Science and Faith

iBrian

Peace, Love and Unity
Admin
Messages
6,532
Reaction score
12
Points
38
Location
Scotland
I have to say, that I intensely dislike it when "science" is tied to any form of religious or spiritual belief - it always seems like a faith is trying desperately to gain validation via some objective process - which, ultimately, cannot validate it.

To pick a more immediate example (sorry, Avinash!) - "Tantra" has been referred to as a "practical science". But what does that actually mean?

I've seen a number of groups from India apply the word, and frankly it's application always seems devoutly propagandist, rather than having any real and meaningful with the Western concept and practice of "science".

The same is true when monotheistic groups commonly try to claim that their belief is "scientific" or else that science itself is either validated - or downright contradicted - by scripture.

My perception is that religion and science are simply incompatible - they are effectively two separate languages of the human experience.

A discussion starter, anyway. :)
 

lunamoth

Episcopalian
Messages
3,915
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Location
Wild, Wild West
I, B said: "My perception is that religion and science are simply incompatible - they are effectively two separate languages of the human experience. "

I think that science and religion are two different ways to investigate God's creation. They are not incompatible because science and religion can (and ultimately will) agree. They are complementary. I sometimes examine the universe as a scientist and I sometimes examine the universe as a believer. I do not think I end up with incompatible information from these two views. In fact, I find the information I get from these two approaches to be synergistic.

When the two appear to conflict I might sometimes err on the side of logic, I might sometimes err on the side of compassion. There is no formula for this. It lies in the space between head and heart where the two interact. But this place where the two intersect only has to do with how I use the information I get from either science or religion. IMO, when you attempt to direct one using the other you enter dangerous waters. The result: poor science and an impoverished religion.

Having said that, I agree with the first part of your post:

I, B said: "when "science" is tied to any form of religious or spiritual belief - it always seems like a faith is trying desperately to gain validation via some objective process - which, ultimately, cannot validate it. "

Saying a religion is "scientific" will not validate it. There is no scientific proof of God. Irrefutable proof of God would take away free will and remove any meaning to life as we know it.
 

Avinash

Well-Known Member
Messages
195
Reaction score
0
Points
0
I said:
"Tantra" has been referred to as a "practical science". But what does that actually mean?

I've seen a number of groups from India apply the word, and frankly it's application always seems devoutly propagandist, rather than having any real and meaningful with the Western concept and practice of "science".

My perception is that religion and science are simply incompatible - they are effectively two separate languages of the human experience.

Firstly you should make a distinction between objective science, which deals with the outside world and the introvertive or introspective science which deals with the inner world of the mind. Tantra is the science of mind and not of the objective world. It's not like you can pracitise Tantra by using your senses (Jesus has an interesting saying about this).

I feel you are slightly irritated by the claims of it being a science (you use words like 'propaganda' and 'incompatible'). Unlike most modern people I believe Jesus really "walked" on water, raised a deceased man and healed people (by using his tantric powers). If there was no connection at all between the objective world with its laws of physics and the spiritual world, then such things would not be possible, but they are.

Such powers were not unique to Jesus nor can they only be found in India or in so-called eastern spirituality. In the future this connection between the world of the Spirit and the objective material world will also be discovered by ("western") science but at the moment science has not yet evolved quite far enough. Science will change tremendously though when this happens.

Unlike yourself I have always distrusted and disliked religion and have had a great respect for science. Nevertheless I have always been attracted to finding a deeper Truth behind the objective universe. I did not consciously seek the path I'm now on, it came to me by pure chance (alhough I do believe in the law of Karma, so I must have sought it unconsciously).

Faith is needed when you start out on the spiritual path. If you don't believe in what you're doing, then you won't have the willpower and stamina to continue. But faith alone is not enough, you also need a practical and scientific method to move towards your goal. By scientific I mean that the method will have to be one that has been proven to work. If the method is only based on theory but has no practical value then it won't get you any nearer to your goal.

In fact Buddhism also isn't a religion in that sense. Buddha told his disciples that they should never accept anything blindly but should investigate and test what they are doing. Like in Tantra, buddhists speak of Dharma and not of religion. Many buddhists believe that Jesus taught Buddhism to his disciples. This way of thinking is not typical for religions. Most religions remain more or less in their own world and have no clear ideas about other paths. Burton Mack (author of 'The Lost Gospel Q') calls this the "Bubble World of religion".

