GT - One of the books I am reading is "Destructive Emotions" - a Scientific Dialogue with the D. Lama.
In the early pages of this book, Daniel Goleman (narrator/author) describes the Dalai Lama's vision/hope to integrate – or at least – bring closer together Western science and Eastern Buddhist (Tibetan) thought. This would not result in a destruction of either science or Buddhist philosophy. Buddhism and Science both allow for change – which makes them more capable of coming together.
I do not purport to be a scholar nor well read in the disciplines of Buddhism. But one thing is evident in the book I am reading - Buddhism can not simply be thought of as “a religion”. It is too encompassing.
I would caution both Christians and Buddhists alike: Be careful what you wish for in this endeavor to unify science and religion — you may not like what you find.
The closing comment made in the post left me miffed. Buddhists laugh when a Westerner says theirs is simply a religion. Scientists laugh when told that Buddhist thought contains different ways of understanding reality that can lead them to more discovery.
Religious people often treat pure scientists as if they were Satan incarnate. And the scientists do not want their ideas "touched" by anything that is not material. Lock these two types in a room and watch the fireworks.
The Dalai Lama prefers to not view these two as odd bedfellows - for in Buddhism - they are not. The author of this review, on the other hand, seems to have posted a "warning" sign. He seems to warn of Mutual Assured Destruction if one mixes Buddhism and Science.
Doomsday or Unification. Kind of depends on how you look at the outcome to start with...
By the way, have you ever taken two cats, held them by their tails, put them close to each other?? Yup. They fight. (As a kid on the farm, sometimes we got into mischief - when I got older, I gave up this childish practice.)
Anyway, I wonder if sometimes people don't purposely hold religion and science by the tails and put them together just to start a fight. It is something that we ought to encourage people to grow up and be more responsible.
I think his closing comment is meant to mean that if you honestly look at science you'll find that your religeous views don't hold water. In other words, you risk losing your beliefs -- which most people would prefer not to do even though those beliefs contradict reality.
I didn't see any invitation for a fight with it.
------------
"A Demon-Haunted World" is on my to-read list, been there for awhile. Need to 'git to it.'
I'm currently reading "Why People Believe Weird Things" by the guy that started Skeptic Magazine and www.skeptic.com - can't remember his name right now, though.
GT, I just finished reading a section about science, scientists and religion and he basically says the same thing that you do:
I think his closing comment is meant to mean that if you honestly look at science you'll find that your religeous views don't hold water. In other words, you risk losing your beliefs -- which most people would prefer not to do even though those beliefs contradict reality.
Except that he also points out that scientists often and frequently have their work proved to be invalid and once it is, they accept that and move on to the next experiment because one more thing ruled out gets one that much closer to "the truth" - scientifically speaking. Scientists also want, accept and encourage others to test their conclusions. Religious people are insulted when someone questions or tries to test their belief.
But, also there are scientists who DON'T rule out a God - Heck, even Stephen Hawking accounted for God with his Big Bang Theory! He developed the Big Bang Theory, but always maintained that we don't know WHAT or WHO caused the big bang. ;) He believed in God, but not the same way most "religious" people do.
I haven't had any problem at all with my belief in God given what I know about the field of the atmosphere. One of several interesting aspects that stands out...and this applies to other fields...is that the human mind has trouble conceiving of the energy levels involved in nature. Even the power of a single thunderstorm cell dwarfs anything people can do, including man made nuclear energy...let alone a tornado or a larger scale storm...such as a hurricane. And speaking of nuclear energry and relativity (I'm not an expert there, but I DID take a college course on both subjects...(at the time we could never figure out why meteorology majors were required to take that course, but it turned out to be very interesting. I even aced it.) ...and the implicatiopns of both the energy levels involved in that science and the distances involved in the universe (BTW I took two astronomy courses also, the ones that were for majors) and the relativity part of it were mind boggling.
