1. 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!

Featured Where did you get that from?

Discussion in 'Interfaith Discussion' started by Seeker of White Light, Jan 13, 2022 at 1:27 AM.

  1. Seeker of White Light

    Seeker of White Light Think before you speak....so stay silent.

    Joined:
    Nov 25, 2018
    Messages:
    22,341
    Ratings:
    +17,495
    Religion:
    Sufism
    This is a question i got in a religious discussion, and it made me think.

    How do scientists get much of their know knowledge before they are finished at University?

    Do they not get examples and material from other scientists who studied the field before them?
    Or do each scientist suddenly have their understanding of all the scientific material they need to understand what they see in front of them?

    Why is it different when a spiritual person say.

    It is written in the scriptures or through my teacher i have gained this understanding.

    How is it different than any scientist learing his/her field?
     
  2. mikkel_the_dane

    mikkel_the_dane Shadow Wolf's Aspie sibling

    Joined:
    Dec 14, 2018
    Messages:
    10,378
    Ratings:
    +2,631
    Religion:
    The Wrong One
    Okay, here is one answer using, biology sociology and psychology in the Western secular tradition using in part this version of science by a scientist:
    "...
    Towards the end of his talk to the science teachers Feynman attempted a definition of science, but
    then hesitated, noting from his own experience that science is neither its form nor its content. He did not
    characterize science as a particular method, though while that is one of the many ways science develops,
    it is itself not what science is. He finally answered the question, ‘what Is science’ this way, that it is,
    “...the result of the discovery that it is worthwhile rechecking by new direct experience, and not
    necessarily trusting the [human] race[‘s] experience from the past. I see it that way. That is my best
    definition.”
    (2005, p. 185) And then he went on to tell them, “…learn from science that you must doubt
    the experts…When someone says science teaches such and such, he is using the word incorrectly. Science
    doesn’t teach it; experience teaches it.” (Feynman, 2005, p. 187)
    ..."

    So let us take a baby. If that baby is lucky enough:
    • she is born without to serious physical/cognitive defects, which will enable her to have a normal life.
    • she is brought up with nurture without getting any cognitive/psychological defects, which...
    • she is given formal training which allows her to learn to recheck all claims of experience including those she learned before she had learned how to recheck experiences, then she will become a de facto generalist in a general sense
    Here is the joke. She doesn't have to learn to do the 3rd one. She only has to be lucky enough, when it comes to the 2 first ones.
    And then she can be lucky enough to live a full life and die of old age.
    But and here is the but. If she claims to know how the world works in general terms, she might overlook something.
    Namely that the culture she is brought up in, is not the world as such. She is adapted to function in a given culture, but that is not humanity and the world as such.

    So what is it that all posters here do ;). Well, we all recheck our own nurture and culture and don't just do it for everybody else. We with reason. logic, evidence and all that jazz have learned to recheck all past experiences including our own and know how to do that, :D

    There is a lot more for how to learn to do that. And no, you don't have to learn it. You just have to learn to cope in your life as your life and your culture.

    Regards
    Mikkel
     
    #2 mikkel_the_dane, Jan 13, 2022 at 2:20 AM
    Last edited: Jan 13, 2022 at 10:21 AM
    • Friendly Friendly x 1
    • Useful Useful x 1
  3. Kooky

    Kooky Freedom from Sanity

    Joined:
    Dec 14, 2020
    Messages:
    5,208
    Ratings:
    +3,103
    The difference is that there is no strict one-on-one relation that is required for students to know anything about their subject; there are third party authorities students can consult, such as text books and other courses.

    Students at university aren't dependent on a single teacher to tell them what they are supposed to know, they can learn independently or with different teachers. Before I graduated with my MA in Philosophy, I attended classes by about 20-ish different teachers, so I didn't need to form an exclusive relationship with one of them to learn about philosophy, or even specific areas of philosophy.
     
