Guest guest Posted July 11, 2012 Report Share Posted July 11, 2012 Well written, Bharat. Ravin '82 > ** > > > > > The God Particle was the subject of the expected media reportage last > week. However, it did not excite me too much because I knew that CERN has > been working on some of the most fundamental issues for the last so many > years. Everyone tried very hard to find some Indian connection with this > discovery. It is true SN Bose (hence Boson) was an Indian, but beyond that > there is nothing more to it. > > Today I saw a TV progamme discussing god and science. For a change, the > panelists were dignified men. The panel was composed of scientists, a > sociologist, the Head of Sri Ramakrishna Mission, a spiritualist and a > Catholic priest. It was a cordial debate. They were logical in their views > and concise in making their points. The two Hindu religious men exuded calm > and were clear and balanced in their views. The priest, however, held onto > the belief in god more strongly but without being confrontational. > One of the scientists was very impressive with his thoughts. He spoke out > his views with startling candidness. He said a true scientist does not > believe anything unless he understands it. To twist this remark, I feel he > meant that a true scientist believes in things only if he understands them > to be true. With a great deal of serenity, he said there was never any > purpose or a design behind the creation of life, as opposed to the > believers who maintain life is the ultimate divine reality. The beginning > of life on the earth was just a chance. Remarkably, other panelists > listened to him with interest and patience. > > There has been a > perpetual conflict between god and science. If god is really somewhere up > there, I do not think he would ever enter into a conflict with anybody. > Conflicts arise when the involved parties > are petty, petulant or parochial. God will surely not fall victim to these > negative > attributes. Therefore, it would be pertinent not to talk about the > conflict between > religion and science. A more charitable view of the whole matter would > make it > appropriate to say that that there is lack of convergence in the > belief systems followed by religion and science. > > Truth is arguably the most important virtue. Religion values truth, but > this truth is different. For > religion, god’s existence is the only truth and everything else is > secondary to > this truth. For science, truth is simply truth. You see something: you ask > questions why it is so; you postulate a number of possible hypotheses to > explain > what you see; finally, you set out to prove the hypotheses one by one > until you > get the right answer. Therefore, science is the knowledge based on > experiments > the results of which can be reproduced. > > There is another important difference between religion and science. This > difference is rigidity (or flexibility, > if you put it differently). Religion believes in things in such a rigid > manner > that there is very little scope for an honest discussion and > reconsideration of > the stated position. Copernicus was persecuted in the worst possible > manner for > his observations on the solar system. Now we know what the truth is. > Similarly, > the Vatican’s position on contraception is laughable. We treated smallpox > as a > curse of god. In contrast, science detected the causative virus and > invented > the vaccine, which has kept the world free of this disease since the late > 1970s. On the other hand, science gives up a theory if it cannot beproved. > Men > of religion become rabid if their views are challenged; whereas scientists > reconcile themselves to new ideas if there presumptions are proved > incorrect. > > At the end, I would > simply like to say this: theories, which are proved, become facts; and > facts, > which are not proved, remain as theories. > > Bharat > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 11, 2012 Report Share Posted July 11, 2012 Wonderfully written. Some comments though. Rigidity is not the birthright of religion only. The middle ages and even today scientists are very rigid if the fundamental principles or economic principles are disturbed. Read about Homocysteine and statin controversy, just one example. Regarding the question, science never seems to answer the question " why " it is " How' that worries scientists more. Science answer how enzymes work, not why enzymes occurred accidentally. The recurrent laryngeal nerve is lengthened enough for the tuning of the vocal cord to happen a millisecond before the voice, ah, accidentally! Science does not answer why evolution happens, why suddenly accidents occur so that fishes start having lungs and such accidents, beautiful ones keeps repeating till you get one Dr Ashok Sinha infesting the roads of the Northeast. The brain is the most complicated organised form of matter in the universe, more complicated than a super galaxy, to say it is formed by accident; beats me.Again such arguments will automatically put me in the band wagon of religious dudes, not me, let me clarify. I do not believe in God, an entity that supervises all that is happening and ready to punish me when I reach Him for all I did in Sevagram. But just to say that everything happened accidentally, is the rigidity of present day science.  