The point is, we have no real conceptions of the power of nature right around us, let alone the power or distances involved in the universe. Is it astounding that we would have trouble comprehending or believing the power of God? I'm not writing this to convince anyone that "there is a God", because some have trouble believing that an "intelligence" can have control of such power. But between my limited knowledge of what is in and what goes on in our world and our universe, and my limited knowledge of the concept of entropy, and a few other factors involved, I have extreme difficulty not believing in God.
I think one popular misconception that a lot of people have is that science is antithetical to religion. Or that when science comes up with things (like the theory of evolution), that that is their means of saying that there is no God. I read and come across that misconception a lot.
For one thing, the theory of evolution doesn't deal with Who created the universe, or whether a God created it or not, or even for what Divine Plan. Nor does it stand deliberately juxtaposed to the aforementioned Divine Plan.
It just deals with how life came to be from an evolutionary standpoint, and (still) tries to see what evidence supports or declines evolution. And because evolution hasn't answered ALL the questions that deal with it beyond any shadow of a doubt, technically, its still a theory. So why doesn't that make it *just* 'guesswork'? (Which is how many uninformed people presume the word 'theory' to mean) One poster on a local Atlanta message board put it quite well:
Many aspects of evolution have been proven to be accurate, however, it is still called a theory. We do not reference the ‘Theory of Gravity’ do we? Why is that? B/C there are still unanswered questions about the entire theory of evolution, unlike the scientific certainty of gravity.
Note that evolution still has a sizeable (and proven) characteristics to it, even tho' it it still not 100% fact. The meaning of the word 'theory' goes beyond the word 'hypothesis' which has even less certainty to it, but yet has opened doors that can ( and has) often led to the truth.
I find it interesting that some of those on the religious side who often overfocus on the 'theory' (guesswork ;)) of evolution as a means of downplaying/disgarding it, yet would embrace what they learn 'by faith' about the world with nary a 2nd question about it.
It seems there is A LOT of misunderstanding of Buddhism (and all its many various practices and beliefs and histories) beyond the popular notions in the west. Regardless...
the "separate worlds" model, in which science and religion are different methods to deal with different areas of human concern.
Though this is a simplistic use of two very complex terms, i can see a lot of value in this model. Perhaps it can be restated as the difference between interior and exterior sciences, or objective and subjective scientific modes of inquiry.
Also, to unpack it all a bit further, perhaps the areas of human concern can also be seen in collective and individual applications (although the individual and collective exteriors kind of run together, giving us 3...the science of the I, the science of the WE, and science of the IT)
The "science of the I" is seen in things like meditative and contemplative inquiry (seen in most all wisdom traditions, Christian, Buddhist, Islam, Aborigine, etc...but often mistaken for mere dogmatic religion by the less-informed). Psychology, also, would fit in this mode of subjective inquiry, although less focused on higher spiritual states, but more fully completing the lower rungs "the chain of being" (such as in childhood development).
The science of the "IT" is the one we most commonly associate with "cold hard science." 3rd person investigation of 3rd person realities. Deals in what Buddhism calls "gross," and what Christianity calls "body" or "flesh," and what western calls "matter, energy, physics, biology, neurosciences, etc...."
The "science of the WE" is more cultural and social, and perhaps one of the least explored territories of science. I am guessing it is the newer frontier in human evolution, one where femine energies play an important role (such as the science of transforming dialogue). Also, considering that the WE is a collection of "I's," this is a mode of VAST potentials in Intersubjectivity, such as collective intelligent processes (along the lines of Peer-to-Peer processes, think-tanks, and OpenSpace technology).
These are the 3 areas of human concern where i think the Dalai Lama was getting at. But part of the problem/solution of dialoguing these topics are in finding clarity regarding our actual personal applications of the labels "science" and "religion," which is where the "science of the WE" comes in handy (where WE understand each other's meanings clearly before WE take another step...from a more common ground)
Also, perhaps you can see where any of the 3 modes of inquiry has its problems/opportunities.
Recommended Posts
Too Gray Now
GT - Just wondered what you found to be interesting? - I can spot about 50 ideas to run around the barn with... LOL !
