Spirituality
10 Jun 10
13 Jun 10
Originally posted by Diodorus SiculusIn my experience I have found there to be some subtle complexities to the underlying nature of certain groups to to either answer or not answer questions.
Next time you are in church, raise your hand at the Q and A part and ask a question and next time you are at a scientific conference raise your hand at the Q and A part and ask a question. That to my mind is the difference.
In science questioning of dogma is positively invited and faith certainly exists in hypotheses but based on statistical ana ...[text shortened]... sibility that errors exist in the teachings or that the proposed model is distinctly unfeasible.
With christians groups I have found it is as you described.(I have come across many christian groups devoted to mainly good works.)
With the Tibetan bhuddist group questions of all sorts were encouraged after meditation and visualization. The quality of questions reflected the effectiveness of the teacher.
With the Hare Krsnas I found only one or two out of say...100, that were willing to answer questions, and then only in private. They used to sh[t me for being like that for years. Then as I grew to learn more about the group I sensed that they were more devotion orientated-not answering questions because because they felt it an unneccesary diversion from there on going inner and outer chanting. If you didn't get the Bhagavad Gita the same way they did, then no amount of questioning would help.
(experience with other groups as well)
Conclusion: different people have different orientations and hence require different types of groups to satisfy their (current) spiritual hankerings. Seems like three distinct groups. Those of good works. Those of devotion. Those of "intellectual leanings".
(Of course some may be a mixture of all three.)
13 Jun 10
Originally posted by karoly aczelGreat, great insight. I am impressed.
In my experience I have found there to be some subtle complexities to the underlying nature of certain groups to to either answer or not answer questions.
With christians groups I have found it is as you described.(I have come across many christian groups devoted to mainly good works.)
With the Tibetan bhuddist group questions of all sorts w ...[text shortened]... evotion. Those of "intellectual leanings".
(Of course some may be a mixture of all three.)
13 Jun 10
Originally posted by Diodorus SiculusTry being an actual, bona-fide member of the scientific community and raise questions about the currently-espoused dogma of evolution. See what kind of 'idiot' you become overnight.
Next time you are in church, raise your hand at the Q and A part and ask a question and next time you are at a scientific conference raise your hand at the Q and A part and ask a question. That to my mind is the difference.
In science questioning of dogma is positively invited and faith certainly exists in hypotheses but based on statistical ana ...[text shortened]... sibility that errors exist in the teachings or that the proposed model is distinctly unfeasible.
13 Jun 10
Originally posted by FreakyKBHThat largely depends on the specifics of the question. SJ Gould raised a couple that have been very well received to the point of amending said 'dogma'.
Try being an actual, bona-fide member of the scientific community and raise questions about the currently-espoused dogma of evolution. See what kind of 'idiot' you become overnight.
13 Jun 10
Originally posted by avalanchethecatIt's kinda like Fight Club, really. There is an established, protected clique--- every inch the example of herd-mentality--- which comes down hard, hot and heavy for any perceived threat to their acceptable thinking checklist. The reaction of this herd is consistently predictable.
That largely depends on the specifics of the question. SJ Gould raised a couple that have been very well received to the point of amending said 'dogma'.
13 Jun 10
Originally posted by FreakyKBHYou could be talking about any group of similarly thinking people here. The difference with the world of science is that it is expected that any new viewpoint will provide some testable hypotheses and be subject to peer-review. Even an apparently whacko, paradigm-shifting new idea can eventually win through, although it might take some of the old guard turning up their toes first unless it makes some particularly strong testable predictions.
It's kinda like Fight Club, really. There is an established, protected clique--- every inch the example of herd-mentality--- which comes down hard, hot and heavy for any perceived threat to their acceptable thinking checklist. The reaction of this herd is consistently predictable.
13 Jun 10
Originally posted by avalanchethecatLike I said, in theory that's a great concept. In reality, we just don't see it happening.
You could be talking about any group of similarly thinking people here. The difference with the world of science is that it is expected that any new viewpoint will provide some testable hypotheses and be subject to peer-review. Even an apparently whacko, paradigm-shifting new idea can eventually win through, although it might take some of the old guard turning up their toes first unless it makes some particularly strong testable predictions.
