# Is Science A Religion?



## Neutral Singh (Aug 11, 2004)

Yes many of you are probably thinking science is the ultimate antithesis of religion but if you break it all down science shows all the signs of a faith. Like religion science attempts to explain how we got here and how we continue to live (big bang and evolution), how to live (common medicinal practices i.e vitamin intake, diets etc) a baptism of sorts (vaccines and shots during infancy), predictions of future catastrophes similiar to armageddon but without the horesmen.....hehe.(which involve asteroids or other natural or man made destructive forces.) Priests, Sheiks, Rabbis = doctors and scientists. Ten commandments = laws of physics etc. Charismatic figures in religion such as Jesus Mohammed Buddha Nanak... in science Darwin Einstein Mendell. Rituals in religion= scientific method in the lab. Blame for the worlds problems have been placed on both science and religion as well as its saving. These similarities, though many may argue are rooted in different things (science in "fact" and religion in "fantasy") nevertheless are rooted in the same intentions or ideals of the followers of either one. and who is to say it isn't the other way around, that religion is the fact and science is the fantasy, though on paper science may win that war or perhaps not? other similarities... Many Sikh Gurus & Jesus were killed for what they believed and preached, so were many scientists through out the ages. 

All this may seem far fetched to most but consider all these similarities and think of your own ones.


----------



## Eclectic (Nov 10, 2004)

Does science _have_ to be classified as a religion? I think that both religion and faith should work together as I believe that the purpose of life is to learn and grow. Both religion and science can help us do that. Both of them, if you look deep, ask us to look within ourselves. For religion, it is the soul. For science, the atoms and how they work.


----------



## drkhalsa (Nov 11, 2004)

Dear Neutral Singh ji and Eclectic

I think you are quite right and i always believed in a fact that science an dreligious effort are in same direction and both have same driving and motivational form  and you already have given good examples of that  It i sinteresting ti read what the greatest scientist ever belived : 

"Science without religion is lame. Religion without science is blind." 

"My religion consists of a humble admiration of the illimitable superior spirit who reveals himself in the slight details we are able to perceive with our frail and feeble mind

" The further the spiritual evolution of mankind advances, the more certain it seems to me that the path to genuine religiosity does not lie through the fear of life, and the fear of death, and blind faith, but through striving after rational knowledge." 

"Great spirits have often encountered violent opposition from weak minds." 

God is subtle but he is not malicious."

God does not care about our mathematical difficulties. He integrates empirically." 

Whoever undertakes to set himself up as a judge of Truth and Knowledge is shipwrecked by the laughter of the gods." 

"A human being is a part of a whole, called by us _universe_, a part limited in time and space. He experiences himself, his thoughts and feelings as something separated from the rest... a kind of optical delusion of his consciousness. This delusion is a kind of prison for us, restricting us to our personal desires and to affection for a few persons nearest to us. Our task must be to free ourselves from this prison by widening our circle of compassion to embrace all living creatures and the whole of nature in its beauty." 

*Albert Einstein*

I was really amazed when i found out that and it apeared to me that einstien was amonng the most religious people that existed at That time


----------



## S|kH (Nov 12, 2004)

lol, did you ever read the mathematics t-shirt, that says,

"And God said...."
and then it has like 5 mathematical formulas, and then it says,
"and Poof! there was light!" 

I always thought that was funny 

Einstein was the man though.


----------



## CaramelChocolate (Nov 12, 2004)

Religion is something that attempts to describe life and the world around us. Science does this so science is a religion 

~CaramelChocolate~
The little philosopher


----------



## Eclectic (Nov 12, 2004)

Or is religion science?


----------



## prakash.s.bagga (Dec 16, 2010)

Ref; Is Science a Religion
A very interesting topic indeed.Before the matter is discussed it should be clarified tha tthere is SCIENCE  behind everything happening in the UNIVERSE.and that is the science of NATURE itself.
That is why there is nothing INVENTED ;it is all DISCOVERED only the tools and apparatus are invented to expand the use of what is DISCOVERED from within NATURE.

IN VIEW OF ABOVE FACTS THE SCIENCE CAN NOT BE REFFERED AS RELIGION'ON THE CONRARY THE PHILOSOPHY OF ANY RELIGION CAN BE BASED ON PRINCIPLES OF SCIENCE OF THE UNIVERSE.AND THIS IS MOST IMPORTANT ASPECT OF ANY RELIGION PHILOSOPHY TO BE KNOWN THIS IS GENERALLY NOT UNDERSTOOD BY MOST OF LAYPERSONS BECAUSE THIS IS SCIENCE.

SO IT IS THE RESPOSIBILTY OF PEOPLE WITH KNOWLEDGE OF SCIENCE TO PUT FORWARD THE CORRECT IDIOLOGY OF ANY PHILOSOPHY.

I AM HOPEFUL THAT WITH THE CONCEPT OF MODERN PHYSICS THE BASIC FUNDAMENTALS OF PHILOSOPHY OF ANY RELIGION CAN BE INTERPRATED  MORE CLEARLY THAN EVER BEFORE.

With best wishes

Prakash,s.BaGGA


----------



## Sinister (Dec 16, 2010)

the question reduced; can you get a feeling of ought from an is?


----------



## prakash.s.bagga (Dec 16, 2010)

SINISTER JI

I think you are right in your view.I appreciate that

With thanks

Prakash.S.bagga


----------



## fsf (May 24, 2013)

No, science is a method that is necessarily fallible.  Religious inquiry need not be fallible (though it can be).  To the extent that the religious inquirer uses the scientific (ie prediction-making, falsifiable, methodologically and ontologically reviseable) method, then their inquiry can be a scientific one.

Science undergoes radical paridigm shifts, in which the basic terms of a theory have radically different meanings than they did in the old theory.  When a religion undergoes a paradigm shift, it becomes a new, different religion.  While a paradigm shift in science is certainly a new theory, it is the same science - the same fallible method - being used to explain the world.

This is not to say that people who don't understand science don't approach scientific facts religiously.  They certainly do.  We've all met the die-hard internet atheist that is bad at science or doesn't understand that our current science is incorrect (witness the contradictions between QM and relativity).  But the fact that some are bad at science and approach scientific consensus (insofar as it exists) religiously instead of as a set of hypotheses that are the best we have (but inadequate) does not imply a conceptual collapse between religion and science.

Peirce wrote about four methods of inquiry. The scientific method takes the external world to trump all - scientific inquiry constantly revises itself in light of evidence provided by reality.  The a priori method theorizes and then tries to fit the data to the theory, instead of the other way around.  The method of authority believes whatever an authority says.  The method of tenacity believes whatever it believes, just because it believes it.

(Although I say what follows as if it is the only understanding of Waheguru, I do not believe that.  I do not even mean to say that it is the best (or even a good) understanding.  It is MY understanding, and I would very much like to be corrected in my understanding where it is flawed, as I am sure it is.)

Of course, one could apply the scientific method to religion, but that will necessarily limit the ontological import of that religion (see the problematic commitments of Abrahamic traditions, though Maimonides and similar Christian and Muslim thinkers have understood god in less- or non-problematic ways).  And this, I think, is why Sikhi is more compatible with contemporary scientific thought than many other religious doctrines.  Waheguru is without form, is form itself.  Waheguru is rationality as such - the very structure of the universe that allows rational inquirers to cognize it.  And Waheguru is beyond this - Waheguru is also the brute fact of uncognizeability, the recognition of the fact that human inquiry is limited, that objects and dogs and other minds and moral laws are theoretical posits we project onto the chaotic and messy world to make sense of it.  The _possibility_ of rational structure and the inevitable violation of that structure we call 'Waheguru.'  We need not believe in particular immaterial (or material, I suppose) agents that will respond to prayers or create miracles - we just need to believe that the world could make sense.  And science is precisely that practice that tries to make sense of the world as it is, on its own terms.


----------



## spnadmin (May 24, 2013)

:welcomemunda: and 

fsf ji

In my opinion, your thinking about science and religion are super! Maybe one of the best that has been stated in a very succinct way. I disagree with you on a few specifics. They are not worth, again in my opinion, laboring over.

Thanks. It was an uplifting read for me.


----------



## Tejwant Singh (May 24, 2013)

fsf ji,

Guru Fateh.

You write:



> When a religion undergoes a paradigm shift, it becomes a new, different religion. While a paradigm shift in science is certainly a new theory, it is the same science - the same fallible method - being used to explain the world.



Sikhi is all about learning. Its name dictates that. Its main objective is to go through paradigm shifts. These tectonic plates of understanding in Sikhi keep on shifting to create more understanding in us.

So, where does your theory stand in Sikhi according to your above definition?

Regards

Tejwant Singh


----------



## Seeker9 (May 25, 2013)

Great contribution FSF Ji

I guess one way to look at both is in terms of how one accepts what is truth

In Science, the emphasis is largely on peer supported empirical evidence/observations

In Religion, the emphasis is very much on your own evidence/observations through practice

And as Tejwant Singh Ji has noted, like Science, what you understand to be the truth can change as you continue to learn throughout your lifetime

Perhaps in that respect then, Sikhi goes beyond some established organised religions that seem to give you everything you need upfront and you are just constantly re-affirming by going through various rituals and ceremonies....or is that too much of a sweeping generalisation!


----------



## fsf (May 25, 2013)

Tejwant ji & Seeker9 ji,

Thank you for your response!  I can see a few possible responses to it, but (spoiler alert!) at the end of the day I was wrong.

First, I could hold fast and say that the type of paradigm shift we see in science isn't present in Sikhi.  While we certainly learn new things and correct what we take to be mistaken beliefs, a complete paradigm shift in this technical sense would be something entirely new, something that isn't Sikhi properly-speaking.  This new religion would be something where we could see the ways in which Sikhi was right, and it would also let us understand how Sikhi could lead us astray.  Our new vocabulary would better describe the world, but would also let us exactly describe just what's wrong with Sikhi.  But this response fails.  After all, adherents expect that the Sikhi of long study really _is_ a radical rearticulation of the neophyte's Sikhi, and that even though the terms might look the same in each model, the meanings are radically different.  Since we certainly want to say that both understandings are articulations of Sikhi (though the wise one corrects and accounts for the errors of the naive one), this response fails.

The second response would be that Sikhi is unique, and uses a fallible methodology where other religions do not.  But surely this is false, too.  Naive Christian understandings are radically incompatible with existentialist Christianity, and "Adonai" in storybook Judaism means something far different than "Adoni" on the lips of a negative theologian.  So this cannot be right, either.

A third response (similar to the second) would be that religion proper is practiced non-scientifically, and Sikhi or Buddhism or whatever becomes a sort of interior/spiritual science or something when practiced fallibly.  In this case, the practices of Sikhi (and other religions) wouldn't count as religion at all.  As they approach science, they become scientific (as opposed to religious) inquiry.  This is the direction I'd go if I had to defend my prior view, but I think the violence done to the term 'religion' is probably too much.  As such, I think it's best to abandon my prior definition, as it simply doesn't match with what the word 'religion' actually means and how people use it!

