Religion as a Meme

[Phi]

Originally Posted by littlemissattitude

Phi...that was a great poem. It made me laugh, as well.

On a slightly more serious note, however, I would hope that someone turned on to science by Sagan or Gould or one of the other popularizers would go on to find out more and not just get caught up in their favorite scientist's particular orthodoxy. I followed both Sagan's and Gould's careers, but I certainly haven't swallowed their dogmas whole. Instead I went on to find out more about the things that interest me in science and have formed my own - albeit amateur - conclusions about the issues I first learned about from their work.

Of course, I've always been an independent thinker, not willing to take anyone's word for anything. Been that way ever since I leanred that my first grade teacher lied to us about George Washington chopping down the cherry tree. I felt so betrayed. And despite the smiley face, I'm absolutely serious about that.

Thanks for your laughter too. Persons incapable of laughing at themselves(I work like a monk) are persons not too fun to be around, I think. I know many who have a bent for science and are rather dull of humor.
The cherry tree thing was a slight disappointment, but for me reading Sagan was more so. I was really into astronomy at the time, and was a fan until Cosmos came out. I really thought the whole book would be about astronomy. To me he was using his position as a scientist to put forth his own opinions as if they were science. (They were not.)
While he interested more students in science by doing so, he also created a lot of Saganites. Not good for them, and not good for science. There are an awful lot of people using the words "science" and "scientific method" without a clue what that is, to determine what to believe in and what to discard from their lives. But the nature of hard science is to try to ignore and eliminate subjectivity, half or more of right brain function; now we have a lot of people trying to eliminate half of their right brain function, and it ain't pretty! Lots & lots of half-minded people trying to do what cannot be done. Read Godel & Jung: you cannot escape your own psyche. There's nothing wrong with "soft science." It has its place. And "hard linear science" is bending gradually, at last. Maybe it's best that the Saganites cannot comprehend quantum physics and what's happening there. It just might push some over the edge completely.

[juantoo3]

Maybe it's best that the Saganites cannot comprehend quantum physics and what's happening there. It just might push some over the edge completely.

And this...somehow...is a bad thing?

[juantoo3]

LittleMiss, I overlooked this earlier,

Except to tell juan - you really need to visit Yosemite. It is a beautiful place.

I would love to go see Yosemite, unfortunately the time I went to Sequoia the traffic was horrible. I can't help but agree with the person who said we are loving our natural parks to death.
Next up on my agenda though, is Methuselah! The 5000 year old Bristlecone Pine up around Bishop, although I hear she is no longer considered the oldest living tree.

[Susma Rio Sep]

Originally Posted by Phi

...
There are an awful lot of people using the words "science" and "scientific method" without a clue what that is, to determine what to believe in and what to discard from their lives. ...

I myself am a bit unsure what exactly is science, and also what exactly is religion.

I would like you to contribute to my education.

What do you think is science, in a breif paragraph?

And what do you think is religion, also in a brief paragraph?

I am sure that you can tell me the answers in brief paragraphs, your own ideas from your acquaintance with science and with religion.

Susma Rio Sep

[Phi]

Originally Posted by Susma Rio Sep

I myself am a bit unsure what exactly is science, and also what exactly is religion.

I would like you to contribute to my education.

What do you think is science, in a breif paragraph?

And what do you think is religion, also in a brief paragraph?

I am sure that you can tell me the answers in brief paragraphs, your own ideas from your acquaintance with science and with religion.

