By Scientists, I do not mean people who's jobs are in the scientific community. I mean people who believe in the logical, scientific explanations of worldly phenomenon--ie Evolution, Gravity, etc.
By Traditional Believer I am refering to people who take a traditional, faith based view of their religion. Whether this is an Orthodox Jew or a Fundamentalist Muslim or a Evangelical Christian, the important thing is that they prefer old traditional and faith based explanations of worldly phenomenon. This group could also include some Wiccans, Buddhists, Hindu, Taoists, etc. et al.
Believe it or not, these groups are not mutually exclusive.
I hope nobody takes offense at either description.
Anyway, I was reading an old text book about the influence and growth of Buddhism in ancient China. (OK, I read obscure 20 year old history books for fun. Sue me.) One of the reasons given for Buddhism's invasion of Chinese thought after the fall of the Han dynasty (we don't have time for all the details here) was that it offered two paths to enlightenment. The traditional path was one of building up good karma over ones life, and over many many lives, until with diligent effort, one obtains enlightenment. The other tradition say that with strong personal effort, and the aid of the Buddha and other surpernatural forces, instant enlightenment is granted to the worthy.
This is the division I see here.
The Scientists believe that enlightenment to the secrets of most of the universe can be obtained through centuries of study, thought, and review.
The Traditional Believers offer instant truth, obtained through things such as Baptism, or moments of divine intervention, or pre-written in thier holy texts. I don't like the phrase Instant Truth, because I don't want to compare it to Instant Gratification, but I can't think of a better term at the moment.
I have read many of the holy texts, and have not had that moment of enlightenment. I try to keep myself open to it. Until that time I can only rely on the continueing but slow struggle for scientific enlightenment.
Science and Logic may not be perfect, but until God deems it appropriate to tell me differently, its better than the alternatives--relying on the promises of others that they new someone who knew someone who obtained the truth.
Posts: 11895 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
While my search for truth uses both routes and they closely intertwine, it is rare for me to have both routes to the same information.
In my chosen field of linguistics, the ultimate answer two why we have language hasn't really been answered. But I don't defer to a religious explanation of that. This is different from my view on, say, evolution- where I am pretty much an intelligent design believer.
Most of my religious knowledge has bearing on very personal things. But there are a lot of religious topics I haven't had a direct religious experience concerning. Like not smoking. Now not drinking I did have a religious experience about, and that was enough for me to go along with the no smoking thing.
Posts: 2010 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Interesting. I've never heard the "instant truth" description of religion before. I guess in a way, the idea of "received truth" is what that means. I also never thought of the enlightenment sought in Buddhism as akin to the faith of Christianity.
Hmm...
<thinks>
Science and rational thought leading to enlightenment over a lifetime of hard work...Well...I'm not sure I buy that either. Science progresses in jumps and plateaus, or cycles (depends on which historian of science one chooses to believe).
Really, I think I'm kind of stuck on the separate magesteria side of thinking about this dichotomy. I mean, perhaps someday someone will have a brilliant insight that will unify science (empiricism) and religion (faith). But they are really two different ways of looking at and understanding the universe. And, in particular, their domains are different.
The soul, God, the divine in man, the ultimate meaning and purpose for it all... that's what religion is for. To answer the questions we can't possibly answer for ourselves. Who believe us anyway. Those answers have to feel like they come from outside -- or as the result of vast, spiritual enlightenment (earned or not).
How stuff works, why it's this way and not some other way, when things happened, etc. Those are the types of questions we can approach with our senses and our intellect.
There's so little overlap between science and religion that really, we only get into "trouble" when there are: 1) instances where one is encroaching on the other's domain (usually, these turn out to be misunderstandings of the true teachings on both sides) 2) people assert things that can't be supported by either observation (science) or doctrine (religion) 3) competing definitions of words (like the word theory) are used by the two camps.
Anyway, I think the idea is interesting, but I think it might need more fleshing out before I can "get it" with respect to either what it says about religion or about science.
Posts: 22497 | Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Seeing Bob's name reminded me that there are religions that aren't oriented toward personal revelation. Their quest for truth is more what you described as the logical reasonable approach, or the multi-generational group approach.
Posts: 2010 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I didn't speak clearly. Buddhism seeks enlightenment through many lifetimes of good karma. Science seeks truth through many lifetimes of good science. The difference is that Buddhism is talking about one person, Science is talking about many many scientists working together.
Posts: 11895 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I still say there are Judeo-Christian religions that take a view modeled on academic refinement. At least, that is the sense I get from the people who call Mormonism a cult.
Posts: 2010 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
As You certainly understand in some post i wrote before, I'm a scientist with a logic and cartesian mind. But I think Sciences must be complete by Imagination and philosophy. I'm not religious in the sence I don't go to church, But I prefer good act than pray. I wonder finally if it is my way to pray, to serve God or some Creator like that.
Sciences currenly don't explane all. Life and Death are the greatest unknown with "Why ?".
Posts: 1189 | Registered: Dec 2004
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