13 Jun 10
Originally posted by FreakyKBHSure we do. Particles physics, evolutionary science, cosmology, archaeology - to name but a few areas where dramatic revision of accepted paradigm has taken place in the last few years or decades. I'm not claiming it's a perfect system - it's operated by people so of course it's flawed - but it's better than, for instance, accepting what some dead guys said as being the inarguable truth of the matter.
Like I said, in theory that's a great concept. In reality, we just don't see it happening.
13 Jun 10
2 edits
Originally posted by FreakyKBHI am actually a scientist with a PhD in cell and molecular biology and have published papers that have questioned existing views so I do now what I am talking about. These were subsequently well cited in some cases and perhaps contributed in some small way to a new "dogma" or model of viral evolution in the case I am thinking about. Science works like Hawking says, end of the story.
Try being an actual, bona-fide member of the scientific community and raise questions about the currently-espoused dogma of evolution. See what kind of 'idiot' you become overnight.
13 Jun 10
Originally posted by Diodorus SiculusHopefully, when you were published, you had someone edit your work for--- oh, I don't know--- spelling errors, for instance.
I am actually a scientist with a PhD in cell and molecular biology and have published papers that have questioned existing views so I do now what I am talking about. These were subsequently well cited in some cases and perhaps contributed in some small way to a new "dogma" or model of viral evolution in the case I am thinking about. Science works like Hawking says, end of the story.
- Joined
- 15 Sep 04
- Moves
- 7051
13 Jun 10
Originally posted by Diodorus SiculusDon't you think this might be more about social convention rather than anything fundamental to the nature of religiona and science? A church is normally a place of worship; it is not a space for public forum. The fact that people do not ask questions in a church says little about the nature of religion; it simply shows that this social space is not utilised for that purpose. Naturally a catechetical classroom or a university lecture theatre would be.
Next time you are in church, raise your hand at the Q and A part and ask a question and next time you are at a scientific conference raise your hand at the Q and A part and ask a question. That to my mind is the difference.
In science questioning of dogma is positively invited and faith certainly exists in hypotheses but based on statistical ana ...[text shortened]... sibility that errors exist in the teachings or that the proposed model is distinctly unfeasible.
Equally, a scientific laboratory would not be a suitable place for a Q and A. It is simply not designed for that purpose. I also know a number of science professors who would balk at any interruption of their lecture and dismiss any question as impudent and audacious.
- Joined
- 15 Sep 04
- Moves
- 7051
13 Jun 10
On this subject, I have to say Hawkings is a extremely unsophisticated. I wonder how many on this forum have ever attended a theology lecture or have any experience with religious studies in an academic context. Certainly it is far more sophisticated than "The Bible says so, QED"; theological argument is much more than an appeal to authority and there are standards of proof.
14 Jun 10
2 edits
Originally posted by FreakyKBHYes thanks it's called peer review and works very well. It is almost thematic here to say that I do make mistakes the odd time I have to admit
Hopefully, when you were published, you had someone edit your work for--- oh, I don't know--- spelling errors, for instance.
14 Jun 10
1 edit
Originally posted by ThinkOfOneThey ought to make their aim smaller precisely because science has recently been so much more successful at explaining things about the way the physical world works.
[b]Religion and Science have [or ought to have] completely different aims. As such, I don't see how one can 'win' out over the other.
The aim of science is mainly understanding how the physical world works.
The aim of religion is mainly answering questions of morality, or understanding the metaphysical realm [if you believe in such a thing], or sear hority" seems on point to me as is his prediction that science will "win".[/b]
Seeking truth is great, but it's totally impractical for one group to seek truth in all disciplines, both physical and metaphysical. Better to specialize in a certain area suited to the group's aptitude.
What we've got now is like Michael Jordan trying to excel at golf and baseball as well as basketball. Even a talented individual can forget that their talents have limits.
14 Jun 10
Originally posted by twhiteheadI said that religion should not make so many claims about the physical universe, not that they should make none at all.
Why do you conclude that religion overextends its grasp? Why do you think religion should restrict itself to certain areas? Why should they not make claims about the physical universe?
Most religions are largely about claims regarding reality. Why should they stick to certain areas of reality? Why should science?
If God exists, then science can study hi ...[text shortened]... thodology of making claims is fundamentally flawed and all religious claims should be discarded.
Science study God? Most consider God to be a metaphysical being. Does it make sense for science to study the metaphysical?