The foundation of science is devotion to god

fresco wrote:

Cyracuz

Do you not see that "science" which is analytic is
antithetical to your Krishna/Wholism ?

In the words of a well known Eastern parable.....

God and the Devil are looking down from heaven and God says "Look! That human has picked up a real piece of knowledge...aren't you worried he will become enlightened ?. "On the contrary" says the Devil "watch him take it apart and attempt to analyse it thereby rendering it useless!"

What a great quote!!! What book is it from or who said it? Razz

0 Replies

AngeliqueEast

That one is quoted in the Gurdjieff literature (e.g. Ouspenky "In Search of the Miraculous") as one of many esoteric parables. Its origin is probably Sufi. (I've not tried a Google search yet but may do so later).

0 Replies

fresco wrote:

AngeliqueEast

That one is quoted in the Gurdjieff literature as one of many esoteric parables. Its origin is probably Sufi. (I've not tried a Google search yet but may do so later).

Thanks

0 Replies

AE wrote:

Quote:

Do you not see that "science" which is analytic is
antithetical to your Krishna/Wholism ?

No I don't. I see it as man's most honest attempt ever, as a community, to understand it.

Science is to work around the blanks until they can be accurately filled, rather than to stuff them with fantasy just for comfort. A search for truth, regardless of wich level it is on, will always lead to the truth being uncovered, wich is the objective of "wholism", to shed one's illutions.

Another thing, a scientist is at the mercy of science, while theism is at the mercy of theists. Wich of the two are more devoted to the truth?

0 Replies

Cyracuz wrote:

A search for truth, regardless of wich level it is on, will always lead to the truth being uncovered.

compare that with

"Truth is a pathless land"

and

" If you search for Truth in the realms of maya, in the realm of the intellect, or in the physical sense-world alone, you will never find it."

(J. Krishnamurti)

0 Replies

Absolute, Relative Truth
Science may not always lead to truth. Although, this depends on whether you believe in absolute truth or relative truth. I try to view our condition as a world of potentially endless possibilities. We collect those possibilities and select the most appealing set based on previous collections in order to try to understand the environment around us.

It is hard to say who is devoted more to truth! To the Theist he is the most devoted to absolute truth; to the scientist he is most devoted. It all depends on ones beliefs about the nature of truth.

0 Replies

yardale,
obviously everyone's beliefs are their opinion of what is truth, that's what a belief is

0 Replies

Quote:

obviously everyone's beliefs are their opinion of what is truth, that's what a belief is

This appears to be a statement of one who holds relative truth as valid vs absolute truth . Absolute truth advocates think that not everyones opinions = truth, but rather there is a single path to travel concerning truth. many religious philosophies appear to embrace absolute truth.

0 Replies

yardsale wrote:

Once science stated that the world was flat.

It may have been a common belief at one time, but "science" never stated that the world was flat.

Quote:

I will not insult anybodies intelligence but we all have seen were scientific explanations of certain phenomenon get revised when someone other than the founder of the ideas discovers that a certain idea is off base from the "truth". Example, once leeches were used to heal the sick by getting rid of the bad blood that is causing a person to be ill and this was once thought of as good science. Over time the latter practice has been ruled out all together.

You picked a poor example since leeches are accepted and actually being used in modern medical practice to suck "bad blood" from grafted appendages: Beyond Bloodletting: FDA Gives Leeches a Medical Makeover

0 Replies

fresco wrote:

God and the Devil are looking down from heaven and God says "Look! That human has picked up a real piece of knowledge...aren't you worried he will become enlightened ?. "On the contrary" says the Devil "watch him take it apart and attempt to analyse it thereby rendering it useless!"

Why would analysis render any knowledge useless? Truth should be able to withstand scrutiny. Peer review and critical analysis are fundamental to scientific inquiry, in which theories are torn apart to make sure that they are not based on invalid suppositions or data.

0 Replies

Cyracuz wrote:

The foundation of science is devotion to god

Lunacy some would say, but not if we think of god as the primal forces of existence. God is the notion of everything as a singularity, as it is used here.

