Why do you believe in YOUR religion

[Snoopy]

If anything, I see (in recent years) an incredible movement toward the union of science and mysticism.

Indeed.

"In 1950 David Bohm wrote what many physicists consider to be a model textbook on quantum mechanics. Ironically, he has never accepted that theory of physics...

...His objections to the foundations of quantum mechanics have gradually coalesced into an extension of the theory so sweeping that it amounts to a new view of reality. Believing that the nature of things is not reducible to fragments or particles, he argues for a holistic view of the universe. He demands that we learn to regard matter and life as a whole, coherent domain, which he calls the implicate order."



Interview with David Bohm - F. David Peat

s.

 

[Netti-Netti]

"He demands that we learn to regard matter and life as a whole, coherent domain, which he calls the implicate order."

Sounds good, but I don see how this is workable in most scientific realms except maybe theoretical physics, which is not quite science.

both religion and science have a view about how the universe got started. it's not necessarily even a contradictory view - i am aware, for example, that cabbalists and quantum physicists often come up with astoundingly similar ways to talk about it.

This is interesting for people who want to talk about it.

I see (in recent years) an incredible movement toward the union of science and mysticism. It's getting at the same reality from two different halves of our brain.

I think there has been some discussion of a possible unification of science and mysticism, but a lot of this is post facto and therefore not "scientific" in a traditional sense of the word.

I'm not sure what value a union of science and mysticism would have. Even if we see some radical change in scientific methods, I'm not sure it would make much difference. Even the most adequate scientific descriptions could not be a substitute for the personal spiritual transformation that is a living, ongoing, dynamic process for a individual person living in an evolutionary world. How do you operationalize and measure the experiential reality?

I don't see how science will add much to a religious understanding of cosmology. Actually, questions about the origins of the universe will never get settled because there was no one there at the beginning to collect data.

Further, I don't see science adding much to an understanding of religious experience. The upper limit of any comparisons between science and mysticism be determined by the limitations of science. Given the reductionistic approach of the scientific method, we can reasonably assume that the description will always be very incomplete.

I also don't forsesee any applications from a "union of science and mysticism." First of all, why would anyone want to go into a research lab at some university and manufacture of spiritual encounters and what would the generality of any such experiences be?

And then there is the problem of language. After all this time, we still don't have decent translations of ancient Buddhist texts. What language would be needed to describe the findings? Maybe Pali or Chinese have suitable terms. But does English? That's the main language used by people who publish scientific research.

I was privy to several marvelous demonstrations of telepathy. If it had been documented scientifically, other people would prolly have been impressed by it as well. But the short- and long-term meaning arising from these events was purely dependent on the persons and the context. Deja Vu and syncronicity experiences are like that too.

In the end, abstractions are just abstractions, whereas experiences are experiences.

 

[path_of_one]

I am not advocating that science and mysticism become a single method of inquiry. Rather, I am saying that science and mysticism are coming to similar conclusions from different methods of inquiry.

Not every person is inherently prone to processing information in a scientific mode of inquiry. Ditto for mysticism. People do have inherent differences in how they most easily can perceive data in the universe and process it: some through deductive methods, some through subjective. Some intuitive and some reductionist.

As a person who does science, and as a mystic, I guess I just see both sides of the same coin at once. I inherently "work" both ways, but I can see how some aspects of reality are easier for me to approach through mysticism, and others through science. That said, I came to many of the basic conclusions (and debates) that underlie modern physics as a child through intuition/mysticism. The science I later learned confirmed for me that in other methods of inquiry, the same universe was being revealed.

I think underlying both accurate science (of any sort) and mysticism is an understanding of reality as process. This is, in part, I think what is valuable about seeing "matter and life as a whole, coherent domain." Even in science, we may be temporarily reductionist to address a particular question, but our science is founded on inaccurate bases if we do not remember that reality is not really reductionist. All things exist as part of everything, all things are part of larger processes. The boundaries we create in science are heuristic and artificial, and by remembering this, we ensure our science is useful and accurate in its exploration of reality. Mysticism points toward unity and the process nature of reality as well. This is why the two converge in their conclusions.

