Science and Faith

[Sky Dancer]

But does that not make science into a sort of 'god' or quasi deity to be worshipped and obeyed if science cannot be doubted or questioned? But then I lean toward that school of science for whom 'proof' and 'certainty' are very big words and almost non existence in the language.

That is why I say science and faith can coexist quite peacefully side by side so long as neither are presumed to be all that ends all. Neither can be proved by one person to another beyond any possibility of doubt except within very narrow parameters. And both leave open endless possibilities for new revelation and truth.

I respect the science that admits that anything not repeatable is not provable and therefore must be taken or not on faith. I respect the faith that guarantees my right to be wrong.

I respect the science that notes what is repeatable in one circumstance and environment and knows that such limited scope of experience may or may not be the same over the breadth and width of the entire universe. I respect the science that seeks to learn, explore, expand knowledge, and understand the universe and everything in it while appreciating that we now have a tiny fraction of all the science that there is to know.

What is faith other than belief in something larger than our own experience?

What is faith other than belief in something larger than our own experience? Faith can also be confidence that comes with scientific proof.

For example, I can say that I have faith or confidence in Buddhist meditation because it has helped me make changes in my mind and heart. That's a faith based statement on one person's anectdotal experience.

The brains of meditators have been scientifically studied and there is evidence of profound changes that occur as a result of meditation. That is the confidence that comes from proof that meditation benefits.

I had to be convinced that trying meditation would be of benefit before I started to meditate, kind of a faith that it may be helpful. Then, the results backed my faith or gave me confidence in Buddhist meditation.

 

[Sky Dancer]

In science, the theory of the conservation of matter and energy states that matter and energy can neither be created nor destroyed, only transformed. Buddhists totally agree and extend the principle to mind as well.

"Mind" in Buddhism means awareness of phenomena - either conscious or unconscious - and awareness of phenomena can neither be created nor destroyed, only transformed.

Particle physicists emphasize the role of the observer in defining anything. For example, from a certain point of view, light is matter; from another point of view, it is energy. What type of phenomenon light seems to exist as depends on many variables, particularly on the conceptual framework the investigator is using to analyze it. Thus, phenomena do not exist inherently as this or that from their own sides, unrelated to the consciousness that perceives them.

Buddhism asserts the same thing: what things exist as depends on the observer and the conceptual framework with which the personregards them. For example, whether a certain situation exists as a horrible problem or as something solvable depends on the observer, the person involved. If somebody has the conceptual framework, "This is an impossible situation and nothing can be done," then there really is a difficult problem that cannot be solved. However, with the frame of mind that thinks, "This is complicated and complex, but there is a solution if we approach it in a different way," then that person is much more open to try to find a solution. What is a huge problem for one person is not a big deal for another. It depends on the observer, for our problems do not inherently exist as monstrous problems. Thus, science and Buddhism come to the same conclusion: phenomena exist as this or that dependent on the observer.

Of course buddhists follow a cult leader. Right.....

Says who?

The Buddha didn't have a teacher.

 

[Foxfyre]

We'll just have to agree to disagree per usual, Sky. To me it takes no faith of any kind to believe what one believes due to experience or what one believes to be experience.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

I respect the science that admits that anything not repeatable is not provable and therefore must be taken or not on faith. I respect the faith that guarantees my right to be wrong.

I respect the science that notes what is repeatable in one circumstance and environment and knows that such limited scope of experience may or may not be the same over the breadth and width of the entire universe. I respect the science that seeks to learn, explore, expand knowledge, and understand the universe and everything in it while appreciating that we now have a tiny fraction of all the science that there is to know.

What is faith other than belief in something larger than our own experience?

What is faith other than belief in something larger than our own experience? Faith can also be confidence that comes with scientific proof.

For example, I can say that I have faith or confidence in Buddhist meditation because it has helped me make changes in my mind and heart. That's a faith based statement on one person's anectdotal experience.

The brains of meditators have been scientifically studied and there is evidence of profound changes that occur as a result of meditation. That is the confidence that comes from proof that meditation benefits.

I had to be convinced that trying meditation would be of benefit before I started to meditate, kind of a faith that it may be helpful. Then, the results backed my faith or gave me confidence in Buddhist meditation.

The exact same ambiguous results have been show to result from prayer. If you based your decision on trying meditation on the science that you are talking about you based your decision on speculation, not fact.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

In science, the theory of the conservation of matter and energy states that matter and energy can neither be created nor destroyed, only transformed. Buddhists totally agree and extend the principle to mind as well.

