Does religion (vedanta) have a ground to stand on
#1
I am partly guilty for forcing Ramesh to continue with his post on vedanta on a thread on science and realism. But my explanation is the following.

Ramesh started a discussion on whether religion and science have a common ground given the relationship (or the lack of as Ramesh seems to have understood) between science and realism with a hidden goal of somehow equating religion and science. I merely asked Ramesh to demonstrate that religion has a ground to stand on. I admit that my question should have been part of a different thread given that science's relationship with realism has nothing to do with the question "Does religion have a ground to stand on?", which has to be answered before we can move to the question of whether religion shares a common ground with science.

Ramesh, please continue your thread here.
[+] 1 user Likes Captain Mandrake's post
Reply
#2
(28-May-2013, 07:40 PM)Captain Mandrake Wrote: I am partly guilty for forcing Ramesh to continue with his post on vedanta on a thread on science and realism. But my explanation is the following.

Ramesh started a discussion on whether religion and science have a common ground given the relationship (or the lack of as Ramesh seems to have understood) between science and realism with a hidden goal of somehow equating religion and science. I merely asked Ramesh to demonstrate that religion has a ground to stand on. I admit that my question should have been part of a different thread given that science's relationship with realism has nothing to do with the question "Does religion have a ground to stand on?", which has to be answered before we can move to the question of whether religion shares a common ground with science.

Ramesh, please continue your thread here.

Hi folks , this is my first post and i cannot tell you how glad i am to have found this community. As i understand captain, through the readings of Vedanta it has nothing to do with religion or god, these attributes are later associated to the philosophy by popular interpretations. These popular interpretations were easier to sell simply because for an ignorant mind mystery provides more sense and closure than the demands of reasoning made on the mind. Vedanta, as like any philosophy (Dharma) has its flaws, flaws which keeps on changing with time and prevailing sensibilities. The purpose or to say basic premise of any faculty like philosophy, religion, science is to give a roadmap or a code to live by. All human beings do not register intelligence on an equal level and where there is disparity, there is manipulation. Proponents of each faculty collides over time and to reach some kind of mutual agreement, pollution occurs and that bastardises its future perception and its history. In this case Vedanta was polluted by the proponents of religious ideals of hindutva.
Ground beneath religion is relative to the people who follow its code and in 21st century it is shrinking in size very quickly. Proponents of this ideal of religious code of conduct, as far as i have seen do not indulge in experiements, observation, replication, scientific methods which are essential to science and its realism. What i have seen though is selling ground of religions to be around fear, Mystical or metaphysical and the biggest of all as an emotional discharger which promises to neutralise ( i dont know on what grounds..... lol ) anxiety, lonliness and fear.
Reply
#3
Dear Captain Mandrake,

continuing from, http://nirmukta.net/Thread-Science-and-r...45#pid8245

//Before you ask the question on whether or not religion and science have any common ground you need to first show us that religion even has a ground to stand on.//

Vedanta relies on the ground of ME/YOU (four mahavakyas http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mah%C4%81v%C4%81kyas). Since the existence of ME/YOU is evident/obvious it doesn't require the proof. Vedanta simply defines (renames) this ME/YOU as Brahman.

Then,

//You can show that by picking your favorite religious proposition (Eg. God created the world in six days, You will be reborn in a condition determined by your action in current life, or some other claim along those lines) and show that it is true by providing evidence for it.//

Here goes one example: God created the world in six days--- As per Vedanta there is no creation at all (and is called असतवाद in sanskrit and I do not know the English word for the same). What you/me experience (the whole universe including our body, mind, intelligence) is just a projection of me/you in accordance with definition quoted earlier. The only thing which can be ever proved is YOU/ME and which is self evident. Thus an evidence which is a part of the SUCH an universe cannot be cited as an evidence for the same.

e.g. Creation is like a magic done by the magician (YOU/ME). For doing the the same magic there are infinitely many ways. So are the creations theories which are more than one and all equally valid. Nothing which is a part of magic can be cited as proof/evidence for the existence/truth of the magic. The only surety/truth can be that of an experience of the the magician by himself since rest of the things forms a part of magic.
Reply
#4
Dear lifeardtrip,

//Proponents of this ideal of religious code of conduct, as far as i have seen do not indulge in experiements, observation, replication, scientific methods which are essential to science and its realism.//

So far I have understood from http://nirmukta.net/Thread-Science-and-realism that realism is just one of the many operational principles of the science.

