Yygdrasilian
Tempest
This is not to say religion is inherently 'bad' -rather, that it serves a different function than the scientific method. One could say the same of transcendental vision or spiritual epiphany. They are different modalities of consciousness that are best utilized when informing each other instead of being confused for one another.
For example, in terms of the 'economic' practices of our civilization, there is the material 'fact' that our current adaptive strategies are unsustainable. This has been empirically deduced by employing the scientific method to the available data. The political response to this crisis, however, tends to be more religious in character. In this case, the religion is consumerism and it is widely seen as heretical to question its fundamentals.
The question in not whether or not to abandon religion in favor of science. It is rather whether we will choose to survive as a species by understanding the nature of our consciousness in relation to our physical environment. Perhaps this requires a novel approach in the Craft of our mythopoesis concerning the path to Wisdom...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gfKOnj0gPCw
There is a difference between the 'scientific method' and scientism. As a means of interpreting evidence to deduce underlying principles, the scientific method is unsurpassed ...at least where physical existence is concerned. When its’ empirically-based conclusions are warped into intractable dogma, then you have 'Scientism' - a logical fallacy confusing theories which, potentially, could still be disproved, with abstract rational frameworks that need not have any correlation with observable phenomenon. It's a classic example of what is referred to as a 'category error': where "things of one kind are presented as if they belonged to another". In other words, whenever science becomes dogmatic it is logically indistinguishable from religion.Prospero said:Our revels now are ended. These our actors,
As I foretold you, were all spirits, and
Are melted into air, into thin air:
And like the baseless fabric of this vision,
The cloud-capp'd tow'rs, the gorgeous palaces,
The solemn temples, the great globe itself,
Yea, all which it inherit, shall dissolve,
And, like this insubstantial pageant faded,
Leave not a rack behind. We are such stuff
As dreams are made on; and our little life
Is rounded with a sleep.
This is not to say religion is inherently 'bad' -rather, that it serves a different function than the scientific method. One could say the same of transcendental vision or spiritual epiphany. They are different modalities of consciousness that are best utilized when informing each other instead of being confused for one another.
For example, in terms of the 'economic' practices of our civilization, there is the material 'fact' that our current adaptive strategies are unsustainable. This has been empirically deduced by employing the scientific method to the available data. The political response to this crisis, however, tends to be more religious in character. In this case, the religion is consumerism and it is widely seen as heretical to question its fundamentals.
The question in not whether or not to abandon religion in favor of science. It is rather whether we will choose to survive as a species by understanding the nature of our consciousness in relation to our physical environment. Perhaps this requires a novel approach in the Craft of our mythopoesis concerning the path to Wisdom...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gfKOnj0gPCw