Maybe religious people will get reacted if they hear these kinds of things. I think you should never hurt someone's religious feelings, because they are the most precious things people carry in their hearts. Perhaps I should not express such ideas on a comparative-religion forum. Is that why there are no other Ananda Margi's on this forum? Or are they too busy doing other things and do they think such discussions are a waste of time? There is a branch of Ananda Marga called Eka Manava Samaja (One Human Society) which is concerned with improving the dialogue between people from different religious or ideological backgrounds but they're not so active in Europe at the moment.

Anyway, hope this clarifies things somewhat. :)
 

Avinash

Well-Known Member
Messages
195
Reaction score
0
Points
0
lunamoth said:
Saying a religion is "scientific" will not validate it. There is no scientific proof of God. Irrefutable proof of God would take away free will and remove any meaning to life as we know it.

Namaskar Lunamoth,

I agree, God cannot be proven because He is beyond cause and effect and hence beyond reasoning (and our small mind). However, we ourselves are still moving in the objective world, so our actions are subject to cause and effect. This means that we should use our rationality when moving on the spiritual path.
 

iBrian

Peace, Love and Unity
Admin
Messages
6,532
Reaction score
12
Points
38
Location
Scotland
Indeed, I am a little irritated - though I also appreciate that there is a specific cultural applciation involved which implies different meaning. Personally, I have difficulty understanding why the term "science" should ever be applied in such a spiritual sense. It comes up elsewhere, though - like the Hare Krishna movement and their books on the "Science of Reincarnation". The use of the term seems exceptionally misleading - unless there are reports in Nature and Science magazines about the reality of such experiences, then what is being dealt with is not science, nor scientific method, but a philosophical system. And philosophy is certainly not "science".

The converse argument is also true - I should not expect any scientific discipline to start declaring that it is "spiritual science", that here is a branch of physics or chemistry or medicine that is a "science of spirituality". The claim would seem absurd in the regular expressions of the English language.

As for miracles - a new thread, methinks. :)
 

Avinash

Well-Known Member
Messages
195
Reaction score
0
Points
0
I said:
As for miracles - a new thread, methinks. :)

I think we must have a different worldview then.:rolleyes: For me spirituality is just as much part of reality as the objective world. I believe Consciousness lies at the base of this universe (matter and energy are states of consciousness), so the spiritual part of science is not fundamentally different except that it reaches back to the cause of the universe instead of to its objectivated expressions.

Just like in objective science, the spiritual science was discovered by experimentation. I don't believe in so-called miracles. They are only called miracles because most people don't know the science (here we go again!) behind such phenomena. I think this forum is not the place to explore spiritual philosophy in depth but much more can be said on this subject.

I like the word science because it is universal. It's perhaps a bit odd that ISKCON uses it as well because in some respects they are a very religious movement.
 

neoxenos

Well-Known Member
Messages
51
Reaction score
0
Points
0
I agree with Einstein:

Science without religion is lame,
religion without science is blind.

True religion is scientific. It is not vague, it is not beliefs. We see it as vague, as changing and as contradictory because we have failed to understand it.
 

iBrian

Peace, Love and Unity
Admin
Messages
6,532
Reaction score
12
Points
38
Location
Scotland
Avinash said:
I think we must have a different worldview then.:rolleyes: For me spirituality is just as much part of reality as the objective world. I believe Consciousness lies at the base of this universe (matter and energy are states of consciousness), so the spiritual part of science is not fundamentally different except that it reaches back to the cause of the universe instead of to its objectivated expressions.
I would actually be close in agreement here...

Avinash said:
Just like in objective science, the spiritual science was discovered by experimentation. I don't believe in so-called miracles. They are only called miracles because most people don't know the science (here we go again!) behind such phenomena. I think this forum is not the place to explore spiritual philosophy in depth but much more can be said on this subject.
...but not here. :)

Miracles as a phenomenon I wished to cover in a new thread, because it's suh a wide-raning topic. But I have to say, acceptance of miracles is essentially a matter of faith. Although it's true to say that science as a Western discipline is neither all-encompassing nor all explanatory, and indeed there are mysteries to be explored, the historical context of ancient miracles is one of superstitious interpretation of the world, coupled with propagandist elements - in the ancient world, anybody who was anybody claimed Divine descent and ancestory, and therefore could carry something of the miraculous with them.

As for not being the place to discuss spiritual philosophy - certainly CR is a good place for this - I am surprised you think otherwise. :)


Avinash said:
I like the word science because it is universal. It's perhaps a bit odd that ISKCON uses it as well because in some respects they are a very religious movement.
Science is reference to a method that involves an attempt to objectively quantify phenomena. It is not a form of "universal" philosophy. There's a nasty habit of use from India which is just plain mis-leading - it is used not because it invokes any real "Western" conceptualisation or defintion of "science" in the English language - it is used instead as a marketing tool, nothing more, to infer some sense of objective authority where none exists.
 

Avinash

Well-Known Member
Messages
195
Reaction score
0
Points
0
I said:
Science is reference to a method that involves an attempt to objectively quantify phenomena. It is not a form of "universal" philosophy. There's a nasty habit of use from India which is just plain mis-leading - it is used not because it invokes any real "Western" conceptualisation or defintion of "science" in the English language - it is used instead as a marketing tool, nothing more, to infer some sense of objective authority where none exists.

Yes, I agree it is used in that way too (as a deceptive marketing tool) but at the same time I don't agree that there is no such thing as intuitive/introspective science. I didn't speak about "universal philosophy". It is science itself which is universal. The philosophy associated with the subjective spiritual science is its theoretical counterpart based on experience.

But I'm not trying to force my view on anyone here. It's my view of the world and I'm truly sorry if it evokes nasty feelings in you.:) Reading through other people's postings, I did encounter viewpoints that come close to mine.
 

Avinash

Well-Known Member
Messages
195
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Avinash said:
.But I'm not trying to force my view on anyone here. It's my view of the world and I'm truly sorry if it evokes nasty feelings in you.:) Reading through other people's postings, I did encounter viewpoints that come close to mine.

But if you prefer art or practice to introspective science that could also be used. Anything but the word religion.;)
 

iBrian

Peace, Love and Unity
Admin
Messages
6,532
Reaction score
12
Points
38
Location
Scotland
My academic background tends to be from the scientific side, so I'm pretty wary of the term being applied outside of the traditional insititutions, such as physics and chemistry. Just a personal nit-pick quality. :)

One big problem is that "science" as a term is an excellent marketing device - all sorts of artistic disciplines will claim to be a "science" of sorts, because scientific disciplines get more funding that artistic ones.

I'm also pretty wary of science being used in association with religious and or spiritual beliefs - because both can be so implicitly technical in their application of terms. More often than not, science is used to imply some form of objective authority to some form of belief, and in a manner that I am not sure is entirely agreeable with more "traditional" interpretations of what science actually is.
 

Avinash

Well-Known Member
Messages
195
Reaction score
0
Points
0
I said:
My academic background tends to be from the scientific side, so I'm pretty wary of the term being applied outside of the traditional insititutions, such as physics and chemistry. Just a personal nit-pick quality. :)
I'm also pretty wary of science being used in association with religious and or spiritual beliefs - because both can be so implicitly technical in their application of terms. More often than not, science is used to imply some form of objective authority to some form of belief, and in a manner that I am not sure is entirely agreeable with more "traditional" interpretations of what science actually is.

Namaskar,

I think your feeling of implied authority is perhaps misplaced. I also have an academic background and am myself wary of belief and religion being used in association with spirituality. It's just a question of tastes or outlook. Of course when I read any movement's ideology, there is always some implied authority there, presumably because they have to justify why their system is a good one or the better one. I don't think there is anything wrong about that as long as it isn't accompanied by a false sense of superiority.

In the East they use dharma instead of religion or belief. You can practise dharma without having any religion or belief. For a religious person this is very strange because "how could you be saved by God if you don't accept a religion or belief"? On the other hand, "going for refuge" is perhaps also a kind of faith but not an exclusive one.
 

louis

Well-Known Member
Messages
148
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Science and Faith ?

I have to say, that I intensely dislike it when "science" is tied to any form of religious or spiritual belief - it always seems like a faith is trying desperately to gain validation via some objective process - which, ultimately, cannot validate it.

From Louis....
First of all, I can't agree with the notion that some things can NEVER
be validated by science - we can't know what science might accomplish
in the future. At present, when science consistently fails to validate something, that suggests to me that I should not classify it as "true"
until science does validate it.
But as for science versus faith, I would agree with other posters -
they're just two different approaches from which to examine reality -
coming from the two sides of the human mind - incompatible yet
complmentary.
 

