Science vs Truth

Started Aug 10, 2012 | Discussions thread
Great Bustard
Forum ProPosts: 20,754
Like?
Re: Interesting, but pholosophically unsatisfying
In reply to Chato, Aug 10, 2012

Chato wrote:

We who are into Zen, "worship" absolute truth.

You may be worshipping that which does not exist...

Which is to say, we worship the Universe.

...except in that context.

The moment of "Satori."

"Enlightment."

The realisation that we are a part of absolute truth. Inside, outside, all around us is absolute truth. What is science? Just another path to understanding

Sure. The difference is in utility. Science makes useful predictions that allow us to do and create useful things. Nuclear weapons come to mind.

Mr. Buddha, knew he existed. And he knew the Universe existed. He knew "absolute truth" existed. Doesn't matter if we know the specific scientific answer. For one thing, that answer will always change as the universe changes. But the aboslute truth never changes. Or as Engels put it, "All that is, is matter in motion."

You are positing that science will never be able to quantify absolute truth - granted - But that doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

I am not saying Absolute Truth does not exist. I am not even saying we will never be able to quantify it. I am simply saying that the History of Science, if anything, indicates the opposite.

For a scientist to have faith that there is an absolute truth is not inconsistent with Science, but nor is it a necessary, or even useful, quality.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Post (hide subjects)Posted by
Uh?New
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark post MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow