We are Lost in Thought

[Clerkenwell]

Originally Posted by Rudyard K

LOL. It is man's arrogance that thinks that science provides explanations.

5,000 years from now they will laugh at our primitive beliefs of our knowledge of science...much like we laugh at the flat earth folks of centuries ago. And 5,000 years after that...the people of that time will be laughing at them.

While man mainpulates religion for his own purposes over the ages...most of the major religions fundamentals have perseviered much longer than scientifc "facts" as discovered by man.

The reasons for your choice of pseudonym and avatar just became clear. The pompous proclamation of eternal verities (despite all evidence to the contrary) whilst gently mocking modernity may have carried the air of authority in late 19thC England but it's just plain dumb these days.

[Tiffani Jameson]

Originally Posted by ninasastri

Hi Darling :-)

I disagree with you in the same way i disagree with Lauren on the latter (the last topic) that all religions help to seek fulfilment. This might be true as i pointed out, but every religion has core values which can be much to the detriment of some person fulfilling. I don`t want to repeat myself on the gay and jewish issues with some religious values or on the issues of feminism or emanzipation (yes also pagan religions DO indeed have feminist issues...). So a religion helps to divide people also into classes and norms. Most of all these norms are to a detriment of those who are not part of that religions (the catholics and their "missionary positions" (haha) have destroyed oh so much - remember the inkas and aztecs? because they wanted to force their belief on everyone) Even nowadays we are under the handle of too much catholicism and it has an influence in what we say or do? Heteronormativity comes with it.

A religious insitution is also there to have power to say which kind of fulfillment is ok and which is not (being gay in mormonism ?? an absolute NO NO? i already had a disagreement with Lauren on hedonism and religions ? some endorse it as a part to reach higher states of consciousness some despise it as a lack of personal capabilities to restrain one-self)


What happened in transpersonal areas of thought is that they found that every religion contains mystical experiences which are the same ones in all religions (note : has nothing to do with fulfilment, morals , ethics etc. ...) Based on these experiences happens an interpretation , which leads to the catastrophic elements of religions deciding which entities of thought-streams are fulfilling or not.

What you pointed out, is the same i pointed out with the religious contemplations as a base for mystical religions. It has nothing to do with religions if we believe in some higher power. At all.
So if you state that all religions are there to fulfillment. Its wrong. Sorry to say :-). I do think y ou have to make a distinction between contemplative experiences and religions as religious institutions. Religions ARE already far away from contemplative matters. If that weren?t the case the world would be a more peaceful place. And mormons would not make the proposition 8 in California? And catholics would not have destroyed africa with their influence (africa was matrilinear culture)..

So what i miss within your writings is the same i miss in Laurens sayings: To make said distinction between contemplative experiences and religions. You cannot throw all together into one box. Its confusing .
I think the article pointed that out as well. Its a beautiful article that reminds us to come back to the base of all religions fundaments, which are contemplative experience who trigger thought.

If we do so - we can transcend all religions and become better empathic persons. And peace will come in this world . Transpersonal Psychology (Sociology) does exactly that. Spo stating that science and religion are enemies is only partially true. That said its true when it comes to the fundaments of religions - the DOGMA - not when it comes to mystical experiences. There we are united. But that has nothing - and i mean absolutely nothing to do with morals, ethics, personal fulfillment , hedonism (or not) or anything anything remotely like that.

I agree with your believe in a higher (transpersonal that is) power. I seek to strenghten it too. And i assume you mean the power within all experiences and the love we share . ANd that is free from all religions.Because contemplative experiences ARE per se free from JUDGEMENT. A religion NEVER EVER EVER EVER EVER EVER is. NO matter how you twist and turn it. Do you know Terence McKenna`s "The food of gods"? He writes about entheogens.

Merci,
Sina

Honestly, Nina, we agree. But the parts of religion that seek to deny basic human nature is what I feel to be the 'man-made' part of religion, That's what I call the 'double-dog dare' of religion. You had to offer something as a change to what the masses were doing. Who could starve themselves the longest, who could go the longest without sex, and whoever lost payed the price on earth and in the afterlife.

Contemplative experiences and religion, in my opinion cannot be compared. Religion is just a name we have given to different opinions of spirituality. Spirituality is universal. Spirituality, is that which science labels contemplative experiences. No matter how they come about, and from what frame of mind, they are the same. They are never new, only to the person to which they become evident. The universe in which we're all connected operates on the same set of laws. That's why when you get to the important stuff, leaving out all the rules and double-dog dares of religion, they're basically the same.

