58 replies to this topic

[Deva]

Antler I'd give your post a plus one, if I could.

[Legion]

What's the point? It's trying to make sense of everything using the same methods people have been using for centuries, by using spiritual type beliefs. And so far only the scientific method has worked. I'm not arguing against those right here and now, but I don't understand why they're still being used when they don't work. Many have lived and died thinking their beliefs were the truth.

But work in what way? What questions are being asked and looked into that a non-rational, non-scientific method addresses better? Clearly it can't be 'how things works', as empirical science is clearly the tool for that. What could it be that rational people are looking into then that science falls short for them?

In my opinion it is best to have both, and even more if we can find them. If our goal is to expand our awareness and understanding then the more methods we have to expand them the better.

I've had experiences where I was reading about scientific models (explicit understandings of nature, some of which do address the WHY of things) and a CLICK occurred as a light bulb came on and the understanding snapped into place. Very pleasurable.

I've also had mystical experiences, some lasting moments, one lasting days. This was no "click". It was more of an opening. Also pleasurable.

How would I enable my own children to also experience these good things and have expanded awareness and understanding?

I think they both involve self-discipline.

Edited by Legion, 18 February 2012 - 02:20 PM.

[Deva]

I don't see a problem with using both the scientific method and other methods. I just don't think the scientific method has it entirely covered as an answer for living a good life.

[Legion]

I don't see a problem with using both the scientific method and other methods. I just don't think the scientific method has it entirely covered as an answer for living a good life.

The goal of science is to aquire understandings of nature and ourselves.

If the goal of Buddhism is Satori or Nirvana then isn't this the acquisition of expanded awareness?

[Antlerman]

What's the point? It's trying to make sense of everything using the same methods people have been using for centuries, by using spiritual type beliefs. And so far only the scientific method has worked. I'm not arguing against those right here and now, but I don't understand why they're still being used when they don't work. Many have lived and died thinking their beliefs were the truth.

But work in what way? What questions are being asked and looked into that a non-rational, non-scientific method addresses better? Clearly it can't be 'how things works', as empirical science is clearly the tool for that. What could it be that rational people are looking into then that science falls short for them?

In my opinion it is best to have both, and even more if we can find them. If our goal is to expand our awareness and understanding then the more methods we have to expand them the better.

I've had experiences where I was reading about scientific models (explicit understandings of nature, some of which do address the WHY of things) and a CLICK occurred as a light bulb came on and the understanding snapped into place. Very pleasurable.

I've also had mystical experiences, some lasting moments, one lasting days. This was no "click". It was more of an opening. Also pleasurable.

How would I enable my own children to also experience these good things and have expanded awareness and understanding?

I think they both involve self-discipline.

I am wholeheartedly in agreement with all you say here. Our knowledge in one area adds to and informs knowledge in other areas. Having a spiritual opening for me makes beautiful the scientific natural understanding. Having a scientific understanding, makes all the more wondrous the knowledge from the spiritual.

This is integration, and I very much agree that the pursuit of both involves genuine self-discipline. You can no more fill your mind about the natural world without diving into it, looking into it, than you can the spiritual by just speculating at some metaphysics. You have to swim in her waters. And to learn to swim, you have to practice.. religiously.

[Deva]

The goal of science is to aquire understandings of nature and ourselves.

If the goal of Buddhism is Satori or Nirvana then isn't this the acquisition of expanded awareness?

The goal of Buddhism may be different depending on what type you are practicing. The ultimate goal of Tibetan Buddhism is to free oneself and others from cyclic existence (samsara). Legion - this is a complicated question.

[Legion]

The goal of science is to aquire understandings of nature and ourselves.

If the goal of Buddhism is Satori or Nirvana then isn't this the acquisition of expanded awareness?

The goal of Buddhism may be different depending on what type you are practicing. The ultimate goal of Tibetan Buddhism is to free oneself and others from cyclic existence (samsara). Legion - this is a complicated question.

I tend to ask questions like that Deva.

Why do you think it's complicated?

[Deva]

I have my own understanding, of course, but would rather not discuss it on this thread.

[Legion]

I have my own understanding, of course, but would rather not discuss it on this thread.

I can't remember being disappointed with you before Deva. I guess there's a first for everything. And I'll get over it.

[Deva]

I can't remember being disappointed with you before Deva. I guess there's a first for everything.

Yeah? Line forms to the left.

[Legion]

I can't remember being disappointed with you before Deva. I guess there's a first for everything.

