-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Scriptures & Science
- Thread starter metis
- Start date
dyanaprajna2011
Dharmapala
Sounds like a good idea to me. Science is based on observable and testable data, while religious scriptures are normally based on metaphysical speculation. So science should always take the priority.
Skwim
Veteran Member
I don't think it'll fly. I don't know much about Buddhism, but I would imagine its followers would be more inclined to stay with religious teachings rather than switch.
psychoslice
Veteran Member
I think he is right, to cling to a belief and never believing it will never change is ignorance, and damn right silly.
well science is definitely "better" for intellectual empirical knowledge
but at yhe end of the day science does not deal with the truth, it only deals with models
I disagree and would humbly propose both are exploring reality. it can be seen that religion and scripture is as empirical as science, but utilusing a more interior seeing, for islam thus would be Sufism....largely, but not solely.
I see science as the documentation and understanding of the phenomenon that govern our lives. Additionally I see Islam as a path and guideline to live our lives according to a reality beyond our understanding or comprehension.
Yes and no.
While I think the methods of science and religion are different, I think the goals are the same: to understand and explain our existence. Science is the "how" and religion/spirituality is the "why". They need not be mutually exclusive. They don't have to contradict each other and if one has a holy book that guides them, they can still have that while exploring and "believing" in science.
However, in my experience, this tends to only work for those who are A.) lenient with their holy texts (liberal interpretations, metaphor, etc.) or B.) think their (and all) holy books are 100% man-made; yet still find spiritual worth in them. People who are hardline literalists usually have a difficult time reconciling the two and if they were to have a choice between their holy book and science...I would say try to read said holy book in a non-literal manner and apply both science and religion to their lives.
While I think the methods of science and religion are different, I think the goals are the same: to understand and explain our existence. Science is the "how" and religion/spirituality is the "why". They need not be mutually exclusive. They don't have to contradict each other and if one has a holy book that guides them, they can still have that while exploring and "believing" in science.
However, in my experience, this tends to only work for those who are A.) lenient with their holy texts (liberal interpretations, metaphor, etc.) or B.) think their (and all) holy books are 100% man-made; yet still find spiritual worth in them. People who are hardline literalists usually have a difficult time reconciling the two and if they were to have a choice between their holy book and science...I would say try to read said holy book in a non-literal manner and apply both science and religion to their lives.
Last edited:
Shermana
Heretic
I think that "science" is not necessarily as concrete and objective as many people want to think, just as interpretations of scripture are not necessarily concrete and objective. What we think we know today may be overturned by new evidence tomorrow, and the "Evidence" we know today may be vastly misinterpreted, or outright based on fraudulent data, such as those trying to make a Sensation or name for themselves. And a lot of people seem to dismiss and brush aside the overwhelming industrial funding of what we call "Science" today.
Maimonides
- You must accept the truth from whatever source it comes.
- You will certainly not doubt the necessity of studying astronomy and physics, if you are desirous of comprehending the relation between the world and Providence as it is in reality, and not according to imagination.
- He, however, who begins with Metaphysics, will not only become confused in matters of religion, but will fall into complete infidelity.
Thief
Rogue Theologian
No problem....I believe in God because of science.
psychoslice
Veteran Member
Interesting, could I ask how does science prove God to you ?.
McBell
mantra-chanting henotheistic snake handler
What do you see the goals of science and religion being?
This ^
I'd add that
1) Most scientific research that is presented to the public is presented inaccurately, sometimes saying almost the opposite of what the study actually found
2) "Science" isn't really singular. Methods in different sciences differ drastically. One of the reasons I like my field is that it is peopled by everyone from philosophers to engineers (running the gamut to the absurdly impractical to the fully applied fields). Even how authors are listed in a paper changes. In mathematics, where there is rarely a paper authored by more than 3 people and quite frequently only 1 author, the names are listed alphabetically. There is no "lead author". In psychology...well, let's just say I know of a young woman who is listed as an author on half a dozen studies or doing literally nothing. She "managed" (sort of) phone calls and appointments for a lab, but did no research herself. Much like a god-awful study published in Current Biology with two of four authors having no scientific background whatsoever (one was actor Colin Firth). Basically, the larger the lab the more people who did virtually nothing get listed anyways.
3) The "scientific method" doesn't really exist as a singular and the version we all learn (even sometimes at the university level) is fundamentally inaccurate. For example, what determines whether a study is accepted is quite frequently how inline it is with current thinking, not evidence. A now-mainstream (if not consensus) view within the cognitive sciences is embodied cognition. It goes back at least to '87, but it wasn't until recently that it was fairly widely accepted. Why? It is fundamentally opposed to classical cognitive science, so much so that "big name" schools like Harvard and MIT are still churning out grad students who buy it because professors who have been entrenched in this position for decades keep teaching it while ignoring the opposition's view (except when they critique it).
4) A lot of the technical stuff that scientists publish is stuff that the authors don't actually know about. I remember being told what the "big name" fMRI textbook was early on after my undergrad days and buying it to read it. I found out that nobody else had read more than a few chapter. Here is the central tool we're using, and most of the people who use it don't just not know how it works, they'd have to take several classes or do a lot of studying to be able to understand how it works. The same goes for data analysis/statistics. The lead author of MBH98 & MBH99, Michael Mann, has a degree in applied mathematics or something (I think it's a master's). And his analysis was so problematic it required congressional hearings and more. It is very easy to run extremely sophisticated analyses and not really know what you are doing.
5) The peer review doesn't pick up on problems with data, with analyses (usually because it's hard to know how they're poor without having the data), or citations (because reviewers are too trusting).
6) Check out Retraction Watch.
metis
aged ecumenical anthropologist
Not if the followers actually follow dharma (teachings) because the Buddha stated that all teachings should be subject to careful scrutiny and not accepted if they defy experience and/or reason.
metis
aged ecumenical anthropologist
Referring to the part I underlined, this is exactly how science is supposed to work. We rarely use the word "prove" and its variations but more are apt to use the word "evidence" or its equivalent.
That is not caused by science but by some in science. BTW, scientific funding has been reduced over the last decade, which I believe is a huge mistake.
metis
aged ecumenical anthropologist
Thanks for this, JS.
Caladan
Agnostic Pantheist
Conflict in which way? science may conflict with scripture if one does not build a healthy ability for critical thinking. In my opinion, if you have the maturity, honesty, and critical approach to appreciate and study scriptures then you are less likely to fall into artificial conflicts.
Neither science nor scripture are dogma. I would say that when it comes to general hard sciences scriptures are not a substitute for science, and it is always healthy for believers to be mindful of that.
Also, I believe that greater than the Dalai Lama have said similar words.
I think an important question to ask oneself, is what do you want to get out of your scriptures of choice? What do you actually believe the scriptures can answer you, when we take into account all the information we have collected in the last couple of centuries? Are your expectations realistic? Are you honest in regards to your personal judgement and discretion when you read your specific scriptures? Do you apply the same discretion and judgment to other texts or sources?
metis
aged ecumenical anthropologist
Very nice post, imo.