Originally Posted by Bebe Le Strange

Tiffani I don't believe that you have to have religion to come to any enlightenment, nor feel some sense of oneness. Religion and its claim to bring someone closer to some God is in fact a fallacy, almost delusional thinking that there is some deity in the sky helping you along. Religion and politics and governments running the people based on religion has and always has been since before the so called birth of "christ". It is entrenched in history. As I said before, it is a way to control the masses and to bring people to power who use that influence to keep that control. Not only that but people of so called "faith" or "spiritual-ness" often lose the critical thinking and rationality that is needed to look at real facts.

You are absolutely right. You don't NEED religion to come to enlightenment, not at all. Like Nina said, I don't believe there is a deity in the sky, I feel like Buddha, Jesus, Abraham, and the like were just enlightened individuals, and they themselves were just delivering a message to the people in the way it could be received. I don't think that Buddha himself was looking to be worshiped, and I don't think that Jesus was the son of any God, as that was decided by Emperor Constantine. Like I said, a truth is a truth, and the truth is evident when you read any literature on the subject and it's the same no matter how they word it. But despite history and man's poisoning of a good thing, I still remain steadfast about our connection to something greater.

Originally Posted by ninasastri

Love is a mystical experience. An orgams is. A boregasm is. If you put up your hands in the air for two hours - given the point you did not faint til then - leads you to a mystic experience. Aka the different forms of meditations are there to lead you to mystical experiences (and christianity has said meditations too - we do not need to escape to the oh so fashionable buddhism for that) .

What i agree with you is that religions are there to lead people to a more fulfilled life. No they don`t. That is dogma. Religious ethics are always wrong per se. Because they exclude people and other-thinkers. The base contemplation of states of higher consciousness (aka magic mushrooms aka some rituals of consumptions of said things or some non-drug induced states of consciousness are there to connect you with GOD as a state of mind - an entheogenetic entity. You can also call it DEVIL , its just a matter of names)
is something completely different than believing in a personification of god.

Nina

You know why religion exists? Because someone found the truth in themselves and wanted to share it. How it gets so convoluted is people don't think for themselves, and when they see any logic in a thought, they start asking the big questions. 'Can I still screw my pig when the wife won't?' 'Would it be considered idol worship if I bow to my rose garden?' 'Will I go to heaven/ have a better second life/ be enlightened if...?' That's when the so-called experts start making stuff up, and why we have so many different sects of every religion known to man. Because these things were not meant to be pondered by religious leaders, they're meant for us to make decisions for ourselves.

I grew up in a Christian household. You'd think mom is deeply schizophrenic when she tells you what God told her. Is my mom an idiot or simple-minded? No. She is the reason I'm such a free thinker. But just like there are people who think like you, and you would hope that other people understand and agree, there are other people with other thought processes, who would hope you understand and agree. I think when it comes to the religious portion of this conversation we should all agree that we're not converting anyone, and calling them stupid for believing in God, or whom or whatever they believe in is nonconsequential. Funny thing is, I think we're all saying the same thing here.

[NinaBrooke]

Originally Posted by Tiffani Jameson

Honestly, Nina, we agree. But the parts of religion that seek to deny basic human nature is what I feel to be the 'man-made' part of religion, That's what I call the 'double-dog dare' of religion. You had to offer something as a change to what the masses were doing. Who could starve themselves the longest, who could go the longest without sex, and whoever lost payed the price on earth and in the afterlife.

Contemplative experiences and religion, in my opinion cannot be compared. Religion is just a name we have given to different opinions of spirituality. Spirituality is universal. Spirituality, is that which science labels contemplative experiences. No matter how they come about, and from what frame of mind, they are the same. They are never new, only to the person to which they become evident. The universe in which we're all connected operates on the same set of laws. That's why when you get to the important stuff, leaving out all the rules and double-dog dares of religion, they're basically the same.



