No clever links
So I don’t have any clever links to post up (yet) in the style of my two hetero-life-mates (yay double hyphenation!) but I do have something to discuss.
Mainly that I’ve been reading this book called “The Tao of Physics” and it’s interesting, but some people find it controversial. The basis of the book, is that it is “an exploration of the parallels between Quantum Physics and Eastern Mysticism”, which to me sounds more of a pondering or…and exploration rather than a diehard “this is how it is!!1″ mode of thought.
Most people who’ve refuted the book in my Religion & Science class this past semester, used phrases to suggest they were of different ballparks and shouldn’t be compared. Well I doubt that if they were really two different ball parks, there would be any parallels, let alone enough to fit into a book.
The main issue people have is that science feels comfortable, because there are “results”. Though the difference between science and mysticism/spiritualism (not talking about organized religion, that’s all about politics) seems to be that science takes a phenomena and studies it to find out “who, what, where, why, when and how” essentially the physical material data whereas mystical/spiritual thought tends to lean in the realm of accepting the phenomena as is.
More to the point, science seems to focus on the quantitative reasoning behind things while spiritual/mystical tends to focus on the qualitative.
Let me say however, I’m not preferring one over the other. At this point in my learning, I’m all for the idea that Science and Religion can learn a lot from each other.
Isn’t it odd though, that the Newtonian model of which we still learn in school (do we? it’s been so long since I’ve had a science class that dealt with it) is no longer the prevailing theory? Quantum physics has been around for a while, but the more science digs into the nature of reality (cause let’s face it, that’s what quantum physics digs into) the more the scientists realize that nothing it solid and mostly everything is empty space.
The atom is about 99% empty space, and then to think of the electrons and protons and whatnots being made up of smaller particles that seem to bend to different laws than we are familiar with has a sort of poetic balance to it. As far as you can stretch your imagination to the infinite cosmos the same can be said for considering the infinite microcosm of quanta. We have a hard time envisioning the infinite either way you look at it, and paradoxes seem to be the recurring theme when dealing with questions of the infinite.
Do I believe that every Eastern Mystic is a quantum physicist? Absolutely not.
So I believe that quantum physics is a replacement for mysticism? Nah, that’s pushing it.
I do believe, however, that quantum physics and mysticism are relating to the same ultimate questions, just in different ways, and though they are different, people could learn from the otherside of the fence once in a while.
December 13th, 2007 at 3:42 pm
Interesting Post… er…article…er… post!
I would agree both worlds could learn something from the other other, but if I had to pick a side I would argue myself that Religious people still have more to learn from Science rather than the opposite. Mainly because those who dabble in science, I feel anyway, are more willing to accept truths, even if they need a who, when, where, etc… in whatever form they come if there is at least some ground for it to stand upon. Where as many religious people refuse to bend to any faith they have, even with proof right in front of them.
Either way. I agree with the Men in Black Theory. Our universe is just a marble and currently our marble is being looked into by some scientists in a bigger marble to understand what our marble is doing. Or something.
December 13th, 2007 at 4:20 pm
I dunno if I buy the Men In Black thing, but these two schools of thoughts are definitely different approaches to finding answers. I do agree that science is ahead in this respect though. The problem with the spiritual side of reasoning is that it varies and leads to some accepting something easier than others. In other words, during the pathway to an answer, someone spiritual may pat themselves on the back for a job well done much sooner because they feel that they have arrived at a conclusion which in reality isn’t. Science deals more with absolutes, if more than one conclusion is reached, there’s a meticulous retracing of steps to figure out how there were two answers and an attempt to make it one solid solution.
December 13th, 2007 at 4:25 pm
I wouldn’t even put a label of more or less on it, cause religion and science focus on different means.
And true faith requires a modicum of doubt in order to be faith, because anyone following blindly to anything is putting blind faith into something. Scientists do it all the time, especially in the realm of what’s safe today isn’t safe tomorrow, they just take it for granted that tests *now* don’t show that something can be dangerous down the line.
Both require a set of accepted beliefs, and both have their fair share of “heretics”
The truths the scientists accept may not be truths, and in fact usually aren’t but are theories that have been “proven” but not fully. Like Black Holes and Big Bang, at some point, the scientist must decide what he/she believes in, same as anyone else.