I should have realized this when I said that religion can be practiced scientifically and fallibly, but I did not take the full import of this into account in my definition.  If religion can be scientific, then something can be both religious and fallible.  This obviously conflicts with my definition of religion as dogmatic, and was a mistake!

What, then, is the right definition of religion?  I very much like the start that seeker9 ji gave us.  To alter it a bit, perhaps religion is primarily about the subjective, the internal world as opposed to the external world (that is, all the evidence we have comes from us).  Then the difference would be that only we can tell if a set of religious practices is right, because that is indexed to us.  In any case, I certainly concede that my previous definition was wrong.

I think that most of my comments in the prior post can be preserved.  Science really IS defined by its methodology, so that part at least was a-ok.  There's still a distinction between science and religion, but now there's also room for an overlap of the two, in fallible religious inquiry.  Which is much better than what I had before!

Thank you again Tejwant ji and seeker9 ji for your help in wrestling with this issue and for correcting my mistakes!


----------



## akiva (May 25, 2013)

You might want to look at the writings of Stephen Jay Gould -- for example:

http://www.stephenjaygould.org/library/gould_noma.html

And his other writings on non-overlapping Magisteria

IMO very relevant to this topic.

(see also: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-overlapping_magisteria)

Akiva


----------



## Harvir007 (May 25, 2013)

Well, religion is defined as the belief in a supernatural being. Science is a method, one that is based around hypothesis, experimentation, and theory along with numerous other things. All which are based on evidence, that is to say, fact. Science cannot be defined as a religion based on the fact that it tries to explain the origin of the universe and other things you have noted. The reality is that religions make scientific claims, many of which are false (dependent on the religion) and thus those religions contain failed science. Science shouldn't be thought of as an ideology of sorts or even as a group. It is merely a method of observing reality and contriving conclusions from that.


----------



## akiva (May 25, 2013)

Harvir007 said:


> Well, religion is defined as the belief in a supernatural being.



Not necessarily. The term has a much wider definition(s) -- see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion for a good overview.



Harvir007 said:


> Science shouldn't be thought of as an ideology of sorts or even as a group. It is merely a method of observing reality and contriving conclusions from that.



Ideally, maybe -- but in reality it has become very much an ideology. Theories that go against the group consensus are often rejected without the evidence being considered.

(There are a number of accepted theories today that took decades before they would be considered, because they went against the "accepted view" of the time. It took overwhelming evidence before they would even be considered.)

Akiva


----------



## Harvir007 (May 25, 2013)

akiva said:


> Not necessarily. The term has a much wider definition(s) -- see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion for a good overview.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Right, but you'd agree that the definition of religion is totally different from the definition of science? 

Hmm, would it at all be possible if you could cite some examples of those theories? And also explain what sort of factors, in your mind, have contributed to science becoming more of an ideology and not remaining solely a method?


----------



## Tejwant Singh (May 25, 2013)

akiva said:


> You might want to look at the writings of Stephen Jay Gould -- for example:
> 
> http://www.stephenjaygould.org/library/gould_noma.html
> 
> ...



Akiva ji,

Guru Fateh.

Thanks for the URLs. In fact anyone can post a list of them along with some books for others to read. If I remember correctly, you wanted to have conversation in this forum.

So, please start one by sharing your thoughts rather than copying and pasting some URLs. That is the only right thing to do as you initially desired.

Don't you think so?

Hope to read your insights for the sake of the conversation that all of us can have and learn through it.

Regards

Tejwant Singh


----------



## akiva (May 26, 2013)

At their root both are attempts by man to understand and explain the world around us.

But, yes, they are different in many ways -- specifically the scientific method.

A few examples of theories which were rejected at first: Plate tectonics is the classic example. The idea that bacteria cause ulcers. Cold Fusion is another. The use of psychoactive/hallucinogenic drugs in psychotherapy. Sheldrakes work. For that matter, ANY attempt to scientifically explore what's called "fringe science" is almost guaranteed to be professional suicide these days.

Why the shift? IMO it's because the "Age of Reason" led "Modern Man" to reject the old religions -- but since Man is, at the core of his psyche, a "believing" animal -- we have a genetic need to believe in/be part of something more than ourselves. WIth the rejection of "Religion" that need was filled by the various "isms" of the 20th century (communism, capitalism,environmentalism, etc) and by science.

Once science is replaced by Scientism it starts becoming a religion -- along with all the personality cults and other "baggage" that religions can have.

Akiva


----------



## akiva (May 26, 2013)

Tejwant Ji
GurFateh



Tejwant Singh said:


> Thanks for the URLs. In fact anyone can post a list of them along with some books for others to read. If I remember correctly, you wanted to have conversation in this forum.



Correct -- but conversation has to start from a position of common knowledge and understanding. Just like a teacher (and I'm not taking on the role of teacher here) assumes that the students have the prerequisite knowledge for the course -- and will not take class time teaching the students who aren't prepared (instead telling them to read the books)

So too -- to discuss this subject requires that the people involved share a common vocabulary, have the same basic understanding. 

Would you be happier if I just parroted the wiki article? What would that accomplish (besides waste my time)? 

So I don't see why you keep objection to links and recommended books.



Tejwant Singh said:


> So, please start one by sharing your thoughts rather than copying and pasting some URLs. That is the only right thing to do as you initially desired.
> 
> Don't you think so?
> 
> Hope to read your insights for the sake of the conversation that all of us can have and learn through it.



I have posted my thoughts. I've also posted links to material I consider fundamental or useful to understand the subject.

And will continue to do both.

Akiva


----------



## Harvir007 (May 26, 2013)

akiva said:


> At their root both are attempts by man to understand and explain the world around us.
> 
> But, yes, they are different in many ways -- specifically the scientific method.
> 
> ...


But that's like saying alchemy is chemistry or that astrology is astronomy. Because at their root they are similar. The difference between science and religion is that science's explanations are convincing and religions', for the most part, aren't. The postulation by some Christians that the earth is 6000 years old, is failed science. The belief by quite a lot Sikhs that reincarnation occurs after death, is failed science. (Before anyone says that they don't believe in reincarnation, many Sikhs actually do). 

You said that science had become very much an ideology. I don't see how from what you have said. Fringe science doesn't tend to be accepted because it tends to lean into the realm of pseudoscience. However, if a scientist can prove whatever they postulate, then science accepts it. Science is based on consensus, yes, but there have been many discoveries that have gone against consensus that have forced the consensus to change their views. Take Louis de Broglie's PhD thesis that if 'wave-like' light showed particle properties (photons), 'particles' like electrons should be expected to show wave-like properties. Most physicists were unimpressed with that claim but he proved it with electron diffraction patterns. Religion doesn't work like that. It doesn't get peer reviewed, nor is it based on evidence nor does it accept fringe opinion. Religion is based more around hierarchy.  Name me a religion that bases its scientific claims (origin of the universe and what happens after death) on evidence and that is based on consensus and not just a few at the top of the hierarchy.

Homo sapiens are xenophobic, and tribalistic. Just because we are certain things deep down, doesn't make the things it leads to, right. We don't need to think that there is something more than ourselves because the knowledge we have gained has been so huge. I refuse to accept the notion that somehow science will eventually become a religion and the reason for my conclusion is that they are two entirely separate ways of thinking. One is faith based (without evidence), and the other is evidence based.


----------



## akiva (May 26, 2013)

Alchemy became chemistry as it became formalised and repeatable.

Reincarnation is not "failed science" -- science can't have a position on it because the basis of reincarnation -- the soul -- is outside the domain of science (which is why I linked to the piece by Gould on NOMA). Full disclosure -- I fall on the pro-reincarnation side of the argument personally.

Yes, non-consensual theories CAN be accepted -- but it takes a long time and overwhelming evidence to cause the paradigm sift necessary. But look into the problems Sheldrake, for example, is having getting his evidence even looked at. Or any of the research into reincarnation, Near-Death experiences, or vast areas of Transpersonal Psychology - especially Grof's work. Since they all assume a non-localized/non-mechanical consciousness they automatically are outside the realm of science (or more correctly, scientific consensus). The standard line by the scientific community is "we *know* it can't be true -- so we won't waste out time looking at it. it *can't* be true." "Know", of course, indicates a belief. "Can't" indicates a pre-judgement. Neither is scientific.

In order to be "scientific" it has to be quantifiable, repeatable, and falsifiable (according to most schools of Scientific Philosophy). Anything outside of that is, by definition, non-scientific.

The Roman Catholic church, for one, has no problem with science regarding the origin of the universe (again, see the Gould piece).

I agree that *science* isn't a religion -- it's *scientism* that has become a religion. There has been a lot written, by scientists, sociologists, and theologians on the subject. (I highly recommend Nasr's writings on Sacred Science for a discussion of the societal shift from religion to scientism)

Religion can be evidence-based -- but that evidence is personal,  experiential, and non-quantifiable. Those who have had the experience *know* it to be true.

Akiva


----------



## akiva (May 26, 2013)

Harvir007 said:


> (Before anyone says that they don't believe in reincarnation, many Sikhs actually do).



I suspect the vast majority of Sikhs, until recently, believed in reincarnation.

The growing rejection of the belief stems from a (misguided, IMO) desire to be "rational" and "scientific" and "modern".

Taking it to the logical conclusion -- no religion -- including Sikhi -- is needed or will survive if that's the goal. They have nothing to offer. Hence the growth of secular humanism.

So the end result of the desire to be rational/scientific is the abandonment of all religion. (Which we are seeing today).

Because people think it's an either/or situation, when it's not (again, see Gould)

Akiva


----------



## Harvir007 (May 26, 2013)

Reincarnation is a failed science because it isn't testable. Science can't have a word on it due to that fact. But for a religion to assert that there is an after-life, that's a claim about the real world which has to either be right or wrong.

Yeah, I read about NOMA in the God Delusion. I don't think I agree that you can have science in one compartment and religion in the other. As long as religions make the claim that there is some sort of creative intelligence in the world, that's a scientific claim. Richard Dawkins sums it up well: "A universe with a supernatural presence would be a fundamentally and qualitatively different kind of universe from one without. The difference is, inescapably, a scientific difference. Religions make existence claims, and this means scientific claims."

Can I just ask whether you think it's possible to find out whether or not reincarnation is true? And to your point on near-death experiences, do you think they provide a basis for perhaps what the after-life could be like? Because I don't. They're NEAR-death experiences, so they don't count. 

The Roman Catholic church's previous pope said that condoms actually increase the incidence of aids if people use them. Thousands of Africans will have underwent misery due to this preachment. The assertion that condoms increase the incidence of aids is a scientific claim, that is false, that has had terrible repercussions.

The problem with religious experiences is that one religious person will hallucinate seeing a 1st century Jew in Jesus, one will hallucinate seeing a 7th century illiterate businessman in Muhammad and the other will hallucinate a 15th century Hindu in Nanak Dev. They can't be all true. The revelation that one receives may be deeply important, perhaps even life changing for them, it just doesn't make religious claims true. 

