Dalai Lama: "if science is found to contradict a basic tenet

Public forum for topics that don't fit into the other categories.
User avatar
hawkgrrrl
Site Admin
Posts: 3537
Joined: 22 Oct 2008, 16:27

Re: Dalai Lama: "if science is found to contradict a basic t

Post by hawkgrrrl » 12 May 2015, 14:34

Watch your mouth mom! :D
Unfortunately, we were listening to conference (streaming onto the TV), so he heard it directly. It was one of those rare times when I couldn't shield my kids from stuff that I know is not going to fly. I had to try to defend the indefensible, but c'mon. Nelson didn't exactly give me much to work with. His tone was incredibly derisive against a well-accepted scientific theory, and he clearly didn't understand that theory he was mocking. It was not good.

startpoor
Posts: 193
Joined: 22 Nov 2013, 13:43

Re: Dalai Lama: "if science is found to contradict a basic t

Post by startpoor » 12 May 2015, 15:15

hawkgrrrl wrote:It was one of those rare times when I couldn't shield my kids from stuff that I know is not going to fly. I had to try to defend the indefensible, but c'mon. Nelson didn't exactly give me much to work with. It was not good.
Ah yes, the infamous Elder Nelson wardrobe malfunction of '07. One of the many dangers of live conference streaming ImageImageImage


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Happiness (n.) The state of being in compliance with Mormon norms, regardless of one’s actual resulting emotional state

George, Sr.: Faith is a fact. No, faith is a facet. I almost said faith is a fact.

User avatar
Heber13
Site Admin
Posts: 7218
Joined: 22 Apr 2009, 16:37
Location: In the Middle

Re: Dalai Lama: "if science is found to contradict a basic t

Post by Heber13 » 12 May 2015, 15:21

“If scientific analysis were conclusively to demonstrate certain claims in Buddhism to be false, then we must accept the findings of science and abandon those claims.”


― Dalai Lama XIV, The Universe in a Single Atom: The Convergence of Science and Spirituality
This shows maturity, and wisdom.
Luke: "Why didn't you tell me? You told me Vader betrayed and murdered my father."
Obi-Wan: "Your father... was seduced by the dark side of the Force. He ceased to be Anakin Skywalker and became Darth Vader. When that happened, the good man who was your father was destroyed. So what I told you was true... from a certain point of view."
Luke: "A certain point of view?"
Obi-Wan: "Luke, you're going to find that many of the truths we cling to...depend greatly on our point of view."

User avatar
LookingHard
Posts: 2950
Joined: 20 Oct 2014, 12:11

Re: Dalai Lama: "if science is found to contradict a basic t

Post by LookingHard » 13 May 2015, 03:44

Heber13 wrote:
“If scientific analysis were conclusively to demonstrate certain claims in Buddhism to be false, then we must accept the findings of science and abandon those claims.”


― Dalai Lama XIV, The Universe in a Single Atom: The Convergence of Science and Spirituality
This shows maturity, and wisdom.
I like this, but then you do get into a lot of area that science does not prove - it just gives evidence. One study does not "prove" something. It can come to the point where the evidence is overwhelming though.

User avatar
SilentDawning
Posts: 7341
Joined: 09 May 2010, 19:55

Re: Dalai Lama: "if science is found to contradict a basic t

Post by SilentDawning » 13 May 2015, 05:22

hawkgrrrl wrote:And yet E. Nelson mocked the big bang theory openly in 2012 General Conference, one of several things that convinced my son that Mormonism, being anti-science, wasn't for him.
See, I think the pursuit of truth requires unity between religion and science -- where there are discepancies there is a need for reconciliation -- out comes truth from that tension.

As religion appears to rely much more on human intuition and "feelings" and unverifiable facts than science, there is a need for the tempering influence of science. After all, doesn't truth come from many sources? And aren't religions in the "truth business"? Our Mormon missionary discussions used to harp constantly about distinguishing truth from error, so I have no qualms about considering "the pursuit of truth" as a core mission of the church..

So, as a high ranking LDS leader (if i was one), I'd never knock science or theories as Elder Nelson is reported to have done -- unless such criticism was based of objective evaluation of scientific method or other scientific justification.

If I were to pattern my life after someone, it would be Ben Franklin. He seemed to have figured out his own middle way regarding secularism and religion. He tried church, but found ministers were more interested in making people good Protestants, Methodists (in our case, good Mormons) and entrenching their organization than seeking truth. So, he gave religions respect (donated to them), but spent Sundays giving himself and education at home.

Here is something else he wrote about the Dunkers, who he approached about printing their creed. The discussion was prompted about the Quakers who at one time indicated they would not support War. Yet, they wanted to support the revolutionary war, and had to do "flips" to preserve their dogmatic approach to war, while still supporting the war at the same time...read on....you could draw the same parallel between doctrine and science...
These embarrassments that the Quakers suffer'd from having establish'd and published it [that war was wrong] as one of their principles that no kind of war was lawful, and which, being once published, they could not afterwards, however they might change their minds, easily get rid of, reminds me of what I think a more prudent conduct in another sect among us, that of the Dunkers.

I was acquainted with one of its founders, Michael Welfare, soon after it appear'd. He complain'd to me that they were grievously calumniated by the zealots of other persuasions, and charg'd with abominable principles and practices to which they were utter strangers. I told him this had always been the case with new sects, and that, to put a stop to such abuse, I imagin'd it might be well to publish the articles of their belief, and the rules of their discipline. He said that it had been propos'd among them, but not agreed to, for this reason: "When we were first drawn together as a society," says he, "it had pleased God to enlighten our minds so far as to see that some doctrines, which we once esteemed truths, were errors; and that others, which we had esteemed errors, were real truths. >From time to time He has been pleased to afford us farther light, and our principles have been improving, and our errors diminishing. Now we are not sure that we are arrived at the end of this progression, and at the perfection of spiritual or theological knowledge; and we fear that, if we should once print our confession of faith, we should feel ourselves as if bound and confin'd by it, and perhaps be unwilling to receive further improvement, and our successors still more so, as conceiving what we their elders and founders had done, to be something sacred, never to be departed from."


