I'm not so sure, but perhaps I misunderstood him. I took it as the dangers of society allowing science to move without necessarily having a social benefit and direction. Advancement for the sake of advancement alone, which, dpending on your goals, may or may not lead to "progression". Praising Science as a God with an intention, aim, benefit and consciousness of its own inherently is at least as dangerous as ignoring/denying science altogether. Invent the atomic bomb, and you have an atomic bomb. Science will not keep us from using it, only society will. Science is not capable of taking responsibility or accountability for the actions of scientists, so society must. Which, as I said, aligns closely with the Dalai Lama's views and Buddhist teaching in general. Again, though, I may have misundertsood him.
You have not misunderstood me at all. and even if you did, go ahead and give direction to this thread. You are dong great!
Buddha1, I believe that most of what you said is correct, but you're not quite there yet. The Christian dominance of science is there, but they gained and have retained as much power as they can to destroy any given scientist or science. Thus they influence the results. They even get people to pretend that this isn't happening, even in the face of things like the suppression of RU-486, the "oversight" of stem-cell research, the attempts to force intelligent design into classrooms, and their very consistent history of opposing scientific research that doesn't support the theocracy's view. At one time they opposed everything that we call science, using deadly force, and that was not nearly long enough ago.
What I'm suggesting is that this faith in science (science as a whole, including scientists, scientific methods, scientific theories, etc., etc......I see that you people are using the words science and scientific method interchangeably). should not be absolute and blind. I'm taking a broader view of things --- someone who speaks from within the scientific institution cannot get the full perspective. And this is a broader view: When something wrong or false is forwarded in the name of science, people tend to believe in it instantly. The society has immense faith in the science institution, so the wrong results nevertheless may have an immense impact on the course that the society takes. And many people may suffer because of the wrong findings. Then people who know better will be disempowered and will not be heard. By the time science rectifies its mistakes it would already have caused a lot of damage to people, for some irreversible. It does not matter, who faltered in giving out a wrong finding. Whether it was the result of wrong sampling or wrong methodology or the integrity of the scientist was questionable.....worse is the scenario when the entire scientific community gang up to distort the truth in the name of science. But the fact of the matter is that there have been too many mistakes.....which means that we have to accept the limitations of science. The institution of science has to take responsibility for the actions of its various constituents. And if the mistakes become too frequent then we have to admit that the system itself is not perfect. Unfortunately, the fanatics fail to see this objectively. If too many muslims support religious violence, and if it has gone on for too long.....it would not suffice to say that there is nothing wrong with the religion itself, it is some misguided people who are giving Islam a bad name. Of course Islam has to take the responsibility. There is something wrong in its system, its ideology. People are the same everywhere. It's the system under which they live which brings the good or bad out in them. The religious system of Islam tends to empower, encourage and glorify religious fanaticism and violence. The fanatics of science can say what ever they like, but eventually one would judge science on the basis of results that it delivers. And science has had a mixed performance --- which means it has its good and bad aspects. Thus we should let science in our lives but with proper precautions. It does not mean that we should chuck out the scientific system. Perhaps that day too would come --- as it has happened with religion. Today, relgion (of the kind practised by Christianity and Islam) is a burden on humankind and we would be better off without them. But they have grown so powerful that we have to live with them. Therefore a good scientist should be aware of the limitations and loopholes of science. And laymen -- the end user too. Laymen should consider scientific breakthroughs but should also use their own mind and heart.
That's yet another angle to the whole issue. So religion uses, abuses and accuses science --- according to its convenience. Christianity actually has not much of spirituality in it. Spirituality may actually have an important role to play in giving direction to science. Like Albert Einstein said: Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind (I'm sure he meant spirituality).
If we are not careful, science will do to rational thinking what religion did to spirituality. Religion started by claiming to represent spirituality then became an end in itself.
Science can only give us physical comforts, physical health and physical protection. Life is much more than the physical. But while it does that it depletes our nature (inside and outside), harms our emotional/ sprititual (even social) aspects, and leaves in its wake new physical discomforts, physical diseases and makes us physically much more unsafe than we previously ever were. As an example let me take the case of how the rich in my country use air-conditioners to cool their homes. In the beginning the environment had given us a pleasant weather to live in. But we cut down all the trees --- using science , and the heat became unbearable. And today we try to get back a pleasant temperature using scientific gadgets like 'airconditioners'. But these airconditioners are only a short term answer. In the long term what is happening is that they are leaving a lot of CF2 (or whatever) that is depleting the ozone layer --- which will create much more problems for human beings. Thus in the end science --- for short term comforts is creating long term problems for us. Thus one major drawback of science is that it is short sighted.
Not science, science is a method of finding out truth, unwise people who use science to short sighted means are to blame. There's a lot of good that science has given, also in finding about human consciousness, etc. The problem we mostly have nowadays is that most humans are like cave people with a chainsaw, i.e., the technical development has run forwards the development of consciousness, thus we have the situation of today.
It's not like Christianity invented science. It is like it tore it down and attempted to guide the Renaissance of science in its image. I don't know that any religion is capable of actually creating science. At least if it's like the religions of Abraham, it actually has to let go of control or we just don't have science at all. Science isn't short-sighted. The proper knowledge of science lets you see in some sense clear to the end of time. The mistake we make in our terminology is to use the term "science" to refer to science that is controlled by religious and political authority. That kind of science becomes short-sighted when the long view is at odds with the needs and ambitions of the authorities and special interest groups.