To assert that scientism is a religion would be false by definition. This is one of the definitions of scientism as written on wiki: "Scientism is the idea that natural science is the most authoritative worldview or aspect of human education, and that it is superior to all other interpretations of life." Definition of religion is (according to wiki): "Religion is an organized collection of beliefs, cultural systems, and world views that relate humanity to the supernatural, to spirituality and, sometimes, to moral values." The key is that religion takes into account the supernatural, in that there's something immaterial.  That isn't what science nor scientism is. I agree that perhaps scientism is an ideology, but it would be false to call it a religion.

You can practice religion and believe in science. That is totally fine to do. Take people like Francis Collins. Deeply religious people that are also scientists who manage to separate faith from the lab. It's doable. It's just not scientific to hold those sorts of beliefs.


----------



## Tejwant Singh (May 26, 2013)

Akiva ji,

Guru Fateh.

You write:



> Correct -- but conversation has to start from a position of common knowledge and understanding. Just like a teacher (and I'm not taking on the role of teacher here) assumes that the students have the prerequisite knowledge for the course -- and will not take class time teaching the students who aren't prepared (instead telling them to read the books)



Nice cop out and that was not my request to you. I want you to give your own opinion rather than copying and pasting some URL's. I am sure you are intelligent enough to do that. You seem to assume too much.We are all students here. So let's hear from yourself. 



> So too -- to discuss this subject requires that the people involved share a common vocabulary, have the same basic understanding.



Akiva ji, sorry to say but that is utter nonsense. One requires the understanding of the subject which the participants do including yourself but sadly, what is missing is your point of view to continue this conversation which does not take place when you post some URLs.



> Would you be happier if I just parroted the wiki article? What would that accomplish (besides waste my time)?



Thanks for being honest about your source Wiki which is the worst kind because anyone can add and edit there. I do not want you to parrot anything unless that is all you are capable of, but give me your understanding from your sources in your own words related to the thread. 



> So I don't see why you keep objection to links and recommended books.



Conversation which you so deeply desire can only take place if you share your thoughts which you have not. I can write a list of whole lots of books and URL'd but that is what Google is for. This forum is for interaction. So, please start with that.



> I have posted my thoughts. I've also posted links to material I consider fundamental or useful to understand the subject.



What thoughts have you posted and based on what? In many of your posts in this thread, you are doing nothing but distorting Sikhi without having any knowledge for it which is a shame and uncalled for. Reincarnation is one of them. Please post the whole Shabads with your own understanding which would be a starter in an honest manner and you are deviating from the actual title of the thread.

Hope you start an honest conversation so all can learn from it.

Thanks & regards

Tejwant Singh


----------



## akiva (May 26, 2013)

Where have I distorted Sikhi? I don't think I made one claim as to what Sikhi holds in this thread.

And if you had read my posts above you would have seen that they are mostly my opinion - and replies to questions raised.

Also -- for most subjects Wiki rates more accurate (in objective studies)  than Encyclopaedia britannica

Akiva


----------



## prakash.s.bagga (May 26, 2013)

My understanding is that Science and Priniples of any religion come from the same source
and it is the principles of any religion that are that are being tested and verified thru the lense of Science.
Any great scientist would be able to see how closely are the findings of science to the basic principles of any religion.

Well I am sharing my own thoughts in my own ways if you feel this incorrect i stop here.


----------



## Harvir007 (May 27, 2013)

prakash.s.bagga said:


> My understanding is that Science and Priniples of any religion come from the same source



Could you elaborate more on what you mean by science and principles of religion coming from the same source? Is it not true that religion comes from revelation and 'the truth' being revealed to an individual (dependent on the religion)? Science isn't revealed wisdom. You hypothesise, you experiment and then you have theory if the experiment works accordingly to your hypothesis. 

Also, science doesn't take its cues from just one book. It isn't parochial like quite a lot of religions that say 'we only need one book'.



> and it is the principles of any religion that are that are being tested and verified thru the lense of Science.



I'm sorry, which principles are being tested and verified? To be perfectly honest, I think it has been the opposite. Science has essentially shown many of the fallacies within religion. The main fallacy being belief in god.


----------



## akiva (May 27, 2013)

Harvir007 said:


> Reincarnation is a failed science because it isn't testable. Science can't have a word on it due to that fact. But for a religion to assert that there is an after-life, that's a claim about the real world which has to either be right or wrong.



It's not a "failed" science -- it's not science. (until/if it's measurable)



Harvir007 said:


> Yeah, I read about NOMA in the God Delusion. I don't think I agree that you can have science in one compartment and religion in the other. As long as religions make the claim that there is some sort of creative intelligence in the world, that's a scientific claim.



I wouldn't rely on Dawkin's summary of NOMA -- that's like (humor alert) trusting a Hindu's version of what Sikhi is...



Harvir007 said:


> Richard Dawkins sums it up well: "A universe with a supernatural presence would be a fundamentally and qualitatively different kind of universe from one without. The difference is, inescapably, a scientific difference. Religions make existence claims, and this means scientific claims."



First off -- that's an opinion Dawkins has -- which he's asking the reader to accept of faith. It's obviously not testable, verifiable, or falsifiable -- so it's not a scientific statement.

Secondly -- it's not difficult to come up with several possible versions of universes with a supernatural presence that would be indistinguishable from ours. Theologians have been doing that for over 2000 years -- but Dawkins is ignorant of Classic Theology (of all religious branches). That's been pointed out by many people -- both supporters and detractors. 

Yet he feels qualified to talk on the subject...not a "scientific" position to take.



Harvir007 said:


> Can I just ask whether you think it's possible to find out whether or not reincarnation is true?



Probably only via collected anecdotal evidence -- until such time (if ever) that non-localized consciousness is shown to be true (i.e. measurable and predictable)



Harvir007 said:


> And to your point on near-death experiences, do you think they provide a basis for perhaps what the after-life could be like? Because I don't. They're NEAR-death experiences, so they don't count.



I think in some cases they indicate non-localised consciousness is true. 



Harvir007 said:


> The problem with religious experiences is that one religious person will hallucinate seeing a 1st century Jew in Jesus, one will hallucinate seeing a 7th century illiterate businessman in Muhammad and the other will hallucinate a 15th century Hindu in Nanak Dev. They can't be all true. The revelation that one receives may be deeply important, perhaps even life changing for them, it just doesn't make religious claims true.



The *symbols* are different from the *message*. People experience (usually) the symbols that resonate with their psyche -- the archetypal images.



Harvir007 said:


> I agree that perhaps scientism is an ideology, but it would be false to call it a religion.



Accepted. Better to say it fills the same role, fullfills the same needs, provides the same guidance, as Religion.

(Which, in my opinion, makes them equivalent insofar as the person is concerned)



Harvir007 said:


> You can practice religion and believe in science. That is totally fine to do. Take people like Francis Collins. Deeply religious people that are also scientists who manage to separate faith from the lab. It's doable. It's just not scientific to hold those sorts of beliefs.



Which is why NOMA comes into the discussion.

Akiva


----------



## akiva (May 27, 2013)

Harvir007 said:


> I'm sorry, which principles are being tested and verified? To be perfectly honest, I think it has been the opposite. Science has essentially shown many of the fallacies within religion. The main fallacy being belief in god.



Science *can't* have an opinion on the existence/non-existence of God.

Science is domain-specific -- in this case the material/physical world -- and God by definition is not part of that world.

Agnosticism is the only logically-honest position for a scientist (and I have no problem with that). 

Atheism, on the other hand, makes an assertion that in non-proveable scientifically. 

Akiva


----------



## prakash.s.bagga (May 27, 2013)

To be more specific for one Science can be a Religion itself if one is devoted to Science.
So Religion is manifestation of devotion to any particular subject under consideration.
Thus science can be a religion but Religion cant be science.
The contents of my earlier message are perhaps off the topic presented for sharing the views.
Prakash.S.Bagga


----------



## Harry Haller (May 27, 2013)

The truth is anything can be a religion, and ironically, I do not consider Sikhism a religion in any case!

Sikhi is a code of conduct, simply living by the truth, and having the faith to follow inside what you feel is the truth

Science is following what others have proven to be the truth


----------



## Harvir007 (May 27, 2013)

akiva said:


> It's not a "failed" science -- it's not science. (until/if it's measurable)


Reincarnation is a claim about biology. One that claims your 'spirit' or 'soul' travels outside of one's body when you die, and it then travels into another body. Is that correct? If a religion, or somebody claims that this process occurs, then that is a scientific claim. It might not be testable but it's a scientific claim nonetheless as it is a hypothesis.



> I wouldn't rely on Dawkin's summary of NOMA -- that's like (humor alert) trusting a Hindu's version of what Sikhi is...
> 
> First off -- that's an opinion Dawkins has -- which he's asking the reader to accept of faith. It's obviously not testable, verifiable, or falsifiable -- so it's not a scientific statement.


An opinion which I happen to share upon researching Gould's view. It's plain as day. If a religion makes the claim that there is some sort of cosmic intelligence, this means that the universe we live in is fundamentally different. They can't overlap in that sense.



> Secondly -- it's not difficult to come up with several possible versions of universes with a supernatural presence that would be indistinguishable from ours. Theologians have been doing that for over 2000 years -- but Dawkins is ignorant of Classic Theology (of all religious branches). That's been pointed out by many people -- both supporters and detractors.
> Yet he feels qualified to talk on the subject...not a "scientific" position to take.


If I was a scientist, and a person came up to me and claimed that a 2000 year old book based around a middle eastern Jew who probably couldn't read had more wisdom and somehow had more knowledge than people nowadays, I'd be just as sceptical.




> Probably only via collected anecdotal evidence -- until such time (if ever) that non-localized consciousness is shown to be true (i.e. measurable and predictable)


So then what do you say to those who believe in hell and heaven whom have equally terrible evidence to support their views?



> The *symbols* are different from the *message*. People experience (usually) the symbols that resonate with their psyche -- the archetypal images.


You cannot possibly utter that first sentence and believe it. For example, a jihadi militant hallucinates seeing Muhammad telling him to kill all the infidels and that he will get his just reward in paradise with 72 virgins. A born-again Christian hallucinates seeing Jesus telling her to spread the word of Christ and that she will have salvation. Do not tell me that the message is the same. One advocates killing and the other advocates knocking on doors. Both equally annoying with the former being despicable. 



> Accepted. Better to say it fills the same role, fullfills the same needs, provides the same guidance, as Religion.
> 
> (Which, in my opinion, makes them equivalent insofar as the person is concerned)


But science isn't going to provide a sense of an immaterial, nor supernatural view of the world. It also won't give comfort to those who are about to die and don't want this life to be 'it'. In that sense, it isn't fulfilling the need of comfort when approaching death.



> Science can't have an opinion on the existence/non-existence of God.
> 
> Science is domain-specific -- in this case the material/physical world -- and God by definition is not part of that world.
> 
> ...


You are mistaken about the atheist's proposition. I don't say there definitely is no god, I can't prove that. However, I can say that there is no evidence or convincing argument that makes me think that there is a god. The agnostic's (with regards to 'god') position isn't logically honest. I don't say to you, "oh, the tooth-fairy cannot be disproved therefore, I won't commit to saying that the likelihood of such a thing existing is very improbable." Of course I can't say that santa or a tooth-fairy definitely does not exist so I'm agnostic with regards to them. But for all practical cases, I am an atheist in the same sense that I'm an atoothfairyist. I'm sure that most people are atoothfairyists, is that logically dishonest? You can't just say I'm not comparing like with like. Both are fictional entities, both have no evidence to support them. The difference I suppose is, is that most children tend to grow out of believing in the tooth-fairy. And that's what god is to me: a childish belief.

By the way, which god are you referring to? Waheguru, Yahweh, Allah, Jesus, Zeus, Thor, Odin, Apollo, Ganesh or the Flying Spaghetti Monster? Don't just say they're all representative of one god. They aren't. Yahweh in the old testament is an evil f*cker (for lack of a better adjective, so heinous was he) whereas Waheguru, the Sikh god/constant/divine law maker seems a lot more peaceful in that this being doesn't kill specific tribes nor carries out genocides whereas the former does.


----------



## Harvir007 (May 27, 2013)

harry haller said:


> Science is following what others have proven to be the truth


Science is facing the facts about the reality of the world. There is no following, only accepting the facts.


----------



## Harvir007 (May 27, 2013)

prakash.s.bagga said:


> To be more specific for one Science can be a Religion itself if one is devoted to Science.
> So Religion is manifestation of devotion to any particular subject under consideration.


Could you please explain to me how one can tell if one is devoted to science and how that devotion makes it a religion? For you, religion may be a manifestation of devotion, I personally do not because that's changing the definition of religion to back up a point that is a play with words.



> Thus science can be a religion but Religion cant be science.


That's incorrect. Religions are failed sciences in that their scriptures have made scientific claims. Scientific claims are statements of a 'fact' that's believed to be true, but has not yet been 'proven' to be true. Take the Koran for instance. I think it is written somewhere that salt water and fresh water don't mix. Now obviously that isn't true, but it's a scientific claim that is false.


----------



## Harry Haller (May 27, 2013)

Harvir007 said:


> Science is facing the facts about the reality of the world. There is no following, only accepting the facts.


 
I see, and you have discovered all these facts on your own then?

lol lol lol


----------



## Harvir007 (May 27, 2013)

harry haller said:


> I see, and you have discovered all these facts on your own then?
> 
> lol lol lol


I didn't say that. Individuals may be the ones that discover these facts and I may have nothing to do with their discovery, that doesn't make me a follower. It simply makes me a rational being that accepts evidence that comes out of science. There is no 'following' involved. But if you perceive that as me being a believer of evidence, then I cannot argue that.


----------



## akiva (May 27, 2013)

Harvir007 said:


> Take the Koran for instance. I think it is written somewhere that salt water and fresh water don't mix. Now obviously that isn't true, but it's a scientific claim that is false.



Relying on Dawkins? As usual a misquote (actually not a misquote -- he admits to never having read the Quran.)

and the "I Think" in your statement is problematic -- *check* your quotes against the originals -- don't rely on Dawkins or others to think for you.

The actual quote: [25.53] And He it is Who has made two seas to flow freely, the one sweet that subdues thirst by its sweetness, and the other salt that burns by its saltness; and between the two He has made a barrier and inviolable obstruction.

There are many places (river deltas, for example, like the amazon delta) where fresh water flows into the ocean and don't mix.

Thermoclines in the ocean have the same effect.

Historically there were many fresh water springs emerging just off the arabian coast -- it could be a reference to those places.

Akiva


----------



## Harry Haller (May 27, 2013)

Harvir007 said:


> I didn't say that. Individuals may be the ones that discover these facts and I may have nothing to do with their discovery, that doesn't make me a follower. It simply makes me a rational being that accepts evidence that comes out of science. There is no 'following' involved. But if you perceive that as me being a believer of evidence, then I cannot argue that.


 
ok we are now getting lost in semantics, (not that I am anti semantic, Akiva lol, sorry I think I have cracked that one too many times)

Sorry pal, but that does make you a follower, have you seen the evidence? have you tested the evidence? have you carried out the experiments? no, so you have faith in those who have proven these theories. 

In fact, lol, seeing as Sikhism is not a religion, that makes you more religious than me!


----------



## akiva (May 27, 2013)

Harvir007 said:


> I didn't say that. Individuals may be the ones that discover these facts and I may have nothing to do with their discovery, that doesn't make me a follower. It simply makes me a rational being that accepts evidence that comes out of science. There is no 'following' involved. But if you perceive that as me being a believer of evidence, then I cannot argue that.



Have you checked the evidence yourself? If not, then it's following/relying on others.

(and trusting that the "others" are reliable/honest)

I'm an admirer of Carl Sagan, for example -- but the fact that he lied through his teeth and falsified data (for the "greater good")  regarding "Nuclear Winter" - and it was peer reviewed and published --is an example of how even the most admired and trusted scientists are not always reliable.

And blind faith is blind faith -- in scientists or in religious leaders.

Akiva


----------



## Harvir007 (May 27, 2013)

akiva said:


> Relying on Dawkins? As usual a misquote (actually not a misquote -- he admits to never having read the Quran.)
> 
> and the "I Think" in your statement is problematic -- *check* your quotes against the originals -- don't rely on Dawkins or others to think for you.
> 
> ...


 The fact that you're saying 'could be' means that it is open to interpretation. So say if Dawkins is correct that those Muslim pupils asserted that they don't mix, it's still wrong, regardless of whether or not they think the quotation says that. If a Muslim reads that and, according to their own interpretation, thinks that salt water and fresh water don't mix, that's a scientific claim by a religious person, based on scripture.


----------



## akiva (May 27, 2013)

Just a quick question:

Why is it that all atheists/anti-theists/anti-religion *followers* sound exactly the same? They all quote the exact same objections (down to the exact phrasing). They all quote the same verses from texts with the same objections. (All of which have been answered by philosophers over the last 2000 years)

It reminds me of the Hari Krishna followers in the 70s -- but without the flowers and smiles and saffron robes.

Go to the actual source material and study it. Study medieval/current philosophers. See what has *actually* been discussed/debated/answered by theologians.

Develop your own opinion based on your own study.

*Don't* trust Dawkins etc -- because they haven't done that.

Akiva


----------



## akiva (May 27, 2013)

Harvir007 said:


> The fact that you're saying 'could be' means that it is open to interpretation. So say if Dawkins is correct that those Muslim pupils asserted that they don't mix, it's still wrong, regardless of whether or not they think the quotation says that. If a Muslim reads that and, according to their own interpretation, thinks that salt water and fresh water don't mix, that's a scientific claim by a religious person, based on scripture.



Of course -- but that's a problem with the *person* and his understanding, not the text.

Once you know the context the text was given in/to -- the reference makes sense (since there were places that they knew about at the time the text was given where fresh/salt water didn't mix. The audience knew that -- and understood the poetic message being given)

That doesn't make the verse "unscientific" -- it makes the person's understanding faulty/ignorant/unscientific.

There's a difference between a claim made by a "religious person" and a claim made by "a religion".

Akiva


----------



## Harvir007 (May 27, 2013)

akiva said:


> Just a quick question:
> 
> Why is it that all atheists/anti-theists/anti-religion *followers* sound exactly the same? They all quote the exact same objections (down to the exact phrasing). They all quote the same verses from texts with the same objections. (All of which have been answered by philosophers over the last 2000 years)
> 
> ...



Because they think the idea that a cosmic intelligence started the big bang 13.77 billion years ago, then waited 9 or so billion years to create the earth, then waited till about 200-400 thousand years ago for homo sapiens to evolve from earlier hominids and then waited till the past 2000 years to provide the answers of life to specific individuals, totally stupid.



> There's a difference between a claim made by a "religious person" and a claim made by "a religion".


 Sure there is, but in the bible, god created the world in 6 days. Open to interpretation obviously, but the text has made a scientific claim about the origins of the universe and the earth.


----------



## akiva (May 27, 2013)

Have you read Antony Flew? You might find him interesting.

Akiva


----------



## Harvir007 (May 27, 2013)

akiva said:


> Have you read Antony Flew? You might find him interesting.


I haven't read him, but he's the bloke that was an atheist turned deist am I correct? I mean I have no quarrel with the deist position so much, it's still a belief based on no evidence but not as harmful as a theistic god (an intervening god). If there is a god, they've created a very terrible universe and very terrible galaxy in the Milky Way.


----------



## akiva (May 27, 2013)

That's him. Worth reading the original (and not second-hand)

Akiva


----------



## prakash.s.bagga (May 27, 2013)

Harvir007 said:


> Could you please explain to me how one can tell if one is devoted to science and how that devotion makes it a religion? For you, religion may be a manifestation of devotion, I personally do not because that's changing the definition of religion to back up a point that is a play with words.
> 
> 
> That's incorrect. Religions are failed sciences in that their scriptures have made scientific claims. Scientific claims are statements of a 'fact' that's believed to be true, but has not yet been 'proven' to be true. ic claim that is false.[/QUTake the Koran for instance. I think it is written somewhere that salt water and fresh water don't mix. Now obviously that isn't true, but it's a scientifOTE]
> ...


----------



## akiva (May 27, 2013)

Harvir007 said:


> Because they think the idea that a cosmic intelligence started the big bang 13.77 billion years ago, then waited 9 or so billion years to create the earth, then waited till about 200-400 thousand years ago for homo sapiens to evolve from earlier hominids and then waited till the past 2000 years to provide the answers of life to specific individuals, totally stupid.



That's their *opinion* - not a scientific theory/fact backed by evidence.

In other words, you are trading one opinion for another -- when neither has a scientific basis.

Which you are free to do -- but you can't claim it's "scientific".

Akiva


----------



## Tejwant Singh (May 27, 2013)

Harvir007 said:


> I didn't say that. Individuals may be the ones that discover these facts and I may have nothing to do with their discovery, that doesn't make me a follower. It simply makes me a rational being that accepts evidence that comes out of science. There is no 'following' involved. But if you perceive that as me being a believer of evidence, then I cannot argue that.



Harvir007 ji,

Guru Fateh.

First of all Science is just an observational tool which makes us find things in an objective manner, hence very fluid with every new technique that helps us discover or see the same thing in a different manner provided the scientists are objectively honest about it.

But,I am sorry to say that your investigation into science as Harvir Bond does not pan out with the facts and I know you love facts. There are scientists on all sides of the equation. Many have  subjective agendas depending on who is paying them. Hence they make their own facts to justify the means. Pharma  Industry is full of them. Lobbyists of certain agendas like 'No to Climate change', Tar sand oil and other fields are filled with these kinds of "snake oil scientists". And yes, many become their followers blindly.

The objective scientists can be found in some universities and in the Govt research departments like CDC and FDA in the US which help us untangle the mysteries of life to certain point.

However, let's not just talk about the scientists in white long coats holding test tubes or dead gerbils in their hands. There are  also Economic Scientists.

The two eminent Harvard professors, economists Carmen Reinhart and Kenneth Rogoff  have created economic havoc in Europe with their austerity  theory presented in 2010, a dangerously flawed one in which they claimed that 90 percent debt-to-GDP ratio means a collapse in growth. They gallantly claimed that even in times of recession, debt is more dangerous than high unemployment.

Their conclusions led to the austerity policies all over Europe, and "we know the rest of the story", as the late Steve Harvey, a radio commentator in the US would say.