A scientist may study an atom and learn everything about it, but in order to do so he needs an atom to study. Where does this come from?
Everything is energy. There is not a thing in this world that is not energy in one form or another. But where is the source of all this energy? There has to be one, since energy cannot be separated from it's source. This source is also part of the term god.

Everything the scientist may study is brought forth by the god. He is himself a part of god. That is what I mean by the initial statement.

I am disregarding every religious use of the word god. Is there a scientific word that implies the same, as explained above? "all energy as a singularity, connected to it's source"

It is intellectually dishonest to attempt to define God into existence in this manner. The word "God" is inseparable from its religious connotations and generally refers to an intelligent being/force that intentionally created the universe and specifically life on earth. The word "Tao" comes closer to your idea, but your view of a mystical Source for everything in the universe is not useful to science.

Science is not devoted to anything. It is the body of knowledge accumulated through the process of inquiry into the workings of the universe. Scientists, however, may be devoted to a search for truth or a particular field of study.

We do not know what the ultimate source of matter/energy was, but the singularity theory is passé. The basis for all types of energy and matter may be infinitesimal strings, and our universe may be a 3-dimensional membrane in 10- or 11-dimensional multiverse. The big bang may have been the result of a collision of branes instead of a rapid expansion of a singularity in quantum foam.

0 Replies

Cyracuz wrote:

I am having a hard time deciding who's the more foolish, the christian for believing in what he doesn't understand, or the atheist, who defines it as an impossibility so that he can disregard it. One has courage, the other does not...

The god I am referring to here is the god that is referred to in krishna consiousness. Krishna means "all-attractive". This is not a god in the christian term of the word. There are no such gods. It is merely a term that implies that everything is inseparably connected. It is a term that is used when speaking of everything, in the same way the word "engine" is used about cylinder, combustion chamber, and cogs.

Atheists have a lot of reasons not to believe in gods, but defining God as an impossibility in order to disregard it is not one of them. Atheists do not choose not to believe in a God who might exist, they simply do not see any necessity or evidence for the existence of any of the thousands of supernatural deities defined by various religions, or any God that they can imagine.

How can you be so sure that there is NO God in the Christian sense?

Quote:

God is not a difficult term to understand. That it's hard is a misconception that has been cultivated by those who had something to gain from it.

Given the many complex and contrary views of the word "God" held by intelligent people, your statement makes no sense. You may understand "god" in terms of your simplistic view, but how do you KNOW that there is not a complex Supreme Being with all of the attributes ascribed to him by others?

0 Replies

Terry.

Your response above to the parable was not within the original Cyracuz terms of reference that "science" was equivalent to obtaining knowledge of "the whole". In that context analysis is deemed by the sages to be futile, and this is reiterated in modern systems theory by the problem of boundary specification in the assigning "significance" to sub-components (There are obvious links to nondualism here which we have pursued elsewhere).

We should note that Cyracuz has already rejected conventional Western concepts of "God" in favour of Krishna/Wholism. (This makes sense for theists who think Polkinghorne mentioned above is clutching at straws to maintain his concept of Christian God) On the other hand if Cyracuz wishes to continue to use the term "science" within a "devotional wholistic context" he may need to widen the definition of "science" to take into account the observer's urge to predict and control the observed as being hitherto constrictive.

0 Replies

Terry

Quote:

It may have been a common belief at one time, but "science" never stated that the world was flat.

Red herring fallacy- what was it a religious belief? What belief system does it fall under then? This would be a good thread to start in the forum!

Quote:

You picked a poor example since leeches are accepted and actually being used in modern medical practice to suck "bad blood" from grafted appendages

Red herring- Fine and dandy, but the point is that leeches are not being used the same way today as during the first documented instances of leech use. It is irrelevant that leeches are being used today with a new or revised theory for doing so. The point is that science does not appear to be correct in all instances, because theory can be ruled mute or altered.