You are absolutely right. You don't NEED religion to come to enlightenment, not at all. Like Nina said, I don't believe there is a deity in the sky, I feel like Buddha, Jesus, Abraham, and the like were just enlightened individuals, and they themselves were just delivering a message to the people in the way it could be received. I don't think that Buddha himself was looking to be worshiped, and I don't think that Jesus was the son of any God, as that was decided by Emperor Constantine. Like I said, a truth is a truth, and the truth is evident when you read any literature on the subject and it's the same no matter how they word it. But despite history and man's poisoning of a good thing, I still remain steadfast about our connection to something greater.



You know why religion exists? Because someone found the truth in themselves and wanted to share it. How it gets so convoluted is people don't think for themselves, and when they see any logic in a thought, they start asking the big questions. 'Can I still screw my pig when the wife won't?' 'Would it be considered idol worship if I bow to my rose garden?' 'Will I go to heaven/ have a better second life/ be enlightened if...?' That's when the so-called experts start making stuff up, and why we have so many different sects of every religion known to man. Because these things were not meant to be pondered by religious leaders, they're meant for us to make decisions for ourselves.

I grew up in a Christian household. You'd think mom is deeply schizophrenic when she tells you what God told her. Is my mom an idiot or simple-minded? No. She is the reason I'm such a free thinker. But just like there are people who think like you, and you would hope that other people understand and agree, there are other people with other thought processes, who would hope you understand and agree. I think when it comes to the religious portion of this conversation we should all agree that we're not converting anyone, and calling them stupid for believing in God, or whom or whatever they believe in is nonconsequential. Funny thing is, I think we're all saying the same thing here.

Dear Tiffanni,
Thanks for your profound insight on that matter. I agree wholeheartedly with what you stated. It is very similar to what i think or the experiences i made. I think the basis of all religion IS within your self, it can be experienced only within yourself. All the written gibberish are acronyms or models for the spiritual (contemplative) experiences. The problem starts when you take those things verbally. That is what happens when religions become dogmatic. YOu pointed that out very very correct. I could not have said it better. Its good to have your input here! I like reading your posts!

[Guest053011]

Anything has potential to become dogmatic, destructive and dangerous when twisted for the purpose of power and greed. Religion and science can be equally dangerous when in malicious hands.

Great post Tiff.

Speaking as someone who has a schizophrenic mother, that term is abused far too often, and too lightly. You don't need to be crazy to have a system of beliefs that others do not share.

[NinaBrooke]

Originally Posted by Lauren Summerhill

Anything has potential to become dogmatic, destructive and dangerous when twisted for the purpose of power and greed. Religion and science can be equally dangerous when in malicious hands.

no, science can per se never become dogmatic. Otherwise we would still be in stone age. That is simply wrong! That does not mean that the outcome of science has to be good anyway, there you are right. But you mix far too many things into one closet and you can`t compare apples with oranges that easy. I think anyone that has ever studied anything would disagree. Its first semester to find out what science is and what difference it is to dogmatic beliefs like religion. The reason why science can be abused is a completely different reason why religious beliefs and fundamentalism are abusive. Its not the same.

Actually talking about schizophrenia and other mental illnesses: No one ever has a system of beliefs that others do not share. Schizophrenics, suicidal people and depressed people and all other mental states (i think its not political correct to call them disorders or crazy) have very many things and beliefs in common. So do bulimic people or anorectic women. There have been enough qualitative and quantitative researches about said topics.

[NinaBrooke]

Originally Posted by Bebe Le Strange

Nina, I definitely believe that unlike religion, mysticism is a natural proclivity of the human mind, and you need not believe anything on insufficient evidence to actualize it. Mysticism is a sort of "thinking" via experience or non tangible experience, however,my opinion is that spirituality and mysticism is somewhat pretentious of this so called "higher" rationality riddled with the same fallacies and claims of being "empirical" and "scientific" or being testable by "experience".

However, if it is a way of thinking that brings you to some rational (measurable) conclusions, and is a way to "think out" ideas and thoughts that is deemed "a sort of higher state of mind" then so be it.

In other words this "new age spiritualism/mysticism" is more cognitive and conceptual thinking.

Am I making much sense here..? Or is this all just babble? =)

Edit, Edit: LOL re-reading what you posted, I think we are saying the same thing?

Yes we are saying the same thing here, we just use different words :-). I am not native speaker so i simply translate some stuff into german, i have to sharpen my skills to do philosophic discussions in english :-) Although i disagreee with the new agey stuff, it can be very much leaning to fascism and elitist beliefs . Mysticism is beyond religion, whereas spirituality is already part of religious embedding and encoding when verbalized. Its a small but important distinction when having such a discussion. and yes you make sense? Its great to share discussions with people who actually "know" what they are talking about, i see you read yourself into religious science or the science of religion? (i am not native speaker so sometimes i am not correct with the words).

