• This forum contains old posts that have been closed. New threads and replies may not be made here. Please navigate to the relevant forum to create a new thread or post a reply.
  • Welcome to Tamil Brahmins forums.

    You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our Free Brahmin Community you will have access to post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join our community today!

    If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact contact us.

Faith Vs Reason

Status
Not open for further replies.

sravna

Well-known member
Too much in favor of reason is being said these days that it seems there is a need for some balance.

Reasoning is something that we do when we have certain assumptions, present certain premises and facts and arrive at a conclusion based on the premises. For reasoning to be correct the conclusion should follow from the premises and all the assumptions and premises should be true.

So we do the steps of listing out our premises and our assumptions and how the conclusion is drawn based on them.

Faith is something which doesn't involve doing these patent steps but something that happens when a thought seems to resonate with some other thought that would cause the belief in the latter. Faith happens at a deeper level and I say that the same patent steps that are carried out in the reasoning process is automatically and imperceptibly done by our mind.

More importantly I would say that the logical reasoning that we do is only the writing down of the thoughts grasped imperceptibly by the mind, in a cogent manner so that they can be communicated to others.

So it is always a faith in the deeper sense that everyone has with regard to any subject as there is virtually nothing that can be completely proved by logic as we base them on many assumptions and premises that cannot be given proof or evidence. It is the extent to which one carries out the patent steps that differs.

So as long as the conviction of a person on a topic differs from that of another person, it is very difficult to settle the argument.
 
Dear Folks,

Talking of faith and reason, we can say that those who were faithful to the timeless principles and therefore the scriptures can definitely be said to be not part of the injustice that is often talked about in this forum. So the ones who were being unjust even among brahmins could have been only those who had abandoned that faith. They probably were acting on their own reason or on the reason of the times.

If we look at the many of the injustices that are being carried by humans today, these are by people who are very selfish and do not care for others and this philosophy has today's approval that it does pay to be selfish and doesn't pay to be morally upright as proved by innumerable instances. The very few people who resist this are seen to be out of sync with reality.

So brahmin bashers when you are critical of the injustices of the past whom are you actually criticizing? They are people who like today's perpetrators of injustice were in the majority reflecting the nature of their times. Unless their time sanctioned the injustice it could not have been perpetrated. I think brahmins even those who were unjust could not alone have been responsible. But if you think that the past indeed has been unfair to many people in India because of the brahmins , then why is the present a lot more unfair when paragons of equality, liberty and fraternity are in control of the world? To assume that brahmins exercised complete control over everything and hence solely responsible for the atrocities is very simplistic.

Coming to the main point, on any day timeless principles glorified in our scriptures can only be beneficial to the society unlike values prevailing in a particular time. What may be acceptable today such as fighting for gay rights may be seen as harmful and even with disbelief say 500 years from now. You will never be sure if you are on the right side if you let your views be swayed by the thinking of the prevailing time.

Reason may change with time but true faith doesn't
 
Last edited:
For reasoning to be correct the conclusion should follow from the premises and all the assumptions and premises should be true.
For the reasoning process to be universally acceptable, the premises should be proven and not remain simple assumtions or mere assertions.

Faith is something which doesn't involve doing these patent steps but something that happens when a thought seems to resonate with some other thought that would cause the belief in the latter. Faith happens at a deeper level and I say that the same patent steps that are carried out in the reasoning process is automatically and imperceptibly done by our mind.
I beg to differ. You can say that some beliefs probably may have an implicit reasoning process and hence people accept them, but you cannot sweep all beliefs with the statement that it is a logical derivative. And FYI, this "resonation" does not always need be logical.

More importantly I would say that the logical reasoning that we do is only the writing down of the thoughts grasped imperceptibly by the mind, in a cogent manner so that they can be communicated to others.
But how do we know that the thoughts that are grasped imperceptibly by even the mind be logical when written down?

So it is always a faith in the deeper sense that everyone has with regard to any subject as there is virtually nothing that can be completely proved by logic as we base them on many assumptions and premises that cannot be given proof or evidence.
Can we just not simply say that it is not yet proved logically and be away with it? Do we necessarily twist and contort ourselves in a ridiculous fashion to prove that random dreams are logical thoughts?

So as long as the conviction of a person on a topic differs from that of another person, it is very difficult to settle the argument
Sure you must be aware that the other person can say the same about your assertions. At least do allow for this concession, logically speaking, that is.
 
Dear Shri Auh,

The common misconception is that if something is logically proved then it is unassailable. It is a wrong view because as I said assupmtions are made and they are taken to be true.