This modesty in a sect is perhaps a singular instance in the history of mankind, every other sect supposing itself in possession of all truth, and that those who differ are so far in the wrong; like a man traveling in foggy weather, those at some distance before him on the road he sees wrapped up in the fog, as well as those behind him, and also the people in the fields on each side, but near him all appears clear, tho' in truth he is as much in the fog as any of them. To avoid this kind of embarrassment, the Quakers have of late years been gradually declining the public service in the Assembly and in the magistracy, choosing rather to quit their power than their principle.
I wish we were more open about truth, as Franklin implies. Unfortunately, the claims of divine inspiration of our leaders, the divine commission, prophets who can "never lead the church astray" prevents us from being that way.

That is why the Priesthood Disavowal Essay is such a double edged sword with me. On one hand, it is very Ben Franklin-like. The church acknowledged that the racism of the past was not truth. Congratulations LDS Church!!!!

On the other hand, it damages a key premise of my baptism, ongoing involvement and payment of retirement savings over my lifetime, as well as a substantial use of my time in activities I would not have otherwise dedicated (like setting up chairs, visiting less actives).

Yet another problem, is that people WANT literalism. They are not comfortable with ambiguity, with changing truth etcetera. They cling to tradition. Religions that take a stand, that entrench absolute statements and live by them, appear to last. The Dunkers dwindled to the point they are almost non-existent now -- one sect has about 200,000 members worldwide...

Humans appear to see the acquisition of truth as an event, not a process.
"It doesn't have to be about the Church (church) all the time!" -- SD

"The individual has always had to struggle to keep from being overwhelmed by the tribe. No price is too high to pay for the privilege of owning yourself."

A man asked Jesus "do all roads lead to you?" Jesus responds,”most roads don’t lead anywhere, but I will travel any road to find you.” Adapted from The Shack, William Young

User avatar
nibbler
Posts: 4473
Joined: 14 Nov 2013, 07:34
Location: Ten miles west of the exact centre of the universe

Re: Dalai Lama: "if science is found to contradict a basic t

Post by nibbler » 13 May 2015, 05:59

Church leaders have said similar things:
J. Reuben Clark wrote:If we have the truth, it cannot be harmed by investigation. If we have not the truth, it ought to be harmed.
Joseph Smith Jr wrote:One of the grand fundamental principles of Mormonism is to receive truth, let it come from whence it may.
There is similar language in the temple, we even have an article of faith that borders on this concept. It's like with most things, it falls in and out of our consciousness depending on what is currently in front of us and as needed to support a point we are trying to make.
Cure sometimes, treat often, comfort always.
— Hippocrates

User avatar
SilentDawning
Posts: 7341
Joined: 09 May 2010, 19:55

Re: Dalai Lama: "if science is found to contradict a basic t

Post by SilentDawning » 13 May 2015, 06:37

nibbler wrote:Church leaders have said similar things:
J. Reuben Clark wrote:If we have the truth, it cannot be harmed by investigation. If we have not the truth, it ought to be harmed.
Joseph Smith Jr wrote:One of the grand fundamental principles of Mormonism is to receive truth, let it come from whence it may.
There is similar language in the temple, we even have an article of faith that borders on this concept. It's like with most things, it falls in and out of our consciousness depending on what is currently in front of us and as needed to support a point we are trying to make.
I think it's a great principle....but like many other principles, it has not trickled down to the local leadership. In fact, there are cultural norms that work against it, such as obedience to leaders (even at the local level), Learned men are not wise, spiritual feelings trump reason, etcetera, and tradition.

It takes a focused, concerted effort to change an organization, particularly large ones...statements alone don't do it. We've seen that with statements by Uchrdorft, the essays, etcetera.
"It doesn't have to be about the Church (church) all the time!" -- SD

"The individual has always had to struggle to keep from being overwhelmed by the tribe. No price is too high to pay for the privilege of owning yourself."

A man asked Jesus "do all roads lead to you?" Jesus responds,”most roads don’t lead anywhere, but I will travel any road to find you.” Adapted from The Shack, William Young

amateurparent
Posts: 953
Joined: 19 Jan 2014, 20:43

Re: Dalai Lama: "if science is found to contradict a basic t

Post by amateurparent » 13 May 2015, 07:30

Science and Religion will always be at odds. Those two include many dissertations and egos . Science and a belief in God do much better together.

The second law of thermodynamics essentially states everything is headed towards a lesser state of order. Scientists have yet to figure out how the world became organized in the first place. Mutations and evolution can easily explain how things have changed and varied .. But not how the original organizing happened. I put God there.

The story I like is: "If I walk into my child's room and it is a mess and I come back later and everything is organized and in its place, I know someone has been there." We started off with chaos. Everything got organized. Now things are slowly modifying .. That is evolution.

It works for me.
I have no advance degrees in parenting. No national credentials. I am an amateur parent. I read, study, and learn all I can to be the best parent possible. Every time I think I have reached expert status with one child for one stage in their life, something changes and I am back to amateur status again. Now when I really mess up, I just apologize to my child, and explain that I am indeed an amateur .. I'm still learning how to do this right.

Post Reply