Science reveals in a different mode of inquiry what mysticism approaches intuitively. I find that very valuable and exciting. It can bring insight into reality to folks that otherwise would find such inaccessible, simply because their brains do not work in an intuitive, experiential manner. Furthermore, science can awaken a new way to experience life mystically. Science is not divorced from experience. In the way that religion creates abstractions from experience, so too does science. At the heart of both religion and science, each of which are conceptualizations of reality, are experiences of and with and in reality. Because of this, the language difficulty plagues any description or explanation of such experience, no matter what language is used. The instant we put words to the experience, we have shifted it from experience to concept, and have distanced ourselves from the now-ness of experience. The value of religion and science is that it can invite others into the experience- draw them in. We shouldn't confuse the moon with the finger pointing at it, in either science or spirituality.

 

[Tao_Equus]

Well this is far from the first, and no doubt it will be far from the last, time I have to listen to people who believe in something supernatural scrabbling desperately to put science in the same bracket as theology. Whether it be mortar boards and robes, ( an anachronism from when all schools were also religious), to quoting the odd piece of work that can in some way be sawn and malleted to fit some "believers" post-hoc reinterpretation of some obscure text, you just will not accept that science IS NOT a religion. It is a method of study. Why do you think all these trans-discipline theoscientists never get published in the science journals? Because their papers are not based soundly in science. Peer review demolishes them as nonsense or so speculative as to be meaningless in the science framework. Science is what gives us the internet, nuclear power, microwave ovens, catalytic converters, heart surgery, pacemakers, men on the moon and spaceships that are now leaving our solar system. All these things and so many more were worked out using logic and then made real. Science delivers!! No religion has ever demonstrated a word of its text to be anything but the work of some man somewhere lost in history. Even quantum physics, the spookiest, weirdest of the sciences was worked out in someone's head before it was proven to be possible. But of all the billions of theists that ever lived not one can provide anything but instead appeal to "faith". A meaningless appeal to suspend logic. I am sorry but I cannot draw any parallel between science and religion except for one. Science does not have all the answers but it does not pretend to and will never stop trying to answer the questions and pose new ones too. Perhaps science can be seen as the child of theological questioning, in so much that it is an evolution of enquiry into the realm we inhabit. Well I hope that evolution gets the time and space it needs to fully evolve, for it is high time any notion of God went extinct.

tao

 

[Dawud]

I am a "Jew by choice".

I grew up something else, & left that religion for too many reasons to list here. I spent years looking for a different faith. The first time I went to services at a synagogue I felt as if I had gone home.

I believe I didn't actually choose Judaism; rather that it chose me.

I like this post. I could change a few words and make it my own post

I believe I didn't find the Baha'i Faith so much as it found me. Seriously.

 

[Dawud]

No religion has ever demonstrated a word of its text to be anything but the work of some man somewhere lost in history.

I highly recommend the Challenge of Baha'u'llah and the Prisoner and the Kings. Both of them give many examples that Baha'u'llah knew the future.

 

[path_of_one]

Well this is far from the first, and no doubt it will be far from the last, time I have to listen to people who believe in something supernatural scrabbling desperately to put science in the same bracket as theology.

What does that mean? To put something in the same bracket? As I state above, science is not the same mode of inquiry as religion in the modern first world cultures, however, both are modes of inquiry and are social institutions.

Sorry, but as a social scientist, they are both social institutions, aspects of culture, and subject to many of the same problems/biases. Any lengthy reading on how science is actually done, the debates over biases and ways of "knowing" in science, etc. will reveal these issues. To see the two as somehow very different and assign them differing values is to ignore their common roots and their common "problems," which stem from the way individual human cognition interacts with social life and the distributed knowledge of a cultural system.

There is no science that is free from cultural bias. Likewise, religion. We are human, after all.

you just will not accept that science IS NOT a religion.

I don't think science is a religion. Some people act as though it is, and mistakenly use it as such.

However, both science and religion are part of the social superstructure. Neither are The Truth. They are human ways of making sense out of a complex reality. Both work for certain things and not for others, and are integrated with the rest of the cultural context.

Why do you think all these trans-discipline theoscientists never get published in the science journals?

Because they are publishing in the wrong area for their mode of inquiry. Doesn't mean that science and religion cannot merge in the individual and the society, but that the two don't merge much in realms of literature.

Science is what gives us the internet, nuclear power, microwave ovens, catalytic converters, heart surgery, pacemakers, men on the moon and spaceships that are now leaving our solar system. All these things and so many more were worked out using logic and then made real.