In the case of Science even a physical evidence supporting a theory can be taken as a proof even though the premises may be flawed. Take the case of Newton's conception of gravity as a force. It was taken to reflect reality accurately till Einstein showed that it did not reflect reality accurately in ceratin cases,. Einstein conceptualized gravity as a nature of the geometry of space and time . As his theory provided more accurate predictions than Newton's, Einstein's notion of gravirty replaced Newtobn's as a more accurate one. We do not know if Einstein's premise about gravity is indeed the perfect reflection of reality. The point is future evidence may falsify the premise and may be even the theory may fall apart.

Less said the better about the claims of some people here about the rationality of their arguments? We should not just take comfort in the fact that we are using a rational approach to argument. It is just a method. Even more important is to understand whether buried under them are various prejudices taken as universal facts and not proven or provable.

My opinion especially when discussing social issues ,is if we just present our point of view and really listen and try to understand the opponent's point of view there is a lot better chance of our understanding of the issue being balanced, and of coming to an agreement than is otherwise possible.
 
Dear Shri Auh,


Less said the better about the claims of some people here about the rationality of their arguments? We should not just take comfort in the fact that we are using a rational approach to argument. It is just a method. Even more important is to understand whether buried under them are various prejudices taken as universal facts and not proven or provable.

My opinion especially when discussing social issues ,is if we just present our point of view and really listen and try to understand the opponent's point of view there is a lot better chance of our understanding of the issue being balanced, and of coming to an agreement than is otherwise possible.

:thumb:


You have rightly expressed what is what.

 
Dear Shri Auh,

The common misconception is that if something is logically proved then it is unassailable. It is a wrong view because as I said assupmtions are made and they are taken to be true.

. The point is future evidence may falsify the premise and may be even the theory may fall apart.
That cannot be construed to mean that we discard all current logic and go for fantastical explanations and declare them to be proofs. That, sir, is not correct.

We should not just take comfort in the fact that we are using a rational approach to argument. It is just a method.
This confounds me. Do you, then, mean that we should take comfort in irrational approaches to arguments. I dont understand how you juxtapose statements like this without any real value to add to the discussion.

Even more important is to understand whether buried under them are various prejudices taken as universal facts and not proven or provable.
I tried hard to understand this statement, but failed in my attempt. Perhaps you or your "like" minded friends can elaborate please.

My opinion especially when discussing social issues ,is if we just present our point of view and really listen and try to understand the opponent's point of view there is a lot better chance of our understanding of the issue being balanced, and of coming to an agreement than is otherwise possible.
You seem to have a mental block that whoever opposes your pov is not really listening. It is also quite possible that the opposite camp may also think on the same lines. These sort of accusations bring down the quality of any discussion.
 
Sravanji, you wrote:
[Coming to the main point, on any day timeless principles glorified in our scriptures can only be beneficial to the society unlike values prevailing in a particular time. What may be acceptable today such as fighting for gay rights may be seen as harmful and even with disbelief say 500 years from now. You will never be sure if you are on the right side if you let your views be swayed by the thinking of the prevailing time.QUOTE]

Where do we begin?

Are you saying that there are absolute RIGHT and absolute WRONG, that will span time?

Polygamy was right for that time, Dasratha did it so did Pandu. It is in our scriptures Is it right now?

“He who fixed firm the earth that staggered, and set at rest the agitated mountains, who measured out the air's wide middle region and gave the heaven support, he men is Indra.” Rig Ved: 2: 12: 2.

“In the beginning rose Hiranyagarbha, born only Lord of all created beings. He fixed and holds up the earth and the heaven.” Rig Ved: 10: 121: 1

“The Bull has supported the sky.” Yajur Ved: 4: 30

Parashurama then travelled throughout the Indian subcontinent, killing all men of the Kshatriya caste, guilty or innocent.[4] The first book of the Mahabharata writes:


In the interval between the Treta and Dwapara Yugas, Parashurama, great among all who have borne arms, urged by impatience of wrongs, repeatedly smote the noble race of Kshatriyas. And when that fiery meteor, by his own valour, annihilated the entire tribe of the Kshatriyas, he formed at Samanta-panchaka five lakes of blood.
—Mahabharata 1:2[6]

Is that genocide?

Ekalvya: Drona, the guru accepts him but demands his right thumb (which is essential to position an arrow on the bow-string) as gurudakshina. Ekalavya complies, but cripples himself and thereby ruins his abilities as an archer.
Is that justified?