[WTF]

Originally Posted by ninasastri

no, science can per se never become dogmatic. .

Exactly, what can become dogmatic is the ethics in the execution of science...but that is a philosophical discussion which leads us back to the dog chasing his tail.

Spirituality has its place in mankind, if not it would have become extinct, the survival of the fittest you know!. Science does not disapprove in goodness but it does give folks not steeped in dogmatic thinking reason to question somebody in the sky coming down and creating things in seven days.

[coast_encounter]

Originally Posted by Rudyard K

While man mainpulates religion for his own purposes over the ages...most of the major religions fundamentals have perseviered much longer than scientifc "facts" as discovered by man.

+1 Well Played RK

[Guest053011]

Originally Posted by ninasastri

no, science can per se never become dogmatic. Otherwise we would still be in stone age. That is simply wrong!

Science is a tool of the intelligentsia, who can often be very dogmatic and controlling. In today's world it is not in the pursuit of enlightenment, but in the pursuit of profit, a part of the capitalist structure. Progress amongst the knowledge classes is a cut throat world. It is scientists, doctors and professors that I have met over the years who have personally bemoaned the dangers inherently part of the systems they work in every day. I believe them.

Science does not exist without people and organizations. Within those cultures, dogma does exist. And so do a stubborn older group who want a status quo lest they be ousted for being outdated, and dangerous people who would do harm to the world with the knowledge they have.

As pointed out, a thousand years from now people will look back at our sciences as primitive, and they will still be discuss the works of philosophers, prophets, poets and artists with gravity - what they bring us is ageless. They all draw from that fire that burns deep within humans, past present and future; that very thing that made us rise above apes, and opened the entire universe to us for study.

[discreetgent]

Originally Posted by Lauren Summerhill

Science is a tool of the intelligentsia, who can often be very dogmatic and controlling. In today's world it is not in the pursuit of enlightenment, but in the pursuit of profit, a part of the capitalist structure. Progress amongst the knowledge classes is a cut throat world. It is scientists, doctors and professors that I have met over the years who have personally bemoaned the dangers inherently part of the systems they work in every day. I believe them.

Science does not exist without people and organizations. Within those cultures, dogma does exist. And so do a stubborn older group who want a status quo lest they be ousted for being outdated, and dangerous people who would do harm to the world with the knowledge they have.

As pointed out, a thousand years from now people will look back at our sciences as primitive, and they will still be discuss the works of philosophers, prophets, poets and artists with gravity - What they bring us is ageless.

IMHO That is quite a broad over generalization. We have penicillin because of science. We have plane travel because of science. As you point out it is not perfect but as someone who is quite aware of the academic and corporate scientific world I don't see it as requiring such condemnation.

[Guest053011]

Originally Posted by discreetgent

IMHO That is quite a broad over generalization. We have penicillin because of science. We have plane travel because of science. As you point out it is not perfect but as someone who is quite aware of the academic and corporate scientific world I don't see it as requiring such condemnation.

We have laws against murder because of religion.

I'm not saying that science has brought nothing of value. I'm saying in a 1000 years penicillin may very well be considered a primitive form of medication, while the works of Plato are still being contemplated.

I'm saying science is a structure of stepping stones. As soon as we can move up from what we currently know, we move past it, and eventually that past step becomes an obscurity. And every so often a discovery is made that forces us to rework the very base of our structure of how things work - and that I'm sure will continue to happen. Whereas Philosophy, Art and Religion seek fundamental Truth.

Hell when you get down into the deep murky waters of Physics, scientists often say it is more a philosophy and religion then it is a science.

Ultimately I believe in the distant future (if we dont' self destruct first) there will be convergence between science and philosophy, but we're too primitive to see the threads that tie it all together. But that's the pagan in me speaking

One of my favorite theories was by a scientists who calculated the probability of intelligent life evolving, and noted that there's no reason there should not be intelligent life evolving out there on other planets. His theory as to why they aren't whizzing around space or sending messages to each other across great voids: By the time Intelligent Life reaches the scientific breakthroughs to make it interstellar, it has developed the technology to kill itself.