Ashok Sinha >________________________________ > >To: mgims >Sent: Wednesday, July 11, 2012 6:37 AM >Subject: Re: God Particle > >Well written, Bharat. > >Ravin '82 > > >> ** >> >> >> >> >> The God Particle was the subject of the expected media reportage last >> week. However, it did not excite me too much because I knew that CERN has >> been working on some of the most fundamental issues for the last so many >> years. Everyone tried very hard to find some Indian connection with this >> discovery. It is true SN Bose (hence Boson) was an Indian, but beyond that >> there is nothing more to it. >> >> Today I saw a TV progamme discussing god and science. For a change, the >> panelists were dignified men. The panel was composed of scientists, a >> sociologist, the Head of Sri Ramakrishna Mission, a spiritualist and a >> Catholic priest. It was a cordial debate. They were logical in their views >> and concise in making their points. The two Hindu religious men exuded calm >> and were clear and balanced in their views. The priest, however, held onto >> the belief in god more strongly but without being confrontational. >> One of the scientists was very impressive with his thoughts. He spoke out >> his views with startling candidness. He said a true scientist does not >> believe anything unless he understands it. To twist this remark, I feel he >> meant that a true scientist believes in things only if he understands them >> to be true. With a great deal of serenity, he said there was never any >> purpose or a design behind the creation of life, as opposed to the >> believers who maintain life is the ultimate divine reality. The beginning >> of life on the earth was just a chance. Remarkably, other panelists >> listened to him with interest and patience. >> >> There has been a >> perpetual conflict between god and science. If god is really somewhere up >> there, I do not think he would ever enter into a conflict with anybody. >> Conflicts arise when the involved parties >> are petty, petulant or parochial. God will surely not fall victim to these >> negative >> attributes. Therefore, it would be pertinent not to talk about the >> conflict between >> religion and science. A more charitable view of the whole matter would >> make it >> appropriate to say that that there is lack of convergence in the >> belief systems followed by religion and science. >> >> Truth is arguably the most important virtue. Religion values truth, but >> this truth is different. For >> religion, god’s existence is the only truth and everything else is >> secondary to >> this truth. For science, truth is simply truth. You see something: you ask >> questions why it is so; you postulate a number of possible hypotheses to >> explain >> what you see; finally, you set out to prove the hypotheses one by one >> until you >> get the right answer. Therefore, science is the knowledge based on >> experiments >> the results of which can be reproduced. >> >> There is another important difference between religion and science. This >> difference is rigidity (or flexibility, >> if you put it differently). Religion believes in things in such a rigid >> manner >> that there is very little scope for an honest discussion and >> reconsideration of >> the stated position. Copernicus was persecuted in the worst possible >> manner for >> his observations on the solar system. Now we know what the truth is. >> Similarly, >> the Vatican’s position on contraception is laughable. We treated smallpox >> as a >> curse of god. In contrast, science detected the causative virus and >> invented >> the vaccine, which has kept the world free of this disease since the late >> 1970s. On the other hand, science gives up a theory if it cannot beproved. >> Men >> of religion become rabid if their views are challenged; whereas scientists >> reconcile themselves to new ideas if there presumptions are proved >> incorrect. >> >> At the end, I would >> simply like to say this: theories, which are proved, become facts; and >> facts, >> which are not proved, remain as theories. >> >> Bharat >> >> Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 11, 2012 Report Share Posted July 11, 2012 Excellent " argument " , Dr Ashok Sinha (if I may call that an argument) Ravin '82 On Wed, Jul 11, 2012 at 7:23 AM, Dr. Ashok Sinha wrote: > ** > > > Wonderfully written. Some comments though. Rigidity is not the birthright > of religion only. The middle ages and even today scientists are very rigid > if the fundamental principles or economic principles are disturbed. Read > about Homocysteine and statin controversy, just one example. Regarding the > question, science never seems to answer the question " why " it is " How' that > worries scientists more. Science answer how enzymes work, not why enzymes > occurred accidentally. The recurrent laryngeal nerve is lengthened enough > for the tuning of the vocal cord to happen a millisecond before the