Yeah? Line forms to the left.

As I said (and which you editted out), I'll get over it.

I reckon I'm startin' to get a real good bead.

[Xerces]

What could it be that rational people are looking into then that science falls short for them?

My guess what be that they are not satisfied with the current knowledge, and assume they can find answers faster by using other methods.

[Antlerman]

What could it be that rational people are looking into then that science falls short for them?

My guess what be that they are not satisfied with the current knowledge, and assume they can find answers faster by using other methods.

I don't see this as equatable to a disagreement with what science shows (which whom I'm referring to don't see it that way), nor some shortcut to "answers" bypassing science because it takes too long.

My exact question was instead, what specifically are the areas that they are looking into that science falls short for them? And of those areas, is science really the correct tool, or ever will be? In other words, science is understood by these rational people, including scientists themselves as incapable, now or in the future, to offer insight, guidance or more importantly fulfillment for things it is simply not the right tool for. What areas might those be that you can think of?

[Xerces]

What areas might those be that you can think of?

Love, the meaning of life, those kinds of things I suppose.

[Antlerman]

What areas might those be that you can think of?

Love, the meaning of life, those kinds of things I suppose.

Is science the appropriate tool to understanding these things, or are there better ways of understanding the meaning or experience of these things and the knowledge they impart, rather than examining them as some object on a table in front of you? And if there are better more appropriate ways, what might those ways look like?

[VacuumFlux]

What areas might those be that you can think of?

Love, the meaning of life, those kinds of things I suppose.

Is science the appropriate tool to understanding these things, or are there better ways of understanding the meaning or experience of these things and the knowledge they impart, rather than examining them as some object on a table in front of you? And if there are better more appropriate ways, what might those ways look like?

Science is great for intellectual, analytical understanding. But for a lot of mental things, science is like... reading an instruction manual but never picking up the tool. Studying science in the form of psychology may be great for putting words to everything that's wrong in your life, and maybe giving you some insight, but just knowing doesn't change much until you work at it and practice. Science may even help you figure out the most effective ways to go about changing your habits, but unless you actually do the work, that knowledge doesn't get you anywhere.

I don't see questions like the meaning of life to be completely separate from scientific questions. But I do see that scientific knowledge is insufficient for bringing about change, or giving direction in life, or making you happy. Science is a fun way to dissect experiences, but most of those experiences can happen to me whether or not I understand the science behind them. In German, there are two different words for "to know"; one is informational, the other is experience. So if you've heard about this guy who's a friend of a friend and have collected a lot of facts about him, you can say you know about him (informational), but if you've never met the guy, you can't say you know him in the experiential sense. Science is the right tool for informational knowledge, but not for experiential knowledge. Another analogy is reading all about music theory and instrument building and books on how to play vs picking up an instrument and trying it out. The informational knowledge often makes the experiential more effective (like reading the manual), but it's not the same as actually doing the thing.

[Xerces]

That actually makes a lot of sense.

People probably seek out certain experiences to fill various voids in their life, even if those experiences come from something that might not be true.

[Antlerman]

That actually makes a lot of sense. People probably seek out certain experiences to fill various voids in their life, even if those experiences come from something that might not be true.

This just sounds very strange. Of course people seek out fulfillment. That's part of being alive as a human being for every one of us. And yes seeking fulfillment in ways that are ultimately unfulfilling is part of that process, such as turning to endless sex and drugs when you are really looking for love. But saying "even if those experiences come from something that might not be true", is a bit odd. If you are gaining a genuine fulfillment through some means than whatever the means is, is valid. If it is valid, it is therefore truth, even if it is not a truth in the way that would satisfy a scientific inquiry into a material reality. It would be true instead in a philosophical sense, or in a spiritual sense.

And that comes full circle back to this point that science does not hold the Answers for all aspects of life. For you to say it comes from something that might not be true, is looking at it solely in a scientific sense. Its like those who either try to prove or try to disprove the existence of God with science. It is an invalid tool for that. There is a saying I appreciate. It goes, "The God you don't believe in doesn't exist". Try to fit that into a scientific understanding of truth.

[Xerces]

If philosophy is a byproduct of our brain, and our brain is a byproduct of evolution, I don't see why science couldn't be used. I know people seek out things, as you said, should've worded my post better. I dunno dude, ever since I left religion in the dust I haven't been able to get on board any spiritual boats. Can't find a reason to.