    • Like Like x 2
  4. Altfish

    Altfish Veteran Member

    Joined:
    May 27, 2014
    Messages:
    13,516
    Ratings:
    +11,669
    Religion:
    Humanist
    Firstly, I am no great scientist, but ...
    Did you do Physics, Chemistry and Biology at school? I did.
    You build up knowledge from your teachers BUT much of the knowledge is underpinned by experiments.
    I recall shining light through lenses or reflecting it off mirrors and measuring what happens; this.then went on to confirm the various laws we were being taught about.
    So, it is not taken on trust or faith, you actually see the results.
     
    • Winner Winner x 4
    • Like Like x 3
  5. mikkel_the_dane

    mikkel_the_dane Shadow Wolf's Aspie sibling

    Joined:
    Dec 14, 2018
    Messages:
    10,378
    Ratings:
    +2,631
    Religion:
    The Wrong One
    Yeah, do natural science as relevant, But the demarcation between science and non-science works both ways. You can claim that non-science is science, but you can also claim non-science is science.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  6. Seeker of White Light

    Seeker of White Light Think before you speak....so stay silent.

    Joined:
    Nov 25, 2018
    Messages:
    22,341
    Ratings:
    +17,495
    Religion:
    Sufism
    True, but spiritual teachers come and go too in our life.
     
  7. Seeker of White Light

    Seeker of White Light Think before you speak....so stay silent.

    Joined:
    Nov 25, 2018
    Messages:
    22,341
    Ratings:
    +17,495
    Religion:
    Sufism
    The experiments are different in spiritual lifestyle than in science but they are there, inward
     
    • Like Like x 2
  8. mikkel_the_dane

    mikkel_the_dane Shadow Wolf's Aspie sibling

    Joined:
    Dec 14, 2018
    Messages:
    10,378
    Ratings:
    +2,631
    Religion:
    The Wrong One
    Yeah, that is what makes me a friendly atheist. You use words for which I use other words, but they in effect refer to the same. How to do a life as a human as that individual human.
    So yeah, to test something as objective is not to test something as subjective.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  9. Valjean

    Valjean Veteran Member
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Nov 25, 2004
    Messages:
    28,608
    Ratings:
    +15,077
    Religion:
    Vedanta (reform)
    The sources of information are different. Revealed truths are observed only by the observer. Science relies on observations that can be made and repeated by anyone.

    Revealed truth is not tested, predictive, peer reviewed or falsifiable. As Altfish pointed out, scientists make observations, form hypotheses then test them, they attempt to falsify them, and invite their fellow scientists to do the same. This is not done in religion.

    The scientific method achieves consensus. Revealed truths are all over the map. Science tests, discards information that fails the tests, and continually looks for new information. Religion does none of this.

    Science builds on established facts. Religion not only doesn't establish facts, but doesn't build on any they might have. Each revelation is de novo.

    A scripture is an unsupported, untested, untestable claim. A scientific fact is a well supported, readily observable, testable, predictive, falsifiable claim.
    "Spiritual experiment" seems oxymoronic, to me; and what does lifestyle have to do with facts?
    Please explain a spiritual experiment. It doesn't sound like a repeatable attempt at falsification of a hypothesis.

    Scientific experiments have resulted in universal consensus. The facts discovered have served as a foundation for further discoveries, and produced an unprecedented flowering of insight-based technology.
    Religious insight is indistinguishable from religious insight from 3,000 years ago.
     
    • Winner Winner x 1
  10. Nimos

    Nimos Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 26, 2014
    Messages:
    3,559
    Ratings:
    +2,298
    The idea is the same.

    The huge difference is the word "knowledge".

    Knowledge usually refer to someone having a factual understanding of something. For instance, I could tell you stuff about quantum mechanics and even though some of it might be correct, it would rather quickly become obviously that I do not have a lot of knowledge about it. Most likely because someone that would in fact know a lot about it could point out and demonstrate all the places where I was wrong or had misunderstood it.

    So when students at a university gain knowledge, they get it from a teacher which have factual knowledge of whatever field they are educating about, meaning that you potentially as a student can challenge their teachings and ultimately you would challenge established knowledge, assuming the teacher is obviously teaching this correctly.

