Science vs Faith

[Ben Dhyan]

so....do you rely on your gut feelings?
religious lean?
or the science you are able to understand?

All are in play.........intuition, gut feelings, religious understanding, scientific understanding, etc.. Depending on the situation, one or other may predominate.... But to contrive to set up one against the other is an error of the mind...when the mind is still, such errors drop away...

 

[loverofhumanity]

Maybe we evolve into highly spiritual such as this.....

“O My Servant! Obey Me and I shall make thee like unto Myself. I say ‘Be,’ and it is, and thou shalt say ‘Be,’ and it shall be.”

Bahá’u’lláh. “The Seven Valleys, The Four Valleys.”

 

[Rick O'Shez]

It is....a oneness that is...awareness of the apparent duality of internal noumena and external phenomena...

It looks like a set of changing conditions, and the boundaries tend to blur. But why do you say internal noumena as compared to external phenomena?

 

[james bond]

It's not science vs faith, but atheist science (secular science) vs creation science. For example, atheist science thinks the Earth will be uninhabitable in the future and want to go colonize Mars. Creation scientists want to take care of and fix Earth and would rather colonize the moon in the near-future and live in space stations. Both the Earth and moon are just as important as the Sun. There's not enough water on Mars and the atmosphere is inhospitable for humans to live there. Yet, this can be overcome and we have the technology to overcome it. The technology to overcome it is advanced more on the creation side with electromagnetic propulsion systems.* They should be the first ones to reach the Star Wars warp drive or warp speed. The understand that space is mostly plasma and that it is everywhere. See plasma universe vs Big Bang Theory video below. The secular side has hypothetical systems which they have started testing**.

* http://spectrum.ieee.org/aerospace/space-flight/warp-speed-mrsulu

** http://www.space.com/23445-mars-missions-superfast-propulsion-incredible-technology.html

 

[Rick O'Shez]

It's not science vs faith, but atheist science (secular science) vs creation science.

"Atheist science"? I think it is just science. As with most professions, some scientists are atheists, and some have religious beliefs.

And what is "creation science"?

 

[james bond]

I'll give you some examples that mean that sometimes we are even taught science dogma. Which I find fascinating it could mean more than what we typically think from science.

even a couple people working quantum physics were.

That is a great video. Isn't all science dogma?

 

[james bond]

"Atheist science"? I think it is just science. As with most professions, some scientists are atheists, and some have religious beliefs.

And what is "creation science"?

I agree with you to a point. Science is science, but today, science isn't science. There is the science is science, i.e. secular science only. The science that "should be" science is excluded. For example, atheist science (secular science) won't accept creation science or the universe was created by God. Anything based on a religious philosophy such as the Bible or the supernatural will not be peer reviewed. They cannot get their theories published in Science or Nature.

Creation science is based on the science that God created the universe and not the Big Bang.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

Isn't all science dogma?

No, it really isn't. I would mostly associate dogma with religion actually.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

It looks like a set of changing conditions, and the boundaries tend to blur. But why do you say internal noumena as compared to external phenomena?

Because phenomena are directly known through the senses whereas noumena are an internal ideation...

 

[Rick O'Shez]

Because phenomena are directly known through the senses whereas noumena are an internal ideation...

I'm not sure that's correct. Noumena is more like an assumed essence beneath the phenomena it produces, the "thing in itself".

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/noumena

http://www.dictionary.com/browse/noumena

Perhaps you are referring to Kant's "positive noumena"?

Kant was sceptical about those:
"The positive noumena, if they existed, would be immaterial entities that can only be apprehended by a special, non-sensory faculty: "intellectual intuition". Kant doubts that we have such a faculty, because for him intellectual intuition would mean that thinking of an entity, and its being represented, would be the same. He argues that humans have no way to apprehend positive noumena:"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noumenon

 

[Ben Dhyan]

I'm not sure that's correct. Noumena is more like an assumed essence beneath the phenomena it produces, the "thing in itself".

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/noumena

http://www.dictionary.com/browse/noumena

Perhaps you are referring to Kant's "positive noumena"?

Kant was sceptical about those:
"The positive noumena, if they existed, would be immaterial entities that can only be apprehended by a special, non-sensory faculty: "intellectual intuition". Kant doubts that we have such a faculty, because for him intellectual intuition would mean that thinking of an entity, and its being represented, would be the same. He argues that humans have no way to apprehend positive noumena:"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noumenon

This is what I meant...as per you link.......nou·me·na (-nə) In the philosophy of Kant, an object as it is in itself independent of the mind, as opposed to a phenomenon. But to a still mind... the two aspects are in fact apparent parts of a unity...