Science gives us means. Spirituality/religion gives us ends. The science that gave us nuclear power also gave us nuclear weapons. The microwave ovens we were gifted with made it easier for us to have poor nutrition. And on and on.

Science gives us "how," but not "why" or the ethics of what to do with the "how." The "how" and "why" were (and are) integrated in some cultures, but we have forgotten this in the modern Western world and insist that the two are (and should be) irreparably separate. That is the height of unscientific foolishness: to assume one's cultural biases are the only appropriate and accurate reality. Sorry, but it is.

And we see the ill effects of this, because science is really crummy at motivating people. It can give us "how"- the means, and even certain goals based on predictins- but it fails to engage our emotions and spirit, and so it does a poor job at motivating people to be kind, compassionate, useful, and so forth. Everyone in the US knows recycling is a good idea. Science tells us this all the time through nice public service commercials. But how many people don't bother recycling? A LOT. Why? Because science is bad at making us CARE. I can point to numerous examples. A friend of mine is working on a documentary right now about how no one feels like working for or giving money to NASA because they don't CARE if we go to outer space. They're getting a bunch of "hows" without any "whys"... and it is the "whys" that make most people personally engaged.

On the other hand, religion is great about coming up with whys and emotional engagement. Did you ever get around to reading some of the literature on how in traditional (pre-industrial) societies, religion/science (as one unified system) came up with the hows AND the whys to promote sustainable use of natural resources? If not, then the statements are pretty much unscientific, biased toward modern Western culture, and would be just as unsupported in peer-reviewed journals on the science of culture as you claim the theoscientists are.

Science cuts both ways, and sweeping generalizations about the value (or lack of value) of "religion," must be evaluated based on the actual study and analysis of the data... data that is cross-cultural, cross-religious, and consistent. If you ain't got that, it's just an opinion, not science. The same thing that the religious folks have.

Science delivers!!

But delivers WHAT and WHY, that is the question.

No religion has ever demonstrated a word of its text to be anything but the work of some man somewhere lost in history.

This shows a profound lack of a good definition of religion, combined with a lack of study of the cross-cultural data on religion. No offense, but there it is. First, by defining religion as text-based, it shows a clear bias to the modern world religions and excludes the vast majority of the world's religions throughout history, which were shamanic. Secondly, it presumes that religions are based on single "works" rather than on ongoing practice, another clear bias.

Sorry, Tao, but until you engage some cross-cultural data, your views are simply unsupported in the social sciences, and therefore just as biased and unfounded as those you rail against (the religious).

But of all the billions of theists that ever lived not one can provide anything but instead appeal to "faith". A meaningless appeal to suspend logic.

I'm glad that you can look out at everyone, know their personal experiences, and know that their conceptualizations of the universe is in opposition to their logic. That must be a nice gift to have.

On the other hand, there is the possibility that you have not experienced a theistic universe and so for you it is most logical to be atheist.

For another, they have experienced something different and so for them it is most logical to be theist.

Logic is based on experiential, observable data, yes? But how is it logical to assume that you have the only data available? Is it not possible that your data-set about reality is limited?

Science does not have all the answers but it does not pretend to and will never stop trying to answer the questions and pose new ones too.

Again, shows a bias toward a certain type of religion, not a good working definition of religion in general. There are religions that would fit this description exactly:

Religion X does not have all the answers but it does not pretend to and will never stop tyring to answer the questions and pose new ones too.

Just because some religions do pretend to, does not mean all do. So you must qualify such statements to be accurate.

for it is high time any notion of God went extinct.

In this statement, I see the same feeling of arrogance and self-congratulation as I see when the "saved" proclaim that it is high time that everyone in the world join their congregation and be "saved" just as they are.

Science and religion may be different modes of inquiry, but it seems they result in similar types of social behavior and feelings of self-righteousness. Which goes back to my point... they are both parts of the culture's superstructure and just as bound to bias, personal emotion, divisiveness, and so forth. I would hope that science is a bit better about reflecting critically on itself, but alas, it rarely is.

