
It's that simple.
If science is harmonious with truth then it is correct.
If science conflicts with truth then it is false.
Is that simple?