Science and realism
#25
Dear Kanad,

1. //It has been pointed out to you that "Atheism just means absence of belief in God"//. Now, I suppose that the reason for this absence of belief is lack of evidence in support of the existence of God. According to me Evidence derives its validity from science (and Realism).

2.// And an atheist needn't rely on Science for her atheism.//

Thus, given the intrinsic relation between evidence and science how the statements 1 and 2 can be reconciled, Kanad Kanhere?
Reply
#26
(28-May-2013, 12:25 PM)ramesh Wrote: //According to me Evidence derives its validity from science (and Realism)//

Not at all. And I do not want to feed troll like behavior. This thread is about Science and Realism. Please stick to the OP.
Reply
#27
//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.

I will be happy to know details of your non satisfaction about this ground of Hinduism (Vedanta), Captain Mandrake.
Reply
#28
Dear Kanad,

//So firstly it was not "religion vs Science" it was "Advaitha Vedanta vs Science".//

But it need not be so. Here is the reference http://nirmukta.net/Thread-Quantum-mecha...61#pid6061

where arvindiyer commented like this

//. Here's a quick explanation of why it is absurd, and why there is no real common ground between Science and Religion, though religion does make truth claims and has been largely unsuccesful.//

//Science, founded on Logical Positivism and Evidential Foundationalism therefore has no common ground with these essentially Idealist philosophies.//

Lijje had also stated the same thing that religion and science do not have common ground but I forgot the reference and am not able to locate it.
Reply
#29
Dear Kanad,

//Not at all.//

Then I wonder what validates Evidence! You also did not elaborate on it either. Wiki and other references on evidences and proof in view of the given context found to be insufficient.

//And I do not want to feed troll like behavior.//

Did I at any point touch the topic over and above what you talked about or Captain asked me (ground for religion etc)? References to evidence and religion are inevitable and are to the extent which the OP and your own comment/reply requires. If you let me know specifically, irrelevant references over and above the OP, if any, I will avoid the same.
Reply
#30
(28-May-2013, 01:05 PM)ramesh Wrote: //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.

I will be happy to know details of your non satisfaction about this ground of Hinduism (Vedanta), Captain Mandrake.

Stop with you definitions. Show me one of your religious claim and go through the rigorous exercise of proving it with evidence as I requested in the original post.

Quote: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.
Reply
#31
Dear Captain Mandrake,

//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
#32
Ramesh,
Consider this as warning. I have told you not to digress from the OP. NO discussion on Vedanta and other things in this thread. Its about Science and realism. Period. And this is the reason I didn't elaborate before. I will reiterate. Stick to the OP or you'll be banned.
Reply
#33
Do objects exists outside of experience?

If so, how do we know it is the case or is it that one has to assume (belief) that objects do exists independent of experience (realism).
Reply
#34
(08-Jun-2013, 12:30 PM)ramesh Wrote: Do objects exists outside of experience?

If so, how do we know it is the case or is it that one has to assume (belief) that objects do exists independent of experience (realism).

I think you can find your answers in an earlier post by Arvind (http://nirmukta.net/Thread-Science-and-r...37#pid8137 ). I quote the relevant bit here (emphasis mine).

Quote:In theory, it is possible for a scientist who believes that all objects in the world and in the lab are ideas in the 'Mind of God', to follow the Scientific Method to the letter by going through the motions, and report experimental results like "A heavier object (as imagined by the Mind of God) doesn't fall faster than a lighter object (as imagined by the Mind of God)." One thing to note is that even for someone attempting to understand the Mind of God, understanding is not furthered or promoted by repeatedly adding in the parts in parentheses above! It helps just as well to say "A heavier object doesn't fall faster than a lighter object." and function as if the objects were public and neutral. As the scientific enterprise concerns itself with the behavior of objects (eg. how they fall) rather than ontological claims about what they are(eg. 'public and neutral' or thoughts in the Mind of God), a scientist in the lab, irrespective of her ontological stance, functions as though Realism is what is being subscribed.

You seem to ask a lot of questions, but do not seem to read the posts that addresses your questions. What is your problem?

A suggestion. Reading this might help you get out of this solipsistic bull-shit you seem to be stuck in.
Reply


Possibly Related Threads...
Thread Author Replies Views Last Post
  Is falsifiability taken seriously by today's science? Lije 6 11,558 17-Apr-2013, 12:01 AM
Last Post: arvindiyer
  Sam Harris: Science can answer moral questions sushikadanakuppe@gmail.com 3 4,748 07-Nov-2011, 11:26 AM
Last Post: arvindiyer
  A critique of Kuhn's philosophy of science Lije 0 4,543 30-Oct-2011, 01:21 PM
Last Post: Lije
  Science & Philosophy - A dichotomy? vvjoshi 4 4,058 12-Jun-2011, 12:03 AM
Last Post: ARChakravarthy



Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)