 

[Tao_Equus]

I highly recommend the Challenge of Baha'u'llah and the Prisoner and the Kings. Both of them give many examples that Baha'u'llah knew the future.

lol, and so say the Muslims about the Koran, and the fundys and JW's about revelations.... it all so.... generic. But Baha'u'llah knew that, and his dynasty

 

[Tao_Equus]

Path_of_One,

Please do not think for a moment that I do not understand what you are driving at. But I insist on upholding my expressed opinions. You are emotionally invested into your own paradigm and so the bulk of your reply was slanted to demonstrate how I seem to confuse minority religions with the mass ones and to drag my investment in a response to a quasi-religious footing. This is a theology site so this is probably inevitable. Science is not like religion, of any kind. But to even say that on a religious site is utterly futile for it may be words you understand, but you continue to look beyond what it actually means to include your own structures of reference. I might as well be speaking native Tasmanian. And again it is your own need to bring me to a level you can operate on that calls you to declare that for me to even express such a view defines these views as quasi-religious dogma. So I am caught between the devil and the deep and called a zealot.
The examples you gave of how science is poor at the why and religion is better there I could pick 100 holes in. For example the apathy in regard to NASA has more to do with funding fiascos and the upsurge in the religions bashing science combined with an abominable average education than what Nasa shows in its many great achievements. Americans, as a whole are far less interested in truth and science than religion and capitalism. Religion is not answering, its is killing enquiry.
Would love to go on but my eyes are on fire and I need my bed.... next time....

tao

 

[cyberpi]

Science and religion appear nearly the same to me. Unless you've got the time and resources to repeat every experiment then you will have to place FAITH in someone else's results. Unless you've got the FAITH of someone higher then you are left to repeating every experiment. The science is in the religion and the religion is in the science.

 

[China Cat Sunflower]

you could say the same thing about science. in my experience, there is absolutely no need for the two to be at loggerheads, yet some people don't seem to be able to get past the idea that science can somehow answer the question "what is the purpose of life?" it simply isn't set up to do so. by the same logic, religion simply isn't set up to answer the question "how does DNA work and what does it do?" you're presumably familiar with stephen jay gould's concept of "non-overlapping magisteria"? well, i think that magisteria partially overlap, but not completely (i think that's called a POMA). for example, both religion and science have a view about how the universe got started. it's not necessarily even a contradictory view - i am aware, for example, that kabbalists and quantum physicists often come up with astoundingly similar ways to talk about it.

I've been studying kabbalah for twenty years. I'm currently studying some lurianic cosmology that fits nicely into the POMA category. It's an alternative to the big bang theory. Kabbalah is something that, even after twenty years of self directed study, I don't think I know enough about it to venture an opinion. But look at what happens to it when you try to make a religion out of it: you wind up with the Bergs and Madonna. To get to any sort of pristine truth you have to move up and out of the pedestrian level with its red bracelets and lucky chopsticks. Elitism is inevitable. Not everyone and every idea deserves a seat at the discussion table.

I'm not explaining this well.

Chris

 

[Netti-Netti]

Unless you've got the time and resources to repeat every experiment then you will have to place FAITH in someone else's results

Yes, and you're also expected to have faith in someone else's conclusions.

Having published quite a bit in a scientific field and having served on editorial boards for data-based scientific journals, I would say this:

1) Many scientists have incomplete and in some cases seriously flawed ideas on what it is they're doing. For example, they may design an experiment that doesn't actually address the research question. Or their conclusions may simply not be justified by the data. They may nevertheless consider themselves entitled to do some grandstanding and extensive speculation in the Discussion section of their research report just because they collected the data and ran some analyses. This partly explains why you see manuscript acceptance rates of less than 10% for many scientific journals.

2) Lack of clarity about sampling, experimental design and experimental procedure makes it virtually impossible to replicate many studies.

3) The bias toward publishing positive/confirmatory results in any given scientific field in effect tends to "sweep under the rug" many complexities that may be very relevant to progress in the field. The negative findings simply never get published and nobody is the wiser for it. The effect this bias has on research conclusions and design planning is unfathomable. Here's an analogy: How does one validate a measure of physiological response patterns when most people hooked up to the machine are flatliners? All the rejected manuscripts reporting negative findings that will never see the light of day are in the same category as the flatliners.

Elitism is inevitable. Not everyone and every idea deserves a seat at the discussion table.

True, science is specialized. In a given research setting, the guy down the hall may speak a totally different language from yours - a language you may never understand unless you get doctorate in that guy's field.

The specialization issue and the three problem areas I mentioned clearly limit the progress of trained scientists. If scientists are hobbled in their chosen field, why would highly technical, esoteric scientific findings pertaining to very specific mechanisms have any relevance to the average person until such findings are translated into some applicable technology? This raises the more specific question I'm interested in: How does science get me any closer to G-d? Answer: It doesn't. Can it? Probably not.