Vajradhara

One of Many
Messages
3,786
Reaction score
45
Points
48
Location
Seattle, WA
Namaste all,


well... my scientific background is western in nature and as such, i uphold that view of science as espoused by Karl Popper.

to be science, rather than philosophy, the theory must make a testable prediction and be falsefiable. if it makes no testable predictions and cannot be falsefied, it is not science.

science is a pretty specific word and carries with it a specific connotation and when words are used in ways which do not normally accord with their usage, some misunderstanding is bound to occur.

eastern "science" is not the same as western "science" in their methodolgies and perviews. western science flatly has nothing to do with things which cannot be measured... on the other hand, eastern science has no problem with this :)

in the end... who's to say which term should be used? it's hard to say... it is my feeling, however, that one needs to understand the audience to whom one is speaking and use words that they will understand in a manner they will accord with.

interested readers are directed here to learn more of Karl Popper:
http://www.eeng.dcu.ie/~tkpw/
 

Mohsin

Well-Known Member
Messages
113
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Regards to all.

I came across a very very good documentry and I wanted to share it with you. Yes it was an Islamic one, made by Muslims, but it deals greatly with title of the current thread, but may not be with the current topic/posts or for which this thread was started for.

The best I could summarise it is as follows.

Before Islam, the Arabs were involved in tribal warfare and thought of killing as a justified/virtues act and were even involved in killing their own children. But after entering into Islam, they changed. They become very civilized and learned humanity, love, compation and many great things. Among that also came the scientific thinking.

Science can be regarded as a product of curiocity, want to know how it all works. Qur'an invites the Muslims to learn, look at how God created everything. For instance,

[ Do they not look at the Camels, how they are made?- And at the Sky, how it is raised high?- And at the Mountains, how they are fixed firm?- And at the Earth, how it is spread out? Therefore do remind, for you are only a reminder. Al-Qur'an(88:17-21) ]


Thus, according to the Qur'an, science is used to find the signs from Allah(the Almighty God). For instance,

[ There are certainly Signs in the earth for people with certainty; and in yourselves as well. Do you not then see? Al-Qur'an(51:20-21) ]

[ Most surely in the creation of the heavens and the earth and the alternation of the night and the day, and the ships that run in the sea with that which profits men, and the water that Allah sends down from the cloud, then gives life with it to the earth after its death and spreads in it all (kinds of) animals, and the changing of the winds and the clouds made subservient between the heaven and the earth, there are signs for a people who understand.
Al-Qur'an(2:164) ]

____

Islam helped the Muslims by getting them out of superstious beliefs. The Arabs who could not rule a small country, after entering into Islam became great rulers. The Muslims empire allowed the flurishment of science unlike in any other region. Muslims were more involved in practical science rather then theoratical one. It was rather a product of observations and experimentation by the Muslim scientists. This act is also described by Prof. Bernard Lewis, an expert in Middle eastern history in his book, The Middle East.

"The achievement of Medieval Islamic science is not limited to the preservation of Greek learning, nor to the incorporation in the corpus of elements from the more ancient and more distant East. This heritage which medieval Islamic scientists handed on to the modren world was immensely enriched by their own efforts and contributions. Greek science, on the whole rather tended to be theoretical. Medieval Middle Eastern science was much more practical, and in such fields as medicine, chemistry, astronomy and agronomy, the classical heritage was clarified and supplemented by the experiments and observations of the medieval Middle East."
(Bernard Lewis, The Middle East, 1998, p.266)

The secret was the scientific and mental dicipline taught by the Qur'an to the Muslim scientists. The lines written by a Muslim scientist of that period in his private diary strickingly demostrate how much alive the Qur'an based concept of science was.

"Then for a year and a half, I devoted myself to study. I resumed the study of logic and all parts of philosophy. During this time I never slept the whole night through and did nothing but study all day long. Whenever I was puzzled by a problem I would go to the mosque, pray, and beg the Creater of all to reveal me that which was hidden from me and make it easy for me that which was difficult. Then at night I would retuen home, put a lamp in front of me, and set to work reading and writting. I went on like this until I was firmly grounded in all sciences and mastered them as fas as humanly possible."
(John L. Esposito, Islam: The Straight Path, 1998, p.54)

____

In the European history, Mideval Europe was ruled by Romans who did not allow any freedom of thought. They took scientists as going against religion, but it was NOT TRUE. They were actually against the dogma created by the Romans. The Church killed and rejected many scientists, but many of them were great believers.