"Mind" in Buddhism means awareness of phenomena - either conscious or unconscious - and awareness of phenomena can neither be created nor destroyed, only transformed.

Particle physicists emphasize the role of the observer in defining anything. For example, from a certain point of view, light is matter; from another point of view, it is energy. What type of phenomenon light seems to exist as depends on many variables, particularly on the conceptual framework the investigator is using to analyze it. Thus, phenomena do not exist inherently as this or that from their own sides, unrelated to the consciousness that perceives them.

Buddhism asserts the same thing: what things exist as depends on the observer and the conceptual framework with which the personregards them. For example, whether a certain situation exists as a horrible problem or as something solvable depends on the observer, the person involved. If somebody has the conceptual framework, "This is an impossible situation and nothing can be done," then there really is a difficult problem that cannot be solved. However, with the frame of mind that thinks, "This is complicated and complex, but there is a solution if we approach it in a different way," then that person is much more open to try to find a solution. What is a huge problem for one person is not a big deal for another. It depends on the observer, for our problems do not inherently exist as monstrous problems. Thus, science and Buddhism come to the same conclusion: phenomena exist as this or that dependent on the observer.

Of course buddhists follow a cult leader. Right.....

Says who?

The Buddha didn't have a teacher.

Actually, he had several teachers as he undertook his spiritual journey. Try looking up the names Alara Kalame and Udraka Ramaputra sometime.

He also had teachers as the son of a king, and probably got some insight from them also.

 

[Cecilie1200]

I did when I was a Christian.

How do you reconcile the age of humanity and the vast proportion of our history that's NOT covered in the 10,000 year span since man was first given The Books?

"The Books" are written by men of faith, not men of science. "The Books" are in part an explanation/perception/understanding/expression of God's relationship with humankind expressed in law, history, prophecy, allegory, parable, metaphor, symbolism, teachings, imagery and poetry. Many, if not most, contained in the Old Testament are written from oral tradition spanning many generations and the language was limited to what they could express from their experience in their language. And a whole lot of it, in my opinion, was never intended to be taken literally by the scribes who penned the words. Such scribes had no information on, much less understanding of Neanderthal man.

The written Hebrew language was almost certainly patterned after the early Phoenician alphabet estimated to have been developed around 1000 BC. The oral tradition however spans millenia prior to that. A lot of territory to cover in the relatively few manuscripts that make up what we Christians call the "Old Testament".

The Old Testament ROCKS! Just being the oldest collection of writings that survive the checkered history of life on earth makes The Old Testament required reading. Excellent insight into the heart of Western Civilization. Probably what bound the Jews across time 'till 1947. Amazing story and documentation of ritual.

I'll admit I've not read it all ( Exodus ) but I dig the passion of The Psalms and Ruth is a book of action. I liked Kings, too.

I've always been partial to Ecclesiastes.

To every thing there is a season, and a time to every purpose under the heaven:
A time to be born, and a time to die; a time to plant, and a time to pluck up that which is planted;
A time to kill, and a time to heal; a time to break down, and a time to build up;
A time to weep, and a time to laugh; a time to mourn, and a time to dance;
A time to cast away stones, and a time to gather stones together; a time to embrace, and a time to refrain from embracing;
A time to get, and a time to lose; a time to keep, and a time to cast away;
A time to rend, and a time to sew; a time to keep silence, and a time to speak;
A time to love, and a time to hate; a time of war, and a time of peace. Ecclesiastes 3:1

 

[Foxfyre]

I did when I was a Christian.

How do you reconcile the age of humanity and the vast proportion of our history that's NOT covered in the 10,000 year span since man was first given The Books?

"The Books" are written by men of faith, not men of science. "The Books" are in part an explanation/perception/understanding/expression of God's relationship with humankind expressed in law, history, prophecy, allegory, parable, metaphor, symbolism, teachings, imagery and poetry. Many, if not most, contained in the Old Testament are written from oral tradition spanning many generations and the language was limited to what they could express from their experience in their language. And a whole lot of it, in my opinion, was never intended to be taken literally by the scribes who penned the words. Such scribes had no information on, much less understanding of Neanderthal man.

The written Hebrew language was almost certainly patterned after the early Phoenician alphabet estimated to have been developed around 1000 BC. The oral tradition however spans millenia prior to that. A lot of territory to cover in the relatively few manuscripts that make up what we Christians call the "Old Testament".