Quote:

Why would analysis render any knowledge useless? Truth should be able to withstand scrutiny

Red herring- should, but the point of the particular post was to present that it might not. What is the point of disagreeing, if it does not apply to the overall topic?

Quote:

We do not know what the ultimate source of matter/energy was

Argumentum ad ignorantiam (argument to ignorance). If we do not know, it appears that "god" could be the source (a possibility)!

Quote:

It is intellectually dishonest to attempt to define God into existence in this manner. The word "God" is inseparable from its religious connotations and generally refers to an intelligent being/force that intentionally created the universe and specifically life on earth.

Argumentum ad logicam (appeal to logic)- at least this actually applies to the discussion at hand. Check out the def in a dictionary. It could be applicable to display the idea of god in this manner. Lets not get bogged down in linguistics.

Quote:

The word "Tao" comes closer to your idea, but your view of a mystical Source for everything in the universe is not useful to science.

At least this pertains to the topic at hand. This could be a valid point. Although, I think that the whole point is that science may in all actuality be studying god without actualizing it. I could be wrong! Tao, god, infinity, whatever it is just a matter of linguistics

Try and put all of these remarks into a cohesive analysis of the topic not a barrage of sidebars. Anyone can nit and pick at individual argument in a non-constructive manner (Straw man fallacy), but the challenge is to logically reason in a constructive manner on the way toward a conclusion about a certain subject of discussion. This type of non-constructive (Straw man logic) just distracts from those who are seeking enlightenment, further understanding, and etc.

Thanks for staying on subject! It is an interesting topic; lets keep it going!

0 Replies

Well, I do not know that there's no supreme being as described by christianity. What I do know, however, is that if there were such a being, and this being were to interfere with our existence, then everything in the religion about humanity's free will and the importance of our choices would be contradictory. If the god's walk the paths for us it is not a journey in freedom. That is why "jesus the divine creature who died for our sins" contradicts the message jesus would have across, that we must chose god. The notion of "jesus the man dying for our sins", now that's something. A human making such a sacrifice is worthy of praise.

Quote:

Atheists have a lot of reasons not to believe in gods, but defining God as an impossibility in order to disregard it is not one of them. Atheists do not choose not to believe in a God who might exist, they simply do not see any necessity or evidence for the existence of any of the thousands of supernatural deities defined by various religions, or any God that they can imagine.

In other words they accept the defenition provided by religious people and then disregard it. What about trying to understand what the therm might mean with learning on the agenda rather than the elimination of troublesome incoherent concepts. For my part, that's what I'm trying to do.

Quote:

How can you be so sure that there is NO God in the Christian sense?

I'm not. But these days a definition of christian might be "one who takes poetry literally". The god preached in the bible is the god I am talking about. Only, don't forget that the bible is a book that seeks to explain preternatural concepts using natural terms. It's a riddle, one that we may understand more accurately than in a very long time thanks to the advance of science.

Quote:

Given the many complex and contrary views of the word "God" held by intelligent people, your statement makes no sense. You may understand "god" in terms of your simplistic view, but how do you KNOW that there is not a complex Supreme Being with all of the attributes ascribed to him by others?

If these intelligent people had a political agenda, then their words are useless. If not, who's to say I'm not more intelligent? Not that I think I am, only, who's to say? Who are these intelligent people you're talking about by the way?

0 Replies

Quote:

That is why "jesus the divine creature who died for our sins" contradicts the message jesus would have across, that we must chose god.

The persuasion tactics of religion Rolling Eyes

OUT!!!!!!!!!!

0 Replies

???

0 Replies

Cyracuz my dear, if the foundation of science was devotion to God then neither would God find any grace and the foundation of science would lose its base!

0 Replies

"Science without religion is lame. Religion without science is blind."-Albert Einstein

0 Replies

It's very simple. In order to study the atom you first need an atom. This holds true for everything we can think of. In order to study something you need a subject to study.

Science didn't create atoms. Some unknown force did, and it is this force all science is deeply devoted to, regardless of what we call it.

0 Replies

The foundation of science is devotion to god

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know