voice, > ah, accidentally! Science does not answer why evolution happens, why > suddenly accidents occur so that fishes start having lungs and such > accidents, beautiful ones keeps repeating till you get one Dr Ashok Sinha > infesting the roads of the Northeast. The brain is the most complicated > organised form of matter in the universe, more complicated than a super > galaxy, to say it > is formed by accident; beats me.Again such arguments will automatically > put me in the band wagon of religious dudes, not me, let me clarify. I do > not believe in God, an entity that supervises all that is happening and > ready to punish me when I reach Him for all I did in Sevagram. But just to > say that everything happened accidentally, is the rigidity of present day > science. > > > Ashok Sinha > > >________________________________ > > > >To: mgims > >Sent: Wednesday, July 11, 2012 6:37 AM > >Subject: Re: God Particle > > > > >Well written, Bharat. > > > >Ravin '82 > > > > > >> ** > > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> The God Particle was the subject of the expected media reportage last > >> week. However, it did not excite me too much because I knew that CERN > has > >> been working on some of the most fundamental issues for the last so many > >> years. Everyone tried very hard to find some Indian connection with this > >> discovery. It is true SN Bose (hence Boson) was an Indian, but beyond > that > >> there is nothing more to it. > >> > >> Today I saw a TV progamme discussing god and science. For a change, the > >> panelists were dignified men. The panel was composed of scientists, a > >> sociologist, the Head of Sri Ramakrishna Mission, a spiritualist and a > >> Catholic priest. It was a cordial debate. They were logical in their > views > >> and concise in making their points. The two Hindu religious men exuded > calm > >> and were clear and balanced in their views. The priest, however, held > onto > >> the belief in god more strongly but without being confrontational. > >> One of the scientists was very impressive with his thoughts. He spoke > out > >> his views with startling candidness. He said a true scientist does not > >> believe anything unless he understands it. To twist this remark, I feel > he > >> meant that a true scientist believes in things only if he understands > them > >> to be true. With a great deal of serenity, he said there was never any > >> purpose or a design behind the creation of life, as opposed to the > >> believers who maintain life is the ultimate divine reality. The > beginning > >> of life on the earth was just a chance. Remarkably, other panelists > >> listened to him with interest and patience. > >> > >> There has been a > >> perpetual conflict between god and science. If god is really somewhere > up > >> there, I do not think he would ever enter into a conflict with anybody. > >> Conflicts arise when the involved parties > >> are petty, petulant or parochial. God will surely not fall victim to > these > >> negative > >> attributes. Therefore, it would be pertinent not to talk about the > >> conflict between > >> religion and science. A more charitable view of the whole matter would > >> make it > >> appropriate to say that that there is lack of convergence in the > >> belief systems followed by religion and science. > >> > >> Truth is arguably the most important virtue. Religion values truth, but > >> this truth is different. For > >> religion, god’s existence is the only truth and everything else is > >> secondary to > >> this truth. For science, truth is simply truth. You see something: you > ask > >> questions why it is so; you postulate a number of possible hypotheses to > >> explain > >> what you see; finally, you set out to prove the hypotheses one by one > >> until you > >> get the right answer. Therefore, science is the knowledge based on > >> experiments > >> the results of which can be reproduced. > >> > >> There is another important difference between religion and science. > This > >> difference is rigidity (or flexibility, > >> if you put it differently). Religion believes in things in such a rigid > >> manner > >> that there is very little scope for an honest discussion and > >> reconsideration of > >> the stated position. Copernicus was persecuted in the worst possible > >> manner for > >> his observations on the solar system. Now we know what the truth is. > >> Similarly, > >> the Vatican’s position on contraception is laughable. We treated > smallpox > >> as a > >> curse of god. In contrast, science detected the causative virus and > >> invented > >> the vaccine, which has kept the world free of this disease since the > late > >> 1970s. On the other hand, science gives up a theory if it cannot > beproved. > >> Men > >> of religion become rabid if their views are challenged; whereas > scientists > >> reconcile themselves to new ideas if there presumptions are proved > >> incorrect. > >> > >> At the end, I would > >> simply like to say this: theories, which are proved, become facts; and > >> facts, > >> which are not proved, remain as theories. > >> > >> Bharat > >> > >> Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 