Faith Vs Reason

[sravna]

Share:

Facebook X (Twitter) LinkedIn WhatsApp Email Share Link

If Science accepts God as existing its philosophy of reality would definitely change. Consequently it wouldn't require physical evidence as a proof of its theories. It would understand that a proof based on reasoning is always superior and the requirement of physical evidence is only a proof of an inability to grasp reality better .

 

[prasad1]

If Science accepts God as existing its philosophy of reality would definitely change. Consequently it wouldn't require physical evidence as a proof of its theories. It would understand that a proof based on reasoning is always superior and the requirement of physical evidence is only a proof of an inability to grasp reality better .

Which science says that there is no GOD?
Show one proof.
I have a strong feeling that you are confused between science and scientist. If a scientist says there is no creator God, he is saying it from his idea of God.

In Hinduism science is in Brahman. So science can not say anything about Brahman. If you really know Brahman, not just pretend to do so then you should know that Brahman is all pervading including science.

 

[Nara]

If Science accepts God as existing its philosophy of reality would definitely change.

I don't know whether this was intentional, but I notice you have used capital S in Science. So, please explain what Science with a capital S is and please tell me srvna, how would that Science go about doing what you are asking for, namely, accept God as existing?

Thank you ....

 

[sravna]

Prasad,

I did not say that science says there is no god but it has to accept the existence of God. In other words every scientist should have the fundamental assumption that there is God

 

[sravna]

I don't know whether this was intentional, but I notice you have used capital S in Science. So, please explain what Science with a capital S is and please tell me srvna, how would that Science go about doing what you are asking for, namely, accept God as existing?

Thank you ....

Dear Shri Nara,

Please see my reply to Prasad.

 

[prasad1]

Prasad,

I did not say that science says there is no god but it has to accept the existence of God. In other words every scientist should have the fundamental assumption that there is God

Sir this does not make any sense, or should I say it is non-sense.
No 2 person will have similar view on all topics, there will be differing views. It has nothing to do with God. Then you will say it has to be your God.
Or you better define your God and let us see how many non-scientist agree with your view. You are just talking in riddles.
My comment #23 is very valid in your case. and it is without malice.

 

[Nara]

.....In Hinduism science is in Brahman. .

I am afraid this is a tall claim that cannot be substantiated. In the first place I don't think there is some unitary Hinduism. Further, in as far as all branches of Hinduism including all flavors of Vedantam are built upon a foundation of faith they have nothing to do with science. I don't understand why the faithful try to put science down, or try to co-opt it, probably because they desperately want the same level of respectability for their doctrines as scientific learning.

Thank you...

 

[Nara]

Prasad,

I did not say that science says there is no god but it has to accept the existence of God. In other words every scientist should have the fundamental assumption that there is God

Sorry sravna, this does not answer my questions at all. In fact this raises even more questions, some of which prasad has already raised. Also, why must all of them subscribe to the assumption that there is God, why? Let us take for example a scientist working on a faster and small computer chip, why must he/she assume that there is God, in what way that would make any difference to the authenticity and usefulness of science or religion?

sravna, now I don't even understand what your point is. Thank you ....

 

[prasad1]

I am afraid this is a tall claim that cannot be substantiated. In the first place I don't think there is some unitary Hinduism. Further, in as far as all branches of Hinduism including all flavors of Vedantam are built upon a foundation of faith they have nothing to do with science. I don't understand why the faithful try to put science down, or try to co-opt it, probably because they desperately want the same level of respectability for their doctrines as scientific learning.

Thank you...

Sir,
I know your disdain for God. I have my faith in Brahman. You do not have to believe in what I want to believe, and same is true other way around.
I keep trying to talk with Mr. Sravna, because I thought we shared similar view. I would not try to convince you or continue a dialog with you as I know your position.

 

[sravna]

Dear Shri Nara,

When I say science has to accept God I mean it has to accept what we perceive through the five senses alone do not make all that is real and reality extends to what can be perceived by the mind and it prevails over the reality seen through the five senses.

I think if science makes this fundamental assumption it doesn't have to manufacture contrived explanations, which also turn out to be self contradictory, for the creation of the universe.

The reason why not requiring physical evidence is necessary because spiritual energy which may actually exist cannot be be physically verified as it is something that transcends space and time. By accepting the existence of spiritual energy scientists may go beyond explaining the mechanisms of the universe to explaining deeper issues such as the actual purpose of the existence of the universe, our life and so on.

so I think it is high time science's view on reality evolved.

 

[Nara]

Sir,
I know your disdain for God. I have my faith in Brahman. You do not have to believe in what I want to believe, and same is true other way around.
I keep trying to talk with Mr. Sravna, because I thought we shared similar view. I would not try to convince you or continue a dialog with you as I know your position.

prasad, this is fine, no problem. However, when you say "Hinduism is science" you can't ask me not to comment on it, whatever my view may be on god etc. Now, I have made my comment, you don't want to discuss it, and, alright, no problem, we will leave it at that.

 

[sravna]

Sir this does not make any sense, or should I say it is non-sense.
No 2 person will have similar view on all topics, there will be differing views. It has nothing to do with God. Then you will say it has to be your God.
Or you better define your God and let us see how many non-scientist agree with your view. You are just talking in riddles.
My comment #23 is very valid in your case. and it is without malice.

Dear Shri Prasad,

Try to be patient and don't jump to hasty conclusions. Let us see if we can come to an agreement as the arguments proceed.

 

[prasad1]

prasad, this is fine, no problem. However, when you say "Hinduism is science" you can't ask me not to comment on it, whatever my view may be on god etc. Now, I have made my comment, you don't want to discuss it, and, alright, no problem, we will leave it at that.

Sir,
You are putting words in my mouth that I did not utter. I never asked you to stop your comments (not that it matters). It is an open forum. I just said that we have different opinion.

 

[Nara]

Dear Shri Nara,

When I say science has to accept God I mean it has to accept what we perceive through the five senses alone do not make all that is real and reality extends to what can be perceived by the mind and it prevails over the reality seen through the five senses. ....

If this is accepted then what we will have will not be science .... thanks

 

[Nara]

Sir,
You are putting words in my mouth that I did not utter. I never asked you to stop your comments (not that it matters). It is an open forum. I just said that we have different opinion.

All is well then

 

[prasad1]

All is well then

Yes all is well.