 

[path_of_one]

But I insist on upholding my expressed opinions.

That is, of course, your right. My point is not to convert you to my way of thinking, but to point out that your opinion is, indeed opinion. As are those of the religious. Atheists often like to claim some sort of non-bias by virtue of their non-religious status, which is simply unfounded.

You are emotionally invested into your own paradigm and so the bulk of your reply was slanted to demonstrate how I seem to confuse minority religions with the mass ones and to drag my investment in a response to a quasi-religious footing.

Of course, we are each invested in our own paradigm. Such is the nature of humans.

My reply was slanted as a social scientist. Even my atheist social scientist colleagues would agree that you are confusing world religions with a definition of religion that is universal and takes into account cross-cultural data. It is not a matter of religion that I defend, but rather quality science that deals with social phenomena.

I am not saying that your footing was quasi-religious, but rather that it was culturally biased. It was an opinion that is founded not on cross-cultural data and quality analysis, and any specified methodology, but rather on your own feelings about what was obviously a narrow definition of religion. Of course, you are welcome to it, as is anyone. But I am pointing out that the science of society, including religion, speaks to different information than you put forth.

Science is not like religion, of any kind.

I beg to differ, and not because this is a theology site. But rather because this is what the data upholds. If you like, I can provide to you some references.

Science is very much like religion in the ways that all aspects of superstructure, and particularly those that are focused on thought and ideas, are alike. Science and religion are very different (in modern first world societies) in the methods of their inquiry and the types of questions they seek to answer.

I can put forth data and references. You are, of course, welcome to your opinion, but I am presenting mine as based in evidence. It has nothing to do with the venue; I'd make the same exact argument in a social science list-serve or discussion group, and cite the same scientific peer-reviewed references.

you continue to look beyond what it actually means to include your own structures of reference.

My own structures of reference, in this case, have nothing to do with religion or theology. Rather they are the data, definitions, methodology, analyses, and theories of social science. So yes, if someone claims a generalization about society and how an aspect of culture operates and functions within society, and its advantages or disadvantages, I will challenge that if it is not aligned with the scientific evidence. Has not much to do with my own structures of reference, but rather here my own structures are borrowed from the social sciences. It seems odd that you object to a scientific treatment of the question of science and religion in society, when you are a proponent of science. That consistently confuses me, to be honest.

I might as well be speaking native Tasmanian.

I'm speaking native anthropologist-ian here.

And again it is your own need to bring me to a level you can operate on that calls you to declare that for me to even express such a view defines these views as quasi-religious dogma.

If you will read what I write, I never said your view is quasi-religious dogma. I said that it is not a view upheld by the cross-cultural data or social science theory, even in its most basic foundations. It is simply not true to how human cognition or culture works. Doesn't make the view anything remotely religious, but it does mean, that like some religious views, it is not supported by evidence or solid methodology, but is rather an opinion.

Just because there are similarities between two things (here, your views as presented without quality non-biased data and a religious view also presented without quality non-biased data), does not make the two the same thing or one a pseudo-form of the other. But it would be folly not to recognize similarities where they exist. It's bad science not to be critical of our own viewpoints, and honest about the evidence, isn't it?

So I am caught between the devil and the deep and called a zealot.

I don't believe I called you much of anything. I only observed that both your own position and that of many religious people's is alike in that it is not supported by quality data, is not free from bias, and fulfills much of the same social functions (of making one more comfy of one's own "camp," more solid in a worldview and social group, etc.).

The examples you gave of how science is poor at the why and religion is better there I could pick 100 holes in.

Have at it. I've read a lot on human cognition and the cross-cultural evidence that indicates this issue is not limited to the United States or a single issue. And I don't know many scientists out to discover the whys or that are very good at getting people emotionally invested (and therefore, changing human action). Scientists themselves are primarily after the hows, and for those areas out for the whys, they are often decried as non-scientific by the rest of the community. So science continues to define itself as an inquiry into "how."

I never said religion was better in general, only that it (or non-religious philosophy) is better at engaging people in the whys and getting them to ACT on information (as opposed to just knowing stuff). There is a body of literature on why this is, and how it is likely hard-wired into human cognition and our extreme sociality.