Susma Rio Sep

Since you asked for brief:
Hard science is, first and foremost, left-brain inquiry. Scientific method is the attempt to establish proof by certain left-brain, linear methods designed for laboratory experiments and usually the scientist must show proofs by linear mathematics. Hard science and "scientific method" deliberately and methodically attempt to leave out subjectivity in order that the opinion of the scientist does not get in the way of facts in an experiment. (Quantum physics illustrates, among many other extraordinary things, that this is not entirely possible even in controlled experiments.) Once the experiment is finished, a good scientist uses both sides of his brain to comprehend the full meaning of the result of each small and controlled experiment, and to intuit new postulates for further study.
Some persons get confused and try to utilize scientific method (left-brain, linear thinking) to determine what to believe and what to discard in their lives. They seem to want to make life, and themselves, to be a controlled experiment. Persons cannot escape their psyches, nor their right brains. (Godel, a logician/mathematician, illustrates this in a very simple way.)
Please see the religion as meme thread to see this opinion further expounded upon if you would like to know more about how I think about science as a religion.
Religion is (must be IMHO) an experience, not just an experiment, that utilizes both sides of the brain right from start to forever, not just the left side.
For those who cannot discern wisdom in fables, even a truly thorough study of science sans dogma and including "soft sciences" and quantum theories might lead to better ability towards discernment of wisdom throughout history; provided that they are willing to undertake a long and arduous study which will require the use of their whole brain and will take many years.
An open mind is prerequisite for both.

[Phi]

Please see the religion as meme thread to see this opinion further expounded upon if you would like to know more about how I think about science as a religion.
Whoops that should have read linear science as meme, not religion as meme.
And the tongue in cheek poem might help too...

[Phi]

Science is a search for fact.
Religion is a search for wisdom.

[Vajradhara]

Originally Posted by Phi

Science is a search for fact.
Religion is a search for wisdom.

Namaste Phi,

thank you for the post.

i like this summary.

i would have summarzied it differently, but that's just me for you

Science is the search for "how"
Religion is the search for "why"

perhaps... science is simply a paradigm for conducting inquries into the nature of the universe and religions are a paradigm for understanding the nature of the universe?

[Phi]

In order for a person (and life) to actually become a controlled experiment, there has to be one who performs the experiment and controls all facets thereof. This automatically posits G-d.

[Phi]

Originally Posted by Vajradhara

Namaste Phi,

thank you for the post.

i like this summary.

i would have summarzied it differently, but that's just me for you

Science is the search for "how"
Religion is the search for "why"

perhaps... science is simply a paradigm for conducting inquries into the nature of the universe and religions are a paradigm for understanding the nature of the universe?

Namaste, back at ya!
I like your summary as well. Perhaps a four line summary would do, and we can collaborate?

[Phi]

As a newcomer to this board, I am trying to go back and read many posts to see what the others think, and how they think. The last post of your prior to the defining of religion and science ones was very well put.
I agree that western science is finally coming around to see things in a more whole way, and I find it exciting. As discoveries were made, that led to more geometrical, non planar ways of seeing things and "proving" things mathematically. Even some ancient Greek wisdom has been rather ignored in the past :like the ancient understanding that all straight lines curve eventually.
The discoveries were real, but the linear mathematics were insufficient as proofs of the reality. The math had to develop in order to provide proofs of scientific results. The line had to curve, the planar circle had to expand into a globe and the plane had to be abandoned, so to speak. I find it all fascinating and believe that it heralds a new cycle in western/eastern understanding and in the development of humankind.

[juantoo3]

Kindest regards, LittleMissAttitude!

Originally Posted by littlemissattitude

Not yet. I guess I wasn't emphatic enough or something.

Keep trying!

As for Asimov, he was a scientist - I think he held a Ph.D. in chemistry from somewhere like Columbia University (but don't quote me; it's been a long time since I read his published journals). In fact, he taught on the university level, and has probably written more nonfiction than fiction, much of it on scientific subjects.

Thanks, I hold both Asimov and Clarke in high esteem regardless.

My point about popularizers is that they open the world of science up to whoever is interested, which I think is a good thing. Sagan especially got laughed at a lot for his manner - he did have a way of pontificating sometimes - but he was enthusiastic about his work, and about science in general, and that served to attract a lot of people to science. So did Gould's popular writings, even though they weren't always the easiest reading in the world. This, by the way, was one of the things I most enjoyed about reading him - he didn't seem to talk down to the reader. The problem the non-popularizers had with them was two-fold, I think. For one thing, they were simply jealous that they didn't receive the public adulation that those two did. The other aspect, as I said, was simply that these scientists felt that popularization let too many people into the temple, so to speak.

