What is wrong with science?

Originally posted by Dasa
Just like I could not give you understanding of God even if you gave me one trillion dollars.....I could not give you understanding of the eternal nature of Vedanta, for to realize this yourself you must involve yourself with Vedanta for some time and practice the principles of purification to qualify yourself for the understanding to develop.

If a person ha ...[text shortened]... it is very difficult to become an informed person because it requires personal time and effort.

This response essentially boils down to: assume the Vedanta is eternal and you'll deduce the Vedanta is eternal. Sorry Dasa but I try to avoid circular reasoning. Moreover, many Christians, for example, assume the Bible is true, and as a result find that the Bible is true --- this is no different to what you're asking of me.

Originally posted by Agerg
This response essentially boils down to: assume the Vedanta is eternal and you'll deduce the Vedanta is eternal. Sorry Dasa but I try to avoid circular reasoning. Moreover, many Christians, for example, assume the Bible is true, and as a result find that the Bible is true --- this is no different to what you're asking of me.

Did I not say you will have to practice the principles of Vedanta to get the insight and spiritual realization, which will then give you your understanding you are looking for.

Did I say it comes freely.

If you practice the principles either two things shall happen...

1. you will become realized and understand everything and therefore have no doubt.

or....

2. You will not become realized and know nothing, in which case you can dismiss it.

I never said blindly accept, but when your heart is rightly situated then everything becomes easy,..... and a persons heart becomes rightly situated by sincerely studying Vedanta for some time before they make a commitment to it.

The Christians have their free ticket to heaven so of course they will say the Bible is true.........but any sane person can understand it presents error.

Originally posted by Dasa
Did I not say you will have to practice the principles of Vedanta to get the insight and spiritual realization, which will then give you your understanding you are looking for.

Did I say it comes freely.

If you practice the principles either two things shall happen...

1. you will become realized and understand everything and therefore have no doubt.
...[text shortened]... se they will say the Bible is true.........but any sane person can understand it presents error.

But what reason do I have to place a higher priority on reading the Vedanta as opposed to some other book of truth??? - indeed why should I ditch my respect for the sciences at all without any convincing argument on the part of theists.

Originally posted by Dasa
No no no.....it should be like this

If science is harmonious with truth then it is correct.

If science conflicts with truth then it is false.

Is that simple?

If science can take a statement which claims to be true and establish some way to test that claim, then the evidence from the test may or may not falsify the statement. In such a case, science may conflict with the "truth" but the "truth" would turn out to be false. Many claims to truth have been shown to be false and abandoned in this way.

If a statement that claims to be true is incapable of being tested, then it is not capable of being proved either true or fase. It stands merely as an assertion.

Popper's followers in the scientific world never accept that any claim or statement is True, except that a statement which can be falsified reliably can be said to be false and that statement would be a Truth. So it is true to say that the claim the World is flat and the sun revolves around the World is a false statement. Most people consider this purist position is not reasonable - it demands too high a level of scepticism and there are many statements that are so reliable and consistent that they should be considered true. For example, it is really far too purist to deny the truth of the statement that the World is round and that it travels around the Sun. However, there is still room in principle for a different account to be given serious attention in the (unlikely) event of it having some reasonable basis. After all, many strange things happen. I suppose a new Unified Theory of Everything might dismiss concepts of space and time as special effects in a field of something-or-other. I just think it makes sense to decide in my lifetime that the World is as described.

Originally posted by Dasa
In an attempt to kill the reality of God ....science puts forward absurd theories of what constitutes life.

They present that life is chemicals and there reactions.

Show me a consciousness molecule.

Show me an awareness molecule.

Show me a intelligence molecule.

Show me a free will molecule.

Show me my ant.......and show me where a mind boggli ...[text shortened]... ke their crown of keepers of the truth and steal their glory...this they cannot allow.



.

Unfortunately, some people think you are criticizing science when you use the word "science." Why wouldn't they? But you are not criticizing science. You are criticizing people who have a metaphysical commitment to science, that goes beyond the boundaries of science. Of course, there may be some people who do science, who have this commitment, but they do not have scientific evidence for it. People on both sides of the issue make the error of thinking that the commitment to methodological naturalism that is inherent to science, supports a commitment to metaphysical naturalism. But science can't address metaphysical issues one way or the other. Unfortunately, people in power who make this mistake in identifying their opponents, can keep a society from benefiting from science. As a scientist I have an interest in explaining to you that science is not in competition with you, that it is people, often having little to do with science, who take the methodological commitment of science and turn it into an ideology, that you should be thinking about.

Originally posted by JS357
Unfortunately, some people think you are criticizing science when you use the word "science." Why wouldn't they? But you are not criticizing science. You are criticizing people who have a metaphysical commitment to science, that goes beyond the boundaries of science. Of course, there may be some people who do science, who have this commitment, but they do not ...[text shortened]... gical commitment of science and turn it into an ideology, that you should be thinking about.

Great post, but I think Dasa is so far into his own dogma he will be totally unable to understand the subtleties of your argument.
What area of science are you into? PHd already?

Originally posted by Agerg
But what reason do I have to place a higher priority on reading the Vedanta as opposed to some other book of truth??? - indeed why should I ditch my respect for the sciences at all without any convincing argument on the part of theists.

There is no other book of truth, for what ever that other book is....it present falsity.