The way I see it- my personal opinion here as Path-y and not an anthropologist, we'd be a lot better off if science and religion would cooperate in encouraging ethical and sustainable behavior.

And by the way- I saw the NASA documentary and it was paid for by NASA. And it actually interviewed people who were going into the fields of science and looked at why they were not NASA supporters. Religion was not the reason. A lot of apathy about the value of NASA, and the sexiness of it, and so forth was.

Americans, as a whole are far less interested in truth and science than religion and capitalism.

Most Americans are only marginally interested in religion. The extremes get the most media time, but your average American rarely goes to church, has only vague beliefs, cares little about most religious issues, and is only nominally their self-identified affiliation as Christian. There are numerous articles (including from within Christianity) that expound on the horrors of the average American's understanding of and participation in "their" religion.

Most Americans seem primarily interested in money. And stuff. And social status. Our work is our life- the average workweek, before even doing dishes or getting groceries, is 51 hours. And a person has to sleep. So most people spend very little time on any sort of truth-seeking. I think that is beginning to change, or I hope it is and I see it in those around me... Whether through science or religion, I am an advocate of people looking for truth and meaning, art and beauty. The things that make life worth living.

Religion is not answering, its is killing enquiry.

Proof? Which religion(s)? What kind of inquiry? Without any qualification or evidence, it is poetic but not very enlightening.

Would love to go on but my eyes are on fire and I need my bed.... next time....

Understood. I forget sometimes some of y'all are in the UK and here I am on the West coast...

This whole topic got way off the OP. Sorry, Sherry. You wanted people's own testimony, and not debate. And instead you got debate...

Perhaps this is worth a different thread if it continues?

 

[path_of_one]

This is an excellent and succinct way of putting it, Netti.

Yes, and you're also expected to have faith in someone else's conclusions.

This is sometimes the scariest part.

1) Many scientists have incomplete and in some cases seriously flawed ideas on what it is they're doing.

This is very true. And I would also put forth that many scientists are not taught to critically reflect on their own biases that make their way into the design of their research and their analyses and conclusions. Science, as one aspect of culture, is both impacted by the cultures in which it is practiced and in turn impacts them. Furthermore, the disciplines of science (and, academia more broadly as a whole) are sub-cultures of their own, with their own assumptions, biases, social status markers, and so forth... little cultures within bigger ones. All humans are subject to impacts from the cultures they inhabit. Unfortunately, many scientists are not trained to rigorously question their own practice and look critically at the assumptions that are made, and this slows scientific progress as well as perpetuating stereotypes and keeping people in their own little "ivory towers."

2) Lack of clarity about sampling, experimental design and experimental procedure makes it virtually impossible to replicate many studies.

Completely agreed. Additionally, there are fields where any research design can never be replicated by default of how the universe operates. For example, in the social sciences, because of those darned ethical codes, we can't force people into situations to study what happens. So we deal with a lot of observation in real-time, in real cultures and groups, with real people. The problems with this are numerous, but it's what we have. Most notably, no two people will ever have the same research design, because the individual conducting the research changes the experiment by virtue of being a different person. Even if the same person conducts both research projects, the people involved change over time. So even in cases of great clarity about research design, there are fields that are simply not replicable. We have to evaluate the researcher and choose to agree or disagree with his/her findings based on logic, but also belief- that this person is worthy of our trust. The social sciences are not the only disciplines that work this way- much of astronomy works similarly, for example.

We all learn the scientific method in grade school, but the reality is that science is a lot messier than that nice, tidy ideal. There's a lot that can only be observed. There's a lot that only happens once. There's a lot that is impacted by our presence as an observer.

3) The bias toward publishing positive/confirmatory results in any given scientific field in effect tends to "sweep under the rug" many complexities that may be very relevant to progress in the field. The negative findings simply never get published and nobody is the wiser for it. The effect this bias has on research conclusions and design planning is unfathomable.

I completely agree. There is a huge pressure to publish meaningful, new results and this not only impacts science in this way (above) but also that very little is really ever fully replicated. Try getting grant money for replicating someone else's work. Or finding the 10th specimen of whatever the newest human species is. No funder finds that very enticing. Academic institutions also don't find it enticing. If you don't come up with something new, your job prospects are not very good. So there is a huge pressure to go after newness all the time. Science is built on a whole lot of people's new ideas and research projects, and very little replication. We all talk about replication as a standard, but few people actually do it.