Precisely.

Funny thing about biology - the chemists and physicists I know consider biology to be a "soft" science. Not enough math in it for them, or something, to go along with the lesser amount of predictability. And you make a good point about anthropology and sociology (which I consider, by the way, to be really the same subject only approached from different perspectives; I've got a long justification for that which I won't go into here) - they don't lend themselves to replicability and accurate predictions. They really don't lend themselves readily to number crunching, and are much more anecdotal in nature. This is why I am uncomfortable with the idea of the "social sciences". The study of cultures is an art and a craft much more than it is a science, and to make it into too much of a science robs it of much of its ability and effectiveness.

Interesting, the biologists I know consider biology to be a pretty hard science! I suppose there is a lot to do with perspective, but medicine I would think to hold a pretty respectable position.

Everyone has an agenda. That's just a fact of life.

Indeed!

I've read about these discoveries. Seemingly human and seemingly dinosaur footprints apparently in association in the same strata, right? My own opinion is that these probably have been interpreted by Baugh and others in light of their young-earth bias. But then, I don't have the expertise to determine that for sure, and I haven't seen their evidence in real life, so who am I to say that my evaluation is in any way definitive. However, I believe that these geofacts have been looked at by scientists and determined to be spurious. The problem with this example is that it is mostly an example of deuling biases.

It took me over ten years and several trips across the country to find the place, but I walked in the prints (that is, one set of them, there are several). Dino prints from the same area were removed long ago and put on display in New York (I seem to recall the Metropolitan museum, but I could be mistaken), as well as the Natural History museum in Austin, Texas. So the dino prints are recognized as valid, the controversy is the human prints found among them.

I'm actually one who has no trouble reconciling some sort of creative force in the universe with the idea of an ancient earth and geolgoical and biological evolution. Which just means that believers in both a young earth and a convetionally scientific interpretation of an ancient earth often feel free to open fire on me. Still, there are those in the trenches who hold the same view as I do who also do not see a contradiction.

Thanks, now I don't feel so alone. I actually presented a similar thought in a grade school science fair, and was soundly rebuffed. My point being, I have long held the concept; gathering the information and evidences has been the challenge.

I've read a good book that advocates this position, but I don't have ready access to it so I cannot

give you the title and author right now. I'll see if I can dig it up and post it when I can.

I'll look forward to it.

Except to tell juan - you really need to visit Yosemite. It is a beautiful place.

There are many natural wonders I hope to live to see. The High Sierras hold some awesome natural wonders!

[juantoo3]

Kindest Regards, Phi!

Originally Posted by Phi

As a newcomer to this board, I am trying to go back and read many posts to see what the others think, and how they think. The last post of your prior to the defining of religion and science ones was very well put.
I agree that western science is finally coming around to see things in a more whole way, and I find it exciting. As discoveries were made, that led to more geometrical, non planar ways of seeing things and "proving" things mathematically. Even some ancient Greek wisdom has been rather ignored in the past :like the ancient understanding that all straight lines curve eventually.
The discoveries were real, but the linear mathematics were insufficient as proofs of the reality. The math had to develop in order to provide proofs of scientific results. The line had to curve, the planar circle had to expand into a globe and the plane had to be abandoned, so to speak. I find it all fascinating and believe that it heralds a new cycle in western/eastern understanding and in the development of humankind.

I hope it is a threshhold worth crossing, that is, I hope others too can see the value.

[juantoo3]

Bump to bring it out of the vault.

[Vajradhara]

Namaste Phi,


goodness!!! i apologize for my poor netiquette!

thank you for the kind words

in many senses this is a very exciting time in our history... the nearly instant communication with beings around the globe is changing everyones views regarding those beings and cultures of which they have little experience or knowledge.

beings, especially humans, can react a bit negetively with regards to change and we are talking rapid change of a vast scale for many beings. this is its own particular challenge and, i should think, something that most of us on these internet chat forums can actually do something about

perhaps not on any sort of scale, mind you, but on an individual level... direct contact between beings often has a way of creating respect and tolerance in both beings which other means could not accomplish.