All rights and wrongs are purely relative. Depends on the case, time and place. The are not Truth, only truth is Brahman.

Killing your neighbor for his money is wrong, but killing your enemy in battle is sanctioned. So you can not say Killing is wrong or right. Similarly everything is this world is relative (in scriptures and in science).


Never leave your Advaitin philosophy and go to blind faith. Unfortunately people being your jalara is not helping your POV. The jalara group is with you today and was with others before this.
 
Last edited:
.... As his theory provided more accurate predictions than Newton's, Einstein's notion of gravirty replaced Newtobn's as a more accurate one. We do not know if Einstein's premise about gravity is indeed the perfect reflection of reality. The point is future evidence may falsify the premise and may be even the theory may fall apart.
I was feeling for you sravna when I noticed people were piling on you, and then I read the above. I know you are into spirituality and that is great. But why do you always bring science into it? You seem to think science is trying to destroy your spirituality. You need not worry on that count, science does not care. Science is not some all knowing monolithic from which truth comes rushing out. Science is a process by which one can get at the truth to the extent we humans can get at it, there is no other alternative. Intuition may play a part, but, if all you have is intuition, it can amount to no more than personal peccadilloes.

Now coming to Newton and Einstein, Einstein did not prove Newton was wrong, his laws are still true. Einstein's theory was not a more accurate than that of Newton's. It is just that Newton's laws break down at high speeds. Einstein's theory of general relativity explained gravity in a much grander scale. (Ref: Brilliant Blunders: From Darwin to Einstein - Colossal Mistakes by Great Scientists That Changed Our Understanding of Life and the Universe)

Less said the better about the claims of some people here about the rationality of their arguments?
It is a deal, please do say less about "the claims of some people here about the rationality of their arguments" and while you are at it, please say less about science.

Thank you ....
 
......Never leave your Advaitin philosophy and go to blind faith.....
At the risk of starting another flame war -- I don't understand why Advaitam and blind faith are exclusive. The very basis Adi Shankara claimed for Advaitam is the Vedas. For the immutable truth of the Vedas we have nothing more than blind faith. Lest I am accused of some residual affinity for VA let me state with as much clarity as I can, anything that depends solely on the Vedas for justification is blind faith, and that includes VA.

Cheers!
 
Dear Shri Prasad,

I will talk in the language of advaita if you want me to. There is indeed absolute right as there is absolute reality and also relative rights as there is relative reality. You can practice successfully such timeless values any time

Your examples showing that actions that couldn't be right now were done in the past is not supported by logic. You should not assume that all that were done in the past were based on timeless principles but only that timeless principles were more respected in the past. If you believe in our scriptures you have 4 yugas and yugas becomes more and more decadent . What that means is the real values will be compromised more and more from one yuga to the next. That is exactly what is happening. The point is you cannot assume all of the past was perfect.
 
That cannot be construed to mean that we discard all current logic and go for fantastical explanations and declare them to be proofs. That, sir, is not correct.

This confounds me. Do you, then, mean that we should take comfort in irrational approaches to arguments. I dont understand how you juxtapose statements like this without any real value to add to the discussion.

I tried hard to understand this statement, but failed in my attempt. Perhaps you or your "like" minded friends can elaborate please.

You seem to have a mental block that whoever opposes your pov is not really listening. It is also quite possible that the opposite camp may also think on the same lines. These sort of accusations bring down the quality of any discussion.

Dear Shri Auh,

Just because something is false the opposite is not assumed to be true. Your reasoning is replete with that flaw.
 
.
.

For the immutable truth of the Vedas we have nothing more than blind faith.

.
.

Cheers!


Actually I do agree with you that for you it is all blind faith :-) ..
Let me hasten to add that blind faith is not what is advocated in the teachings of Upanishads. These are teachings not preachings
 
Last edited:
, there is no other alternative. Intuition may play a part, but, if all you have is intuition, it can amount to no more than personal peccadilloes.

Thank you ....


Dear Shri Nara,

If thinking is a step by step process as you say then why can't we teach thinking and just make it possible to churn out geniuses. I have familiarity with this problem to an extent as I coach for the reasoning tests. I agree that it is possible to make people perform much better than they actually do but this happens not because thinking can be taught but because thinking is not taught. Real thinking in my view operates in a holistic manner and unless there is this holistic thinking ability one cannot go beyond superficial thinking. Theories in Science too if they have to endure requires such thinking. The more the holistic the thinking the deeper is your thinking which is normally identified with intuition. So dear Shri Nara it is not just personal peccadillos that intuition produces.
 
