Ped said:

The problem with science is that it considers itself a superior school of thought, even though it possesses the same faulty characteristics as the other schools it ridicules.

---

Isn't it?

Sure, not all science is cracked up to be, nor are all beliefs.

But if we are to generalize... sooner or later the truth becomes known regarding the nature of science through proofs, and testing of theory when applicable as well as through deductive reasoning.

Please attempt to apply that to belief. One cult is as good as the next I suppose.

On another note... please prove my contrived notion of preincarnation wrong. If it's not possible to do so, we can get into the tenants found within.

Ped said:

The problem with science is that it considers itself a superior school of thought, even though it possesses the same faulty characteristics as the other schools it ridicules.

---

I think there are alot of the similarities between science and religion you mentioned. Why I prefer science is that it moves along at faster clip then most religions. Christianity for example is loath to give up outmoded notions and to incorporate new information. It often represses freedom to think and question our lives. Science is more open to growth IMO, and so serves human evolution better. Now this is only more or less true depending on the religion. 

Ped said:

The Big Bang theory is a made up story generated from the knowledge available to a certain group of people at a certain point in their history.  Creationism is a made up story generated from the knowledge available to a certain group of people at a certain point in their history.  It's the same.  In their time, the now-largely obsolete religious schools were as incremental in unravelling life's mysteries as science is today.

---

Quote:

  There is no reason to lend significance to one system or the other.  Either system is reflective of developmental processes of it's surrounding culture.

---

Quote:

The problem with science is that it considers itself a superior school of thought, even though it possesses the same faulty characteristics as the other schools it ridicules.

---

How does science, a conceptual organization of thoughts and ideas, consider itself a superior school of thought? Science is a method, not a conscious entity deriving from itself a sense of self-importance. In this same vein, it doesn't ridicule anything, either. I'm surprised that one would project onto conceptual thought processes in this way. I never knew the last step in the scientific process was "I am the omnipotent science! I am superior to other concepts! Relinquish control of yoursel to me!'


Peace.

Swami said:

If karma and reincarnation were real and the driving force behind why "stuff" happens, then nothing "good" or "bad" could happen to a first timer on this planet until he/she did acts to create karma. Because the whole "hypothesis" doesn't even make sense using it's own logic, yet another layer of B.S. must be added to attempt to fill the gaping hole/inconsistency.

This type of additional apology/explanation is ALWAYS a warning sign of a failed model.

---

Ped said:

>> Preincarnation asserts that we are affected by our actions of our future selves, and that's why we are today... think going ahead, while slipping behind.

>> please prove my contrived notion of preincarnation wrong

If we are to accept the idea of preincarnation, we'd have to simultaneously accept that every event in the universe is entirely independent of causality.

From our point of view, causality flows forward with the momentum of time.  Events of the past are the sustaining causes for the events of this present moment.  Events of this present moment serve as the causes for events in the future, and so on and so forth.  It is not difficult to see that this is so.  If we are to suppose that causality were to somehow flow backwards while time maintains it's forward momentum, and that the actions of our future selves served as causes for effects observable here in the present, we must first suppose that those future events occured independent of the causal factors occuring here in the present, because if future events are to be dependent on past causes, those past causes must not fluctuate.  Since the momentum of causality is easily observable, and since the idea of preincarnation must operate independent of actual causal law, the idea of preincarnation is wrong.

If Event A serves as the causal basis for Event B, then Event B cannot reversely affect Event A, because that destroys the causal basis for Event B, thereby destroying the basis for Event B to affect Event A in the first place.  If, as a facet of causal law, preincarnation were to come in to effect in the universe, the universe would be instantly nullified.  Since the universe it not nullified, this law is not in effect and is not true.

---

bah! You'r just using a generalized stance on time, reincarnation doesn't follow either with that line of thought.

Your just thinking in terms of science... you can't use science to prove or disprove beliefs (or so I've read...).

Your thinking that time is just one way, if one were to look at the basis and the flow of time, and look at the backwards adaptation and evolution till we achieve one instant, which indeliably promotes an evolution of order by looking backwards, it makes perfect sense.

Think outside the box, it's equally valid to look backwards as it is forwards. In terms of causality, it is still applicalbe, only we are seeing the effect prior to the cause, and hence causality still applies in a backwards sense of the word. Even in a forward sense of the word, it all depends on how far you wish to dwelve into it.

It's like watching a movie where someone jumps out of a plane to go skydiving and watching it while rewinding. Altogether the nature of the event is unchanged, the only difference is the order in which it took place.

BTW I do believe it's wrong, hence why I contrived the B.S. notion of preincarnation... but one could make it seem as sensible as any other belief if one were to take the time to refine it, and explain why dynamic change happens backwards through time, independant of fluctuating variables, as one could omit such variables, and provide some "mystic" explanation as why they aren't part of the determinant of said event (In terms of dynamic future events affecting the past which you're percieving as static and already written in terms of causality, but that is only applicable if you're reasonable... ). Either way, the point of the example wasn't how valid it was, the point is that any belief can be made to justify anything befalling it in terms of it's effects.

Causality would be but a minor road block in way of preincarnations potential to revolutionize how we act on the basis of our future selves. It's easy enough to suggest in terms of beliefs why it isn't valid to look at it in terms causality because one can't really apply scientific method to a belief, as a belief holds itself above and beyond proof. One must have faith in their future selves, and hope that in the future they did good, as they're paying for it now (prekarma anyhow). Can one live a good life in the future in hopes of changing the past as a result of having knowledge of prekarma? No, one cannot do that with reincarnation either, it's not an ironclad fact...

~shit happens, doesn't mean that we all need to be assholes and the like, but we needn't stick to a belief that is unsubstantiated beyond what is suggested, as I've seen no real result of it beyond what people suggest, and link events to actions, that are for the most part just a consequence of life...

Can you prove that reincarnation and karma exist, and operate as is suggested beyond linking good actions, with a reward (fortuanate event) in absolute terms... or is it that we must assume that a fortuante event happened as a result of a good action?

Ped said:

Those differences are merely reflective of the differences in cultural perspective from then and now.

---

Quote:

Science is practiced by a community.  It's this community which is, generally speaking, arrogantly self-assured and self-important, just like practioners of popularized religion were in their time.

---

First off, denoting the difference between a community that practices something and the thing that is practiced itself is an important distinction to be made. Science as a concept and a practice cannot be contaminated by such arrogrance and self-assuredness and -importance, it is the failing of those who utilize science.

I personally do not feel that I can stand on ground upon which I can make claims concerning the general attitudes of the community who uses science. I am not privleged to the thoughts of these people. I would also like to note that almost every single person, if not everyone, uses science in their own thinking. It is almost as if it is a natural aspect of our thought processes.

Quote:

Both science and popular institutionalized religion are used to accomplish the same primary (but of course not exclusive) end:  the comfort and warmth of a population which finds the indefinability of it's own identity and purpose absolutely unbearable.  In their time, either side has proven itself equally effective at accomplishing this single objective, and for this reason (and many others) there is no real distinction. 

---

I cast doubt upon this. The reason is that, while perhaps some utilize both science and institutionalized religion to accomplish these ends you describe, and even if that is the reason they were established in the first place, both can be used by people of different mindsets, looking to accomplish different ends. Perhaps science might be used in order to find knowledge that can be applied in an invention, instead of seeking a stable understanding out of fear. etc. etc. etc.

My point is to acknowledge the actual differences within these concepts and what they encompass themselves. *shrugs*


Peace.