請問佛教徒之八

發信人: LeoFlamenco.bbs@csie.nctu (小八極), 信區: religion
標  題: 請問佛教徒之八(轉載自台大BBS)
發信站: 交大資工鳳凰城資訊站 (Mon Sep 12 15:24:34 1994)
轉信站: pivot!ccnews.nchu!news.cc.nctu!news.csie.nctu!bbsroute!phoenix

發信人: yu@Palmarama (love), 信區: Religion

標  題: Re: 請問佛教徒
發信站: 台大計中椰林風情站 (Thu Sep  8 01:58:09 1994)
轉信站: Palmarama (local)

==> PowerCC@Palmarama (咆蛙俊) 提到:
> 我想我是個不折不扣的科學人，但是慢慢地接受了宗教的思想體系。倒不是體驗
> 了什麼「超自然」現象，只是在思考中發現了一個獨立的，可自我解釋的「思考
> 黑洞」。我認為那就是宗教，裡面的人願意相信一個叫做「無限大」的、不可動
> 搖的﹍「真理」。
> 我認為那不同於迷信，只是一種思考狀態，有它的邏輯地位。只是慣於接受表象
> 驗證的人，不願意掉入這個封閉系統的人，大概不會去發現或承認它的存在。
> 在這個系統裡的人，會認為一切的外在分析、實驗、推論，都只是再刮取表象而
> 已。真正的內涵是需要用心去體會的，不是用語言解釋得出來的。
> 我願意保持一顆開放的心。Taoist 和 Wenyao 的討論是我努力學習的方法之一。
This is a typical response from some people
who have believe in religions to some extent.
If you are talking about medication or psychology,
I total agree with you. However, I think the
religion believers go beyond this. They actually
believe something resulting from the experience.
For science, scientists would say something like
: you do something blab blab ...., you will get

: you do something blab blab ...., you will get
the results blab blab ..... Everyone can go ahead
and reproduce the results. For some religions, one
has to get into their logic (or believe) first,
then you can see somthing and you are also not guaranteed
to see it. This is very undesirable and more vulnerable
to criticism. Note that I am not saying I have concluded
all the regilions are wrong. However, I do find most
religion believers don't really know what they
are believing. I also want to say that most
people have wrong definitions for science. In my
own defintion, any knowledge that is obtained by systematic
ways and reproducible is a part of science. It could be true
that some experience of the religion believers are unstable
so that it may not be easily reproduced, but it is
regretful that most religion believers are not trying towards
this direction (this is no longer true nowadays, neuron-scientists
now can actually reproduce some of these experiences).
That is the reason why this kind of argument has been
going on for thousands of years and yet without any definite
conclusions. Finally, let me quote the speculation of the
great physicist Bohr: he said, perhaps the reason why one can't
reproduce all these results about spirit that were claimed
is that material and spirit are in complementarity, i.e,
if you look at the material side of the life, you will never
see the spiritual part and vice versa. This is a straight
analogy to the particle-wave duality in modern physics. I
hope this can entertain you guys.
Cheers,
yu
－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－
發信人: PowerCC@Palmarama (咆蛙俊), 信區: Religion
標  題: 科學與宗教...
發信站: 台大計中椰林風情站 (Thu Sep  8 08:58:07 1994)
轉信站: Palmarama (local)

==> yu@Palmarama (love) 提到:
> This is a typical response from some people
> who have believe in religions to some extent.

Well, it depends on the definition of 'religion.'

> own defintion, any knowledge that is obtained by systematic
> ways and reproducible is a part of science. It could be true

Then you will be denying 'psychology' or even 'medicine' as sciences.
Their results are not only frequently not-reproducible, they may even
vary depending on the difference in culture, locality, etc. Take the
study of anesthetics(spelling?) as an example. Some cultures can kill
the feeling of pain using mental methods, and some do so using poisonous
fluids from animals. I don't think these are reproducible on ordinary
human beings. You want to try them?

Actually, any 'science' related to humans are frequently not reproducible.
Does that eliminate all these from them realm of sciences?

> conclusions. Finally, let me quote the speculation of the
> great physicist Bohr: he said, perhaps the reason why one can't
> reproduce all these results about spirit that were claimed
> is that material and spirit are in complementarity, i.e,
> if you look at the material side of the life, you will never
> see the spiritual part and vice versa. This is a straight
> analogy to the particle-wave duality in modern physics. I
> hope this can entertain you guys.

I am definitely entertained.
－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－
發信人: yu@Palmarama (love), 信區: Religion
標  題: Re: 科學與宗教...
發信站: 台大計中椰林風情站 (Thu Sep  8 10:12:39 1994)
轉信站: Palmarama (local)

Well, I think you have got the wrong idea about what
I meant by reproducible. There exist a lot of phenomena
that are statistical in natural such as the heights of human
bodies. When one can't control all the varibales in an
event, the outcome is normally a statistical distribution.
This is almost what happens for medicine and psychology.
One then resorts to various statistical methods to
analysize the outcome. Didn't you ever hear that the chance
you get lung cancer is blab ...?
Modern physics even tells that the natural law itself is
already statistical in nature (Quantum Mechanics). This
is another story, though. The spiritual stuff may be
also statistical  by its own nature, but what is the law?
What is the truth about it? My point is that I'd rathar trust
my rationailty. The method of science has proven itself
to be a reliable way to obtain the knowledge in the past
decades, why do I have to trust something else which after all
hasn't fully got its credence and may after all become an
illusion? Think about it.
－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－
發信人: PowerCC@Palmarama (咆蛙俊), 信區: Religion
標  題: Re: 科學與宗教...
發信站: 台大計中椰林風情站 (Thu Sep  8 14:57:34 1994)
轉信站: Palmarama (local)

==> yu@Palmarama (love) 提到:
> analysize the outcome. Didn't you ever hear that the chance
> you get lung cancer is blab ...?

I think we are talking about different things here. The anesthesia example
I gave has little, if any, relationship with any probabilistic model. It is
simply mentally accepted, and is a working practice in some believing
cultures. We don't believe in it, we don't try it to its very essence,
and we simply try to analyse it in our words, that's why it never works
for us. Now that's what religion is to one who takes science verbatim.

[deleted]
> my rationailty. The method of science has proven itself
> to be a reliable way to obtain the knowledge in the past
> decades, why do I have to trust something else which after all
> hasn't fully got its credence and may after all become an
> illusion? Think about it.

Well, we can go back to the Bohr metaphor you gave... I actually liked it!

Of course, the difference here is, until some breakthrough in information
representation is sought, we can give little evidence to clarify religious
thoughts (until someone finds the double-slit experiment for us...)
－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－
發信人: PowerCC@Palmarama (咆蛙俊), 信區: Religion
標  題: Re: 科學與宗教...
發信站: 台大計中椰林風情站 (Thu Sep  8 17:32:24 1994)
轉信站: Palmarama (local)

各位網友﹍ yu 兄提出了物理學家 Bohr 的一段話。我怕大家不讀英文，
錯過這一段蠻精彩的話，所以大略翻譯一下

==> Posted by yu
> Finally, let me quote the speculation of the
> great physicist Bohr: he said, perhaps the reason why one can't
> reproduce all these results about spirit that were claimed
> is that material and spirit are in complementarity, i.e,
> if you look at the material side of the life, you will never
> see the spiritual part and vice versa. This is a straight
> analogy to the particle-wave duality in modern physics.

物質與精神可能就像光的粒子及波的特性，在一種系統下，看不到另一種。

蠻有趣的﹍
－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－