They claim that without austerity, the economy of the industrialised countries would be negative .05%. This theory of theirs was debunked by a U Mass student named Thomas Herndon who used the same data of the two famous scientists with their permission and showed how flawed their data was. In fact, he noted that with the help of Government intervention by injecting money in the market rather than austerity, the economy would grow 2.2% and that in fact is happening in the US despite multiple roadblocks erected by the GOP because we have a Kenyan born, socialist, communist, Muslim President and if he fails, then America fails, which they do not care about because they are only patriotic to White America. If GOP cared about the US economy which would also help the economies in other parts of the world, then they would pass many bills for that purpose but they refuse to do so.

Their theory was embraced by the GOP party of the US and  also by many conservative nations like the UK and others including the IMF and we know how the economies of Europe have tanked. I do not want to bore you with more of this nitty gritty.You can Google it yourself to get a better picture.

So does the above make you a rationale being as you yourself mentioned in your post above?

*



			" It simply makes me a rational being that accepts evidence that comes out of science. There is no 'following' involved. But if you perceive that as me being a believer of evidence."
		
Click to expand...

*
This is science for you. But that is not the point I am trying to make rather I am struggling in understanding what your point  in this thread is. 

Can you please put it in lay man's terms?

Regards

Tejwant Singh


----------



## spnadmin (May 27, 2013)

I want to ask a very simple question, which might even seem simple-minded, simplistic, maybe even off-the-wall to some. But it could be a kind of thought experiment that sheds light on what scientists *do not *spend their time thinking about. Some investigating might be needed. 

_Question and sub-question_
Why are religious forums obsessed with the connection between science and religion? Do science forums share this concern? I limit the second question to ordinary science forums that espouse the scientific method: e.g., chemistry, astronomy, physics, biology, physical anthropology, etc.

If there is a stark contrast between religious forums and science forums that might tell us something. 

_Rationale_
*Not * relevant to my questions are arm-chair-scientist forums that hold court on consciousness, noetics, quantum leaps, etc.. Also  *not *relevant to the questions are occasional magazine articles in Nature or Scientific American that tantalize with thoughts of a "God" behind the "Big Bang" or YouTube videos or articles where scientists try to reconcile science and religion, and like that. We already have tons of that at SPN.  Science forums where scientists share their thoughts about science seem to be ignored. 

Or is that boring?


----------



## Harvir007 (May 27, 2013)

Tejwant Singh said:


> The two eminent Harvard professors, economists Carmen Reinhart and Kenneth Rogoff  have created economic havoc in Europe with their austerity  theory presented in 2010, a dangerously flawed one in which they claimed that 90 percent debt-to-GDP ratio means a collapse in growth. Their conclusions led to policies like austerity, which they claim even in times of recession, debt is more dangerous than high unemployment.
> 
> They claim that without austerity, the economy of the industrialised countries would be negative .05%. This theory of theirs was debunked by a U Mass student named Thomas Herndon who used the same data of the two famous scientists with their permission and showed how flawed their data was. In fact, he noted that with the help of Government intervention by injecting money in the market rather than austerity, the economy would grow 2.2% and that in fact is happening in the US despite multiple roadblocks erected by the GOP because we have a Kenyan born, socialist, communist, Muslim President and if he fails, then America fails, which they do not care about because they are only patriotic to White America. If GOP cared about the US economy which would also help the economies in other parts of the world, then they would pass many bills for that purpose but they refuse to do so.
> 
> ...


Yeah, I am familiar with Reinhart-Rogoff saga. Being an economics student myself, there have been many things that led me to not take their data seriously. Thus, I was vindicated when Thomas Herndon, who you have mentioned, rebuked their claims. It was an excel error, was it not? We had the UK and US running national debts of 100%+ GDP during the 1950s, growth wasn't curtailed then which led me to being sceptical. At the start of macroeconomics at A-level, we're told about fiscal policy and that government is meant to run deficits during a bust. 'Expansionary austerity', or so dubbed by Alesina-Ardagna's paper, is proven to not grow the economy if you just look at the EU. Austerity leads to higher national debts also. I'm always banging my head when I hear George Osborne (chancellor of the exchequer) talking about how his plans will lead to sustainable growth. In econ, we're told that the components of aggregate demand are consumption, investment, government spending, and exports minus imports. If the first two are low already, and you then cut government spending, how on earth are you going to grow the economy when aggregate demand also equals the total amount of expenditure within the economy? Science like the age of the universe, the age of the earth, whether or not we evolved... that is solid science. Economics on the other hand, as much as it pains me to say, is struggling to be a science. Reinhart-Rogoff's paper wasn't peer reviewed by the way, which also made me sceptical. 



> This is science for you. But that is not the point I am trying to make rather I am struggling in understanding what your point  in this thread is.
> 
> Can you please put it in lay man's terms?


 In layman's terms, my point, to begin with, is that science is not a religion.


----------



## Harvir007 (May 27, 2013)

akiva said:


> That's their *opinion* - not a scientific theory/fact backed by evidence.
> 
> In other words, you are trading one opinion for another -- when neither has a scientific basis.
> 
> Which you are free to do -- but you can't claim it's "scientific".


I can't claim it's scientific? Oh come on. Evolution, fact. Earth is around 4.54 billion years old, fact. Age of the universe is around 13.77 billion years, fact. CMB radiation measurements do a good job of pinning down just how long it has been since the big bang with general consensus being that there's an uncertainty of 40 million years. Radiometric dating with regards to the age of the Earth clearly shows how long ago the Earth was formed with the oldest rock found being zircon in Australia.


----------



## Tejwant Singh (May 27, 2013)

Harvir007 said:


> Yeah, I am familiar with Reinhart-Rogoff saga. Being an economics student myself, there have been many things that led me to not take their data seriously. Thus, I was vindicated when Thomas Herndon, who you have mentioned, rebuked their claims. It was an excel error, was it not? We had the UK and US running national debts of 100%+ GDP during the 1950s, growth wasn't curtailed then which led me to being sceptical. At the start of macroeconomics at A-level, we're told about fiscal policy and that government is meant to run deficits during a bust. 'Expansionary austerity', or so dubbed by Alesina-Ardagna's paper, is proven to not grow the economy if you just look at the EU. Austerity leads to higher national debts also. I'm always banging my head when I hear George Osborne (chancellor of the exchequer) talking about how his plans will lead to sustainable growth. In econ, we're told that the components of aggregate demand are consumption, investment, government spending, and exports minus imports. If the first two are low already, and you then cut government spending, how on earth are you going to grow the economy when aggregate demand also equals the total amount of expenditure within the economy? Science like the age of the universe, the age of the earth, whether or not we evolved... that is solid science.* Economics on the other hand, as much as it pains me to say, is struggling to be a science. Reinhart-Rogoff's paper wasn't peer reviewed by the way, which also made me sceptical.*



Now you are not being honest and I am surprised at you. I thought you believed in facts based on data and investigation. Economics IS science no matter how much you deny it. Check out the meaning of science for your own understanding.

Many fail to understand that no one except the US can have loan at 1% at will which is a great shot in the arm of economy. Science proves  that.



> In layman's terms, my point, to begin with, is that science is not a religion.



OK. Then again I come to my initial question, so what is your point?

Firstly, define religion in your own terms please.

Secondly, what does Sikhi have to do with any religion?

I have no idea how much you know about Sikhi. Reading through different threads in here may help you in understanding it.

Lastly, what religion is  Antitheism as defined by Prakash Singh ji?

Tejwant Singh


----------



## akiva (May 27, 2013)

Harvir007 said:


> I can't claim it's scientific? Oh come on. Evolution, fact. Earth is around 4.54 billion years old, fact. Age of the universe is around 13.77 billion years, fact. CMB radiation measurements do a good job of pinning down just how long it has been since the big bang with general consensus being that there's an uncertainty of 40 million years. Radiometric dating with regards to the age of the Earth clearly shows how long ago the Earth was formed with the oldest rock found being zircon in Australia.



I'm obviously talking about the last part of your statement:



Harvir007 said:


> and then waited till the past 2000 years to provide the answers of life to specific individuals, totally stupid.



There's no question about the science part.

Akiva


----------



## Harvir007 (May 27, 2013)

Tejwant Singh said:


> Firstly, define religion in your own terms please.


If we're going by my understanding of religion, I'd say that religion is the postulation of their being something immaterial and beyond the material world. In other words, if the idea of a 'god' or supernatural entity or cosmic law maker is postulated within an ideology, then it would be correct to label it a religion.



> Secondly, what does Sikhi have to do with any religion?



From my understanding of Sikhism, the idea of a 'god' is postulated. Correct me if I am wrong, is Sikhism not a revealed religion? Is it not the case that Nanak Dev had gone missing for three days circa 1499 and he came back afterwards and said that he had been to god's court and was offered holy water? This I shall concede is where I require your wisdom. If it is the case that Nanak had been to god's court, could you just shed a bit of light on this? 



> Lastly, what religion is  Antitheism as defined by Prakash Singh ji?


I'm sorry, I'm not quite sure I understood the question, are you asking if antitheism is a religion? If that's the case, it isn't. It's just a viewpoint with regards to god and religion.



> Now you are not being honest and I am surprised at you. I thought you believed in facts based on data and investigation.


I do believe in facts based on data and investigation. I also believe in the peer-review process. Okay, so economics is a science insofar as economics theories are based on data and evidence. When I say 'struggling to be a science', I mean to say that it's struggling to be a science like Physics, Biology or Chemistry is. That's all I was trying to say.


----------



## Tejwant Singh (May 27, 2013)

Harvir ji,

Guru fateh.

First, thanks for agreeing with me that Economics is science which it is. Now time to move on to other things.



Harvir007 said:


> If we're going by my understanding of religion, I'd say that religion is the postulation of their being something immaterial and beyond the material world. In other words, if the idea of a 'god' or supernatural entity or cosmic law maker is postulated within an ideology, then it would be correct to label it a religion.



OK. So what? What is your point, once again.



> From my understanding of Sikhism, the idea of a 'god' is postulated. Correct me if I am wrong, is Sikhism not a revealed religion?



No, it is not. Sikhi is not a religion to start with. You need to study about it using your scientific talents. Dig deeper.



> Is it not the case that Nanak Dev had gone missing for three days circa 1499 and he came back afterwards and said that he had been to god's court and was offered holy water?



Please quote from SGGS, our only Guru about your above claim. You seem to jump to too many conclusions without studying the subject. Is that the reason you like science?



> This I shall concede is where I require your wisdom. If it is the case that Nanak had been to god's court, could you just shed a bit of light on this?



Sikhi has no god, hence I have no idea what kind of god's court you are talking about. Please elaborate and state your sources as they do in science.



> I'm sorry, I'm not quite sure I understood the question, are you asking if antitheism is a religion? If that's the case, it isn't. It's just a viewpoint with regards to god and religion.



It is according to Prakash Singh Bagga's explanation about the religion that was addressed to you.

You have to understand the meaning of gods and religions of the different peoples in order to have any viewpoint regarding them. 

Viewpoint is based on knowledge which you have not shown about Sikhi up to now, rather to the contrary.