The comments of Galileo, who proposed the idea of the movement of the earth, a scientist killed by the Church were as followed.

"I render infinite thanks to God for being so kind as to make me alone the first observer of marvels kept hidden in obscurity for all previous centuries."
(Galileo Galilei, quoted in: Mike Wilson's "The Foolishness of the Cross," Focus Magazine)


Many other European scientist were also greated devoted to religion and thanked God for their discoveries. A few of them are as follows.

"I had the intention of becoming a theologian... but now I see how God is, by my endeavours, also glorified is astronomy for 'heavens declare the glory of God'."
(Johannes Kepler, quoted in: J.H. Tiner, Johannes Kepler- Giant of Faith and Science, Milford, Michigan: Mou Media, 1977, p.197)


"...He(God) is eternal and infinite, omnipotent and omniscient; that is, his duration reaches from eternity to eternity; His presence from infinity to infinity; He governs all things that are or can be done. We know him only by his most wise and excellent contrivances of things. We reverence and adore Him as His servants..."
(Sir Isaac Newton, Mathematical Principles of Natural Philosophy, William Benton, Chicago, 1952, pp.273-74)


"But by faith we know His(God's) existance; in glory we shall know His nature."
(Blaise Pascal, Pensecs, No.233)


Gregory Mendel (1822-1884) (He was also a Christian Monk)

With his discovery of the three laws of genetics, Mendel went down in history as the person who founded the principles of inheritance. Mendel's principles of inheritance have turned out to be the most compelling proofs exposing the fallacy of the theory of evolution, the part associated with natural selection.

Having refuted the theory of evolution(especially the part where everything is a product of chance) with his discovery of the principles of inheritance, Mendel further believed that God had created the world, and that blind chance could not be responsible for the outcome.
(Dan Graves, Scientists of Faith, Kregel Resources, 1996, p. 143)


Louis Pasteur (1822-1895)

Pasteur is one of the greatest figures in the history of science and medicine, chiefly because of his establishment of the germ theory of disease, and his strong opposition to the theory of evolution.

Pasteur, who was a firm believer in God, was the object of fierce opposition because of his resistance to Darwin's theory of evolution. He was a defender of the compatibility of science and religion, which he would often emphasize in his writings. As he put it:

The more I know, the more does my faith approach that of the Breton peasant (i.e., the faith which is serene, complete, unquestioning)
(http://www.archimedesfoundation.org/quotes.html)

Little science takes you away from God but more of it takes you to Him.
(Jean Guitton, Dieu et La Science: Vers Le Métaréalisme, Paris: Grasset, 1991, p. 5)


Albert Einstein (1879-1955)

Albert Einstein, who is one of the most important scientists of the last century, was also known for his faith in God. He did not hesitate to defend that science could not exist without religion. As he put it:

I cannot conceive of a genuine scientist without that profound faith. The situation may be expressed by an image: science without religion is lame.
(Science, Philosophy and Religion, A Symposium, published by the Conference on Science, Philosophy and Religion in Their Relation to the Democratic Way of Life, Inc., New York, 1941)

Einstein was convinced that the universe was too perfectly designed to have come into being by chance, and that it was created by a Creator with Superior Wisdom.

For Einstein, who often referred to his belief in God in his writings, wonder at the natural order in the universe was very important. In one of his writings he mentioned, "In every true searcher of Nature there is a kind of religious reverence".(Quoted in Moszkowski, Conversations with Einstein, p. 46)

Elsewhere, he wrote:
"Everyone who is seriously involved in the pursuit of science becomes convinced that a spirit is manifest in the laws of the Universe - a spirit vastly superior to that of man... In this way the pursuit of science leads to a religious feeling of a special sort..."
(Letter to a child who asked if scientists pray, January 24, 1936; Einstein Archive 42-601)

(The list of such scientist is really long so I will end it here.)

____

A book by the name The Messianic Legacy describes when things went wrong.

