Scientific Method is useless in religion?

[Guy Threepwood]

I'd say science, the method, leads unambiguously to a conclusion of ID, higher power, God, religion

Science, the academic, political, pop culture belief system..tends more towards some sort of magical random lotto tumbler creating everything we see around us

 

[McBell]

I'd say science, the method, leads unambiguously to a conclusion of ID, higher power, God, religion

Science, the academic, political, pop culture belief system..tends more towards some sort of magical random lotto tumbler creating everything we see around us

Of course you would.
But then, your posting history reveals you know less that a crickets fart about science.

 

[Thief]

You see that would work if you could prove that the universe was a creation.

Also BTW I could say that a deity cannot be either.

there will never be any proof

other than science that would insist...as do I....
substance will remain at rest until moved by something else

that 'something else'....would have to be...Spirit

 

[McBell]

there will never be any proof

other than science that would insist...as do I....
substance will remain at rest until moved by something else

that 'something else'....would have to be...Spirit

Still trying to foist the claim that science agrees with your wishful thinking?

 

[Thief]

Still trying to foist the claim that science agrees with your wishful thinking?

I think you mean....hoist

 

[gnostic]

Scientific Method is useless in religion?

As its name suggests it is useful in science only. It has not been designed for religion. Right?

You are stating the obvious, paarsurrey.

Deities, spirits, angels, demons, or jinns for Islam, heaven and hell, revelations (or prophecies), resurrection and reincarnations, the so-called "miracles", etc, these are all the things that cannot be verified or tested through observations, experiments or evidences, hence these are all untestable and unfalsifiable.

What is untestable and unfalsifiable, would make any of them unscientific.

Also unfalsifiable and unscientific is the Abrahamic religions' 6-day creation, creating man out of clay, a number of patriarchs living to 900+ years, global flood and Noah's ark, talking serpent, donkey or ants, prolonging the day by stopping the sun (Joshua's battle).

So yes, you can't use on many of the narratives of the Bible or the Qur'an, as science. It would be pointless to use scientific method in the above list.

To put it in the nutshell for you, religion ISN'T science, and science ISN'T religion.

There are something mentioned in some parts of scriptures that may or may not be of historical significances...but history is also not science. And those historical references, are very few and far between.

Muhammad meeting with Gabriel, or so he claimed, isn't scientific; it is not even historical, because no one can prove that such a meeting took place. It is just on Muhammad's words. Not even Muhammad's closet companions ever seen this angel.

 

[McBell]

I think you mean....hoist

Nope.
Foist is most definitely the right word.

 

[DawudTalut]

And what is divine support?

1=Saving from evil people, and giving success in mission against all odds.
2=Steady growth.
3=Peace and tranquility for those join.
4=Spread of goodness in society through them.
5=Goodness in homes, families, children, lives.
6=Bliss.
-
-
-

 

[psychoslice]

Any method is useless in religion, religion is all based on stories, and that is all.

 

[Thief]

Any method is useless in religion, religion is all based on stories, and that is all.

good story can have good results

 

[Segev Moran]

Personal, direct observation was what the Buddha taught; for example:

• "When you know for yourselves that, "These qualities are unskillful; these qualities are blameworthy; these qualities are criticized by the wise; these qualities, when adopted & carried out, lead to harm & to suffering" — then you should abandon them.'" AN 3.65
• "The Dhamma is well-expounded by the Blessed One, to be seen here & now, timeless, inviting verification, pertinent, to be realized by the wise for themselves." AN 3.70

As commonly claimed in other religions, the "word of a god" is revealed to special prophets in history which non-prophets must believe on blind faith. We have no way of directly knowing or verifying these utterances for ourselves, as these revelations are fixed in space and time, and given only to a special people group (e.g. prophets, priests, ethnic people group, hierarchies, etc.)

On the other hand, early Buddhism is based on universal, timeless truths which the Buddha himself observed and realized, the same truths which he calls his disciples to observe and realize for ourselves as well. Whatever the Awakened One observed, he calls us to observe and awaken to the very same things in the "here & now", the Laws of Reality which are "timeless" and invites "verification", to be "realized" and "known" by the "wise for themselves".