Our Science moves faster then our Enlightenment, inevitably concluding in extinction. Giving science to a species that does not seriously consider matters of the soul is like giving a child a hand gun. I think the trick is that we have figure out how to give a damn about the well beign of the human race as a whole and our planet, but most people think that's utopian hippy nonsense.

[NinaBrooke]

Originally Posted by Lauren Summerhill

Science is a tool of the intelligentsia, who can often be very dogmatic and controlling. In today's world it is not in the pursuit of enlightenment, but in the pursuit of profit, a part of the capitalist structure. Progress amongst the knowledge classes is a cut throat world. It is scientists, doctors and professors that I have met over the years who have personally bemoaned the dangers inherently part of the systems they work in every day. I believe them.

Science does not exist without people and organizations. Within those cultures, dogma does exist. And so do a stubborn older group who want a status quo lest they be ousted for being outdated, and dangerous people who would do harm to the world with the knowledge they have.

As pointed out, a thousand years from now people will look back at our sciences as primitive, and they will still be discuss the works of philosophers, prophets, poets and artists with gravity - what they bring us is ageless. They all draw from that fire that burns deep within humans, past present and future; that very thing that made us rise above apes, and opened the entire universe to us for study.

You`re still missing the point. A science is never a dogma. What you are stating is a Paradigma. A scientific paradigma is where one scientific pursuit gets abandoned for the relief of a better and more valuable approach. That said its still not dogmatic, because if you had any clue of what you were saying then you would consider the fact that within science - even medicine - exist many paradigmas that live parallel, touch each other, are contrary to each other, are opposite to each other. SO does philosophy. And ever heard of the fact that psychology brings philosophy AND natural science together? because psychology is the ONLY strain of social science where there is a Natural science (statistics) AND a philosophical strain (base philosophy) as well.

ANd what you say about philosophers is untrue as well, because said philosophers ( and i have studied also philosophy as part in my psychological approach since i do not like the nature science aka statistics) are only and ONLY historically valid and their value does only somewhat transcend the time they have been written in. You always - and i mean always - have to consider the social time , the social climate and the culture and the historical perspective a philosophy has been written in. Also the books you read are written within some socio-ethno-historical context and this context limits EVERY value and not just the value of science. What is as seen very classy and state of art in our culture is nothing of value in a different culture since the measurements are not the same. That said, i do believe that given the socio-ethno-cultural historical aspects of writings, you can also benefit now from science that has been made centuries ago.

Madame Curie once risked her life for her scientific purposes. YOu really think that is of NO value today anymore, just because we have different methods that are based on said values?
With philosophy it is the same. It gets broader and even Plato is outdated and overcome. There is better on the market. Study philosophy, then you will see. Just because Plato is still discussed does not mean that these discussions are not ones that portray his values in our perspective and with broader understanding.

ANd this is simply NOT happening with Religion. A religious core value is PER SE unquestionable. A science is ALWAYS questionable. YOu can always make another paradigma. You just are not smart enough, but that said does not mean that just because you are not a scientist and you don`t have the brain to put up a paradigma does not make everyone who does so a dogmatist. That is simply untrue. There are fights of power and intellectual qualities within sciences as well, but that is considered a paradigm shift. A religion is simply a believe. You cannot question anything a core value gets from.

Where do you get your facts from? You state things that are simply untrue and i wonder where you have these references from. I think in a valuable discussion its always good to bring references. I usually do that, since a POV can be completely different given different texts.
Also you should consider that a POV is always limited by certain measurements. What you do is bringing typical not very intellectual "all inclusive sentences" that hold absolutely no value. You have to bring references to fill out your point. Everyone else seems to do that. You are plain and simply wrong and i am afraid if you study at a university i have to have tough talk with your professors :-) (just kidding)

I am waiting for references where you come to the conclusion that science is dogmatic? Its simply untrue. Here some very important reference on paradigmas and paradigma shifts within science. Nothing of it is ever dogmatic. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Kuhn

ps: and just because you banged some scientists who told you of some dangers within scientific references does not make you entitled to post - excuse me - twisted facts. I have also encountered numerous psychoanalysts who told me the dangers of their area of work, but that does not make the whole area of work PER SE ridiculous. YOu have to first proof to be an intellectual to be able to criticise scientists. If you do so, bring points, evaluate them and make better ones. But just parrotting your clients and then thinking you are smart is not intellectual. That is the same like a provider who screws attorneys and then thinks she knows something of the legal fields. I have had mostly attorneys in my private area as lovers and boyfriends and boy did they tell me things. But fact is - you are not entitled to say these things, because you lack the points they seem to make.
And a point is not "oh someone said to me and i believe them" - that is - ha ha ha - i mean sorry??? People say all sorts of things all day long, such gibberish does not make intellectual discussions profound value, it makes just your arguments more questionable, because "he who believes has not learned to question" . Sorry to say. In europe we have a saying that say :"who does not know must believe".