Link to comment
Share on other sites
GT
All of it. Pick one and go for it.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
George Aar
I'm just now reading Sagan's "A Demon-Haunted World".
I'd avoided Sagan for quite awhile due to his goofy on-air persona
that he displayed in PBS's televised version of "Cosmos" several years ago.
My bad. He was an formidable intellect. And AD-HW is a highly recommended read
for anyone with a mind to understand science and the scientific perspective. He really
takes pseudo-science and superstition to task for a lot of what they propound.
A really interesting read...
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Too Gray Now
GT - One of the books I am reading is "Destructive Emotions" - a Scientific Dialogue with the D. Lama.
In the early pages of this book, Daniel Goleman (narrator/author) describes the Dalai Lama's vision/hope to integrate – or at least – bring closer together Western science and Eastern Buddhist (Tibetan) thought. This would not result in a destruction of either science or Buddhist philosophy. Buddhism and Science both allow for change – which makes them more capable of coming together.
I do not purport to be a scholar nor well read in the disciplines of Buddhism. But one thing is evident in the book I am reading - Buddhism can not simply be thought of as “a religion”. It is too encompassing.
The closing comment made in the post left me miffed. Buddhists laugh when a Westerner says theirs is simply a religion. Scientists laugh when told that Buddhist thought contains different ways of understanding reality that can lead them to more discovery.
Religious people often treat pure scientists as if they were Satan incarnate. And the scientists do not want their ideas "touched" by anything that is not material. Lock these two types in a room and watch the fireworks.
The Dalai Lama prefers to not view these two as odd bedfellows - for in Buddhism - they are not. The author of this review, on the other hand, seems to have posted a "warning" sign. He seems to warn of Mutual Assured Destruction if one mixes Buddhism and Science.
Doomsday or Unification. Kind of depends on how you look at the outcome to start with...
By the way, have you ever taken two cats, held them by their tails, put them close to each other?? Yup. They fight. (As a kid on the farm, sometimes we got into mischief - when I got older, I gave up this childish practice.)
Anyway, I wonder if sometimes people don't purposely hold religion and science by the tails and put them together just to start a fight. It is something that we ought to encourage people to grow up and be more responsible.
Edited by Too Gray NowLink to comment
Share on other sites
GT
I think his closing comment is meant to mean that if you honestly look at science you'll find that your religeous views don't hold water. In other words, you risk losing your beliefs -- which most people would prefer not to do even though those beliefs contradict reality.
I didn't see any invitation for a fight with it.
------------
"A Demon-Haunted World" is on my to-read list, been there for awhile. Need to 'git to it.'
Edited by GreasyTechLink to comment
Share on other sites
Belle
Adding it to mine, too! :D
I'm currently reading "Why People Believe Weird Things" by the guy that started Skeptic Magazine and www.skeptic.com - can't remember his name right now, though.
GT, I just finished reading a section about science, scientists and religion and he basically says the same thing that you do:
Except that he also points out that scientists often and frequently have their work proved to be invalid and once it is, they accept that and move on to the next experiment because one more thing ruled out gets one that much closer to "the truth" - scientifically speaking. Scientists also want, accept and encourage others to test their conclusions. Religious people are insulted when someone questions or tries to test their belief.
But, also there are scientists who DON'T rule out a God - Heck, even Stephen Hawking accounted for God with his Big Bang Theory! He developed the Big Bang Theory, but always maintained that we don't know WHAT or WHO caused the big bang. ;) He believed in God, but not the same way most "religious" people do.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Lifted Up
I haven't had any problem at all with my belief in God given what I know about the field of the atmosphere. One of several interesting aspects that stands out...and this applies to other fields...is that the human mind has trouble conceiving of the energy levels involved in nature. Even the power of a single thunderstorm cell dwarfs anything people can do, including man made nuclear energy...let alone a tornado or a larger scale storm...such as a hurricane. And speaking of nuclear energry and relativity (I'm not an expert there, but I DID take a college course on both subjects...(at the time we could never figure out why meteorology majors were required to take that course, but it turned out to be very interesting. I even aced it.) ...and the implicatiopns of both the energy levels involved in that science and the distances involved in the universe (BTW I took two astronomy courses also, the ones that were for majors) and the relativity part of it were mind boggling.
