Science Trips Over Its Own Feet (Politics)

by xeno6696 , Sonoran Desert, Friday, September 17, 2010, 12:00 (4964 days ago) @ Balance_Maintained

I.E. Science scoffs at anything that can not be measured by some means. Because they can not measure the spiritual, it is not a possibility, or it is an absurdity. (I have been told as much numerous times)
> 
> Just look at the numerous publications stating things like, God can not exist because (insert statement about how science makes God unnecessary or there is no proof, Dawkins, Hawking, etc).
> 
> They said the flood could not have happened, new evidence(linked in another thread) shows that it could.
> -I hope you read my detailed analysis on why it could not have happened--as well as the fact that the article you cited directly stated that the water they found was trapped inside rock itself. (Google 'hydrous minerals' sometime.) -I'm more than willing to have a detailed scientific discussion about why a global flood can't happen. -> They said that man kind could not have decended from Noah and his family a few thousand years ago, yet Rhodes and his group have modeled at between 6000-13000BC. 
> -That doesn't provide any solid evidence of a world flood event; we'll play with that after you find a way to defeat my argument dealing with how much water would be needed.-> They have said that the Hindu/Buddhist beliefs are a load of rubbish, yet even a die hard skeptic would be hard pressed to deny the many numerous benefits of yoga or the numerous reports of spiritual phenomena attributed to it. 
> -I spent a greater part of my adult life practicing Buddhism; though you mistake (in the case of Buddhism) their deeper beliefs that essentially deny "spiritualism" in our typical context. The Zen religions of east asia are essentially atheistic. Tibetan Buddhism still contains gods, but this is considered an aberration by many prominent Buddhist thinkers such as Dogen or Thich Nhat Hanh. -
> They avoid these things because of a number of reasons, primarily, because to have to admit that there was something that they simply can not understand with measurements and statistics is anethema to them, and because they would have to say they were wrong. And of course, to be fair, various Churches need to step up and admit that their literal interpretation of things is wrong as well. 
> -Well, in my case I haven't avoided them, I've directly challenged them. Your turn!-> Humility, open-mindedness, and a willingness to learn would benefit both parties tremendously. I have learned so much from both science and religion/spiritualism, both about my world, my self, and those around me, that I find it incredible that they are so blinded by their arrogance. I suppose I have let it anger me, and in a sense, that has put blinders on me as well. But, we all have failings and strive to overcome them and grow. I just wish they could put asside their petty differences and work together instead of struggling against each other.-The reason that will never happen is because the epistemologies are completely different. Myself, I'm trying to find ways to expand my epistemology, if it makes sense. (I'm reading a book directly assaulting materialism.) Yet, there is no explanation yet of how the scientific method can work without an assumption (even an implicit assumption) of materialism. Science can't work without naturalism, and naturalism can't work without materialism.

--
\"Why is it, Master, that ascetics fight with ascetics?\"

\"It is, brahmin, because of attachment to views, adherence to views, fixation on views, addiction to views, obsession with views, holding firmly to views that ascetics fight with ascetics.\"