Seriously I luv this guy. He’s doing a lot to bring around the stupidity of most “spiritualists”. For getting up, and stating to the world that in matters where science, and religion conflict we should accept science. I SAY THREE CHEERS FOR THE DALI LAMA =D> =D> =D> =D>
I think this is a big step to bringing around the publics consciousness about science. Now only if the pope would get up and say the same thing… But I suppose buddhists are far less concerned with fairy tales then christians… so I wouldn’t hedge my bets on that one. Ohh where ohh where is christianity’s Dali Lama???
I read “The Art of Happiness” which is mostly direct philosophy from the Dalai Lama. I thought it would be airy-fairy and over-spiritual, but it actual backed up its claims with some science, and was pretty reasonable. I reccomend it to everyone, and I totally agree that the Dalai Lama is a hottie.
Yes, especially since many scientists, regardless of their faith, often agree upon research findings, especially research that helps with vaccines and creates new technology. You know, like the computer, radio, television, cell phone.
Some can be very dogmatic when some religious idiot trys to refute scientific claims based upon a book written more than a thousand years ago. "The can’t be so, because the Qur’an, Torah, Bible states blah, blah, blah.
Can you contend that you don’t have faith in Science?? When you pick up your phone and dail a number do you think for a moment think that your call will not go through? Or do you just BLINDLY dial the number. Have you ever taken a plane? If so you’ve most certainly put your life in the hands of the science you so dispize. I wonder if you would just as quickly bet your life on a miracle of god?
I posit that most people on earth have a blind faith in science, and that they take it for granted.
Yes, in fact I positively expect it to fail. From my experience technology is just as temperamental as animate people. When the phone rings why do dogs always think that it’s for them?
Usually I look at the keys, dial the number, hope that I’ve dialled it correctly, wonder why it hasn’t connected, have a brief fear that the apocalypse has happened everywhere but in my immediate locality, listen to the phone ringing… Usually…
I don’t despise scientists. I just think that they are overrated, have too much authority and are often hypocritical. If you want to keep religion and science separate (which is pointless and impossible anyway, but we needn’t get into that massive historical debate) then you should be in favour of scientists keeping their noses out of the church…
I took a plane, several actually. I went to New York, then took an internal flight (please Imp, no puns) to Washington. I expected them to crash. They didn’t, I was moderately disappointed. It certainly didn’t increase my ‘faith’ in scientists…
Probably…
Hard to say really, I’ve never been in the position to do so…
In which case why do you seek to distinguish it from religion?
I thought that that was obvious. I can take a plane. Ie; science is backed up by empirical evidence, mountains and mountains of it, and with which we can readily predict certain aspects the future. How magical!!! Well not really its just good science.
You have an old dusty book, an imaginary friend, and contrary to the thousands of times you’ve cried wolf about the apocalypse, such things have not happened.
Well no it is impossible to keep them seperate, that is why many scientists, in several different fields are now turning to study religion as a natural phenomenon. We will understand why you silly people persist, and in understanding it we will bring about change.
You see its the fact that the planes didn’t crash, and under 1% of them don’t crash… and yet you still rant on about science… give me a break… leave technology then, and go out into the woods, to be with your god, or gods… (does yours have six arms… no wait thats those other people… it is hard sorting out all these imaginary figments… I do wonder which are right… oh yeah none are)
All of this is a strawman. Funny how scientists can get so unscientific when they talk about religion, adopting the most flagrantly ad hoc, conclusion-led arguments…
‘You silly people’ verges on ad hominem, don’t you scientists, the apparent lords of the rational argument based on evidence, have anything better to say about religious belief?
Under 1% of them don’t crash - which means that 99% of them do crash, thus confirming precisely what I’ve been saying about blind faith in technology being irrational…
Thanks for proving my point so adeptly…
Rounder, present for me your disproof of the existence of metaphysical entities or I’ll continue to dismiss your points as childish and incorrect. stop arguing by assertion, stop being unscientific in your attempts to defend science or you just seem hypocritical…
–It seems you’ve read the Dalai Lama, have you read any Catholic Papal documents?
– By the Pope, do you mean the present one, or any one, or do you mean official Chruch teaching? Our present pope has written only one letter to the Bishops so far – and that on the topic of love.
–If you want to read something Catholic on the rational and the spiritual, I recommend Fides et Ratio by John Paul II. This is a pope who wrote: Faith and reason are twin wings on which we ascend to the heights.
You worried regarding ad homs? Please, you called me a “nationalist bitch” because I disagreed with you. You often indulge in ad homs, and continually resorted and at time still resort to this fallacy when any person disagrees with you.
Please refresh my memory. If this is the Pope who started Vatican II and started bring Catholism into the present day, saved many Jews during WWII, I believe him one of the best Popes, if not the best Pope that ever lived. Bravo and many cheers for the man. =D> =D> =D> =D> =D>
Someoneisatthedoor, you’re ridiculous. You don’t even know the meaning of the falacies you’re appealing to. There’s no inconsistency in me calling you ridiculous. The fallacy would only arise if this were the foundation of my argument. But there’s no problem in arriving at it as a conclusion.
On to real business: Science is distinct from religion in many important ways. Let me run through some of the biggest.
Science is non-dogmatic. The only dogma that science assumes is that we exist and that there is an objective reality. These are also the dogma of almost every human on earth. When I see someone throw a ball at me, I duck. I can do some mental masturbation and dabble in skepticism, but for the most part I act in accordance with the dogma of science(this is not to say that skeptics are wrong or worthless, but rather that their considerations don’t really factor in to scientific discussions). Quite noteably, this “dogma” of science is also accepted, at least implicitly, by just about every religion, at least by the largest of the world religions.
Furthermore, science is actively seeking to disprove itself, and only by exhausting the disproofs is it considered (and only temporarily) proven.
The mordern body of scientific is much, much more up to date than most religions. Because of its non-deogmatic stance, it is constantly revised and updated, and consequently it becomes more accurate (at least by the standard of predictability), deeper, and more useful than (and I hesitate to say) the entirety of all religious bodies of “knowledge” insofar as they are unscientific and dogmatic.
It is empirically verifiable in many ways. As someone else said, there are many highly reliable examples of scientific achievements in our everyday lives (the medium of this debate…). And, as I’ve mentioned already, the reliable predictions science can make, often in pioneering fields, are incredible, and nothing religion can offer even compares.
These should be enough, because they show scientific and religious modes of thought to be significantly different.
So, yeah, enough with ignorant comparisons.