Christian falsity,Muslim falsity, Judaism falsity.

Vedanta stands alone because it is the only original authentic spiritual/religious teaching offered for mankind.....there is no second.

It is a great error to band together substitute religions with Vedanta and then say where is the convincing argument from the theists.

If one defends substitute religion with all its error, then they could not be classified as a bonafide theist....and only one who subscribes to Vedanta could be a true theist.......because the person would be believing in God in truth without falsity.

You cannot say "I believe in God"...... and then subscribe falsity to that God.

Why do you have to ditch your science.........just reject the false part of science and hold onto the true part.

Originally posted by finnegan
If science can take a statement which claims to be true and establish some way to test that claim, then the evidence from the test may or may not falsify the statement. In such a case, science may conflict with the "truth" but the "truth" would turn out to be false. Many claims to truth have been shown to be false and abandoned in this way.

If a statem ...[text shortened]... other. I just think it makes sense to decide in my lifetime that the World is as described.

I do see your point.....but just a few days ago there was a documentary on TV called " The Universe" and they did present the origins of life basically the same way I have presented it.

If someone has spent heaps of money on a five part documentary, then I would say it is coming from main stream science.

They started of saying..... once upon a time there was a single point of singularity, and it was very dense and it gave way to the Big Bang, and after all the dust settled into their particular orbits, life started in a primordial soup and gave way to every species including man. (short version)

Science should not put forward fabricated theories and then say, our theory will stand the test of time until some one can come along and disprove it.

And when Vedanta disproves it they say...oh well we dont accept Vedanta..... and they say this because they are asking for physical proof.....but where is their physical proof.

Originally posted by Dasa
No no no.....it should be like this

If science is harmonious with truth then it is correct.

If science conflicts with truth then it is false.

Is that simple?

And how do you determine what is the 'truth'? By looking in your ancient texts!! Truth, according to you and any other fundamentalist, is what is contained in whichever religion you choose to follow. So,

1. If 'science' is harmonious with my religious beliefs then it is of course correct.

2. If 'science' conflicts with my religious beliefs then it is of course, 'false', 'dishonest', 'materialistic'........etc etc.

Originally posted by Dasa
I do see your point.....but just a few days ago there was a documentary on TV called " The Universe" and they did present the origins of life basically the same way I have presented it.

If someone has spent heaps of money on a five part documentary, then I would say it is coming from main stream science.

They started of saying..... once upon a time there ...[text shortened]... hey say this because they are asking for physical proof.....but where is their physical proof.

A major research scientific institution has just announced the discovery of the densest element yet known to man and science. The new element has been named Vedantacronium. The scientific symbol for the new Vedantacronium is the letter "D".

Vedantacronium has one neutron, twelve assistant neutrons, seventy-five deputy neutrons, and two hundred and twenty-four assistant deputy neutrons, giving it an atomic mass of three hundred and eleven.

These particles are held together by dark forces called morons, which are surrounded by vast quantities of lepton-like particles called peons. Vedantacronium's mass actually increases over time, as morons randomly interact with various elements in the atmosphere and become assistant deputy neutrons in a Vedantacronium molecule, forming isodopes.

This characteristic of moron-promotion leads some scientists to believe that Vedantacronium is formed whenever morons reach a certain quantity or concentration. This hypothetical quantity is referred to as 'Critical Morass'.

When catalyzed with money, Vedantacronium activates RHPSpiritualityNewsium, an element that radiates orders of magnitude with more energy, albeit as incoherent noise, since it has half as many peons, but twice as many morons.




I think the atomic number of this new element should be 911 instead of 311. What do you think, Islamabadium?

-m. 😉

Originally posted by mikelom
Vedantacronium has one neutron, ..

You have a spelling mistake: it should be "has one neuron".

Originally posted by twhitehead
You have a spelling mistake: it should be "has one neuron".

My apologies. I'll try to be more vigilant, in the past. 😉

Originally posted by sonhouse
Great post, but I think Dasa is so far into his own dogma he will be totally unable to understand the subtleties of your argument.
What area of science are you into? PHd already?

I had to stop at an MS (Chemistry) due to family needs. Did a quicker thesis. I've loved reading on the philosophy of science all my life. It's interesting that science needs defending from its more rabid opponents AND from its more rabid proponents, both of which would do it harm. It's really a much more humbling enterprise than either side wants us to think, and has absolutely nothing to say about the supernatural.

Originally posted by JS357
... and has absolutely nothing to say about the supernatural.

Only because the whole concept of 'supernatural' is illogical, and science (and mathematics) has nothing much to say about illogical concepts.

Originally posted by twhitehead
Only because the whole concept of 'supernatural' is illogical, and science (and mathematics) has nothing much to say about illogical concepts.

I have a maybe too picky view of what is logical or not.

http://www.wisegeek.com/in-logic-what-are-sound-and-valid-arguments.htm

So I'd have to know what the proponent of the supernatural is arguing -- the premises and conclusion, that is not valid or not sound or both. But arguments having clearly and fully stated premises and conclusions can be hard to find in this area of thought.

You are right that science and math have nothing much to say on the concept of 'supernatural' except I think that if something that has been considered to be supernatural is proven to exist or to be the case, it will by that fact be considered to be part of the natural world and will be subject to scientific study as a natural thing.

I like to say that God is so great that He can work His wonders without even existing.🙂