Scientific Analysis/Faith

[fantome profane]

This is a quote from the Dalai Lama, taken from “The Universe In A Single Atom”.

if scientific analysis were conclusively to demonstrate certain claims in Buddhism to be false, then we must accept the findings of science and abandon those claims.

So I would like to know what you all think about this. Do you agree? If scientific analysis showed some of your religious beliefs to be false, would you abandon those beliefs? Or would your faith come before science? Does your faith transcend the limits of science?

 

[Sunstone]

It seems to me that faith is more of a spiritual vehicle, a means of achieving something, than a quasi science. So, I'm unsure how apt it is to compare the two things, faith and science, without much qualification. It is most likely an abuse of faith to require of it to explain the world in some scientific sense.

 

[Hacker]

This is a quote from the Dalai Lama, taken from “The Universe In A Single Atom”.



So I would like to know what you all think about this. Do you agree? If scientific analysis showed some of your religious beliefs to be false, would you abandon those beliefs? Or would your faith come before science? Does your faith transcend the limits of science?

The only ways science could disprove my beliefs is proving to me that they can create another human being(without cloning) and create matter from scratch(which is very hard to imagine ).

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

It seems to me that faith is more of a spiritual vehicle, a means of achieving something, than a quasi science. So, I'm unsure how apt it is to compare the two things, faith and science, without much qualification. It is most likely an abuse of faith to require of it to explain the world in some scientific sense.

A non-answer ...

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

The only ways science could disprove my beliefs is proving to me that they can create another human being(without cloning) and create matter from scratch(which is very hard to imagine ).

A non-answer ...

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

This is a quote from the Dalai Lama, taken from “The Universe In A Single Atom”.

if scientific analysis were conclusively to demonstrate certain claims in Buddhism to be false, then we must accept the findings of science and abandon those claims.

So I would like to know what you all think about this. Do you agree?

Yes - the Dali Lama is a remarkable person.

 

[Quiddity]

I would deffinately struggle, but I think I would. Fortunately (or unfortunately) it hasn't happened. And I can see it happening either. Unless science decides to expand it's scope, I don't see it happening in my faith.

 

[uumckk16]

This is a quote from the Dalai Lama, taken from “The Universe In A Single Atom”.

I love him

So I would like to know what you all think about this. Do you agree? If scientific analysis showed some of your religious beliefs to be false, would you abandon those beliefs? Or would your faith come before science? Does your faith transcend the limits of science?

Like Victor said, I would struggle. I think most people would - it's hard to let go of deeply held convictions. But I would definitely have to agree with science. I don't believe in the Flying Spaghetti Monster because scientific evidence directly contradicts it. It would be the same for anything else.

 

[fantome profane]

It seems to me that faith is more of a spiritual vehicle, a means of achieving something, than a quasi science. So, I'm unsure how apt it is to compare the two things, faith and science, without much qualification. It is most likely an abuse of faith to require of it to explain the world in some scientific sense.

Perhaps faith is the wrong word to use. Would it make any difference to you if we used the term beliefs instead of faith? Or if we used the term “world view”, if science showed some part of your “world view” to be wrong would you abandon that part of your “world view”? The Dalia Lama talks about “claims” of Buddhism. Are all these words interchangeable?

The only ways science could disprove my beliefs is proving to me that they can create another human being(without cloning) and create matter from scratch(which is very hard to imagine ).

Does this reflect the sum total of your belief system? Are all of your beliefs concerned solely with the creation of human beings? Is there absolutely no part of your beliefs that you can imagine being falsified by scientific analysis?

I would deffinately struggle, but I think I would. Fortunately (or unfortunately) it hasn't happened. And I can see it happening either. Unless science decides to expand it's scope, I don't see it happening in my faith.

Good honest answer.

Like Victor said, I would struggle. I think most people would - it's hard to let go of deeply held convictions. But I would definitely have to agree with science. I don't believe in the Flying Spaghetti Monster because scientific evidence directly contradicts it. It would be the same for anything else.