    When you gain knowledge from your teacher in scripture, you don't get factual knowledge, meaning that we know that there are other people out there that will claim that his teaching is wrong. So the knowledge is not establish as being correct. And you as a student, have no real way of challenging what your teacher is telling you. You might question something they taught you, but the teacher can only refer to the scriptures and their own interpretation of what this mean.

    There is some factual knowledge to be gained here, if you refer to only what the scripture is saying, but not their meaning or whether they are true or not. An example could be, that "Jesus is the son of God according to the bible" that is factual knowledge based on the what the bible say, but whether he actually were the son of God with everything that involves is not established knowledge as we have no way of verifying it, and therefore your teacher doesn't either.

    So I think the best way to look at it, is that students of a university is being taught established knowledge. You are being taught a mixture of established knowledge and personal opinions and interpretations.
     
  11. Seeker of White Light

    Seeker of White Light Think before you speak....so stay silent.

    Joined:
    Nov 25, 2018
    Messages:
    22,341
    Ratings:
    +17,495
    Religion:
    Sufism
    I gain understanding then wisdom, not knowledge:)
     
  12. Nimos

    Nimos Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 26, 2014
    Messages:
    3,559
    Ratings:
    +2,298
    I wouldn't say that you get wisdom, you get an understanding and knowledge of your teacher and the Sufis way of looking at these things.

    Imagine I told you that I were an expert or teacher in the Loch ness monster and told you everything about it, people claiming to have seen it, what books had been written about it, what it looked like and what it eats etc.

    Some of these things you could verify, does the books im talking about exist? Have the people I claim have seen it, actually said this? All these might turn out to be actual truth. But you wouldn't gain wisdom from what I taught you, because you can't verify whether these books or people tell the truth, whether I actually know what the monster looks like and what it eats. What you get is my opinions and interpretations of what I think the Loch ness monster is. But as long as it isn't verified, I think it would be wrong to say that anyone gained anything from it. The reason might obviously be, that im wrong and there is no monster and therefore I clearly don't know what it looks like or what it eats, so what you thought was wisdom weren't.

    In my opinion, claims has to be verified, if you want anything to even be remotely referred to as knowledge or wisdom. Otherwise you risk simply fooling yourself into believing something that is false.

    That doesn't mean that you can't get anything out of listening to them and learn from them, how they look at life, human interaction, relationships to scriptures or what they in general believe to be true. Not everything we do, has to be verified in order to have value, just like we can find beauty in varies things, yet are unable to verify that it is in fact beautiful, if that makes sense. But I think one ought to be careful at how one look at unverified claims and as if these are anything other than that. Being aware is not a bad thing. :)
     
    • Like Like x 1
  13. Seeker of White Light

    Seeker of White Light Think before you speak....so stay silent.

    Joined:
    Nov 25, 2018
    Messages:
    22,341
    Ratings:
    +17,495
    Religion:
    Sufism
    It is wisdom that arise from practicing the teaching. It is not something you can touch or see.
     
  14. Altfish

    Altfish Veteran Member

    Joined:
    May 27, 2014
    Messages:
    13,516
    Ratings:
    +11,669
    Religion:
    Humanist
    But are they repeatable? Can you make predictions based on your experiment and then prove (or disprove) the prediction?
     
  15. Nimos

    Nimos Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 26, 2014
    Messages:
    3,559
    Ratings:
    +2,298
    Depends on how one define wisdom, I would use the normal one:

    - the quality of having experience, knowledge, and good judgement; the quality of being wise.
    - the fact of being based on sensible or wise thinking.

    If you can't see, touch or measure (verify) in any way that something is in fact true, but still chooses to treat it as if it is, I don't think it fulfill the requirements for being referred to as wisdom in my opinion.

    A person that believe in astrology or numerology when nothing about it has been verified as being true, would you refer to such person as having wisdom? Given what the definition define it as... "having experience", "knowledge", "good judgement"? The only way we can say to have had experience is if we can confirm that we have tried or actually experienced something.

