Loading ...Bas said:
Science has the nice added danger that someone comes along and proves you have been thinking the wrong way.
This was in response to my blogathon post for Game 18 in which I described my most treasured memory as fossil-hunting with my dad.
I replied to Bas’ comment, but I don’t think I replied enough. I don’t think science poses any danger at all to anyone with a flexible, open mind, and I believe that Bas’ comment stems from the notion (a notion that is prevalent in society these days) that science and religion (or science and spirituality or science and the supernatural… etc) are diametrically opposed.
This is especially seen here in America, where extremes of all kinds take the soap-box and leave us more level-headed types in the wings, drinking beer and occasionally glancing at our watches.
But religion vs science is a false conflict. The real conflict is between dogma and gnosis. And believe me, there is plenty o’ dogma within science as well as religion. Dogma is inflexible, conservative, and resists change. Whereas gnosis (greek for knowledge) is open, fluid, and adapts readily to new evidence.
My beliefs, therefore are in no danger of being challenged by science. I love science as much as I love the weird, spooky stuff, and I don’t actually hold many firm beliefs. I have knowledge, based on both experience and learning, (in other words, I don’t believe in ghosts - I know that they exist because I’ve seen’em. However my interpretation of those experiences I’ve had with ghosts remains open to change). I also have beliefs, but my beliefs are not dogma-based. My beliefs are based in my imagination, my creativity, and my enjoyment of experimentation.
I tend to adopt beliefs as a way of experimenting with my own mindset. Kind of a mental masturbation.
Gnosis > Dogma.
Remember that.
Buy me a beer!
If you enjoyed this article please with your favourite bookmarking tool, or donate to assist with site maintenence and to keep tarot readings free. Thanks!
Email this post to a friend
1,333 Views
Recently:
- Story a Day: Does Your Mother Know
- Story a Day: Eight Summers In Addis Ababa
- Story a Day: A Simple Question
- Story a Day: Arsenal of Flavor
- Story a Day: The Cardboard Doll
- Story a Day: Beggars Would Ride
- Story a Day: Born Into Light
- Story a Day: Deep Fried Moose
- Story A Day: Roscoe Falls Reflections
- Story A Day, or Thereabouts
Comments
This entry was posted on Monday, July 31st, 2006 at 3:35 pm and is filed under noumenal, phenomenal. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
Che, you are right on here. Even with the most scientifically based fields, there are those who have their reasons to not allow new data or new information or to change with new information. From what I can tell, it is a matter of ego, of a mindset that seems to believe that to allow new information means that they were “wrong” in the past (although, with the information available at the time they may have been doing very well) and/or they are invested in some monetary way to branding that only exists in an older paradigm. Nothing is lost by seeking the synthesis of new information or new points of view - like your feminist views of magickal concepts. Science does not pose any danger - closed minds do. I once felt that science sought only to steal mystery and magic from the world but good science always leads to more questions than answers ~ science that declares to know it all is just bad science.
Well-said happygirl!
Dear Che,
First: Thank you for lifting my cryptic remark into the limelight. And for sharing your beautiful insight into the matter.
Though i don’t think -or believe- that science and religion are in opposition. They are both very valid in their own realm. No scientist is pure fact, nor is any believer pure believe. Scientists make assumptions and believers seek facts to support their belief.
It’s what makes us human.
I can add all kinds of moral issues here, but i think it was said all too well in Einsteins’ beautiful phrasing: “God doesn’t play dice with nature.” This when confronted with the falability of his strong proof. What he said was in fact: “I can’t believe i got it wrong”. Or “Damn, I’m human after all!”
I say both science and magic are a bunch of hooey.
Thats why I love you - your personality complements mine so well. You’re like a fashion accessory, albeit a someone unfashionable one. What is it we used to call you? The sweat-queen?
Because I wore sweats, not because I was sweaty!
Although some would say it was just as bad.
Interessando, luogo abbastanza luminoso, penso +5