The Old Testament ROCKS! Just being the oldest collection of writings that survive the checkered history of life on earth makes The Old Testament required reading. Excellent insight into the heart of Western Civilization. Probably what bound the Jews across time 'till 1947. Amazing story and documentation of ritual.

I'll admit I've not read it all ( Exodus ) but I dig the passion of The Psalms and Ruth is a book of action. I liked Kings, too.

Yes it is all there: pathos, tragedy, suspense, drama, comedy relief, love, hate, murder, triumpth, betrayal, fear, longing, hope, redemption--all the great stuff of the stories of humankind.

Unfortunately, in the editing process that put what we call the "Old Testament" together, a lot of it isn't in chronological order. The second chapter of Genesis for instance--Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden is one of the older manuscripts while the first "In the beginning. . ." chaper of Genesis is one of the youngest manuscripts included. In grouping the wisdom literature and poetry all together, the histories all together, the prophets all together, etc., quite a bit of it is out of sequence.

It is even more fascinating, interesting, and enlightening when studied in chronological order as the people of God evolved from the ancient Hebrews to the First Century A.D. Jews. Knowing the dates of the New Testament writings--most especially whether they were before or after the destruction of the Temple in Jerusalem--puts these in a somewhat different light as well.

 

[AVG-JOE]

"The Books" are written by men of faith, not men of science. "The Books" are in part an explanation/perception/understanding/expression of God's relationship with humankind expressed in law, history, prophecy, allegory, parable, metaphor, symbolism, teachings, imagery and poetry. Many, if not most, contained in the Old Testament are written from oral tradition spanning many generations and the language was limited to what they could express from their experience in their language. And a whole lot of it, in my opinion, was never intended to be taken literally by the scribes who penned the words. Such scribes had no information on, much less understanding of Neanderthal man.

The written Hebrew language was almost certainly patterned after the early Phoenician alphabet estimated to have been developed around 1000 BC. The oral tradition however spans millenia prior to that. A lot of territory to cover in the relatively few manuscripts that make up what we Christians call the "Old Testament".

The Old Testament ROCKS! Just being the oldest collection of writings that survive the checkered history of life on earth makes The Old Testament required reading. Excellent insight into the heart of Western Civilization. Probably what bound the Jews across time 'till 1947. Amazing story and documentation of ritual.

I'll admit I've not read it all ( Exodus ) but I dig the passion of The Psalms and Ruth is a book of action. I liked Kings, too.

I've always been partial to Ecclesiastes.

To every thing there is a season, and a time to every purpose under the heaven:
A time to be born, and a time to die; a time to plant, and a time to pluck up that which is planted;
A time to kill, and a time to heal; a time to break down, and a time to build up;
A time to weep, and a time to laugh; a time to mourn, and a time to dance;
A time to cast away stones, and a time to gather stones together; a time to embrace, and a time to refrain from embracing;
A time to get, and a time to lose; a time to keep, and a time to cast away;
A time to rend, and a time to sew; a time to keep silence, and a time to speak;
A time to love, and a time to hate; a time of war, and a time of peace. Ecclesiastes 3:1

Oldest lyrics in Rock History.


Good stuff!

 

[Sky Dancer]

Of course buddhists follow a cult leader. Right.....

Says who?

The Buddha didn't have a teacher.

Actually, he had several teachers as he undertook his spiritual journey. Try looking up the names Alara Kalame and Udraka Ramaputra sometime.

He also had teachers as the son of a king, and probably got some insight from them also.

The Buddha mastered the austerity techniques of those two yogis and others. He left them behind for he knew they did not have the answer he sought.

The Buddha had no teacher for His Enlightenment. His knowledge of the secrets of all existence was realized by himself through his own intuitive wisdom.

 

[edthecynic]

"The Books" are written by men of faith, not men of science. "The Books" are in part an explanation/perception/understanding/expression of God's relationship with humankind expressed in law, history, prophecy, allegory, parable, metaphor, symbolism, teachings, imagery and poetry. Many, if not most, contained in the Old Testament are written from oral tradition spanning many generations and the language was limited to what they could express from their experience in their language. And a whole lot of it, in my opinion, was never intended to be taken literally by the scribes who penned the words. Such scribes had no information on, much less understanding of Neanderthal man.

The written Hebrew language was almost certainly patterned after the early Phoenician alphabet estimated to have been developed around 1000 BC. The oral tradition however spans millenia prior to that. A lot of territory to cover in the relatively few manuscripts that make up what we Christians call the "Old Testament".