 

[Rick O'Shez]

This is what I meant...as per you link.......nou·me·na (-nə) In the philosophy of Kant, an object as it is in itself independent of the mind, as opposed to a phenomenon. But to a still mind... the two aspects are in fact apparent parts of a unity...

I'm not following you here. What we actually experience are phenomena, noumena are assumed and not sensed.

I don't see how the phenomena/noumena distinction relates to a still mind, or to ideas of unity. Could you explain?

 

[Ben Dhyan]

I'm not following you here. What we actually experience are phenomena, noumena are assumed and not sensed.

I don't see how the phenomena/noumena distinction relates to a still mind, or to ideas of unity. Could you explain?

You are becoming pedantic here for the sake of argument...the still mind does not make distinctions.....only the dualistic mind. Are you aware of the difference between the inner awareness and outer perception when you are deep in meditation?

 

[Rick O'Shez]

You are becoming pedantic here for the sake of argument...the still mind does not make distinctions.....only the dualistic mind. Are you aware of the difference between the inner awareness and outer perception when you are deep in meditation?

I'm not being pedantic, I am just asking you to explain what relevance the phenomena/noumena distinction has to a still mind or the experience of non-duality.

In deep meditation external phenomena fade into the background, but I don't see the relevance of the phenomena/noumena distinction to that experience.

 

[`mud]

The antisapation of recieving a touch !
pure consciousness,
pure gnosis
~
All else seems Kantistic.
~
'mud

 

[Thief]

All are in play.........intuition, gut feelings, religious understanding, scientific understanding, etc.. Depending on the situation, one or other may predominate.... But to contrive to set up one against the other is an error of the mind...when the mind is still, such errors drop away...

I realize I set this thread in motion...with a lean....
science versus faith...

and here at the forum.....there's plenty of such discussion!

I have on occasion responded to an intuitive 'gut feeling'
and survived a car accident for having paid attention to that feeling
having actually done something about that feeling

and I have posted perspectives of biblical events that others never seem to grip
taking the event as if I were the one involved

and I do the same to science
I perceive the presentation as a reality and then set it in motion
usually in cognitive realm
I can do that

so it's not really science versus faith
I believe in God because of science

 

[meghanwaterlillies]

That is a great video. Isn't all science dogma?

while you study things I wouldn't say its dogma; it might not be what it was before when you are taught something. Or even told something.
There some basics that every person observes already. People might try to change something without real facts. But honestly right everyone says.... Then he ran into a couple of dogmas in the science community...

 

[Ben Dhyan]

I'm not being pedantic, I am just asking you to explain what relevance the phenomena/noumena distinction has to a still mind or the experience of non-duality.

In deep meditation external phenomena fade into the background, but I don't see the relevance of the phenomena/noumena distinction to that experience.

And I have explained that there is no distinction when the mind is still...

Relevance implies duality, and in deep meditation, the mind should be sufficiently quiet so as there to be no duality....hence relevance is not relevant...

 

[james bond]

while you study things I wouldn't say its dogma; it might not be what it was before when you are taught something. Or even told something.
There some basics that every person observes already. People might try to change something without real facts. But honestly right everyone says.... Then he ran into a couple of dogmas in the science community...

If a better theory comes up in science, then we go with the better theory. Thus, most scientific theory is not proof or final. It's just the best explanation for something at the moment. The video goes on to say that we eliminate theories that do not jibe with our worldview. For example, the speed of light could have varied in the past and that we could get estimates today and that it's not always c. It's not really a constant because light going through water or glass can change the index of refraction. Then there is gravity or my trick question. What do you think it does to light?

 

[meghanwaterlillies]

If a better theory comes up in science, then we go with the better theory. Thus, most scientific theory is not proof or final. It's just the best explanation for something at the moment. The video goes on to say that we eliminate theories that do not jibe with our worldview. For example, the speed of light could have varied in the past and that we could get estimates today and that it's not always c. It's not really a constant because light going through water or glass can change the index of refraction. Then there is gravity or my trick question. What do you think it does to light?

Well its an energy that we can utilize so mass..momentum. It is considered such and we use to get solar energy, but as a mass we see. Also the lens bending can happen or it appears so that the light bends, they claim a mass; large one, does the optical affect, but the rays go straight. Also I'm for the Luminiferous aether theory which might jump over on the relativity.