True, science is specialized. In a given research setting, the guy down the hall may speak a totally different language from yours - a language you may never understand unless you get doctorate in that guy's field.

It's really unfortunate. And inefficient. But there is hope; there are people who engage in interdisciplinary research, and I've noticed there is increasingly a move toward funding for this type of work (perhaps it's a way for entities like the NSF to save money by funding multiple disciplines at a time). I think that drive is out there and will impact academia in general, but it is a big ship to turn.

How does science get me any closer to G-d? Answer: It doesn't. Can it? Probably not.

This is an interesting question. I feel like I get closer to God through science, but no more than other things I do. That is, perhaps it isn't that science brings me closer to God, but rather that me being close to God helps me experience God in science (since I experience God in all of life, including washing the dishes and weeding a garden). Still, it seems that it might be an avenue for someone... I guess I'm always open to diversity, given that other people's personalities and learning styles don't work exactly as mine do...

 

[China Cat Sunflower]

I would like to see an equally fervent examination of religion from those presently critiquing science. Put that same intellectual laser on religion and tell me what you see.

How does science get me any closer to G-d? Answer: It doesn't. Can it? Probably not.

Does religion get me any closer to God? Just like the Tao, the God that can be named isn't God. Whatever God is, of itself, is unknowable. The point of hyphenating is to remind us that you can't name G-d without making an idol of it, correct? Whatever can be named is already anthropomorphic. This is why the language of science is preferable: because it doesn't name the Source, it just examines the phenomena and postulates upon its observations.

Chris

 

[China Cat Sunflower]

This whole topic got way off the OP. Sorry, Sherry. You wanted people's own testimony, and not debate. And instead you got debate...

Perhaps this is worth a different thread if it continues?

I guess it's my fault. I never could stay on topic. Sorry about that. (backing slowly away)

Chris

 

[Netti-Netti]

Just like the Tao, the God that can be named isn't God.

I'm ok with using words to invoke that which is beyond words. They're just symbols is all.

 

[seattlegal]

I would like to see an equally fervent examination of religion from those presently critiquing science. Put that same intellectual laser on religion and tell me what you see.

Does religion get me any closer to God? Just like the Tao, the God that can be named isn't God. Whatever God is, of itself, is unknowable. The point of hyphenating is to remind us that you can't name G-d without making an idol of it, correct? Whatever can be named is already anthropomorphic. This is why the language of science is preferable: because it doesn't name the Source, it just examines the phenomena and postulates upon its observations.

Chris

Let's see, if you apply the rigors of scientific testing with the controls and the need for experiments to be replicated, I think you might wind up with something resembling organized religions. Notice how each branch of science develops its own specialized language and favorite theories/dogma? Notice how science (like religion) uses analogies (like the "Big Bang,") to put its theories into common language that people can understand? Hmm...

 

[Tao_Equus]

Let's see, if you apply the rigors of scientific testing with the controls and the need for experiments to be replicated, I think you might wind up with something resembling organized religions. Notice how each branch of science develops its own specialized language and favorite theories/dogma? Notice how science (like religion) uses analogies (like the "Big Bang,") to put its theories into common language that people can understand? Hmm...

Lmao Seattle, that is simply crass!! By your analogy the continuity of prayer should yield masses of evidence that it works. Where is it? It does not exist. Billions of prostrate and kneeling people every day and not 1 can show it to have worked.
And it is called "Big Bang Theory" not "Big Bang Truth and if you dont believe it you are an evil sinner who will burn in hell for eternity". This is what I meant, all these efforts to drag real enquiry into the realm of superstition that religions dwell in. You prove my point and then some.

tao

 

[seattlegal]

Lmao Seattle, that is simply crass!! By your analogy the continuity of prayer should yield masses of evidence that it works. Where is it? It does not exist. Billions of prostrate and kneeling people every day and not 1 can show it to have worked.

I was referring to how the structures of each mirrors the other, Tao.

And it is called "Big Bang Theory" not "Big Bang Truth and if you dont believe it you are an evil sinner who will burn in hell for eternity". This is what I meant, all these efforts to drag real enquiry into the realm of superstition that religions dwell in. You prove my point and then some.

tao

Oh, do you mean like being mocked in a hellishly fiery manner if you don't buy into the Big Bang Theory?