But how can you know that the Flying Spaghetti Monster isn’t changing those scientific results with his great noodly appendages?

 

[Fluffy]

No - science is equivilant to faith. However, I would accept what my perceptions told me on faith than what my emotions told me on faith.

 

[JerryL]

No - science is equivilant to faith. However, I would accept what my perceptions told me on faith than what my emotions told me on faith.

It's also worth noting that no one has come to any of the worlds religions living in a sensory deprivation tank. There really isn't anyone who fails to accept emperical experience as real. If it's a faith, it's a universal one.

 

[Fluffy]

It's also worth noting that no one has come to any of the worlds religions living in a sensory deprivation tank. There really isn't anyone who fails to accept emperical experience as real. If it's a faith, it's a universal one.

I don't disagree with that.

 

[michel]

This is a quote from the Dalai Lama, taken from “The Universe In A Single Atom”.



So I would like to know what you all think about this. Do you agree? If scientific analysis showed some of your religious beliefs to be false, would you abandon those beliefs? Or would your faith come before science? Does your faith transcend the limits of science?

There is nothing in this world that is "True" or "False" (except in mathematics and computing). The way I follow my faith needs no proof to substantiate it for me. If it was proved tomorrow that Christ -for sake of example - failed in the excecution of a miracle, it would not make one iota of difference to me.

Reason makes it unlikely that there is a deity; all the arguments from atheists stand up rather well. While God is not visible, nor measurable, there is no doubt in mind of the evidence of his 'art' in life. That is enough for me.

 

[Random]

Religion or faith must be informed by the truth of Reality as it is so Scientific empiricism is part of that, but Science does not address many of the questions faith requires answered. It can, should and probably does impact your worldview certainly though. The Dalai Lama was brave to say what he said, even though it is only consistent with Buddhist teaching.

 

[Tiberius]

No - science is equivilant to faith. However, I would accept what my perceptions told me on faith than what my emotions told me on faith.

No it's not. Science has testable, repeatable and falsifiable evidence to back it up. Faith does not.

 

[Sunstone]

Perhaps faith is the wrong word to use. Would it make any difference to you if we used the term beliefs instead of faith? Or if we used the term “world view”, if science showed some part of your “world view” to be wrong would you abandon that part of your “world view”? The Dalia Lama talks about “claims” of Buddhism. Are all these words interchangeable?

Science is constantly requiring me to modify and update my understanding of the world. Is there some chance that answers your question?

 

[Sunstone]

No - science is equivilant to faith. However, I would accept what my perceptions told me on faith than what my emotions told me on faith.

In what sense or way is science equivalent to faith?

 

[Fluffy]

In what sense or way is science equivalent to faith?

Science is a closed belief system that can only be accepted by assuming its foundations. Descartes showed why we have no reason to trust our perceptions (his subsequent attempts to provide some sort of foundation no longer convince me).

No it's not. Science has testable, repeatable and falsifiable evidence to back it up. Faith does not.

That is to be expected surely. I can do the exact same thing by writing a book and placing many variations of "the contents of this book is true" within that book. If I accept the book as true then I will find much supporting evidence within its covers for my belief. That does not disguise the circularity of this logic, however.

So assuming you accept the above, why do you feel that upon rejecting empirical data as true, empirical data can then validate its own validity?

If there is reason for accepting sensory data to be true without the assumption of it being true in the first place then I will accept that this belief and scientific belief is a matter of reason and not faith.

Anyways, whilst whether science is equivilant to faith was rather central to how I answered the question, I am unsure whether that was where Sunstone intended this thread to go so, unless he doesn't mind, I think that discussion should be saved for a different thread.

 

[Tiberius]

I really don't see how being able to test ideas in a scientific manner is the same as having a book which says, "I swear I am true!"

 

[akshar]

Religion is for spirituality not science, although many religous scriptures have explained many scientific facts which appear to be true, i would not abandon my faith if i found some uncorrect scientific facts...