Steel and shadows in tears and cries, the blood is leaving, the Sun dissapears; spirits of an ancient past arise from the dreams of deformed sculls, damaged souls. Regression, regression marches backwards forth, a procession through the shadow land; civilization stops breathing, is below the sand, only satellites in space remain, sending signals to no man's land. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Buddha1 wrote "Can anyone here define science?" Can you? Obviously you have no real idea of its purpose. Ever heard of an ethics committee? They make it very hard for unethical experiments to be approved. What makes people assume that all scientists are immoral and without conscience? At least their conscience is not dictated to by an old book or an imaginary god. I like Buddhism because a sense of morals is said to be inherent in each person. CHECK IT OUT one_raven: The Dalai Lama and scientists unite to study meditation http://www.news.wisc.edu/story.php?get=6205 "Known to have a life-long curiosity about science and technology, the Dalai Lama has expressed keen interest in this sophisticated new technology that can be used non-invasively to examine the effects of meditation. "Wonderful," he said repeatedly at seeing it. With characteristic humor, he added that he would like to get his hands on tools he saw in the laboratory machine room, where parts for the scanners are made. The Dalai Lama says he has shunned the warnings of others who fear that science is the killer of religion. Going his own way, as the Buddha advised, His Holiness says he sees many benefits in science. "I have great respect for science, " he says. "But scientists, on their own, cannot prove nirvana. Science shows us that there are practices that can make a difference between a happy life and a miserable life. A real understanding of the true nature of the mind can only be gained through meditation." The unique collaboration on meditation is just beginning, says Davidson. ~~~~ So there you have it, read the rest if you like.
Perhaps. But if you do, you have not really helped. Why don't you give a definition that can tell me more than I know right now. By the way, I have put forward a definition in my first post --- so we have a starting point for discussion, if there is a difference in the way we percieve science. Apparently its not working We can have a meaningful discussion only when people get off the initial hysteria, stop feeling hurt and become defensive. No body said all scientists are immoral and without conscience. What I'm saying is that the institution of science, in its present form has enough loopholes that allows the corrupt and immoral scientists to abuse scientific procedures and get away with it. They have their own bibles and qurans, and they could be very fanatic about them.
What you guys are missing here is that science is only good to find out the physical aspect of truth, that too which can be physically verified. Thus it only looks at the partial truth. The whole truth is much bigger than that. Sometimes a partial truth can be more dangerous than what is 'false'. An institution which is based on the partial view of the truth, if it becomes the ruling or guiding force of our life can have disastrous results. Therefore the society must strike a balance between science and spirituality. Another limitation of science is that it can only measure what is physically verifiable.
It is a blatant misuse of power --- power and blind faith that science has generated because of it's 'miracles' --- to use science to measure physically non-verfiable dimensions of life such as human emotions and nature. And blinded with this power, science is discounting spirituality.
How are human emotions and human nature non-verifiable? As I'm studying neuroscience I'd argue that emotions may only be somewhat measurable at this point, but thanks to ongoing progress in imaging technologies, neurochemistry, and genetics, will become much more accurately measureable in the future. What is wrong with gaining an understanding into human nature, into how the mind actually works? And how does that go against your Buddhism? Could you please refer to some research or experiments or practices, that are unethical? Why is it ok for scientists to study the composition of rocks (for example), but not of people? I'd say it is most benefitual for us as a human race to truly endeavour to understand why we think what we think, feel what we feel, and do what we do. Specifically, research and insight into human emotions and emotional problems have made irrefutable progress in the last 50 years: into the nature, causes, and treatments of mental illness. As for its "miracles" how many people have been saved from cancer because of spirituality? Spirituality helps people with cancer to die more comfortably. Thanks to more of these "miracles" of science, I am alive, healthy, and often happy today. If it werent for these miracles of science, I would certainly not be alive, or healthy today. Thanks to these miracles of science, my parents (one man, one woman, married for nearly 20 years) were able to conceive a child - my brother. He is now 5. Let me guess that it scares you that science can't (YET) define spirituality? You think science is insulting your spirituality? I have seen at univeristy a human brain, that was willingly donated to our university before the patient died (15 years ago), and then preserved. The folia of the cerebellum are so small, so intricate, so beautiful, like folia from some kind of plant. It made me wonder about intelligent design! A therapist (of any type) gives a profoundly spiritual gift when he/she helps an individual who is suffering, helps them to understand or to accept, to change or overcome. Easing the suffering of a complete stranger is an amazing gift.
It is crazy to think that spirituality and science cannot mix together. I know many scientists that are very “spiritual,” or “religious,” whichever you prefer. They understand that most science is theory that is rigorously tested. The theory can always be thrown out if something disproves it. That is the difference between faith and science, science can be proven false and faith cannot. You can understand what science has given you thus far and still have faith in whatever you want.
If you have failed to notice, that is what I'm asking for -- a fusion of science, philosophy and spirituality. Buddhism (and I'm not a Buddhist, I only admire Buddhism!) is a practise which is a beautiful amalgamation of scientific and spiritual outlook. In fact in most ancient traditions it was not possible to determine where one ended and the other started --- that's how things were meant to be.
Budda1, I must admit that I did not read the entire thread, so if I read something out of context I apologize. I agree that science and philosophy do mix very well and it is good for everybody to have an understanding of both. However, I do not subscribe to the ancient tradition of not determining where one ends and the other started, there is in fact a fine line. One is falsifiable and can be tested, while the other cannot, it is pure faith. I just want to point out that there is a division there, but it can still work together. I am really tired so this may not make too much sense, but I only post here when I am tired so I guess you will have to get used to that if it is OK with you.