Make knowledge your best friend rather than your worst enemy in order to have any viewpoint, in any field.

Tejwant Singh


----------



## akiva (May 27, 2013)

spnadmin said:


> Why are religious forums obsessed with the connection between science and religion?



With the "Age of Reason" religion and religious belief has come under attack.

Religious believers can be broken down into several categories:

a) those who feel "embarrassed" by the seeming conflict and are trying to reconcile the two;

b) those who attempt (poorly and invalidly) to use scientific discoveries to "prove" their religion

c) those who are not bothered by it -- because they consider the two complementary, not contradictory.

Types a and b are the ones usually discussing it.

Akiva


----------



## Inderjeet Kaur (May 27, 2013)

Harvir007 said:


> You are mistaken about the atheist's proposition. I don't say there definitely is no god, I can't prove that. However, I can say that there is no evidence or convincing argument that makes me think that there is a god. The agnostic's (with regards to 'god') position isn't logically honest. I don't say to you, "oh, the tooth-fairy cannot be disproved therefore, I won't commit to saying that the likelihood of such a thing existing is very improbable." Of course I can't say that santa or a tooth-fairy definitely does not exist so I'm agnostic with regards to them. But for all practical cases, I am an atheist in the same sense that I'm an atoothfairyist. I'm sure that most people are atoothfairyists, is that logically dishonest? You can't just say I'm not comparing like with like. Both are fictional entities, both have no evidence to support them. The difference I suppose is, is that most children tend to grow out of believing in the tooth-fairy. And that's what god is to me: a childish belief.
> 
> .



The tooth fairy is real.  We usually call her "Mommy."  :motherlove:


----------



## spnadmin (May 27, 2013)

akiva ji

Thanks for clearing up the religionist half of my question about reconciling religion with science, on religious forums. The other half of the question, implicit as well, is about why science even needs to be part of this conversation. Why would and why do rationalists and atheists bring such questions to religious forums?  Why don't they bring these questions to science forums? 

I just checked a physics forum. Went to the Astronomy/Cosmology subforum, from there to the modern cosmology section. Not a single thread was concerned with divine interactions with the cosmos. Here I am thinking of arguments about the "god particle" which initially was nothing more than a metaphor for Higgs Boson, and not intended to be taken literally. Not a single thread on the Big Bang being a way to conceptualize Divine Intention. Just a lot about different ways to interpret mathematical models that represent cosmic phenomena. A lot of talk about calculations. A lot of talk about interpreting data from high powered telescopes. 

The science/religion debate, to me, seems limited to religious forums. Back to my question then. What is gained by trying to reconcile science and religion from the point of view of scientists?

p/s "reconcile" might be a poor choice of words, but for now i will leave it alone.


----------



## akiva (May 27, 2013)

One additional point:

The *only* religions that are stable/growing are those which are *non-apologetic* about their theistic/supernatural/spiritual components.

As soon as you remove those elements from the religion you remove any reason for the religion to exist -- and they start losing members -- because it no longer serves a function that can't just as easily be served outside the religion.

Akiva


----------



## Inderjeet Kaur (May 27, 2013)

Administrator ji, may I quote myself ?

RE:  science and religion?

I accept that there is some sort of creative Force behind this (and every other) universe. That Force set up this universe to run by certain rules that we call Natural Law. The study and discovery of Natural Law is what we call Science. (Note: Natural Law might be able to exist without a creative Force, but I just don't see how, perhaps my brain is just too limited.) 

Accepting certain attributes of this creative Force [hereafter called CF] is called Religion. Different ideas and opinions about this CF give rise to different Religions. Denying the existence of this CF is called Atheism.  By these definitions, while Atheism is a belief system, it is not a religion.   

Using these ideas as a basis, there can be no contradiction between Science and Religion, although obviously there must be disagreements amongst the various Religions.

And Mommy is still the Tooth Fairy.


----------



## spnadmin (May 27, 2013)

Inderjeet Kaur ji

I am not sure, but it seems you are answering this question, 
"What is gained by trying to reconcile science and religion from the point of view of scientists?"

Based on your answer, the logical inference would be, _Nothing is gained by asking scientists to conduct a science/religion debate on a science forum. _ If that is a reasonable inference, then the rationalist/atheist camp needs to reconsider its pattern of using science to falsify religion on religious forums. Science appears neutral to indifferent. if that were not the case, then science forums would be raging with debates for and against scientific tests of religious beliefs.

Which leads me to something else. You say 





> Denying the existence of this CF is called Atheism. By these definition, while Atheism is a belief system, it is not a religion.



If atheism is a belief system, as such it has little to do with science. Curious then that atheists _use_ science to falsify religion (i.e., religious beliefs). How can any belief system falsify another belief system by using  science, when science has nothing to do with belief? For example, how would belief system A (Atheism) falsify belief system B (your choice) by using arguments that are irrelevant and incompatible with atheism? If science is neutral as to belief, can it be used to falsify either A or B? (open question)


----------



## akiva (May 27, 2013)

spnadmin said:


> akiva ji
> Thanks for clearing up the religionist half of my question about reconciling religion with science, on religious forums. The other half of the question, implicit as well, is about why science even needs to be part of this conversation. Why would and why do rationalists and atheists bring such questions to religious forums?  Why don't they bring these questions to science forums?



The people you describe are "radical" atheists -- they feel a need to "spread the message"

Man is a "Believing" creature -- there is strong psychological evidence for that -- with strong indications that it's as deep as being at the genetic level.

IMO:

When someone rejects that element of their psyche, it creates a "tension" that needs to be dealt with.

One way to dealt with it is via overcompensating -- in other word, convincing themselves that they are "right" in their disbelief, and thereby remove that tension

Another way is to "minimize" or "invalidate" belief -- and thereby convince themselves, on some level(s) that there is no need to believe, and thereby "wish away" that tension by eliminating it's cause.

Akiva


----------



## Tejwant Singh (May 27, 2013)

Akiva ji,

Guru Fateh.

You write:



akiva said:


> With the "Age of Reason" religion and religious belief has come under attack.



I am a bit confused by your proclamation above. I would appreciate if you would clarify it for me.

1. When did this so called "Age of Reason" start and what is NOT to be gained from it? How reasoning has become the attack to the religions and their beliefs?

2. Was Guru Nanak wrong in his reasoning when he refused to wear the Hindu Janeiu at the age of 7?

3. Was he wrong in his reasoning when he said pilgrimages, dips in holy waters, fasting, self immolation,animal sacrifices, Sati  and many more are not the way to lead a truthful living?

4. Was he wrong in his reasoning when he started throwing water towards the West when he saw the Hindus throwing water towards the Sun?

5. Was he wrong in his reasoning when he says in Jap that there are limitless planets and galaxies? One can go on and on with his reasoning.

6.Who was he attacking with his reasoning?

7. What do have against reasoning? 

8. Do you reason with yourself in order to make the right decisions?



> Religious believers can be broken down into several categories:
> 
> a) those who feel "embarrassed" by the seeming conflict and are trying to reconcile the two;
> 
> ...



Please define religion so I can understand what you mean by it.

I will take your points one by one but before I do that, please explain what do you mean by " Religious believers"?

Please name the embarrassed ones and in which religion and why do they feel embarrassed according to your opinion?

Please elaborate b) with concrete examples.

We will take c) after your response.

Thanks & regards

Tejwant Singh


----------



## Inderjeet Kaur (May 27, 2013)

spnadmin said:


> Inderjeet Kaur ji
> 
> I am not sure, but it seems you are answering this question,
> "What is gained by trying to reconcile science and religion from the point of view of scientists?"
> ...



I see science and religion as two different subjects that have little to do with each other, rather like organic farming and kitten stroking.  

However, I believe any intelligent discussion on this topic (or any other, for that matter), can be interesting and yield insights to the individual.  

Every system must start with basic assumptions that are accepted as true.  In Religion, these are called Dogma. In Science/Maths, they are called Axioms.   One difference between Religion and Science is that in Religion, Dogma is true and unchanging;  if Dogma is changed, it becomes a new Religion at odds with the old one, often violently.   However, the basic assumptions of science can and do evolve and change, albeit not without a lot of controversy.  As a child in science class I was taught that the most basic law of science is that of universality, that is that the laws of science are everywhere the same.  Along came black holes and sucked that assumption right into their gravity wells, never to be seen again.  Science has not split into two sects, at least not that I know of.  Likewise quantum mechanics has challenged and, indeed forced drastic revision of erstwhile scientific Axiom. God or whatever, it seems, really does play dice, Einstein notwithstanding.    


Science cannot falsify religion, although it may indicate that certain religious beliefs are in error, such as the belief among some fundamentalist groups that global climate change is a myth thought up by atheistic scientists, straight from the pit of Hades.  And of course, Galileo's unforgettable, under the breath, "Nevertheless, it moves." 

I'm not sure if this answers your questions or not, but, you know, if you can't dazzle them with brilliance, baffle them with bullshi...  :icecreammunda:


----------



## spnadmin (May 28, 2013)

Inderjeet ji

The only place where I disagree is on the point of quantum theory.Quantum theory did not nullify classical physics, Newtonian mechanics or Einstein's various theories. It presents a model for describing a subset of phenomena that cannot be predicted by and do not fit in the older models.

So we are not looking at a better theory with quantum theory. Instead it is a theory that _hopes_ to explain gaps - the behavior of subatomic particles -  not explained by earlier models  - using probabilities typical of closed systems.  This 





> indeed forced drastic revision of erstwhile scientific Axiom. God or whatever, it seems, really does play dice, Einstein notwithstanding.


 is not exactly what quantum theory demonstrates. And God is not necessary for the quantum models to work. Anyway it is a cool term of art.

Apples still fall to the ground because of gravity; and E still equals mc-squared. 

Otherwise I agree.


----------



## Inderjeet Kaur (May 28, 2013)

spnadmin said:


> Inderjeet ji
> 
> The only place where I disagree is on the point of quantum theory.Quantum theory did not nullify classical physics, Newtonian mechanics or Einstein's various theories. It presents a model for describing a subset of phenomena that cannot be predicted by and do not fit in the older models.
> 
> ...




The bit about quantum theory was an afterthought, obviously not well thought out.  Those two sentences should be cut out and tossed into the before mentioned gravity well.  I will leave them because they they give rise to your interesting and instructive response.  This is an example of how we grow and learn.

I'm glad we agree on the importance of the loss of universality in Science.  That is huge.  We have yet to realise how huge, I'll warrant.


----------



## Luckysingh (May 28, 2013)

What I find amazing is the involvement of the 'Apple' in both science and religion since the beginning of time and even now !!

1st we have the apple in the garden of eden.
Then we have the apple falling on Newton who went on to define and confirm the gravitational laws.
But Today, we have at the fingertips, palms and pockets of people all around the world the very Apple of Steve Jobs !:interestedmunda:


----------



## spnadmin (May 28, 2013)

Inderjeet Kaur ji

I think those sentences are fine because they sharpen the distinction between religion and science. Science builds on science, and throws out anything that can be falsified. The sun is stationary; the earth really does move. The laws of gravity and inertia keep them in orbit. So gravity and inertia have not been repealed. 

