In my view science (or at least "pure science" for the sake of understanding the universe, rather than more pragmatic means such as devising military technologies) is ultimately another of many religious traditions, all major world religions had an "intellectual" branch, modern science is just a continuation of that in a Western context.durangopipe wrote: ↑Fri Dec 21, 2018 12:22 amA bit off the “beauty” topic, but that part of your post, well ...“natureofaman” wrote: ... and my understanding is that evolution is primarily an Eastern religious concept, such as in the Hindu religion, which was later appropriated by the West, despite having been an Eastern concept for thousands of years before Darwin arrived as a somewhat amateurish latecomer to the scene.
A cosmology or religious tradition is not science.
Most of modern Western science, specifically, was derived from Eastern religion and cosmology; the Western Enlightenment followed the interaction of Europeans such as Marco Polo with with the Orient, and their attempt to emulate the Eastern ways of gaining Enlightenment.
The physicist Fritjof Capra has a book "The Tao of Physics" which reveals the parallels between modern physics and Eastern cosmology.
https://www.amazon.com/tao-physics/s?pa ... %20physics
I personally disagree with that, given that evolution was a prominent concept of the Hindu and Buddhist religions, and Westerners like Darwin only invented their own version of the concept thousands of years later. Compared to the East, I'd argue he was definitely an amateur.As a scienctist, Darwin was not late to the scene. True, no scientist works in a vacuum, he had precursors, but I think that comment was a little over the top.
The reincarnation aspect specifically isn't directly relevant here, however it was built on the notion that all life forms originated from the same source, with more complex ones deriving from simpler forms, which is the central theme behind modern evolutionary theory. (This was something which Eastern scientists and mystics had theorized about for thousands of years before Europe took up the concept).Spiritual traditions that focus on the concept of constant change might be seen as early formulations of Evolutionry Theory if one likes creating complicated (in my opinion unjustifiable) intellectual pretzels, but I’ve got a funny feeling you were referring to something more specific: reincarnation.
Adaptation through random mutation and natural selection, and speciation through natural selection over very long periods of time is kind of hard to equate in a meaningful way with a spiritual cosmology that includes an idea like reincarnation. Screwing up in this life and coming back as a worm isn’t evolution. Not screwing up and moving “higher” isn’t either. (Forgive the Westernized language.)
I consider it "amateurish" in comparison to the East, given that Easterners had developed earlier versions of the evolutionary theory thousands of years before Westerners arrived at the sense, and my view is that most modern Western scientific concepts were largely derived from the East to begin with.Calling Darwin’s body of hugely diligent and conscientious scientific work “amateurish” is grossly inaccurate. There are some (many here) who consider the theory flawed, a contradiction of scripture (many Christian scholars do not), but the work was certainly characterized by “professionalism” as it pertains to the conduct of science.
(My personal belief is that Asians tend to be naturally superior at scientific and technological endeavors, and it may have something to do with the nature of their world religions such as Hinduism and Buddhism having placed a stronger theme on intellectually investigating the nature of the universe than Western religions traditionally have - as as example, Asians have made up as much as 29% of MIT's students, despite being only about 5% of the general population.
https://nypost.com/2018/05/25/asians-ar ... ve-action/
Thanks, I appreciate the feedback.Offered as a friend.
I do love admire your spirit.