Scriptures & Science

[Thief]

Name-dropping aside, the reference is irrelevant.

Yeah right....

 

[Shermana]

Name-dropping aside, the reference is irrelevant.

How so?

The issue of the relevance of whether the evidence is to be interpreted as proof of String Theory or not is definitely debatable. Even the greatest minds of Physics can't agree on fundamental principles of the makeup of matter.

http://calitreview.com/790/susskind-quashes-hawking-in-quarrel-over-quantum-quandary/

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

The issue of the relevance of whether the evidence is to be interpreted as proof of String Theory or not is definitely debatable.

Of course it's debatable.

 

[rusra02]

Lol...you don't know what theories mean even now...come on man. Why the dishonesty?

Why not just say that you do not believe in the science we have today and you believe the bible is accurate? It's better than this fence straddling you are trying to do.

The TOE, particularly macro-evolution, is not science, in my opinion. It is speculative imaginings for which proof is lacking. Yet it is gullibly accepted by many, due to the ceaseless propaganda espousing it.

 

[rusra02]

He was particularly talking about the Buddhist scriptures and, as far as I know, hasn't made reference to how people in other faiths must supposedly look at theirs.

"Macro-evolution" is not only a scientific axiom that accompanies what you might call "micro-evolution", but from the Buddhist viewpoint, both are pretty much just common sense. BTW, one of the name for "Buddhism" in the Vietnamese language literally means "common sense".

Macroevolution is common nonsense, in my opinion.

 

[FranklinMichaelV.3]

The TOE, particularly macro-evolution, is not science, in my opinion. It is speculative imaginings for which proof is lacking. Yet it is gullibly accepted by many, due to the ceaseless propaganda espousing it.

Oh so you admit that it has nothing to do with actual facts, but just your opinion. So you don't have anything to actually defend it.

Yet you'll believe in "micro-evolution"

I suppose the reaosn you dont' believe in Macro-evolution is because you believe the world is 6000 years old? Or is it the supposed issues you have with the fossil record?

 

[Jainarayan]

The TOE, particularly macro-evolution, is not science, in my opinion. It is speculative imaginings for which proof is lacking. Yet it is gullibly accepted by many, due to the ceaseless propaganda espousing it.

It is science, there's plenty of proof for it, and most disconcertingly, plenty of misunderstanding of it. Especially by those opposed to any form of evolutionary theory.

Macroevolution - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Within the Modern Synthesis school of thought, macroevolution is thought of as the compounded effects of microevolution.[8] Thus, the distinction between micro- and macroevolution is not a fundamental one – the only difference between them is of time and scale. As Ernst W. Mayr observes, "transspecific evolution is nothing but an extrapolation and magnification of the events that take place within populations and species...it is misleading to make a distinction between the causes of micro- and macroevolution”.

 

[metis]

I agree 110%.

But people vastly overrate science's reach. He still believes in rebirth and such as this is beyond the reach of science. I believe science will someday confirm spiritual beliefs.

(I like your avatar. We clinched!)

Yes, and someday we'll have to celebrate by eating at Ashoka in Troy.:bounce

 

[Willamena]

Not so....I point out the long standing conflict between Hawking and Susskind.
Thirty years of it and I think Hawking conceded for being tired.

People still debate the nature of physical reality.

And people do the same to theology.

So...here we are.

I know nothing of the conflict between Hawking and Susskind, but my statement interpreted what the Dalai Lama meant. Science, being less easily misinterpreted, should be relied upon first, and scripture second.

 

[metis]

Macroevolution is common nonsense, in my opinion.

Well, I don't think you'll find a geneticist who will likely agree with you. As an anthropologist, I spent 1/3 of my introductory course on just human evolution alone, and my biggest problem was dealing with what I would have to omit to squeeze that all in.

BTW, I grew up in a fundamentalist Protestant church and had plans to go into the seminary, but the issue of ignoring science caused me to desert it as I realized I was being given entirely false information.

Maybe we can discuss this on another forum some day.

 

[metis]

It is science, there's plenty of proof for it, and most disconcertingly, plenty of misunderstanding of it. Especially by those opposed to any form of evolutionary theory.

Macroevolution - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I should have read your comments and link above before writing my last post.

 

[Jainarayan]

I should have read your comments and link above before writing my last post.

There is never too much emphasis.

 

[George-ananda]

Yes, and someday we'll have to celebrate by eating at Ashoka in Troy.:bounce

Small world...I was a very regular there....I've put on pounds at their lunch buffet, believe me..

 

[George-ananda]

I don't think it'll fly. I don't know much about Buddhism, but I would imagine its followers would be more inclined to stay with religious teachings rather than switch.

I think you misinterpreted the Dalai Lama's words. He's not calling for any switch.

He's also taking the position that his religious beliefs are not in need of change. They are not in conflict with anything science has proved. If science proves something that disagrees with his religion, he would change and go with science; but that hasn't happened.

(reading through the post, your misinterpretation is widespread)

 

[Jainarayan]

I think you misinterpreted the Dalai Lama's words. He's not calling for any switch.

He's also taking the position that his religious beliefs are not in need of change. They are not in conflict with anything science has proved. If science proves something that disagrees with his religion, he would change and go with science.

Yes, HH is making a Big If statement. Buddhism doesn't ponder creation (as a catch-all term) except wrt suffering, so his comments may be a non-issue. Hinduism, or rather I should say ancient Indian thought is replete with science: the age of the universe, timescales, astronomy, mathematics, etc. But the science that came out of ancient India is not far out of step with modern science. Even the late Dr. Carl Sagan was blown away by the similarities with ancient Indian science and today's science. So, a major change in a current scientific belief that contradicts ancient Indian science might cause a stir.

 

[metis]

Small world...I was a very regular there....I've put on pounds at their lunch buffet, believe me..

Hey, it's still my favorite place for dining, but we limit going there because my wife has trouble handling a lot of spices, even if they're mild-- and she was born and raised in Italy.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

I found The Tree of Knowledge or Blind Faith? interesting.

 

[Thief]

I know nothing of the conflict between Hawking and Susskind, but my statement interpreted what the Dalai Lama meant. Science, being less easily misinterpreted, should be relied upon first, and scripture second.

Nay.
Science displays in detail how things work.
Glimpses into the workings of creation.
You can know the Artist by His creation.

As for theology.....that would be how to deal with the Creator.
All the science ever won't help if science is all you know.

It's my belief the devil knows scripture...book and verse.
The old testament, new testament, the Quran, wisdom of all kinds.....
But most believe he doesn't have place among the sons of God.
(Job)

Still, science is good stuff. I like it.
Believe in God because of it.

But scripture bears more importance as a preparatory discipline.
We go where such things do matter.

The petri dish we live in now won't last.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

I know nothing of the conflict between Hawking and Susskind

It had nothing to do interpreting science, and nothing to do with misinterpretation, so your point stands.