Scientist vs Monks

what is the difference folks ?

Monks can hurt you with wind punches! O.o

The hair-dos!

Scientist:

Monk:

Scientists look for evidence. Monks aren't interested in evidence.

As per i see each one follow a different path of the truth(dharma,Intellectual).<that's all i know>

Paul Clapham wrote:Scientists look for evidence. Monks aren't interested in evidence.

I don't agree with this (to certain degree) monks to see the evidence there is complete proof about Buddha and his works .

Scientists don't know the answer, but try and find new evidence to explain it.

Monks know the answer, and ignore evidence that contradicts their explanation

fred rosenberger wrote:
Monks know the answer, and ignore evidence that contradicts their explanation

you must be Joking !!

Arun Giridharan wrote:there is complete proof about Buddha and his works .

I'm not sure what to make of this: complete proof of what - that someone named Buddha lived and worked? If we were to assume a certain similarity to Jesus Christ, would this proof be an equivalent of the bible?

Arun Giridharan wrote:you must be Joking !!

Care to explain that sentiment?

i've been accused of being cynical before but i agree with fred.

Scientists don't know the answer, but try and find new evidence to explain it.

Monks know the answer, and ignore evidence that contradicts their explanation

i like the hairdo explanation best though

Tim Moores wrote:

Arun Giridharan wrote:there is complete proof about Buddha and his works .

I'm not sure what to make of this: complete proof of what - that someone named Buddha lived and worked? If we were to assume a certain similarity to Jesus Christ, would this proof be an equivalent of the bible?

Arun Giridharan wrote:you must be Joking !!

Care to explain that sentiment?

The Thing i want to say is you can't comment about anything (religion) if you don't know it . for example <Hinduism or Buddhism>.

Arun Giridharan wrote:The Thing i want to say is you can't comment about anything (religion) if you don't know it.

Not sure what you mean by "know it", but the premise seems flawed - it would imply that I can't comment on taking opium just because I don't happen to indulge in it myself, no matter how much I know about it. (Note that I am in no way comparing taking opium and religion; feel free to substitute any other concept for "taking opium" - like communism, capitalism, atheism, ...)

Tim Moores wrote:
Not sure what you mean by "know it", but the premise seems flawed - it would imply that I can't comment on taking opium just because I don't happen to indulge in it myself, no matter how much I know about it. (Note that I am in no way comparing taking opium and religion; feel free to substitute any other concept for "taking opium" - like communism, capitalism, atheism, ...)

You can comment on anything as long it won't overrule the form rule,bye.

I understand that even less.

Tim Moores wrote:Note that I am in no way comparing taking opium and religion

Why not ? After all, religion is the opium of the people.

Scientists install this. Monks install this

Joanne Neal wrote:Why not ? After all, religion is the opium of the people.

In order to keep the tone civil, I wasn't going to compare a criminal offence with religion. But Marx was obviously on my mind when I wrote that.

Hmm. If we ignore the tired stereotypes, there are actually a lot of similarities.

Contemplation and discovery of the unknowns.

The good ones know that the more they know, the more they don't know.
(Search for: Unskilled and UnAware Of It)

Many monks (and priests, religious, etc) were scientists.
Many scientists are actually quite religious.

Blows your paradigms? Read:

False Conflict by Rodney Stark
Or, search for:
monks who were scientists (and other variations)

BTW - Love the hairdo joke!