And the arrogance you exuberate can definetely only come from a lack of knowledge because - believe me - i know professors of university who are three times as old as you are and numerous times as smart and educated with published work and they would NEVER ever belittle a whole area of work that way. Criticising a scientific field on valuable points and stated facts is something different than the respectless and unfounded gibberish you utter out of your mouth. You don`t know enough and you are not educated enough and that is plain visible in your statements. So , bring valuable points and references, but allinclusive statements and "oh i know a few scientists and i believe them" does not entitle you to get a MA in any field. Do the research! Learn the basics - then make profound statements!

Nina
ps: and it is interesting that you seem to happen to know what people will value in a 1000 years from now? Have you been abducted by a spaceship - then brainwashed with future time and then been brought back?? I mean your statements are just HILARIOUS!!!
and religions are also based on pursuing of profit`? and religious science pursues enlightment? ANd philosophy (WHICH IS ALSO A SCIENCE!!!!!! PLEASE NOTE) does pursue enlightement.
and as an escort stating you are against capitalism is a bit gross. Then why do you not date your clients for free? And bring them pleasure and enlightement. YOu are participating in a capitalistic perversion already , so you are doing the same like you accuse scientists to do. They also want their bucks for their work, not only YOU do so?? Hello??

[Bebe Le Strange]

Originally Posted by Lauren Summerhill

Science is a tool of the intelligentsia, who can often be very dogmatic and controlling. In today's world it is not in the pursuit of enlightenment, but in the pursuit of profit, a part of the capitalist structure.

Science does not exist without people and organizations. Within those cultures, dogma does exist.

I found this article interesting in light of your comments, and thought I would share:

Creationists and other science-haters often claim that scientists are dogmatic. Frequently they’ll say something about “dogmatic Darwinists” keeping “Intelligent Design” or “Creation Science” down, but just as often the accusation will be directed toward science and scientists in general.

Let me state this in no uncertain terms: anyone who claims that science is dogmatic is completely and totally ignorant.

First, what does dogma mean? Most definitions specifically state it’s a religious belief, but the ones that don’t say something to the effect of, “a belief that is held to be unquestionably true”, and they often throw in some language about lack of evidence for the belief.

Now, what is science? This definition is among the best I’ve ever seen: “Science refers to either: the scientific method – a process for evaluating empirical knowledge; or the organized body of knowledge gained by this process.” Throw in a reference to methodological naturalism and it’s perfect.

Any process specifically designed to test the natural world through observation, and evaluating the evidence gained from observation is, by definition, nondogmatic. Right off the bat the claims of dogmatism are false.

One of the central tenets of science is that nothing is ever truly proven. Every scientific theory can be overthrown if evidence is provided to invalidate it. Examples of this happening are too numerous to count, the classic one is Einstein’s General Relativity overthrowing Newton’s Law of Gravitation, but there are plenty more.

Science is based only on evidence and logical interpretation of that evidence. Hypotheses are posited, tested, make predictions, those are tested, and if the hypothesis passes the scrutiny of the scientific community, it will be accepted. At least until some new evidence challenges it, when the process begins again. It is not dogma.

Many scientists frequently point out that if someone came up with evidence that challenged an existing theory (such as Evolution or the Standard Model) and came up with a suitable theory to explain it, they’d be a hero. They’d be showered in awards and praise, and go down as one of The Greats. That’s exactly what Einstein and Darwin did, and they’re remembered as two of the greatest in their fields. How can science be called dogmatic when its greatest rewards are given to people who challenge the accepted theories?

