Quote:
Originally Posted by waxnrope
I agree with some of your post, AJ. However, as with many things, change is afoot. There is a Center for Science and Religion in Berkeley, and similar institues elsewhere. People are talking WITH each other and listening.
|
I find these kinds of organizations to be very important in combating what I call
intellectual benign neglect. Question, question, question... replicate, replicate, replicate!
Accepting anything, including scientific claims,
blindly, is not a good thing to me. This certainly bothers me with theism. Without sound research methods and replication of theory, science is not trustworthy either. Put the lack of funding for scientific inquiry in the US in the equation as well as the corporate mega-bucks for certain kinds of scientific inquiry, and there is a big problem. When new research such as this comes out, the first thing I want to know is
how it was funded and where.
Unfortunately, there are at times, people behind scientific investigation that are not interested in pure science and have ulterior motives. Seems like that can be said for those in many forms of theology. In fact, there is scientific study into a
God Gene that can be viewed as part of this group. On the other hand, that science is revolutionary in terms of neuropsychological interpretation and applications. It has it's place in scientific investigation because science delves into all.
Many scientific discoveries that are simply brilliant have been used in horrible ways- the atomic bomb is certainly one. Reading how Oppenheimer felt about his work and how it ended up being used is very interesting and heartbreaking. The guy had so may other ideas for how this science could be used that would have had such different social consequences that were positive.
For me, a state of spiritual awareness is indeed based upon molecular variables within the bio-neuro- physiological realm of sensation, perception and cognitive underpinnings. Paranormal investigation is something that is advancing in our scientific world and has a place in all of this. I can't define this for anyone else. I don’t even care to.
I do know that accepting science at first glance without checking the methods obtained and not seeing replication is not being a good scientist. If I had done this as a professional, I would have been neglectful as well as unethical. In terms of professional ethics, simply taking scientific research at face value can be a deadly mistake.
Hawkins has demonstrated a history of solid scientific inquiry. He is well respected among his peers (and that is something to consider as well- prominent scientists do exist in an Ivy League elitist vacuum mostly). I will certainly take his theory into consideration. Although, I don't consider creationism to be valid, anyway. I see other applications for what Hawkins is bring to light (no pun intended). But, his work will have to stand the test of time and further scientific study and criticism to earn validity. And Hawkins, as a phenomenal scientist knows this.
This work is a significant contribution in science, but, it needs to be treated as all good science is,
with continued and un-biased scientific inquiry. The idea is to build on theory from the past and into the future. That is what good scientist’s do- they keep asking questions and refining their research. Keep going at ideas.
Who knows, Hawkins work might lead to another
Scopes Trial and change the course of educational curriculum. I for one wouldn’t mind this at all. I do agree that creationism theory just does not stand as a bona fide theory to be taught in our public schools (public being the operative- let alone separation of church and state).