    And obviously a lot of people will claim that they have had experience with God, that astrology works etc. But is that true experience or is it just them convinced that it is? That is why verification is so important, again we are very easy at fooling ourselves and misinterpreted things, and to me that is something that should be taken into consideration and to be skeptical about such claims. Not because they might not actually be true, but until we know for sure, there is no reason to treat them as such in my opinion.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  16. `mud

    `mud Just old
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Aug 10, 2011
    Messages:
    5,695
    Ratings:
    +1,605
    Religion:
    ~life~
    How does one describe " gnosis "

    Learning is but a fraction of the process.
     
  17. F1fan

    F1fan Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 23, 2021
    Messages:
    4,027
    Ratings:
    +3,040
    Religion:
    Buddhist
    Because science can show its work. Religion relies on social conformity to repeat and pass on dogma. This is why there are more and more versions of religion, while science will have more precision as time goes on.
     
  18. sun rise

    sun rise "This is the Hour of God"
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Apr 28, 2014
    Messages:
    65,757
    Ratings:
    +32,512
    Religion:
    Love
    Yes

    It's important here to separate the spiritual from the religious. Spiritual truths are not "all over the map". We might have to remove the religious "overcoat" but they're there. I can read the words of great Kabbalists like the Baal Shem Tov and find the same ideas as Rumi and Hindu figures. One example: Rabbi Tzvi Freeman said The times in which our generation lives are not ordinary times. We dwell on the interface between two worlds —a world as it was and a world as it is meant to be. Everything is in place, all the infrastructure to bind the world together as one, the technology by which all of humanity can share deep wisdom, all that is needed so that the secret of oneness can be grasped within the human mind. The stage is set. All that’s left is for us to open our eyes.

    The Mother of the Sri Aurobindo ashram in India: We are in a very special situation, extremely special, without precedent. We are now witnessing the birth of a new world; it is very young, very weak -- not in its essence but in its outer manifestation -- not yet recognised, not even felt, denied by the majority. But it is here. It is here, making an effort to grow, absolutely *sure* of the result. But the road to it is a completely new road which has never before been traced out -- nobody has gone there, nobody has done that! It is a beginning, a *universal beginning*. So it is an absolutely unexpected and unpredictable adventure.

    There are people who love adventure. It is these I call, and I tell them this: "I invite you to the great adventure."...


    Yes. If we take, for example, this "prediction" of Hafiz as rendered by Ladinsky, many can see their lives as living this out:

    What happens when your soul
    Begins to awaken
    Your eyes
    And your heart
    And the cells of your body
    To the great Journey of Love?

    First there is wonderful laughter
    And probably precious tears


    And a hundred sweet promises
    And those heroic vows
    No one can ever keep.

    But still God is delighted and amused
    You once tried to be a saint.

    What happens when your soul
    Begins to awake in this world


    To our deep need to love
    And serve the Friend?


    O the Beloved

    Will send you
    One of His wonderful, wild companions—


    Like Hafiz.
     
    • Like Like x 1
    • Friendly Friendly x 1
  19. Orbit

    Orbit I'm a planet

    Joined:
    Oct 1, 2014
    Messages:
    2,138
    Ratings:
    +2,500
    Religion:
    Dinner
    Because theories in science can be falsified. Theories (theology) in religion can't. It's two separate things.
     
  20. mikkel_the_dane

    mikkel_the_dane Shadow Wolf's Aspie sibling

    Joined:
    Dec 14, 2018
    Messages:
    10,378
    Ratings:
    +2,631
    Religion:
    The Wrong One
    Yeah, that is why we know this:
    https://undsci.berkeley.edu/article/0_0_0/whatisscience_12

    The demarcation between science and non-science works both ways. So you do your science and point out when it is relevant, and learn to notice when religion is used in effect as sociology, morality and psychology.
    But off course if you can do science in the strong sense on all aspects of the human life, feel free to do so. Now I doubt it will work, because it has never been done in record history so far.
     
Loading...