The point is, we have no real conceptions of the power of nature right around us, let alone the power or distances involved in the universe. Is it astounding that we would have trouble comprehending or believing the power of God? I'm not writing this to convince anyone that "there is a God", because some have trouble believing that an "intelligence" can have control of such power. But between my limited knowledge of what is in and what goes on in our world and our universe, and my limited knowledge of the concept of entropy, and a few other factors involved, I have extreme difficulty not believing in God.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
GarthP2000
I think one popular misconception that a lot of people have is that science is antithetical to religion. Or that when science comes up with things (like the theory of evolution), that that is their means of saying that there is no God. I read and come across that misconception a lot.
For one thing, the theory of evolution doesn't deal with Who created the universe, or whether a God created it or not, or even for what Divine Plan. Nor does it stand deliberately juxtaposed to the aforementioned Divine Plan.
It just deals with how life came to be from an evolutionary standpoint, and (still) tries to see what evidence supports or declines evolution. And because evolution hasn't answered ALL the questions that deal with it beyond any shadow of a doubt, technically, its still a theory. So why doesn't that make it *just* 'guesswork'? (Which is how many uninformed people presume the word 'theory' to mean) One poster on a local Atlanta message board put it quite well:
Note that evolution still has a sizeable (and proven) characteristics to it, even tho' it it still not 100% fact. The meaning of the word 'theory' goes beyond the word 'hypothesis' which has even less certainty to it, but yet has opened doors that can ( and has) often led to the truth.
I find it interesting that some of those on the religious side who often overfocus on the 'theory' (guesswork ;)) of evolution as a means of downplaying/disgarding it, yet would embrace what they learn 'by faith' about the world with nary a 2nd question about it.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
sirguessalot
It seems there is A LOT of misunderstanding of Buddhism (and all its many various practices and beliefs and histories) beyond the popular notions in the west. Regardless...
Though this is a simplistic use of two very complex terms, i can see a lot of value in this model. Perhaps it can be restated as the difference between interior and exterior sciences, or objective and subjective scientific modes of inquiry.
Also, to unpack it all a bit further, perhaps the areas of human concern can also be seen in collective and individual applications (although the individual and collective exteriors kind of run together, giving us 3...the science of the I, the science of the WE, and science of the IT)
The "science of the I" is seen in things like meditative and contemplative inquiry (seen in most all wisdom traditions, Christian, Buddhist, Islam, Aborigine, etc...but often mistaken for mere dogmatic religion by the less-informed). Psychology, also, would fit in this mode of subjective inquiry, although less focused on higher spiritual states, but more fully completing the lower rungs "the chain of being" (such as in childhood development).
The science of the "IT" is the one we most commonly associate with "cold hard science." 3rd person investigation of 3rd person realities. Deals in what Buddhism calls "gross," and what Christianity calls "body" or "flesh," and what western calls "matter, energy, physics, biology, neurosciences, etc...."
The "science of the WE" is more cultural and social, and perhaps one of the least explored territories of science. I am guessing it is the newer frontier in human evolution, one where femine energies play an important role (such as the science of transforming dialogue). Also, considering that the WE is a collection of "I's," this is a mode of VAST potentials in Intersubjectivity, such as collective intelligent processes (along the lines of Peer-to-Peer processes, think-tanks, and OpenSpace technology).
These are the 3 areas of human concern where i think the Dalai Lama was getting at. But part of the problem/solution of dialoguing these topics are in finding clarity regarding our actual personal applications of the labels "science" and "religion," which is where the "science of the WE" comes in handy (where WE understand each other's meanings clearly before WE take another step...from a more common ground)
Also, perhaps you can see where any of the 3 modes of inquiry has its problems/opportunities.
Edited by sirguessalotLink to comment
Share on other sites
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.