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 Why Scientists need to accept Eastern thought

Discussion in 'Science and Religion' started by Swami, Oct 17, 2019.

  1. Swami

    Swami Member

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2019
    Messages:
    47
    Ratings:
    +16
    Religion:
    Yoga
    I will try to keep my topic simple. There are multiple reasons why Western scientists need to adopt but I will only offer two:

    1. Eastern thought provides an objective approach to acquire knowledge.
    Eastern mystics discovered a practice and tool long ago to explore consciousness and reality, and that practice is 'meditation'. This method is objective because it removes the filters that tend to distort reality - the mind and senses. If you cease all mental and sensory input, then you are no longer subject to bias, feelings, limitations but rather you experience reality as it is.

    2. Eastern thought has a wealth of knowledge that deals with the same things that scientists deal with- the nature of consciousness and reality.
    Eastern thinkers did not intend to explore every bit of physical Universe like science does. Eastern thinkers main focus was on the nature of consciousness and reality. As such, the mystics have discovered different states of consciousness that go beyond the limited classifications of scientists. One fact from Eastern thought is that consciousness does not exist independently of matter. Another fact is that consciousness can transcend "self" when it exists in everything (or as part of everything) as opposed to being fixed to one thing. Call this universal or Cosmic consciousness. Given the fact that Western materialist scientists are stumped when it comes to consciousness, it would be wise they seek insight from Eastern thinkers. To date, many scientists are flocking to the Dalai Lama so that should tell you something.

    Your thoughts. Do you agree that science needs to adopt Eastern thought?
     
    • Like Like x 2
    • Winner Winner x 2
    • Optimistic Optimistic x 1
    • Creative Creative x 1
  2. Frank Goad

    Frank Goad Active Member

    Joined:
    Dec 13, 2018
    Messages:
    716
    Ratings:
    +114
    Religion:
    I officially believe the jehovah's witness religion.
    I hear quantum physics.Is starting to agree with eastern thought.
     
    • Like Like x 2
  3. Polymath257

    Polymath257 Think & Care
    Staff Member Premium Member

    Joined:
    Mar 28, 2017
    Messages:
    12,435
    Ratings:
    +12,172
    Religion:
    Non-theist
    Nope. It is NOT objective because it is not public and repeatable for others. The rest is philosophy and not science.
     
    • Winner Winner x 6
    • Like Like x 2
  4. Frank Goad

    Frank Goad Active Member

    Joined:
    Dec 13, 2018
    Messages:
    716
    Ratings:
    +114
    Religion:
    I officially believe the jehovah's witness religion.
    If science doesn't believe in any of this stuff.Why is quantum physics giving it so much attention?:confused:
     
    • Like Like x 1
  5. lewisnotmiller

    lewisnotmiller Grand Hat
    Staff Member Premium Member

    Joined:
    May 6, 2013
    Messages:
    15,748
    Ratings:
    +8,068
    Religion:
    Atheist
    No, I don't agree.
    Science is science. I don't know what 'adopting' Eastern thought, or any other school of thought not scientific in nature, does apart from move science AWAY from being science.

    To be clear, for the sake of this thread, I'm going to assume your 'facts' are actually facts. That doesn't change my answer.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  6. Frank Goad

    Frank Goad Active Member

    Joined:
    Dec 13, 2018
    Messages:
    716
    Ratings:
    +114
    Religion:
    I officially believe the jehovah's witness religion.
    #6 Frank Goad, Oct 17, 2019
    Last edited: Oct 17, 2019
    • Useful Useful x 2
  7. Vinayaka

    Vinayaka devotee
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Feb 10, 2011
    Messages:
    28,585
    Ratings:
    +12,760
    Religion:
    Saivite Hindu
    I don't think that science HAS to do anything. I do think that eastern thinkers are far less concerned with debating scientists about stuff than the faiths of the west. There are better things to do, like explore the mind through meditation, as you alluded to. In other words, we're not opposed to science.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  8. Nanoha

    Nanoha New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 17, 2019
    Messages:
    10
    Ratings:
    +5
    Religion:
    Neoplatonism
    Objectivity is not dependent on repeatability. Do you believe only the natural sciences can provide us with objective knowledge? Historical knowledge is not derived through repeated experiment, neither is philosophical knowledge; and science is in fact a branch of philosophy and would be impossible without it. The criteria of falsifiability, the scientific method itself, and all the cornerstones of modern scientific methodology are products of the philosophy of science. Before the modern age, what we now call science was merely known as 'natural philosophy.'
    "Science is science" doesn't mean anything. Conceptions of the nature of science are a product of culture. For the majority of human history, science merely signified knowledge and any field related to the pursuit of it, which allowed theology to be classified as a science. Saying that the science of modern, Western society is the only science is a form of bigotry and extreme historical arrogance.
     