The same claims of dogmatism are often applied to atheism as well. They are, at least for me, equally untrue. Atheism is (for most people) about the lack of evidence for any kind of deity. If someone showed me irrefutable proof that god (any god) actually exists, then I’d “believe” in it, the same way I “believe” in science. However, my confidence that this won’t happen is such that I feel perfectly secure claiming that god (any god) does not exist. Many people find this contradictory, saying that agnosticism is the only logical stance on the issue. To that I can only reply with a Richard Dawkins quote, “I’m agnostic about God the same way I’m agnostic about fairies.” God or gods should be held to the same standards as Santa Claus, the Tooth Fairy, and every other statement about the world: namely, show me the evidence, and I’ll believe it.

Neither science nor atheism is dogmatic, and claims to the contrary are simply wrong, and most likely don’t truly understand science or atheism. Which is too bad, because knowledge is infinitely more inspiring than dogmatic ignorance, no matter how comforting it may be.
http://stupac2.blogspot.com/2006/09/...-dogmatic.html

[NinaBrooke]

Originally Posted by Bebe Le Strange

I found this article interesting in light of your comments, and thought I would share:

Creationists and other science-haters often claim that scientists are dogmatic. Frequently they’ll say something about “dogmatic Darwinists” keeping “Intelligent Design” or “Creation Science” down, but just as often the accusation will be directed toward science and scientists in general.

Let me state this in no uncertain terms: anyone who claims that science is dogmatic is completely and totally ignorant.

First, what does dogma mean? Most definitions specifically state it’s a religious belief, but the ones that don’t say something to the effect of, “a belief that is held to be unquestionably true”, and they often throw in some language about lack of evidence for the belief.

Now, what is science? This definition is among the best I’ve ever seen: “Science refers to either: the scientific method – a process for evaluating empirical knowledge; or the organized body of knowledge gained by this process.” Throw in a reference to methodological naturalism and it’s perfect.

Any process specifically designed to test the natural world through observation, and evaluating the evidence gained from observation is, by definition, nondogmatic. Right off the bat the claims of dogmatism are false.

One of the central tenets of science is that nothing is ever truly proven. Every scientific theory can be overthrown if evidence is provided to invalidate it. Examples of this happening are too numerous to count, the classic one is Einstein’s General Relativity overthrowing Newton’s Law of Gravitation, but there are plenty more.

Science is based only on evidence and logical interpretation of that evidence. Hypotheses are posited, tested, make predictions, those are tested, and if the hypothesis passes the scrutiny of the scientific community, it will be accepted. At least until some new evidence challenges it, when the process begins again. It is not dogma.

Many scientists frequently point out that if someone came up with evidence that challenged an existing theory (such as Evolution or the Standard Model) and came up with a suitable theory to explain it, they’d be a hero. They’d be showered in awards and praise, and go down as one of The Greats. That’s exactly what Einstein and Darwin did, and they’re remembered as two of the greatest in their fields. How can science be called dogmatic when its greatest rewards are given to people who challenge the accepted theories?

The same claims of dogmatism are often applied to atheism as well. They are, at least for me, equally untrue. Atheism is (for most people) about the lack of evidence for any kind of deity. If someone showed me irrefutable proof that god (any god) actually exists, then I’d “believe” in it, the same way I “believe” in science. However, my confidence that this won’t happen is such that I feel perfectly secure claiming that god (any god) does not exist. Many people find this contradictory, saying that agnosticism is the only logical stance on the issue. To that I can only reply with a Richard Dawkins quote, “I’m agnostic about God the same way I’m agnostic about fairies.” God or gods should be held to the same standards as Santa Claus, the Tooth Fairy, and every other statement about the world: namely, show me the evidence, and I’ll believe it.

Neither science nor atheism is dogmatic, and claims to the contrary are simply wrong, and most likely don’t truly understand science or atheism. Which is too bad, because knowledge is infinitely more inspiring than dogmatic ignorance, no matter how comforting it may be.
http://stupac2.blogspot.com/2006/09/...-dogmatic.html

I am on the same line with you....But .... how to tell your child....

[NinaBrooke]

Originally Posted by WTF

Exactly, what can become dogmatic is the ethics in the execution of science...but that is a philosophical discussion which leads us back to the dog chasing his tail.

Spirituality has its place in mankind, if not it would have become extinct, the survival of the fittest you know!. Science does not disapprove in goodness but it does give folks not steeped in dogmatic thinking reason to question somebody in the sky coming down and creating things in seven days.

a thank god.... :-) i see light in the dark ;-) ....