11, 2012 Report Share Posted July 11, 2012 Exactly, Ashok. But I think that the God in the form which people think, is definitely not a viable hypothesis. (After all, all religions are hypotheses.) On a parallel note, the actual name of the Higgs-Boson particle was The 'Goddamn' particle, which was shortened by an editor to 'God' particle. The particle in no way attempts to explain or subjugate 'God'. However, due to the wrong name, people tend to assume that it is trying to explain everything. Kudos to the Cern team for creating the most basic of particles, and clearing the way for a better understanding of the universe. Now on to the 'Devil' particle, or the one which is called by scientists as anti-matter or dark matter. That is a tougher nut to crack. Kishore Shah 1974 -------------------------------------------------- Sent: Wednesday, July 11, 2012 7:23 AM To: <mgims > Subject: Re: God Particle > Wonderfully written. Some comments though. Rigidity is not the birthright > of religion only. The middle ages and even today scientists are very rigid > if the fundamental principles or economic principles are disturbed. Read > about Homocysteine and statin controversy, just one example. Regarding the > question, science never seems to answer the question " why " it is " How' > that worries scientists more. Science answer how enzymes work, not why > enzymes occurred accidentally. The recurrent laryngeal nerve is lengthened > enough for the tuning of the vocal cord to happen a millisecond before the > voice, ah, accidentally! Science does not answer why evolution happens, > why suddenly accidents occur so that fishes start having lungs and such > accidents, beautiful ones keeps repeating till you get one Dr Ashok Sinha > infesting the roads of the Northeast. The brain is the most complicated > organised form of matter in the universe, more complicated than a super > galaxy, to say it > is formed by accident; beats me.Again such arguments will automatically > put me in the band wagon of religious dudes, not me, let me clarify. I do > not believe in God, an entity that supervises all that is happening and > ready to punish me when I reach Him for all I did in Sevagram. But just to > say that everything happened accidentally, is the rigidity of present day > science. > > > Ashok Sinha > > >>________________________________ >> >>To: mgims >>Sent: Wednesday, July 11, 2012 6:37 AM >>Subject: Re: God Particle >> >>Well written, Bharat. >> >>Ravin '82 >> >> >>> ** >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> The God Particle was the subject of the expected media reportage last >>> week. However, it did not excite me too much because I knew that CERN >>> has >>> been working on some of the most fundamental issues for the last so many >>> years. Everyone tried very hard to find some Indian connection with this >>> discovery. It is true SN Bose (hence Boson) was an Indian, but beyond >>> that >>> there is nothing more to it. >>> >>> Today I saw a TV progamme discussing god and science. For a change, the >>> panelists were dignified men. The panel was composed of scientists, a >>> sociologist, the Head of Sri Ramakrishna Mission, a spiritualist and a >>> Catholic priest. It was a cordial debate. They were logical in their >>> views >>> and concise in making their points. The two Hindu religious men exuded >>> calm >>> and were clear and balanced in their views. The priest, however, held >>> onto >>> the belief in god more strongly but without being confrontational. >>> One of the scientists was very impressive with his thoughts. He spoke >>> out >>> his views with startling candidness. He said a true scientist does not >>> believe anything unless he understands it. To twist this remark, I feel >>> he >>> meant that a true scientist believes in things only if he understands >>> them >>> to be true. With a great deal of serenity, he said there was never any >>> purpose or a design behind the creation of life, as opposed to the >>> believers who maintain life is the ultimate divine reality. The >>> beginning >>> of life on the earth was just a chance. Remarkably, other panelists >>> listened to him with interest and patience. >>> >>> There has been a >>> perpetual conflict between god and science. If god is really somewhere >>> up >>> there, I do not think he would ever enter into a conflict with anybody. >>> Conflicts arise when the involved parties >>> are petty, petulant or parochial. God will surely not fall victim to >>> these >>> negative >>> attributes. Therefore, it would be pertinent not to talk about the >>> conflict between >>> religion and science. A more charitable view of the whole matter would >>> make it >>> appropriate to say that that there is lack of convergence in the >>> belief systems followed by religion and science. >>> >>> Truth is arguably the most important virtue. Religion values truth, but >>> this truth is different. For >>> religion, god’s existence is the only truth and everything else is >>> secondary to >>> this truth. For science, truth is simply truth. You see something: you >>> ask >>> questions why it is so; you postulate a number of