"For Isaac Newton, a century and a half before Darwin, science was not seperate from religion but, on the contrary, an aspect of religion, and ultimately subserviant to it... But the science of Darwin's time became precisely that, divorcing itself from the context in which it had previously existed and establishing itself as a rival absolute, an alternative repository of meaning. As a result, religion and science were no longer working in concert, but rather stood opposed to each other, and humanity was increasingly forced to choose between them."
(Michael Baigent, Richard Leigh, Henry Lincoln, The Messianic Legacy. Gorgi Books, London. 1991, p.177-178)

Many field of science were twisted by materialists and the new aim of science was to confirm the materialiest philosophies(some of which date back to the ancient Greek philosophies). But on the contrary, it helped discover more signs from God.

In his book, Darwin's Black Box, where he discusses the scientific invalidity of Darwinism, noted American biochemist, Michael Behe, describes the psychology of the evolutionist scientists confronted by the reality of "design" apparent in the living cell:

"Over the past four decades modern biochemistry has uncovered the secrets of the cell. The progress has been hard won. It has required tens of thousands of people to dedicate the better parts of their lives to the tedious work of the laboratory… The result of these cumulative efforts to investigate the cell - to investigate life at the molecular level - is a loud, clear, piercing cry of "design!" The result is so unambiguous and so significant that it must be ranked as one of the greatest achievements in the history of science. This triumph of science should evoke cries of "Eureka" from ten thousand throats.

But, no bottles have been uncorked, no hands clapped. Instead, a curious, embarrassed silence surrounds the stark complexity of the cell. When the subject comes up in public, feet start to shuffle, and breathing gets a bit labored. In private people are a bit more relaxed; many explicitly admit the obvious but then stare at the ground, shake their heads, and let it go like that. Why does the scientific community not greedily embrace its startling discovery? Why is the observation of design handled with intellectual gloves? The dilemma is that while one side of the [issue] is labeled intelligent design, the other side must be labeled God."
(Michael J.Behe, Darwin's Black Box, New York: Free Press, 1996, p.231-232)


Also, in the field of Astronomy, the researches are also showing greatly that there is a very very complex design.

Hugh Ross, who holds a Ph.D. in astronomy from the University of Toronto, is President of "Reasons to Believe", a creationist institute in the USA. He has written many works on the relationship between cosmology and creation. Some of these are: The Creator and the Cosmos, Creation and Time, and Beyond the Cosmos. Some of Ross' remarks about the creation of the universe by a Creator are as follows:

"If time's beginning is concurrent with the beginning of the universe, as the space-time theorem says, then the cause of the universe must be some entity operating in a time dimension completely independent of and pre-existent to the time dimension of the cosmos. …It tells us that the Creator is transcendent, operating beyond the dimensional limits of the universe."
(Hugh Ross, Creator and the Cosmos, p.112)

"An intelligent, transcendent Creator must have brought the universe into existence. An intelligent, transcendent Creator must have designed the universe. An intelligent, transcendent Creator must have designed planet Earth. An intelligent, transcendent Creator must have designed life."
(Hugh Ross, Design and the Anthropic Principle, Reasons to Believe, CA1988)

Also, a jokely comment:
"If we need an atheist for a debate, I go to the philosophy department. The physics department isn't much use."
(Hugh Ross, The Creator and the Cosoms, p.123)

____

So, you might say that, as Einstine said, 'Science without religion is lame'. And also, a quote placed earlier, 'Little science takes you away from God but more of it takes you to Him'.


(To whom it may concern, and that does not necessarily means you. Too much, too quick, but this is how I think a summary of a long documentry should have been. You might hate me for the comments that I placed, but please take them rationally; as for me, I tend to be a really friendly person, at times :) )

Regards,
Mohsin.
 

Vajradhara

One of Many
Messages
3,786
Reaction score
45
Points
48
Location
Seattle, WA
Salaam Moshin,

thank you for the post.

it's rather long, so i'm going to pick one bit to respond to.

Mohsin said:
Mendel's principles of inheritance have turned out to be the most compelling proofs exposing the fallacy of the theory of evolution, the part associated with natural selection.

