03-08-2007, 10:45 PM
Science is against 'believing'. In fact it is for breaking all beliefs. Science is in knowing the truth, first hand, not just take whatever someone somewhere claimed. And exactly so are true messages of the eastern religions.
The fundamental difference between the scientific attitude and unscientific attitude is this. A scientific mind, if asked 100 questions, will provide answer for 1, if he knows it first hand, and keeps the answer further open for more learning as the new facts become available. On the contrast, an unscientific mind, will provide answers to all the 100 questions and more, even if it does not 'know' or have the experience first hand, and claim this is the final and the only answer.
Bhagwan Gautama Buddha, when asked about God, did not answer. He did not answer so many other questions related to theology and philosophy. He said, "Ask questions which are questions, which are really questions. And even so, I do not answer your questions, but teach you how to find the answers, how to become your own lamp." That is, I think, a very scientific approach to mysteries of the existence.
Seers in upanishads repeatedly talk about 'experience' which they call 'Apara Vidya' : Vision Within. And even in the end, they always add a disclaimer - 'this is not all, this is not all' and keep the learning open to new experiences. This is similar to Socrates saying, I know what I know not and what I know is incomplete.
At the same time, Indic Sages also classified all the body of knowledge in three - gyAt, agyAt, and very important - agyey. gyat is 'known' - what has been experienced and has been learnt about, agyAt is 'unknown' - one which has not yet been known, but will be known; but they admitted, there are also mysteries which are 'agyey' : the un-know-able - one which are beyond the grasp of human understanding. This is where there is a contrast between 'modern' approach to science and traditional religion.
In my opinion, Punarjanma, Karma Siddhant, Atma, Sukshma Sharir, etc. are not "beliefs as taught" by Hindu religion. These are although basic macro concepts which help understanding and conducting dialogues easily, these are by no means any preconditions or unquestioned theology of Hindu/Indic way. These may help grasp the concepts, but are no way something, which must be believed in. These are all open to experience, learning, and questioning. In fact that is the other important trait of the scientific approach, which is openness to criticism, correction, adjustment, and new learning.
We must define what we mean by 'science', before analyzing whether or not Hindu/Indic religions contrast science.
The fundamental difference between the scientific attitude and unscientific attitude is this. A scientific mind, if asked 100 questions, will provide answer for 1, if he knows it first hand, and keeps the answer further open for more learning as the new facts become available. On the contrast, an unscientific mind, will provide answers to all the 100 questions and more, even if it does not 'know' or have the experience first hand, and claim this is the final and the only answer.
Bhagwan Gautama Buddha, when asked about God, did not answer. He did not answer so many other questions related to theology and philosophy. He said, "Ask questions which are questions, which are really questions. And even so, I do not answer your questions, but teach you how to find the answers, how to become your own lamp." That is, I think, a very scientific approach to mysteries of the existence.
Seers in upanishads repeatedly talk about 'experience' which they call 'Apara Vidya' : Vision Within. And even in the end, they always add a disclaimer - 'this is not all, this is not all' and keep the learning open to new experiences. This is similar to Socrates saying, I know what I know not and what I know is incomplete.
At the same time, Indic Sages also classified all the body of knowledge in three - gyAt, agyAt, and very important - agyey. gyat is 'known' - what has been experienced and has been learnt about, agyAt is 'unknown' - one which has not yet been known, but will be known; but they admitted, there are also mysteries which are 'agyey' : the un-know-able - one which are beyond the grasp of human understanding. This is where there is a contrast between 'modern' approach to science and traditional religion.
In my opinion, Punarjanma, Karma Siddhant, Atma, Sukshma Sharir, etc. are not "beliefs as taught" by Hindu religion. These are although basic macro concepts which help understanding and conducting dialogues easily, these are by no means any preconditions or unquestioned theology of Hindu/Indic way. These may help grasp the concepts, but are no way something, which must be believed in. These are all open to experience, learning, and questioning. In fact that is the other important trait of the scientific approach, which is openness to criticism, correction, adjustment, and new learning.
We must define what we mean by 'science', before analyzing whether or not Hindu/Indic religions contrast science.