    • Like Like x 1
    • Winner Winner x 1
  9. Nowhere Man

    Nowhere Man Bompu Zen Man with a little bit of Bushido.

    Joined:
    Mar 7, 2009
    Messages:
    23,848
    Ratings:
    +8,955
    Religion:
    Zen Buddhism
    No because science is not a philosophy nor a religion.

    It's a process of establishing facts through observation and experimentation.
     
    • Like Like x 4
  10. Skwim

    Skwim Veteran Member

    Joined:
    Jun 20, 2010
    Messages:
    26,545
    Ratings:
    +10,649
    Religion:
    Agnostic
    Thing is, science is based on mental input: investigating evidence, propounding hypotheses, and challenging them. And scientists would have to be shown that "[experiencing] reality as it is" is a productive.

    So, what has ceasing all mental and sensory input produced, science wise?

    It tells me you're prone to exaggeration.

    I see no such need.

    .
     
    • Winner Winner x 1
  11. Labourwave

    Joined:
    Aug 18, 2015
    Messages:
    4,509
    Ratings:
    +3,450
    You have provided no clear way the scientific method could be improved.
    Instead you suggested that scientist should adopt 'Eastern thought' into their body of knowledge.

    Doing this would just make science not science.
     
    • Like Like x 1
    • Winner Winner x 1
  12. Swami

    Swami Member

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2019
    Messages:
    47
    Ratings:
    +16
    Religion:
    Yoga
    Your definition is loaded in that it mixes the "what" with the "how". At bare minimum, all that objectivity involves is perceiving reality as it is. Here is Merriam-Webster definition:

    Objective: expressing or dealing with facts or conditions as perceived without distortion by personal feelings, prejudices, or interpretations.
    Definition of OBJECTIVE

    "Repeatability" and "publicity" speak to how to achieve objectivity. Meditation is another way because it can be practiced without personal feelings and prejudices. If anything, it is also repeatable although it is not a third-person method.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  13. Swami

    Swami Member

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2019
    Messages:
    47
    Ratings:
    +16
    Religion:
    Yoga
    They are starting to catch up!
     
  14. Milton Platt

    Milton Platt Well-Known Member
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2015
    Messages:
    6,644
    Ratings:
    +2,503
    Religion:
    Atheist
    Scientists should only accept eastern thought if it conforms to the scientific method.
     
    • Like Like x 2
    • Winner Winner x 1
  15. lewisnotmiller

    lewisnotmiller Grand Hat
    Staff Member Premium Member

    Joined:
    May 6, 2013
    Messages:
    15,748
    Ratings:
    +8,068
    Religion:
    Atheist
    Interesting post. You might want to rein in the judgement stuff a little, at least until you get to know me. But anyways, on to the meat of it...
    So, of course, 'science is science' is a tautology. Any meaning derived from it would rely on cultural rather than grammatical inference, so let me reword that to be more clear.
    If you take science, and move it drastically in the way proposed in the OP, you no longer have 'science'. You have something new.
    I was very careful in my response not to JUDGE that new thing. But regardless, it is no longer science.

    If you like, you can argue that it would still be science, and that science has merely evolved. But you would be fundamentally changing science due to the impact this would have on the scientific method. If you want to talk more structurally, I'm a methodological naturalist. I don't assume all knowledge can be scientifically tested, but I do believe science should be limited to what it can effectively test.

    Really? If you'd like to ignore the context of the OP, you can make that argument, but then I have NO idea what the OP would be requesting. The OP specifically calls out 'Western materialist scientists'. In a general, esoteric sense, conceptions of science are impacted by many things, as is literally every concept we have.

    Yes. The Latin word root explicitly states this. But do you really think the OP was talking about theological sciences? Because then the OP makes no sense. If science includes theology, an argument to add mysticism into science is circular.

    I'm neither a bigot nor historically ignorant. What I am doing is limiting my commentary to the framework specified in the OP. Generally this is the nature of these discussions. If you have a specific point you wish to make about the OP, feel free. If you would like to argue with how they've framed 'science', and would instead suggest it's an encompassing term already including non-material concepts, go for it. That has nothing to do with my response though. If you want to ask me my beliefs on any of these things, go for it. It would be a slight derail, but I doubt anyone would be offended.

    But enough with the high-horse stuff, yeah?
     
  16. Swami

    Swami Member

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2019
    Messages:
    47
    Ratings:
    +16
    Religion:
    Yoga
    The spirit of science is about objectivity. Meditation does not take away from this. Refer to my last comment to Polymath.