Having refuted the theory of evolution(especially the part where everything is a product of chance) with his discovery of the principles of inheritance, Mendel further believed that God had created the world, and that blind chance could not be responsible for the outcome.
(Dan Graves, Scientists of Faith, Kregel Resources, 1996, p. 143)
this is a strawman of the worst kind! no part of the Theory of Evolution says that it's by chance!!!! Natural Selection is not chance... and presumes the pre-existence of life.. and has absolutely nothing to say about how things came to be.. including the world. :confused:

who's this Dan Graves fellow? i'm going to have to investigate for this is sheer lunacy!

no wonder people think that the Theory of Evolution doesn't make sense :confused:
 

Avinash

Well-Known Member
Messages
195
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Namaskar,
I said:
I have to say, that I intensely dislike it when "science" is tied to any form of religious or spiritual belief - it always seems like a faith is trying desperately to gain validation via some objective process - which, ultimately, cannot validate it.
I also get irritated when science is tied to any form of religion or belief. Belief and religion are largely made up of dogma and superstition so they have no connection to reality, let alone to science.
To pick a more immediate example [] - "Tantra" has been referred to as a "practical science". But what does that actually mean?
I explained what it actually means earlier in the thread but more importantly Tantra is not a religion or a faith but a set of spiritual practices that can be found within (and even in part without) all kinds of spiritual traditions. Such a practice will always lead to real results and so it cannot be compared to the dogmas and the ritualism found in religions or beliefs. It is not an objective science where you take some measurements and draw conclusions about the objective world around you, its not such a limited type of science.
My perception is that religion and science are simply incompatible - they are effectively two separate languages of the human experience.
Your perception is correct, religions are indeed incompatible with the objective sciences. Tantra however is neither a religion nor an objective science.
 

Mus Zibii

QUID EST VERITAS
Messages
469
Reaction score
0
Points
0
This debate is a long one that tends to go in circles, but the other day I got a thought that broadly relates to it.

I look at politics as a guilty pleasure of mine and while watching one of the numerous news channels, heard about the Texas GOP presenting a manifesto of beliefs that included the opinion that America was, is and should always be recognized as a Christian nation. The pundits, of course, had it out and much was made of the argument that 'old' equals 'established'. Many quotes were brought up.

The thing that kept obscenely slapping me in the face was the lack of faith. Faith as defined by any dictionary is the belief of something without the slightest evidence to its existence. These people, and many others unrelated to this matter, though they raised religion as their masthead lacked faith.

When you find it necessary to disprove something that conflicts with your perception of God, you've forsaken faith of said God.
 

Mohsin

Well-Known Member
Messages
113
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Vajradhara said:
Salaam Moshin,

thank you for the post.

it's rather long, so i'm going to pick one bit to respond to.


this is a strawman of the worst kind! no part of the Theory of Evolution says that it's by chance!!!! Natural Selection is not chance... and presumes the pre-existence of life.. and has absolutely nothing to say about how things came to be.. including the world. :confused:

who's this Dan Graves fellow? i'm going to have to investigate for this is sheer lunacy!

no wonder people think that the Theory of Evolution doesn't make sense :confused:


Regards Vajradhara.

By the way, it h before s in Mohsin :).

The point actually was that the mechanisms for evolution that were put forward have always been proven wrong, I mean there have always been flaws in them. Before genetics, there was something else. After genetics came mutation which also have got a lot of bugs in it, fails at many points.

About Dan Graves, I simply have got no idea. Found his name along with the reference. I think that if you are going to look something up, look at the book 'Scientists of Faith', also something which also came along the reference, you might find somthing there. By the way, I did not do the research, so do not start throwing any errrors that you may find at my face. I think you know what I am saying :).

The part that I think is confusing is that how this theory has been taken. Different people, different views, different thoughts, different outcomes.

Regards,
Mohsin.
 

Mohsin

Well-Known Member
Messages
113
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Mus Zibii said:
The thing that kept obscenely slapping me in the face was the lack of faith. Faith as defined by any dictionary is the belief of something without the slightest evidence to its existence. These people, and many others unrelated to this matter, though they raised religion as their masthead lacked faith.

When you find it necessary to disprove something that conflicts with your perception of God, you've forsaken faith of said God.

Mus Zibii, I personally think that I can actually be a bit rational and have faith, both at the same time. It would be hard to explain it all here, but Islam allows us to think about logic and stuff, and well, according to a small debate or lecture of some sort by a person, Islam can be about evidence and having faith along side it or moreover in it. People often get afraid when being a bit rational when thinking about their beliefs. I do not. So, I am not challanging my faith(or forsaking it, whatever you may call it), because, when being rational and all, I think it increases in me, my faith gets stronger, and I thank Allah(The Almighty God) for that.
Lets not discuss this here as to not to deviate from the topic.
 
Top