But here it seems you are referring to experiements, observation, replication, scientific methods as if these are meaningless without realism!

Can you confirm your exact position lifeardtrip?
Reply
#5
(29-May-2013, 04:28 PM)ramesh Wrote: Dear Captain Mandrake,

continuing from, http://nirmukta.net/Thread-Science-and-r...45#pid8245

//Before you ask the question on whether or not religion and science have any common ground you need to first show us that religion even has a ground to stand on.//

Vedanta relies on the ground of ME/YOU (four mahavakyas http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mah%C4%81v%C4%81kyas). Since the existence of ME/YOU is evident/obvious it doesn't require the proof. Vedanta simply defines (renames) this ME/YOU as Brahman.

Then,

//You can show that by picking your favorite religious proposition (Eg. God created the world in six days, You will be reborn in a condition determined by your action in current life, or some other claim along those lines) and show that it is true by providing evidence for it.//

Here goes one example: God created the world in six days--- As per Vedanta there is no creation at all (and is called असतवाद in sanskrit and I do not know the English word for the same). What you/me experience (the whole universe including our body, mind, intelligence) is just a projection of me/you in accordance with definition quoted earlier. The only thing which can be ever proved is YOU/ME and which is self evident. Thus an evidence which is a part of the SUCH an universe cannot be cited as an evidence for the same.

e.g. Creation is like a magic done by the magician (YOU/ME). For doing the the same magic there are infinitely many ways. So are the creations theories which are more than one and all equally valid. Nothing which is a part of magic can be cited as proof/evidence for the existence/truth of the magic. The only surety/truth can be that of an experience of the the magician by himself since rest of the things forms a part of magic.

Ramesh,

Based on your response it seems that this vedantic system of yours operates in an evidence free framework. One way to view this is that you can not prove anything worthwhile with in this framework as there is no concept of evidence. Another way to view it is that you can make up any bull shit as you are free from the constraints of evidence.

Either way it is a waste of time.
Reply
#6
(30-May-2013, 09:08 AM)ramesh Wrote: But here it seems you are referring to experiements, observation, replication, scientific methods as if these are meaningless without realism!

Can you confirm your exact position lifeardtrip?

What does the first sentence in the quote above even mean? And how did you arrive at this gibberish based on lifeardtrip's post? All that the quoted part of lifeardtrip's post says is that proponents of religion are not in the habit of using experiements, observation, replication, scientific methods. But from that you ask an irrelevant (and incomprehensible) question about lifeardtrip's position on science and realism. Why do you do that?

First explain that before posing a question to lifeardtrip.

And, if you disagree with what lifeardtrip said all you have to do is show that religion (vedanta in your case) infact uses those tools (experiements, observation, replication, scientific methods) to prove its claims. Lifeardtrip's position on science and realism is irrelevant here.
[+] 1 user Likes Captain Mandrake's post
Reply
#7
Realism is a contextual and relative term in the framework of philosophy and when either sect proposes its version it raises questions of problematic kind often associated with conflicting ontological attitudes. these disputes may be seen as concerned in one way or another with the relations between, on the one hand, human beings as thinkers and subjects of experience and, on the other hand, the objects of their knowledge, belief, and experience.
I think ramesh your query is ontological rather than pertaining to realism and if i may suggest , a little structure in the use of language goes a long way.

I would refrain now from writing more on realism as it would be hijacking the thread.
Back to finding a common ground ( or a lack of it) between religion and science
[+] 1 user Likes lifeardtrip's post
Reply
#8
http://youtu.be/kMs8qfRMjus

this link is to a video on nirmuktas youtube channel. It proactively and methodically questions the use of science by new age religious/spiritual gurus.
Reply
#9
(29-May-2013, 12:25 PM)lifeardtrip Wrote: Hi folks , this is my first post and i cannot tell you how glad i am to have found this community.

Welcome to the forums lifeardtrip!

And thanks for that nice post. It concisely captures the problems of religion.
[+] 1 user Likes Captain Mandrake's post
Reply


Possibly Related Threads...
Thread Author Replies Views Last Post
  Quantum mechanics, Reality, Vedanta and the nature of 'scientific method' ramesh 40 26,183 10-Jan-2012, 10:34 PM
Last Post: ramesh



Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)