In his search and struggle for enlightenment and freedom from dukkha/suffering (the core problem which drives all the activities of humanity - the search for gods, saviors, food, sex, entertainment, etc.), the Buddha made Observations regarding various physical and mental states, developed testable predictions regarding various ascetic practices, and then subjected himself to those practices. He eliminated the practices which did not bring him to nibbana (total unbinding, freedom from dukkha), and presented his "General Theory" - the Dhamma - which he taught to his disciples. The same Dhamma which he realized, he invites us to test and realize for ourselves, to reach the same level of enlightenment and freedom which he himself did. In such a way, he practiced the scientific method.

(Note that many forms of late "Buddhisms" which developed centuries later have essentially morphed into religions which depend on blind-faith in various celestial-"savior" Buddhas or Bodhisattvas with established hierarchies, so I think an important distinguishing must be made between late and early Buddhism).

That's very interesting..
Can you explain for example how he knew things about afterlife? for example when you say things that are outside time and space, how could he know they are outside time and space?
I Highly value Buddah's ideas.
I Think meditation and "internal examination" are important things for humans..
Yet i can't see how one's POV can be stated as truth?

Are there any Holy things in Buddhism?
Are there Holy books?

Is it possible that whats right for Buddha is not necessarily right for someone else?

 

[viole]

Of course you would.
But then, your posting history reveals you know less that a crickets fart about science.

May I reuse the "crickets fart" analogy, or is that copyrighted?

Ciao

- viole

 

[buddhist]

That's very interesting..
Can you explain for example how he knew things about afterlife? for example when you say things that are outside time and space, how could he know they are outside time and space?
I Highly value Buddah's ideas.
I Think meditation and "internal examination" are important things for humans..
Yet i can't see how one's POV can be stated as truth?

As I interpret early Buddhism, it teaches that the Eightfold Path, and specifically meditation, is the process of accessing higher modes of self which allows the associated higher senses to activate. These higher senses can then be used to observe and control things which the natural man might claim to be miraculous or metaphysical (e.g. things about time, space, the afterlife, etc.)

I would compare that process to a baby learning to grasp and make sense of his five physical senses. At first, a baby with undeveloped senses sees the physical world in a dream-like state. After he has mastered his physical senses into adulthood, he is then able to go on to observe and control the physical world around him, doing things which might seem miraculous to someone who is in a lesser stage of development - e.g. a baby or child.

IMO early Buddhism teaches that we need to continue that process of self-development to access even higher states than "ordinary adulthood", so we can observe and control the so-called "higher realms" that are around us - realms which we might perceive as dream-like or imaginary for now, in our undeveloped state. So, early Buddhism teaches that self development does not end at adulthood, even though most "ordinary adults" tend to stop at that point.

I believe the Buddha walked this progressive Path and reached the pinnacle of "self-development" as an Arahant. With such development, IMO he gained limited omniscience and had the ability to observe and control all of the different levels of reality throughout time and space, far beyond what we "ordinary adults" can normally see. He then simply communicated his observations to the rest of us, and encouraged us to follow the same Path he did so we can personally and directly experience and know what he experienced and knew.

Are there any Holy things in Buddhism? Are there Holy books?

The relics of the Buddha and his arahant disciples are considered "holy" on some level, in that they invoke inspiration and faith in his disciples to walk the Path. The Buddha's words as recorded in the Tipitaka are often considered "holy" too, as the primary inspired commentary on the Laws of Reality. The living disciples who have achieved one of the four primary levels of "sainthood" are also considered living examples of holiness.

Is it possible that whats right for Buddha is not necessarily right for someone else?

What do you mean?

 

[McBell]

May I reuse the "crickets fart" analogy, or is that copyrighted?

Ciao

- viole

use away

 

[ENTP Logician]

there will never be any proof

other than science that would insist...as do I....
substance will remain at rest until moved by something else

that 'something else'....would have to be...Spirit

Incorrect again.

First of all, there is no substance at rest.

Second of all, if there was at one point and something caused it to move. Then the thing that caused it to move would be unknown, that does ot mean that you can wildly assume what that was just to try to justify your religion.