    You do not need to assume. All of the facts I brought up can be verified if you are willing to experience for yourself. Dr. Eben Alexander was a hardline materialist, and he is now convinced after he experienced.
     
  17. Swami

    Swami Member

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2019
    Messages:
    47
    Ratings:
    +16
    Religion:
    Yoga
    Materialists would have you believe that the scientific method came down from Heaven, fully formed. NOt a word can be added to or taken away from it. The reality is that the scientific method is not closed. New methods are always added, especially when "new" sciences are formed. If we go back to the last century we find that scientists were actually using "first-person" methods - that is, introspection. It was largely diminished afterwards due to unreliability but none of those concerns apply to meditation. Meditation is already an added method when you consider that it is used in medicine. I'm only proposing to broaden its use to also include it as a tool for knowledge.
     
  18. lewisnotmiller

    lewisnotmiller Grand Hat
    Staff Member Premium Member

    Joined:
    May 6, 2013
    Messages:
    15,748
    Ratings:
    +8,068
    Religion:
    Atheist
    So two people using meditation to access different states of consciousness experience the same thing?
    Or are you suggesting there are multiple objective truths?

    It doesn't matter. I have no interest in judging whether mysticism is 'true' or not, my interest is in trying to understand your perspective. I won't be arguing against meditation or other Eastern concepts here.
     
  19. ajay0

    ajay0 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 25, 2012
    Messages:
    1,729
    Ratings:
    +1,065
    I agree wholeheartedly with you on this.

    Eastern philosophy is more older and seasoned than western philosophy which is of recent origin and understandably half-baked.

    The world wars have been attributed to western philosophies like nihilism and the like by western scholars and psychiatrists themselves.

    “If we present a man with a concept of man which is not true, we may well corrupt him. When we present man as an automaton of reflexes, as a mind-machine, as a bundle of instincts, as a pawn of drives and reactions, as a mere product of instinct, heredity and environment, we feed the nihilism to which modern man is, in any case, prone.
    I became acquainted with the last stage of that corruption in my second concentration camp, Auschwitz. The gas chambers of Auschwitz were the ultimate consequence of the theory that man is nothing but the product of heredity and environment; or as the Nazi liked to say, ‘of Blood and Soil.’ I am absolutely convinced that the gas chambers of Auschwitz, Treblinka, and Maidanek were ultimately prepared not in some Ministry or other in Berlin, but rather at the desks and lecture halls of nihilistic scientists and philosophers.”
    ― Viktor E. Frankl



    I would say at this point of time western philosophy is highly dangerous and a great danger to the world as well. It has to be tempered by the wiser and older eastern philosophy if it is to cease being a threat to society and the world.

    I personally believe in a combination of the scientific and advaitan philosophies so that systematic analysis of a thing is combined with a holistic perspective which brings the right proportion between the part and the whole, without any lopsided growth or development that may be more regressive in the long run than progressive.

    Presently we can see defence scientists all over the world investing their intellectual energies in creating weapons of mass destruction to promote national power, domination and glory. The reasoning is that if we don't build enough weapons of our own and dominate, our national sovereignty will be under threat, because it is the survival of the fittest. Nationalism and jingoism is on the rise leading to rising tensions between nation-states.

    Global warming levels are steadily rising resulting in aberrant weather patterns and rising sea levels threatenting coastal regions and islands.

    Forests and jungles are being destroyed at a furious pace resulting in an unprecedented destruction of much of the world's flora and fauna and over one million plant and animal species are facing extinction.

    All this shows that science at present is in the wrong hands, and poses more of a danger than good to humanity and the world.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  20. Aupmanyav

    Aupmanyav Be your own guru

    Joined:
    May 5, 2007
    Messages:
    20,056
    Ratings:
    +8,013
    Religion:
    Advaitist Sanatan Hindu and a strong atheist.
    - Agree to your first paragraph.
    - Your second paragraph is an over-reach and not true. Science is not stumped by consciousness and they have a lot of research about it.
    - By Consciousness, you are talking of two very dissimilar things. Human consciousness and properties of physical energy which is the base constituent of all things in the universe. You are taking that as 'universal consciousness', but not differentiating between them.
    - That some people flock to Dalai Lama does not tell me anything. Many people have their heroes. I do not think Dalai Lama has anything new with him except sweet talk. Whatever there 'was to be said', 'was already said' by Buddha 2,600 years ago.
    - Science goes by its own rules and does not need anything more.
    What site you would like us to visit to know what is what, to experience? ;)
     
    #20 Aupmanyav, Oct 18, 2019
    Last edited: Oct 18, 2019
Loading...