Not at all. Have a look at Holographic Principle for a start (and please don't debate it with me - I have a clue how it works!). There is almost nothing 'real' about the quantum universe. And the debate about what constitutes consciousness is wide open.
Physicists are the rebels of science, the cutting edge. Many scientists from other branches have a worldview closer to Newtonian Physics principles than Quantum Mechanics. Of all scientists, physicists are the more open minded I've met.
Science is not a religion. It's just science.
It shouldn't be. The problem is when it becomes one. Then we call it Scientism, not science.
You can be a religious scientist. I'm related to one.
There are many. But as you may be aware, while we go through our academic training, a lot of articles of faith are presented as science unintentionally. Students are not alerted to such fact. I think one of the reasons for such scenario is the divorce between science and Philosophy.
The problem from all sides is fundamentalism. I find Richard Dawkins' professional atheism tedious, but not his science.
His "science" is also debatable. I can think of the selfish gene idea as very problematic one in philosophical terms. As long as he keeps himself to Biology he remains a good researcher. The moment he starts speculating about metaphysics I lose interest. He lacks qualifications to do so.
Religion is a hobbyhorse for the Dawkinses of this world, as science is to the people who found museums of creationism.
Two faces of the same tedious coin.
I do live in the UK, by the way, and it is indeed a stronghold of skepticism. Also of druids, wicca, every imaginable iteration of the New Age, Diamond Way and NKT Buddhists, Scientology... the list goes on.
I'm talking about the public presentation of science. It's heavily biased in favor of skeptics.
Personally, it's not the existence of unexplained phenomena that troubles me - I'm quite happy to adjust my outlook if and when any happen to manifest themselves to me.
No beef there whatsoever.
What bothers me is the notion that we have to accept some pre-existing belief system.
Couldn't agree more. Let me make clear I don't support such line of reasoning.
Every culture has the equivalent of ghosts, demons, fairies but they are all shaded differently according to local conditions.
Indeed. People are different, plants are different, animals are different, non visible beings are different.
This creates what we quaintly regard as folklore. It seems to me that what we are talking about on this thread is the need to accept a hybrid of dogma and folklore in order to practice Vajrayana.
Not at all.
To pretend, in other words, to be Tibetans or Medieval Indians. It doesn't seem practical or sensible, and I don't believe it is necessary.
Couldn't agree more!
The radiant beauty of the Dharma lies in experiencing it. The Dharma is a ship to ferry us over the oceans of Samsara. Like any ship, over the centuries it has picked up layers and layers of barnacle-like superstitions, suppositions, folk tales, cultural particularities. We should have our minds on the destination, not on the barnacles.
Those words could be mine.