 

[ENTP Logician]

1=Saving from evil people, and giving success in mission against all odds.
2=Steady growth.
3=Peace and tranquility for those join.
4=Spread of goodness in society through them.
5=Goodness in homes, families, children, lives.
6=Bliss.
-
-
-

And let me guess the person who defined what these are is the same person who claimed to fulfill them?

 

[psychoslice]

good story can have good results

Yes some stories can have good results, but there still stories.

 

[Thief]

Incorrect again.

First of all, there is no substance at rest.

Second of all, if there was at one point and something caused it to move. Then the thing that caused it to move would be unknown, that does ot mean that you can wildly assume what that was just to try to justify your religion.

that 'thing unknown' would be God

btw.....as a rogue theologian I don't have a reilgion

 

[McBell]

btw.....as a rogue theologian I don't have a reilgion

There it is!
That oh so cute denial....

 

[Segev Moran]

As I interpret early Buddhism, it teaches that the Eightfold Path, and specifically meditation, is the process of accessing higher modes of self which allows the associated higher senses to activate.

Higher senses? Like hearing angels? seeing auras and such?
There is now objective study that shows that any of these senses are genuine, but even if there was, who says its not an ability to use more brain power than someone else? Takes animals for example.. they have all the senses you can think of.. seeing magnetic fields, hearing a needle drop from a long distance, seeing a mouse from a mile away, smelling a tiny fraction of food from long distances, omitting super high sound waves and have a natural radar and dozens of senses that for us humans are numb.
our brain is a great puzzle, assuming everything we yet understand about it is a spiritual thing is pretending to know something you don't.

Is it possible that even if
These higher senses can then be used to observe and control things which the natural man might claim to be miraculous or metaphysical (e.g. things about time, space, the afterlife, etc.)

Thousands of people claimed to posses telekinetic powers, levitation abilities, telepathic abilities... non of the test subject that were ever tested in a controlled objective environment have yet to prove any abnormal ability, so how can you trust that the claims to know about something one can never know if it true, is really true?

I would compare that process to a baby learning to grasp and make sense of his five physical senses. At first, a baby with undeveloped senses sees the physical world in a dream-like state. After he has mastered his physical senses into adulthood, he is then able to go on to observe and control the physical world around him, doing things which might seem miraculous to someone who is in a lesser stage of development - e.g. a baby or child.

Yet all babies (Excluding some mutations or defects) naturally learn to see, smell, feel, taste and hear... but the one most important sense is only kept for some? very interesting.
what makes you and me different? why can you see things I can't?
And if you say I don't believe, please don't because I had my share of "spiritual" experiences (much more than you can imagine)

I believe the Buddha walked this progressive Path and reached the pinnacle of "self-development" as an Arahant. With such development, IMO he gained limited omniscience and had the ability to observe and control all of the different levels of reality throughout time and space, far beyond what we "ordinary adults" can normally see.

The short response is.. Can he prove it? If the answer is yes, than EVERYONE or at least Most of the people would be convinced of hes ways!
Just like Christians claim they have proof of Jesus being the son of God! If there was an undeniable proof, there will be no Atheists!

He then simply communicated his observations to the rest of us, and encouraged us to follow the same Path he did so we can personally and directly experience and know what he experienced and knew.

There are Endless of coachers and trainers that inspire and help people on a daily basis! they provide people with some of their experience and understandings of psychology and they inspire and bring people to wonderful feelings... That's not a proof of them being holy, most of the times they will do it with a hole other set of tools than Buddhism or many other religions... yet this does not consider to be a spiritual thing rather a change of mind set. they teach people to better analyse their situations and react accordingly...
they adapt and change based on the social and cultural state of humans...there is no true way to coache someone! how is religion different than coaching with the difference of religion being based on myth and speculations.

The relics of the Buddha and his arahant disciples are considered "holy" on some level, in that they invoke inspiration and faith in his disciples to walk the Path. The Buddha's words as recorded in the Tipitaka are often considered "holy" too,

And here is the problem.. when you say that someone's word is holy, this means it is an undisputed truth...how is that something that is based on evidence and proof?

What do you mean?

I Mean you say Buddha came up with the way to "enlightenment"...
Do you believe this is the only way? Do you think there might be people that it will cause them quite the opposite form enlightenment?