Quote:
Originally Posted by Voice  I think you have a rosy view of scientists. Pick up a book on the history of relativity theory, and how physicists behaved as it was introduced and explored. They took so long to come around because they didn't want to give up their preconceptions, didn't want to be 'wrong' (ego), couldn't believe the universe could behave that way compared to their rigid mechanical view of it, etc. They were stuck in their beliefs. |
The resistance to relativity theory was nothing compared to Galileo's dispute with the church. New theories have to be doubted; it's called "defending" a thesis for a reason. If your theory can't stand up to attacks, then it can't be very good. I will admit that ego is a part of it, which is terrible, but it is not the main reason that scientists are skeptics.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Voice I would say using "faith" as I (and Alan Watts) do is more true to the original meanings and uses of the word. People just became lazy in their use of the word, and pretty much forgot what faith is. Like I said, most people don't have a word for what I call faith. The word doesn't exist because the concept has largely been lost in western thought.
But they're merely words - signposts. I think it's fun to redefine them - reminds us they're arbitrary and that we're making it all up.
"Grok" to me is deep transcendental knowledge, not faith. |
I'm not sure what you mean by "original definition", because I've looked up the etymology and I can't find your definition in there anywhere. In any case, it doesn't really matter. I think I understand what you mean by the word, and I still disagree with your opinion of scientists.