possible hypotheses to >>> explain >>> what you see; finally, you set out to prove the hypotheses one by one >>> until you >>> get the right answer. Therefore, science is the knowledge based on >>> experiments >>> the results of which can be reproduced. >>> >>> There is another important difference between religion and science. >>> This >>> difference is rigidity (or flexibility, >>> if you put it differently). Religion believes in things in such a rigid >>> manner >>> that there is very little scope for an honest discussion and >>> reconsideration of >>> the stated position. Copernicus was persecuted in the worst possible >>> manner for >>> his observations on the solar system. Now we know what the truth is. >>> Similarly, >>> the Vatican’s position on contraception is laughable. We treated >>> smallpox >>> as a >>> curse of god. In contrast, science detected the causative virus and >>> invented >>> the vaccine, which has kept the world free of this disease since the >>> late >>> 1970s. On the other hand, science gives up a theory if it cannot >>> beproved. >>> Men >>> of religion become rabid if their views are challenged; whereas >>> scientists >>> reconcile themselves to new ideas if there presumptions are proved >>> incorrect. >>> >>> At the end, I would >>> simply like to say this: theories, which are proved, become facts; and >>> facts, >>> which are not proved, remain as theories. >>> >>> Bharat >>> >>> Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 11, 2012 Report Share Posted July 11, 2012 Nice write up Dr. Bharat............. aasawari91 having faith..........for mysteries to unfold...... ________________________________ To: mgims <mgims > Sent: Tuesday, 10 July 2012 9:40 PM Subject: God Particle  The God Particle was the subject of the expected media reportage last week. However, it did not excite me too much because I knew that CERN has been working on some of the most fundamental issues for the last so many years. Everyone tried very hard to find some Indian connection with this discovery. It is true SN Bose (hence Boson) was an Indian, but beyond that there is nothing more to it. Today I saw a TV progamme discussing god and science. For a change, the panelists were dignified men. The panel was composed of scientists, a sociologist, the Head of Sri Ramakrishna Mission, a spiritualist and a Catholic priest. It was a cordial debate. They were logical in their views and concise in making their points. The two Hindu religious men exuded calm and were clear and balanced in their views. The priest, however, held onto the belief in god more strongly but without being confrontational.   One of the scientists was very impressive with his thoughts. He spoke out his views with startling candidness. He said a true scientist does not believe anything unless he understands it. To twist this remark, I feel he meant that a true scientist believes in things only if he understands them to be true. With a great deal of serenity, he said there was never any purpose or a design behind the creation of life, as opposed to the believers who maintain life is the ultimate divine reality. The beginning of life on the earth was just a chance. Remarkably, other panelists listened to him with interest and patience. There has been a perpetual conflict between god and science. If god is really somewhere up there, I do not think he would ever enter into a conflict with anybody. Conflicts arise when the involved parties are petty, petulant or parochial. God will surely not fall victim to these negative attributes. Therefore, it would be pertinent not to talk about the conflict between religion and science. A more charitable view of the whole matter would make it appropriate to say that that there is lack of convergence in the belief systems followed by religion and science.    Truth is arguably the most important virtue. Religion values truth, but this truth is different. For religion, god’s existence is the only truth and everything else is secondary to this truth. For science, truth is simply truth. You see something: you ask questions why it is so; you postulate a number of possible hypotheses to explain what you see; finally, you set out to prove the hypotheses one by one until you get the right answer. Therefore, science is the knowledge based on experiments the results of which can be reproduced. There is another important difference between religion and science.  This difference is rigidity (or flexibility, if you put it differently). Religion believes in things in such a rigid manner that there is very little scope for an honest discussion and reconsideration of the stated position. Copernicus was persecuted in the worst possible manner for his observations on the solar system. Now we know what the truth is. Similarly, the Vatican’s position on contraception is laughable. We treated smallpox as a curse of god. In contrast, science detected the causative virus and invented the vaccine, which has kept the world free of this disease since the late 1970s. On the other hand, science gives up a theory if it cannot beproved. Men of religion become rabid if their views are challenged; whereas scientists reconcile themselves to new ideas if there presumptions are proved incorrect.  