Last edited:
Dear Sravna, having been bitten by your "logic" in a previous thread, I try hard not to discuss your posts, but sometimes the absurdity of it lures me in. I will try to restrain myself, but then, slips can happen, and I apologize for the interference (past, present and future).

Thank you.
 
try to restrain myself, but then, slips can happen, and I apologize for the interference (past, present and future).

Thank you.

Dear Shri Auh,

Don't bother. You are always welcome in my thread.
 
Shri Sravna,


Science is doing a marvelous job of exploring the hidden stuff, trying to make sense out of it and deriving concrete conclusions logically.

The process undergoes lots of repeated analysis, re-evaluations etc.. until something is proved satisfactorily at a particular point of time. As such, what was found correct at a particular time, was found wrong or was refined/elaborated further to get a more clear picture and better utilization at a later time.

This continuous Scientific Process is empowering humans from time to time, enabling them gaining maximum benefits from what the nature can offer. The relatively right things derived and concluded during the relative realities of the given time is found to be Absolute during the relatively future time. Still they are subject to scrutiny until the time relatively keeps changing in future. As such, what was found relatively correct was found relatively wrong or ineffective at a relative time in future.


In line with your thought process, thinking out of the box and producing a contrary views against what generally understood in the Scientific world & among folks for whom Science is everything and nothing else is sensible; the one point that I very much believe in and agree with you is, Absolute Right & Absolute Reality is the essence of Hinduism, that have a wide spectrum of Spiritual philosophies, revolving around the whole creation and Human life, in fact, revolves around every animate and inanimate things of the creation.

With belief in such Absolute Right & Absolute Reality, we can off course promote the concept of Holistic Thinking and encourage others to develop such thinking abilities so that much Advancement in Science can be achieved in this Scientific yuga, keeping in mind the Supremacy of the Absolute Reality and maintaining much respect and humbleness towards the Supreme. Off course, the folks who are Scientifically inclined to explore the hidden and who are encouraged & expected to develop such holistic thinking, need to be Theists with belief in Absolute Reality.



 
Dear Ravi,

Excellent. I think Science can become very profound if it takes God into its equations.
 
Dear Ravi,

Excellent. I think Science can become very profound if it takes God into its equations.

Science is not a person ..It is just knowledge - be it invention or discovery by someone. It is meaningless to even say that something has to take 'God' (undefined) into equation.

The intent behind such a statement is already there - only that you have to learn to define the unknown (God) properly ..
 
Dear Shri TKS,


Why nitpick? All I wanted to convey was Science has to accept that God exists and base its premises and assumptions on that
 
If you have faith without reason, there is mental problem. I am sure a psychiatrist can prescribe treatment for that.
Krishna would not have spent time explaining Jyana Yoga.
Jnana Yoga


Use your mind to achieve higher states of consciousness.
Classic Hindu philosophy, plus Buddhism and Western philosophy, Introduced logic and clear thinking.
As used in the Bhagavad Gita, the Advaita philosopher Adi Shankara gave primary importance to jñāna yoga as "knowledge of the absolute" (Brahman), while the Vishishtadvaita commentator Ramanuja regarded knowledge only as a condition of devotion. In the Bhagavad Gita (13.3) Krishna says that jñāna consists of properly understanding kshetra (the field of activity—that is, the body) and kshetra-jna (the knower of the body—that is, the soul). Later in the Gita (13.35) Krishna emphasizes that a transcendentalist must understand the difference between these two. Sri Ganapatrao Maharaj Kannur emphasizes the significance of knowing self so as to know the supreme and that it is essential to vanquish the ego and the identification with the body.
 
Dear Shri Prasad,

Firstly you need to argue without being emotional. That in fact really decides whether you can be rational or not.

I am not saying that reason has no place but only that reasoning is more an expression of thinking and any thinking that would be considered deep, is done by intuition or holistic thinking. What I am further saying is that faith can happen by a process similar to intuition especially when your thoughts deeply resonate with the works of great minds. Of course for some it may not be so. So I am not saying that all faith is by intuition but it can definitely happen that way.
 
Dear Shri TKS,


Why nitpick? All I wanted to convey was Science has to accept that God exists and base its premises and assumptions on that

It is not nitpick .. It is the main point. No one can accept an undefined item. Anyway I think you will not be able to understand ..Let me stop now on this thread ... Please go ahead with making your statements ...
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Latest posts

Latest ads

Back
Top