The Old Testament ROCKS! Just being the oldest collection of writings that survive the checkered history of life on earth makes The Old Testament required reading. Excellent insight into the heart of Western Civilization. Probably what bound the Jews across time 'till 1947. Amazing story and documentation of ritual.

I'll admit I've not read it all ( Exodus ) but I dig the passion of The Psalms and Ruth is a book of action. I liked Kings, too.

Yes it is all there: pathos, tragedy, suspense, drama, comedy relief, love, hate, murder, triumpth, betrayal, fear, longing, hope, redemption--all the great stuff of the stories of humankind.

Unfortunately, in the editing process that put what we call the "Old Testament" together, a lot of it isn't in chronological order. The second chapter of Genesis for instance--Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden is one of the older manuscripts while the first "In the beginning. . ." chaper of Genesis is one of the youngest manuscripts included. In grouping the wisdom literature and poetry all together, the histories all together, the prophets all together, etc., quite a bit of it is out of sequence.

It is even more fascinating, interesting, and enlightening when studied in chronological order as the people of God evolved from the ancient Hebrews to the First Century A.D. Jews. Knowing the dates of the New Testament writings--most especially whether they were before or after the destruction of the Temple in Jerusalem--puts these in a somewhat different light as well.

[ame=http://www.amazon.com/Narrated-Bible-Chronological-Order-NIV/dp/0736902392]Amazon.com: The Narrated Bible in Chronological Order (NIV) (9780736902397): F. LaGard Smith: Books[/ame]

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Says who?

The Buddha didn't have a teacher.

Actually, he had several teachers as he undertook his spiritual journey. Try looking up the names Alara Kalame and Udraka Ramaputra sometime.

He also had teachers as the son of a king, and probably got some insight from them also.

The Buddha mastered the austerity techniques of those two yogis and others. He left them behind for he knew they did not have the answer he sought.

The Buddha had no teacher for His Enlightenment. His knowledge of the secrets of all existence was realized by himself through his own intuitive wisdom.

Charles Finney went in the woods and prayed so hard for enlightenment that he melted the snow he was kneeling in.

There are loads of stories about people and their methods of enlightenment. Most of them claim to be self enlightened, yet only one has ever actually not had any teachers.

Jesus.

 

[amrchaos]

Have you ever watched "The Universe?"

Spontaneous Generation has already been proven in a Laboratory.

scientists can't even reviving a dead fly!

Hear something funny

I have yet to see a Christian revive anything dead.

But some of them are always claiming they can through faith....hmm

 

[edthecynic]

Have you ever watched "The Universe?"

Spontaneous Generation has already been proven in a Laboratory.

scientists can't even reviving a dead fly!

Hear something funny

I have yet to see a Christian revive anything dead.

But some of them are always claiming they can through faith....hmm

Religion: Raising Eyebrows and the Dead - TIME

So far, 1987 has been a checkered and chastening year for the Rev. Oral Roberts, 69. Last January the Tulsa-based TV evangelist announced that if he did not receive $8 million from donors by March 31, God would "call me home." The money was raised, but Roberts' dramatic ultimatum provoked widespread derision. He drew additional gibes by declaring that his wife Evelyn had come to his rescue when the devil visited his bedroom and tried to strangle him. Then, in May, Roberts mailed 1 million packets of "healing" water to followers, advising them to use it to "anoint your billfold" to solve money problems and "anoint your body" to allay physical ills.
The controversy produced by those episodes, however, has been overshadowed by Roberts' latest extraordinary claim: God has used him to raise the dead. Before an audience of 6,000 at Oral Roberts University, the evangelist said, "I've had to stop a sermon, go back and raise a dead person," adding good-naturedly, "It did improve my altar call that night." Roberts provided no details. Later his son Richard, 38, expanded the revivification claim, asserting that in 50 or 60 cases Oral and other ministers had raised the dead.

 

[ABikerSailor]

OF COURSE Oral Roberts is able to "raise the dead"...........

He takes Viagra.

 

[AVG-JOE]

OF COURSE Oral Roberts is able to "raise the dead"...........

He takes Viagra.

R i i i i i i i i i i i i i ght.

Like anyone's going to take a pulse and prove him wrong...​

Eww!

 

[konkon]

I wonder what led the person quoted to believe they know the only two possibilities for the beginning of life?

I agree. We don't really know as much as we think we know. To make conclusions and be satisfied with those conclusions now (in the year 2011) would be wrong. Imagine the conclusions that the future of mankind will come-up with in, let's say, the year 2111 or 3011. Sure there will be disagreements then too, but to say that we know the truth about something so complex now would be wrong.