At the end, I would simply like to say this: theories, which are proved, become facts; and facts, which are not proved, remain as theories. Bharat Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 12, 2012 Report Share Posted July 12, 2012  Dear Bharat, Your article is  very well written and has a good chain of thought. I would like to add what I have learnt under the guidance of my spiritual master. This is solely for my purification and not to undermine anyone. To every point of yours which is underlined and in red, I have added a comment. In the end everyone is right according to his own level of understanding according to his own evolution in life. In the grand scheme of things, we are all learning. 1. He said a true scientist does not believe anything unless he understands it. To twist this remark, I feel he meant that a true scientist believes in things only if he understands them to be true. There are three kinds of evidences for establishing any kind of fact a) Pratyaksh praman or perceived evidence- We can prove the existence of something when we actually perceive it. But there are many things we can't perceive directly that are still true or sometimes we perceive them as that which is not true. Eg. We sometimes perceive a rope as a snake or a mirage as water. Why? Because living entities are born with 4 basic defects. (1) tendency to  commit mistakes, (2) to get illusioned, (3) tendency to cheat others and (4) imperfect senses. With these four imperfections, one cannot deliver perfect information nor receive perfect knowledge. Our body is made up of gross matter consisting of earth,water, fire, air, ether and subtle matter called mind, intelligence and false ego. So how can a matter understand that which is beyond matter? Scientists say ( ref- http://www.dailymotion.com/video/xhb0iw_the-higgs-boson-and-mass_tech)  \ that when each minute drop of space time was stretched and cooled, its particles began to loose energy. At that point of time mass had not come into effect. A hundreth of a billionth of a second after the big bang, when temperature reduced, something strange began to happen. Universe became materialised, which came to be known as the Higgs field, which had an effect on the elementary particles like the proton ,the w particle etc whizzing past in the speed of light. Now doesn’t all this make us think, from where did that drop of time come from, how did the universe become materialised in such an organised and beautiful way, from where did the elemantary particles come from, from where did they get so much energy to whiz past in the speed of light. Our human body has 10 raised to the power of 15- billion cells , our brain has 40 billion cells, still we cannot understand that which is beyond the material world  and still we have so many physical limitations!! The other 2 ways for establishing any fact are b.    Anuman praman or inferred evidence by experiments/ derived from reasoning. c.    Shabd praman or scriptural evidence – that which is passed down to us from our teachers and acharyas in the disciplic succession of order. For eg. Our Mother tells us our fathers name. We don’t have to experience it, we don’t have to do a DNA test to prove it, we have to take it for granted that our mother is telling the truth. But how to know spiritual facts/ facts about the creation  when the divine existence is beyond the grasp of material senses, mind and intellect? For this we need scriptural evidence of the Gita and the Bhagvatam. The Bhagvad Gita was originally spoken by Lord Krishna. Below mentioned is the disciplic succession from Krishna to us. Krishnaalso spoke the Gita to the Sun god- Vivasvan and to many others including Arjuna at another point in time and space. THE DISCIPLIC SUCCESSION Of Bhagvad Gita As It Is- By Prabhupad Evaḿ paramparÄ-prÄptam imaḿ rÄjará¹£ayo viduḥ (Bhagavad-gÄ«tÄ 4.\ 2). 1. Kṛṣṇa spoke to Brahma 2. BrahmÄ  to Narada 3. NÄrada 4. VyÄsa 5. Madhva… etc… to  (ref http://vedabase.net/bg/introduction/en) 29. Bhaktivinoda  30. GaurakiÅ›ora 31. BhaktisiddhÄnta SarasvatÄ« 32. A. C. Bhaktivedanta SvÄmÄ«Â PrabhupÄda Hence one should not put faith in a self styled guru who knows a bit of Sanskrit and start compiling their own Gita without any ‘authentic universiy’ to back them up. Scriptural evidence authenticates spiritual truth. No other evidence has stood the test of time. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------\ ---------------------------- 2. With a great deal of serenity, he said there was never any purpose or a design behind the creation of life. The beginning of life on the earth was just a chance. – Just a chance that time, space and particles and bang occurred!! How come the creation is  so beautifully designed and so well organized! There was a purpose for creation. It just shows he had poor fund of knowledge or simply stubbornness and too egoistic to acknowledge . Imagine if the sun would not rise even for a day or it was late by few hours! --------------------------------------------------------------------------------\ ---------------------------- 3. There has been a perpetual conflict between god and science. If god is really somewhere upthere, I do not think he would ever enter into a conflict with anybody… True. God is all merciful, loving, kind and hence has given us our ‘free will’ to do what we like and accordingly we have to  bear the consequences. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------\ ---------------------------- 4.  A more charitable view of the whole matter would make it appropriate to say that that there is lack of convergence in the belief systems followed by religion and science.—There is no lack of convergence. Everything is perfect in this material world, made by the perfect lord. The Lord sends the messengers according to the time, situation and circumstance. A child cannot be taught about digestion the same way as a PHD student is taught. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------\ ----------------------------   5. Religion values truth, but this truth is different. For religion, god’s existence is the only truth and everything else is secondary to this truth. For science, truth is simply truth. Therefore, science is the knowledge based on experiments the results of which can be reproduced.—There is a science of self realization. To understand this science  we need to take shelter of those who have studied this science. They have experienced it. So can we. This is a direct ‘experiential’ science. Not an experimental one. And this also can be reproduced with even uneducated individuals! Who are you? Are you your body? Or your mind? Or are you something higher? Do you know who you are, or do you merely think you know? And does it really matter? Our materialistic society, with its unenlightened leadership, has made it virtually taboo to inquire into our real, higher self. Instead we use our valuable time maintaining, decorating, and pampering the body for its own sake. It is the duty of every human being to understand his constitutional position and to act accordingly. Otherwise what is the difference between humans and animals- same eating, sleeping, mating and defending- we are then called ‘polished animals’. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------\ --------------------------- 6. There is another important difference between religion and science.  This difference is rigidity (or flexibility,if you put it differently). Religion believes in things in such a rigid manner…. If we were not rigid with our children in sending them to school and various self development classes, then they would not have been where they are now. There are always various spectrums of rigidity and flexibility in all walks of life. Be it religion, economic development, sense enjoyment and finally liberation. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------\ ---------------------------- 7. Men of religion become rabid if their views are challenged; - not with all religious men. Why talk about them in particular. Take doctors for example. Even they become rabid if their views are challenged. Take the Amir Khan case on TV. What animosity it has produced amidst the doctors! Have they not become rabid when their views are challenged? Don’t the wives become rabid if their views are challenged? Look at the generation nowadays.. wearing pants starting midway from their buttocks, smoking, taking to drugs and alcohol, womanising, cheating. Its become a fashion! … and they become so rabid when their views are challenged. They think we parents are out dated, old fashioned. And we think our parents are old fashioned. Don’t we get rabid when our views are challenged? --------------------------------------------------------------------------------\ ---------------------------- 8. Whereas scientists reconcile themselves to new ideas if there presumptions are proved incorrect…Agreed. But many new presumptions are being generated every minute which is overiding the previous ones, whereas our vedas has stood the test of time.  What about the nasty fight between the scientists(  New planetoid finding spurs fighting between scientists. In 2005  ref http://www.chron.com/news/nation-world/article/New-planetoid-findin\ g-spurs-fight-between-1925437.php) and Fight between scientists that resulted in the sequencing of the human genome . ( ref.http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/chromosomes/features/2012/b\ logging_the_human_genome_/blogging_the_human_genome_craig_venter_and_the_race_to\ _sequence_the_human_genome_.html)  There could be more which we are not aware of. As mentioned earlier, remember the 4 conditioned defects of a human being? --------------------------------------------------------------------------------\ ---------------------------- Regarding Dr Shahs email 9. But I think that the God in the form which people think, is definitely not a viable hypothesis. (After all, all religions are hypotheses.) Even the bible states  that God has a form, forget what our indian scriptures says. ( We should be ashamed of claiming  our Holy scripture  to be  mythology!! Even Jesus said  Knock and the door shall be opened!  ) The Scripture " reveals " that God has a Face Which has seen (Ge 32:30  So called the name of the place Peniel, saying, “For I have seen God face to face, and yet my life has been delivered.â€),  a Finger that wrote the ten commandments (Ex 31:18 And he gave to Moses, when he had finished speaking with him on Mount Sinai, the two tablets of the testimony, tablets of stone, written with the finger of God.)             (De 9:10), a Hand that struck Job (Have mercy on me, have mercy on me, O you my friends,for the hand of God has touched me!  (Job 19:21),              An Eye which does not pity those who defile the temple (Eze 5:11) (Therefore, as I live,  declares the Lord God, surely, because you have defiled my sanctuary with all your detestable things and with all your abominations, therefore I will withdraw. My eye will not spare, and I will have no pity)   I wish the scientists had discovered the ''faith particle†  Regards,  Madhulila / Meena  Always Chant and be happy  Hare Krsna Hare Krsna, Krsna Krsna , Hare Hare. Hare Ram Hare Ram, Ram Ram, Hare Hare. ________________________________ To: mgims <mgims > Sent: Tuesday, July 10, 2012 1:40 PM Subject: God Particle  The God Particle was the subject of the expected media reportage last week. However, it did not excite me too much because I knew that CERN has been working on some of the most fundamental issues for the last so many years. Everyone tried very hard to find some Indian connection with this discovery. It is true SN Bose (hence Boson) was an Indian, but beyond that there is nothing more to it. Today I saw a TV progamme discussing god and science. For a change, the panelists were dignified men. The panel was composed of scientists, a sociologist, the Head of Sri Ramakrishna Mission, a spiritualist and a Catholic priest. It was a cordial debate. They were logical in their views and concise in making their points. The two Hindu religious men exuded calm and were clear and balanced in their views. The priest, however, held onto the belief in god more strongly but without being confrontational.   One of the scientists was very impressive with his thoughts. He spoke out his views with startling candidness. He said a true scientist does not believe anything unless he understands it. To twist this remark, I feel he meant that a true scientist believes in things only if he understands them to be true. With a great deal of serenity, he said there was never any purpose or a design behind the creation of life, as opposed to the believers who maintain life is the ultimate divine reality. The beginning of life on the earth was just a chance. Remarkably, other panelists listened to him with interest and patience. There has been a perpetual conflict between god and science. If god is really somewhere up there, I do not think he would ever enter into a conflict with anybody. Conflicts arise when the involved parties are petty, petulant or parochial. God will surely not fall victim to these negative attributes. Therefore, it would be pertinent not to talk about the conflict between religion and science. A more charitable view of the whole matter would make it appropriate to say that that there is lack of convergence in the belief systems followed by religion and science.    Truth is arguably the most important virtue. Religion values truth, but this truth is different. For religion, god’s existence is the only truth and everything else is secondary to this truth. For science, truth is simply truth. You see something: you ask questions why it is so; you postulate a number of possible hypotheses to explain what you see; finally, you set out to prove the hypotheses one by one until you get the right answer. Therefore, science is the knowledge based on experiments the results of which can be reproduced. There is another important difference between religion and science.  This difference is rigidity (or flexibility, if you put it differently). Religion believes in things in such a rigid manner that there is very little scope for an honest discussion and reconsideration of the stated position. Copernicus was persecuted in the worst possible manner for his observations on the solar system. Now we know what the truth is. Similarly, the Vatican’s position on contraception is laughable. We treated smallpox as a curse of god. In contrast, science detected the causative virus and invented the vaccine, which has kept the world free of this disease since the late 1970s. On the other hand, science gives up a theory if it cannot beproved. Men of religion become rabid if their views are challenged; whereas scientists reconcile themselves to new ideas if there presumptions are proved incorrect.  At the end, I would simply like to say this: theories, which are proved, become facts; and facts, which are not proved, remain as theories. Bharat Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 12, 2012 Report Share Posted July 12, 2012 Hi Madhulila (Meena), I found your input quite interested though a tad bit lengthy, therefore had to set aside time to read your email later. Ravin '82 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.