Quantum theory, in its infancy right now, contradicts the theory of relativity but it doesn't really falsify it. Quantum theory suggests that there are some universes - subatomic universes - where the calculations are different, where E equals mc- squared doesn't apply, and Newton's laws of momentum don't work.

I found a bunch of diagrams that even I can understand. Hope uploading one of them does not re-arrange the Spotlight.


----------



## spnadmin (May 28, 2013)

Whew! Spotlight is fine. Otherwise I would have thread editing to do way back at the beginning.

Luckysingh ji Someone took a bite!


----------



## Brother Onam (May 28, 2013)

Luckysingh said:


> What I find amazing is the involvement of the 'Apple' in both science and religion since the beginning of time and even now !!
> 
> 1st we have the apple in the garden of eden.
> Then we have the apple falling on Newton who went on to define and confirm the gravitational laws.
> But Today, we have at the fingertips, palms and pockets of people all around the world the very Apple of Steve Jobs !:interestedmunda:



*A bit of familiar myth: the Bible never, in fact, speaks of an apple; this is just something handed down. I guess because the religion and its art were produced and promulgated by Europeans, they presented a common fruit, which would not occur in the actual Garden of Eden region.
*


----------



## Harvir007 (May 28, 2013)

Tejwant Singh said:


> OK. So what? What is your point, once again.


I have already clarified that my original point was that science is not a religion. You asked me a question in what I think religion is, then you ask 'so what?' I don't understand what you're trying to do.



> Please quote from Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji, our only Guru about your above claim. You seem to jump to too many conclusions without studying the subject. Is that the reason you like science?


I don't think this story is in the Guru Granth Sahib but it is well known amongst Sikhs. This BBC video has a good overview of the story. http://www.bbc.co.uk/learningzone/clips/the-guru-vanishes/3778.html 

This website goes into more detail. http://fateh.sikhnet.com/sikhnet/register.nsf/p/story1

Here you can see it said that 'God gave him (Guru Nanak) a cup of nectar and said, "I am with you."'



> Sikhi has no god, hence I have no idea what kind of god's court you are talking about. Please elaborate and state your sources as they do in science.



Here's a source. http://www.sikhs.org/guru1.htm

You can see that it is said that 'Guru Nanak was in holy communion with God' and that Nanak himself proclaimed that there is but one god. 'Holy communion' to me seems like Nanak had a 'spiritual experience' in which he had been paid a visit by something divine which is what leads me to think that Sikhism is a belief system based on revealed truth.


----------



## akiva (May 28, 2013)

Tejwant Singh said:


> Sikhi has no god, hence I have no idea what kind of god's court you are talking about.



Tejwant Ji

In *your* opinion - and I accept that others hold that way as well.

However, I have met many GurSikhs -- had conversations with many more -- and read many books by GurSikhs -- *all* of whom hold that Sikhi has a belief in a creator/God.

So to be accurate you should have written "Some Sikhs hold that Sikhi has no God"

Akiva


----------



## spnadmin (May 28, 2013)

The question of whether there is a "God" in Sikhism has been discussed on other threads. Although quick and brief replies to the question of whether there is a God in Sikhism are in order, let's not take this thread in the direction of continual Q&A on that topic. It will derail the thread, duplicate other discussions, and be off-topic.

Answers  boil down to definitions of "God" and that is not what this thread is about. The topic is Is Science a Religion. Thanks/spnadmin

p/s the first 2 links given by Harvir007 ji refer us to the story of Guru Nanak disappearing for 3 days in a river. This story is part of the janamsakhi series which are the subject of intense debate among scholars. Many of the janamsakhis are controversial because their accuracy is suspect or cannot be validated by independent sources like the varan of Bhai Gurdas. If we proceed to debate that particular story, then again we go seriously off topic. Let's not do that.


----------



## Inderjeet Kaur (May 28, 2013)

I suggest, as I often do, to start with definitions, so we all know what we are talking about?

What is "science"?

What is "religion"?

I have already given my definitions.  What are yours?


----------



## Tejwant Singh (May 28, 2013)

Science= An observational tool to find out why and learn about because.

Religion= A pre-mapped destiny of life with dire repercussions if the map is not followed.

Sikhi= A tool box to learn about the self in order to know why and because.


----------



## Tejwant Singh (May 28, 2013)

akiva said:


> Tejwant Ji
> 
> In *your* opinion - and I accept that others hold that way as well.
> 
> ...



Akiva ji,

Guru Fateh.

I would like you to respond to my whole post rather than picking and choosing in a cop out manner, so that we can have some conversation. You claimed something about Sikhi which is false and I challenged you for that. Please respond about your false claim.

Hope to hear from you. Let's be truthseekers in all aspects and never be afraid when confronted with it.

As far as you above post is concerned, read what Spnadmin ji has said and abide by it. We have several threads where I have given the reasons why Sikhi has no god. You can go through them and start another thread if you wish.

This time, just respond to me about your false claims regarding Sikhi and the questions asked in my post to you.

Regards

Tejwant Singh


----------



## akiva (May 28, 2013)

Tejwant Ji

What "false claim" about Sikhi did I make?

Akiva


----------



## Scarlet Pimpernel (May 28, 2013)

> What is "science"?What is "religion"?



Sikhi is Science of Religion.


----------



## spnadmin (May 28, 2013)

akiva ji

The questions Tejwant Singh ji is referring to are at this link. 

http://www.sikhphilosophy.net/interfaith-dialogues/519-is-science-a-religion-2.html#post185203

 I am not sure "false claims" applies to those specific questions. He was asking for clarifications. Some of your statements in that post were actually responses to questions I had asked in an earlier comment.


----------



## Tejwant Singh (May 28, 2013)

Harvir007 said:


> I have already clarified that my original point was that science is not a religion. You asked me a question in what I think religion is, then you ask 'so what?' I don't understand what you're trying to do.



So what if you claim that. It matters not because for me Sikhi is not a religion to start with. I have no problem in what you think or claim.



> I don't think this story is in the Guru Granth Sahib but it is well known amongst Sikhs. This BBC video has a good overview of the story. http://www.bbc.co.uk/learningzone/clips/the-guru-vanishes/3778.html
> 
> This website goes into more detail. http://fateh.sikhnet.com/sikhnet/register.nsf/p/story1
> 
> ...



Harvir ji,

Guru fateh.

For a Sikh, the only reference is from the SGGS, not from some random posts. And where is the peer review regarding your claim as your scientific mind demands? You are not following your own principles. If you have any peer reviews about it, then we can take this further. The whole story defies nature where Sikhi embraces it. 

The so called Sakhi/story also defies all what is written in the SGGS, our  only Guru. I know you do not know that. If any story that defies the teachings of our Gurus in the SGGS can not be a good source and you should know better.

Regards.

Tejwant Singh


----------



## akiva (May 28, 2013)

spnadmin ji

I'm aware of that post -- and haven't answered it yet (I've been away most of the day and the answers will take time to write).

The post above re "No god in sikhi" was a comment Tejwant Ji made to HArvir007 Ji -- 

http://www.sikhphilosophy.net/interfaith-dialogues/519-is-science-a-religion-7.html#post185188

I was just commenting on that in order to point out that it's not an absolute Sikhi position. 

Possibly Tejwant Ji confused the two of us?

Akiva


----------



## akiva (May 28, 2013)

Tejwant Ji:

Re "Peer Review":

Would the collected teachings and talks by GurSikhs over the centuries count as "Peer Review" as regards Religious Teachings?

Just curious as to your position.

Respectfully
Akiva


----------



## Tejwant Singh (May 28, 2013)

akiva said:


> Tejwant Ji:
> 
> Re "Peer Review":
> 
> ...



Akiva ji,

Guru Fateh.

Please stop avoiding questions when directly asked to you. Let's be honest with ourselves. Respond to my question. 

The above dialogue is between myself and Harvir and he knows what I am talking about.

Let's stick to the post I sent you and do not forget to read the threads.

Regards

Tejwant Singh


----------



## Tejwant Singh (May 28, 2013)

akiva said:


> Tejwant Ji
> 
> What "false claim" about Sikhi did I make?
> 
> Akiva



Akiva ji,

Guru Fateh.

Read my post and you shall find out.

Tejwant Singh


----------



## akiva (May 28, 2013)

Tejwant Ji

I asked you a direct question -- in all honesty, because I wasn't aware of any false claims I had made -- and you avoided it. 

Dialog goes both ways -- but when people ask you questions you quickly turn them against the asker.

Please specify exactly what false claim I made. Please don't cop out.

Akiva


----------



## Tejwant Singh (May 28, 2013)

akiva said:


> Tejwant Ji
> 
> I asked you a direct question -- in all honesty, because I wasn't aware of any false claims I had made -- and you avoided it.
> 
> ...



Akiva ji,

Guru Fateh.

Please respond to my whole post and then I will show you in it where you falsely claimed things.

Regards

Tejwant Singh


----------



## akiva (May 28, 2013)

Tejwant Ji



Tejwant Singh said:


> 1. When did this so called "Age of Reason" start and what is NOT to be gained from it? How reasoning has become the attack to the religions and their beliefs?



I apologize -- I assumed you were familiar with the term "Age of Reason". Maybe you are familiar with "Age of Enlightenment"? *.........* it was a watershed period (17-18th century) where the understanding of the world shifted from a theological-centered to a scientific-centered worldview.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_of_enlightenment is a good summary -- I'm not going to parrot the history there.

My point was that, with that shift, religion (and religious word-views) came under attack -- and those attacks have increased since then as society has become more secular.

(And, yes, I'm aware that other cultures went through similar paradigm shifts, some earlier and some later.)



Tejwant Singh said:


> 2. Was Guru Nanak wrong in his reasoning when he refused to wear the Hindu Janeiu at the age of 7?
> 
> 3. Was he wrong in his reasoning when he said pilgrimages, dips in holy waters, fasting, self immolation,animal sacrifices, Sati  and many more are not the way to lead a truthful living?
> 
> ...



Has nothing to do with what I said in my post -- because I wasn't talking about/attacking "reason" but talking about a period of history.





Tejwant Singh said:


> Please define religion so I can understand what you mean by it.
> 
> I will take your points one by one but before I do that, please explain what do you mean by " Religious believers"?



"Religious Believers" are followers of a religion.

"Religion" is a social/group expression of a belief system, where the members mutually reinforce that belief system. Maybe. 

........................

And that's not a cop-out. The subject it that broad. I can give you a dozen *different* definitions - first we need to decide what system, what frame of reference, what worldview, what requirements, what assumptions we agree on.  (and that's without getting into the question of/difference between Religion/Dharma)

And they are sometimes contradictory -- in the same way that different schools of economics can be contradictory, but at the same time true 



Tejwant Singh said:


> Please name the embarrassed ones and in which religion and why do they feel embarrassed according to your opinion?
> 
> Please elaborate b) with concrete examples.



No.

I can point to movements/groups in Christianlty, Judaism, Islam, and Sikhi -- but the specifics aren't important. What matters is that they feel a need to "modernise" their religion to make it palatable to "modern man" -- and then those same groups complain that they are "losing the youth" and wonder how they can attract the youth to the church/temple/mosque/Gurdwara. Their answer is to compromise more -- become "more" modern.

