Scientific Method is useless in religion?

[buddhist]

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.

I'm not arguing where these higher senses originate. Brain? Spirit? Soul? It doesn't ultimately matter to me. All I'm saying is that I know that they exist in myself and can be put to use.

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 can't trust in the claims of others, except to know it for myself through my own experience. It's not a matter of belief (in the abilities others), but in self-practice to know for one's self.

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.

I wouldn't say that the higher senses are "kept" for some, but that they are realized through persistent personal practice for anyone who achieve those states.

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)

You're applying criticisms which might be validly applied to faith-based religions, erroneously to early Buddhism - a non-faith-based religion. I have no idea what you can or cannot observe, and you have no idea what I can or cannot observe. It is a personal path which one can only prove to one's self, not to others (nor can we).

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!

No, the Buddha cannot prove it. The Buddha did not set out to prove anything, and no he cannot prove his observations. Again, the reason is this: early Buddhism is not about proving anything to others. These criticisms you might validly throw at faith-based religions are not valid against Buddhism, a non-faith-based religion.

"Proof" is another way of saying "show me why I should believe (or have faith in what you're saying)"; this "proof" is not applicable or necessary in early Buddhism since the emphasis is on acquired personal knowledge, so nothing is needed to be proven from one individual to another.

For example, one time the Buddha taught a lesson about what he observed to a group of his disciples. The Buddha asked his foremost disciple (Sariputta) if he (Sariputta) believed in what the Buddha was teaching. Sariputta responded "no, I do not believe in what you're teaching", and the Buddha praised him for his answer, understanding that Sariputta did not know that particular truth for himself - yet. The Buddha could not prove his observations to Sariputta; Sariputta needed to see it for himself.

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.

I don't differentiate between the "spiritual" vs "a change of mind", so I have no argument with you here.

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?

No, they are "holy" only in the sense that they can inspire others to seek what they found. Their recorded words are still up for debate until we prove them for ourselves.

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?

Perhaps there are other ways. All I can say is that I have followed the Buddha's Path, and I have tested, realized, and proven many of the early steps in his progressive Path for myself, and know for myself that it is true and useful. I cannot prove to you that it is true.

I hope you see my ongoing theme in this post - no I can't prove early Buddhism to you or anyone else. All I can say is that it works for me, and that I believe it because I have observed many of the Buddha's claims for myself; and so I invite you and others (like the Buddha did) to try the Buddha's Path out as well, to prove it for yourself.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

You're applying criticisms which might be validly applied to faith-based religions, erroneously to early Buddhism - a non-faith-based religion.

I see quite a lot of faith in your interpretation of Buddhism.

 

[DawudTalut]

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

These are observations. Ahmadiyya-Muslims see these fulfilling every day by divine grace.

 

[Thief]

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

that was not denial
no wonder you get lost in the debate

 

[McBell]

that was not denial
no wonder you get lost in the debate

Denying the denial.

Same old song and dance.

 

[Thief]

Denying the denial.

Same old song and dance.

try making a statement about the topic.....
instead of targeting me

 

[McBell]

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

Regards

I concur.
That is, until religion starts making science claims.
At that point, religion has invited science to evaluate and respond to their science claims.
And that is usually when religion starts whining.

 

[Thief]

that's better
but I don't agree......science is a discipline of thought

 

[Monk Of Reason]

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

Regards

Yes. I agree. Much in the same way physics isn't really all that useful in bad science fiction films.

Science was designed to observe the universe and the world around us. It is not equip to make sense of fictitious belief systems not based on facts and evidence.

 

[psychoslice]

that's better
but I don't agree......science is a discipline of thought

And what is religion, a discipline of imagination ?.

 

[Thief]

And what is religion, a discipline of imagination ?.

imagination is the problem solving part of the mind

you can resolve nothing......without it

 

[psychoslice]

imagination is the problem solving part of the mind

you can resolve nothing......without it

Ha, good try, but it just doesn't work that way with a man in the sky, imagination will never make him come true.

 

[Segev Moran]

imagination is the problem solving part of the mind

you can resolve nothing......without it

You mixed it up I Agree imagination is vital for problem solving.. but only for problems you haven't learned how to solve.
Imagination is a great way of thinking about possible thing to try..
Imagination is something that can "Get you going" towards finding a solution.. But it cannot provide you with the actual solution.
If you have a problem, Imagining the solution will solve nothing. it is only when you try, and test, and change and try again, will get an actual solution to a problem.

If you need to calculate the needed angle so a satellite can fly out to orbit, Imagining it doing so will provide you with nothing but many broken satellites It might, however, provide you with an Idea that might lead to the solution.

Imagine all the people, living life in peace No matter how much we imagine it, it will not solve anything unless we really address the problems.
cheers

 

[Thief]

You mixed it up I Agree imagination is vital for problem solving.. but only for problems you haven't learned how to solve.
Imagination is a great way of thinking about possible thing to try..
Imagination is something that can "Get you going" towards finding a solution.. But it cannot provide you with the actual solution.
If you have a problem, Imagining the solution will solve nothing. it is only when you try, and test, and change and try again, will get an actual solution to a problem.

If you need to calculate the needed angle so a satellite can fly out to orbit, Imagining it doing so will provide you with nothing but many broken satellites It might, however, provide you with an Idea that might lead to the solution.

Imagine all the people, living life in peace No matter how much we imagine it, it will not solve anything unless we really address the problems.
cheers

in matters of spirit.....all you can do is think about it

you must use your imagination
and your discipline of reason

you are not born to know how to stand before God and heaven

you have to think about it

 

[Willamena]

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

Regards

It has been designed for empiricism, nothing else.

 

[Willamena]

How do you feel about the fact that science has shown that the universe would still be the same if there was no deity?

That's begging the question.

 

[Segev Moran]

in matters of spirit.....all you can do is think about it

you must use your imagination
and your discipline of reason

you are not born to know how to stand before God and heaven

you have to think about it

Well.. Wrong again...
Walking is a natural instinct..
Its the same as a blink.. it is not something you really think about.
It is true however that the brain processes the action on its own, so if you consider brain activity as thought, that a whole different story.
But in general, there are many day to day activities that you are not "thinking" about, rather your brain automatically preforms the needed activities to make it happen.

 

[Thief]

Well.. Wrong again...
Walking is a natural instinct..
Its the same as a blink.. it is not something you really think about.
It is true however that the brain processes the action on its own, so if you consider brain activity as thought, that a whole different story.
But in general, there are many day to day activities that you are not "thinking" about, rather your brain automatically preforms the needed activities to make it happen.

poor comparisons.....
all you listed is terminal

I do not believe 7billion copies of a learning device all fail in the dust

no afterlife?.....not one chance in billions?

 

[Monk Of Reason]

poor comparisons.....
all you listed is terminal

I do not believe 7billion copies of a learning device all fail in the dust

no afterlife?.....not one chance in billions?

Just a note on chances. If something doesn't exist then it doesn't exist. It isn't about chances of one in a billion or one in 10^9999^9999. It either is or isn't. And such a thing isn't calculable in mathmatical probability.

 

[Skwim]

Scientific method is always useful. However, it commonly lacks the truthiness of religion...

Great word. It has ring of childhood language. "I don't know how to explain it, but it has truthiness."

Incorrect.

It is only "Useless" in religion because if used on religion it shows religious belief to be irrational.

Incorrect

It's useless in evaluating religion because religion is not amenable to its processes. It's like trying to evaluate poetry with a quadratic equation..




.