Meanwhile, the groups that *don't* compromise - that recognise that compromise turns off the youth as being wishy-washy and non-comitted -- are growing.

*Now*

As you promised, please show me where I made false claims about Sikhi.

Akiva


----------



## spnadmin (May 28, 2013)

This is the line of demarcation and it is date-stamped at 18:04 hours DST US when the tone of discussion has to change in this thread. I am receiving complaints from other members that they cannot follow the conversation and they have a point. A dividing line needs to be set. This is it. 

Any open challenge for someone to clarify a stand I will leave alone.

Any open expressions of frustration with another's comments I will also let stand.

Resorting to sarcasm will be deleted, along with other forms of negativity that are part of our TOS.

Digressing rather than staying on topic - I have already made this point - will be deleted.

If you believe it is important to bring a related topic into discussion please explain how it is related to the thread.

Deletions may indeed follow.


----------



## Tejwant Singh (May 28, 2013)

Akiva ji,

Guru Fateh.

Let's start anew to create this conversation from the very beginning. This wonderful thread was started by fsf ji is regarding *Science and Sikhi* and let's stick to that subject. Let's not try to deviate from it. Even Harvir pitched in with his queries about the subject as others did. I am sure you have read the whole thread, if not, I urge you to do so. One does not assume things about others with one's preconceived biases, it shows one's own lack of reason for some reason.

Now let's go over how this thing about "Age of Reason" started. Mind you, let's not lose our focus on the thread which is *Science and Religion (Sikhi)*.

This is what your response to Spnadmin ji's question was:



> Originally Posted by spnadmin
> Why are religious forums obsessed with the connection between science and religion?





> With the "Age of Reason" religion and religious belief has come under attack.
> 
> Religious believers can be broken down into several categories:
> 
> ...



You connected the "Age of Reason" with *Sikhi* because as mentioned before, this thread is about *Sikhi *and I am sure you are aware of that which is implied by you that *Sikhi* is part of the same what Thomas Payne was talking about, where in reality Thomas Payne talks about Christianity and also about Judaism, the latter not in a positive manner.

As the thread has nothing to do with Christianity, the obvious conclusion through deductive reasoning is that you are attaching/attacking Sikhi with false claims in this way. I will not presume as you have and give you the benefit of the doubt that you know the meaning of deductive reasoning.

Based on the deductive reasoning, you were falsely claiming that  Guru Nanak, with his reasoning did the bad thing. For that reason I asked you the questions. In order to be more clear that you were talking  strictly about Christianity, you should have mentioned that explicitly, which you failed to do. Once again, this thread is about *Science and Sikhi*.

Now let's get back your response to me.



> =akiva;185256]Tejwant Ji
> *I apologize -- I assumed you were familiar with the term "Age of Reason". Maybe you are familiar with "Age of Enlightenment"?* *.........* it was a watershed period (17-18th century) where the understanding of the world shifted from a theological-centered to a scientific-centered worldview.



Akiva ji,

I never get offended by someone's preconceived bias about others. I am not offended by anyone's ignorance either. I like to give the benefit of the doubt by asking questions in case I do not know which I did ask relating to this particular thread and its subject. You wrongly assumed with your own personal bias that I do not know anything about the "Age Of Reason". It is not my loss in any way,shape or form.



> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_of_enlightenment is a good summary -- I'm not going to parrot the history there.



Quoting Wiki is parroting in a very shallow manner because as mentioned before it is one of the worst references to pull one's knowledge from because it can be edited by anyone, anytime. So, I do not give any credit to your reference as I have mentioned before in another post of mine.



> My point was that, with that shift, religion (and religious word-views) came under attack -- and those attacks have increased since then as society has become more secular.



Define secular for me please. Who do you define as secular? Once again, please do not forget we are talking about *Sikhi *here in this thread.



> (And, yes, I'm aware that other cultures went through similar paradigm shifts, some earlier and some later.)



Which is natural but I fail to see the point you are trying to make and how does it relate to the subject being discussed in this thread?



> Has nothing to do with what I said in my post -- because I wasn't talking about/attacking "reason" but talking about a period of history.



Let me take your words for it, then it becomes your duty and responsibility to explain that you were changing the subject  from *Sikhi to Christianity* when you mentioned "Age Of Reason" and also should have given the time period -circa- to differentiate the both by also clarifying that you were not talking about *Sikhi* for some odd reason, the very discussion of the thread.



> "Religious Believers" are followers of a religion.
> 
> "Religion" is a social/group expression of a belief system, where the members mutually reinforce that belief system. Maybe.



There is a big difference between the religions which are based on deities and subjective truths and Sikhi. Belief system in a religious connotation is void of objective reality, whereas Sikhi is not. Please feel free to ask questions in order to learn the difference. 



> And that's not a cop-out. The subject it that broad. I can give you a dozen *different* definitions - first we need to decide what system, what frame of reference, what worldview, what requirements, what assumptions we agree on.  (and that's without getting into the question of/difference between Religion/Dharma)



Well, then the onus and the responsibility is on you not to mix apples with oranges and stick to the subject being discussed in the thread.



> And they are sometimes contradictory -- in the same way that different schools of economics can be contradictory, but at the same time true



They can only be true in a subjective ways, hence opinions which have nothing to do with the objective reality.



> *I can point to movements/groups* in Christianlty, Judaism, Islam, and *Sikhi -- but the specifics aren't important.*



I beg to differ with you. Specifics are not only important but are essential to further this conversation and please point out the movements in Sikhi- *the subject of this thread with concrete examples.* You can start a different thread/s about the other religions and we shall discuss the specifics there. 



> What matters is that they feel a need to "modernise" their religion to make it palatable to "modern man" -- and then those same groups complain that they are "losing the youth" and wonder how they can attract the youth to the church/temple/mosque/Gurdwara. Their answer is to compromise more -- become "more" modern.



Who IS they? What do you understand about Sikhi? In what way is it trying to modernise itself? Please be specific with concrete examples, otherwise it becomes mere rhetoric full of babble.

Once again, let's stick to the subject of this thread.



> Meanwhile, the groups that *don't* compromise - that recognise that compromise turns off the youth as being wishy-washy and non-comitted -- are growing.



Please give concrete example regarding the subject of this thread about your claims.



> *Now*
> 
> As you promised, please show me where I made false claims about Sikhi.



Let me mention this again. *Your false claims about Sikhi were when you lumped Sikhi with the "Age Of Reason" without differentiating the two for the reasons only known to yourself and that premise is totally false as challenged by my questions to you.*

My last point is that I am a bit surprised by this altered post of yours. When I read it for the first time, you had flaunted your preconceived  bias regarding me not having studied in the West, hence having no inkling about the "Age Of Reason", which was a false assumption on your part laced with ignorance.

And secondly, in the end of the post you challenged me that when I read the books by some authors, one of which I remember was Huxley as I just glanced through the thread before getting busy in something else, then you would discuss with me.

If both of your comments were deleted by Spnadmin ji, then I have nothing to add because it was a very wise decision by the Admin and I commend her for doing so.

In case you deleted them, firstly, it is a cop out, and secondly it shows your sheer arrogance laced with ignorance in a very pompous manner. I want to assure you that I never get offended by it because it shows more about you than about anyone else. It shows your bias against people who challenge your intellect.

Next time, please ask questions in order to find out if people have read the books you are mentioning rather than having some preconceived bias. 

This is not the way to start a conversation as you so much desired initially but a confrontation and being a bully. And I am not interested in either.

Regards

Tejwant Singh


----------



## spnadmin (May 28, 2013)

Tejwant ji

I deleted material in Akiva ji's reply indicated by the red dots. Then I left a note at the bottom of the comment. 

If that caused any confusion, I apologize for that.


----------



## akiva (May 29, 2013)

Tejwant Ji

The thread is *not* about Sikhi. It is discussing if science is a religion.

My comments were only about that

Akiva


----------



## Tejwant Singh (May 29, 2013)

akiva said:


> Tejwant Ji
> 
> The thread is *not* about Sikhi. It is discussing if science is a religion.
> 
> ...




Akiva ji,

Guru Fateh.

I will take your words for it but if you check the posts, all of them are related to Sikhi but so much the better because by claiming that you have shown the mistakes you have made.

If this thread is about religion not about Sikhi as you claim, then why didn't you clarify your mentioning "Age of the Reason" from the Christian point of view rather that implying that into Sikhi as you did?

Please clarify what you are talking and learn by teaching others that you may think the subject they do not know anything about.

I have no idea how many people here know about the " Age of Reason" . Your preconceived bias showed that I did not because I am not from the west as you are, hence you conclude that you know a lot more than I do.  And the same goes for my lack of reading habits  and not knowing the authors the ones you have read about according to your prejudgment.

This is sheer bigotry to put it mildly especially coming from a person who wants to be god loving,

This is the attitude you come to the Sikhi forum with while claiming that you want to have a conversation.

It is a shame indeed!

And lastly, please respond to my questions in the previous post with concrete examples.

Regards

Tejwant Singh


----------



## akiva (May 29, 2013)

Tejwant Ji

1) I assumed you *were* familiar with the Age of Reason. I also make no assumptions as to how much you know. I certainly don't think I know more than you.

2) very little of the thread has to do with Sikhi -- 

3) lastly -- dialog is only possible when mutual respect is shown. Since that is lacking I'm respectfully refusing to continue this dialog with you.

Akiva


----------



## chazSingh (May 30, 2013)

Neutral Singh said:


> Yes many of you are probably thinking science is the ultimate antithesis of religion but if you break it all down science shows all the signs of a faith. Like religion science attempts to explain how we got here and how we continue to live (big bang and evolution), how to live (common medicinal practices i.e vitamin intake, diets etc) a baptism of sorts (vaccines and shots during infancy), predictions of future catastrophes similiar to armageddon but without the horesmen.....hehe.(which involve asteroids or other natural or man made destructive forces.) Priests, Sheiks, Rabbis = doctors and scientists. Ten commandments = laws of physics etc. Charismatic figures in religion such as Jesus Mohammed Buddha Nanak... in science Darwin Einstein Mendell. Rituals in religion= scientific method in the lab. Blame for the worlds problems have been placed on both science and religion as well as its saving. These similarities, though many may argue are rooted in different things (science in "fact" and religion in "fantasy") nevertheless are rooted in the same intentions or ideals of the followers of either one. and who is to say it isn't the other way around, that religion is the fact and science is the fantasy, though on paper science may win that war or perhaps not? other similarities... Many Sikh Gurus & Jesus were killed for what they believed and preached, so were many scientists through out the ages.
> 
> All this may seem far fetched to most but consider all these similarities and think of your own ones.




With Science, some things i can experiment with and find out for myself (my own experienced proof through scientific experiments) ... but most things i rely on others (scientists) to find out for me ... but it's their experience...not mine....therefore it's a religion to the scientist...not for me

Religion (sikhi) for me gives me insight into what existed before creation, exists now, and forever will exist past creation... then tells me to go and experience it all, discipher it all, and go beyond it all *myself*, in this life - no one else required


----------

