Is Science a Religion?

Re: afrasiyab

``What happens to that soul, life force or whatever you wanna call it after you die.``

If you were an agnostic, you would say `I don`t know`. If you were religious, depending on your faith, you would say it goes to heaven or hell, or is reborn based on its Karma (you reap what you sow in an unending cycle of birth and death), or that the aggregates that form this life-force also

disintegrates and is no more, or by the law of entrophy, the aggregates that form the life-force dissolve into the cosmic life-force or just as well reaggregate to form another entity.

Whatever you choose to believe is not relevant beyond a point. What is relevant, is that you have the power within you to find out for yourself. Just like any other endeavor, you can choose to do it (I climb the mountain, because it is there) or diregard it as the vast majority do.

Venki

Re: afrasiyab

``What happens to that soul, life force or whatever you wanna call it after you die.``

If you were an agnostic, you would say `I don`t know`. If you were religious, depending on your faith, you would say it goes to heaven or hell, or is reborn based on its Karma (you reap what you sow in an unending cycle of birth and death), or that the aggregates that form this life-force also

disintegrates and is no more, or by the law of entrophy, the aggregates that form the life-force dissolve into the cosmic life-force or just as well reaggregate to form another entity.

Whatever you choose to believe is not relevant beyond a point. What is relevant, is that you have the power within you to find out for yourself. Just like any other endeavor, you can choose to do it (I climb the mountain, because it is there) or diregard it as the vast majority do.

Venki

Test.

Re: afrasiyab

``What happens to that soul, life force or whatever you wanna call it after you die.``

If you were an agnostic, you would say `I don`t know`. If you were religious, depending on your faith, you would say it goes to heaven or hell, or is reborn based on its Karma (you reap what you sow in an unending cycle of birth and death), or that the aggregates that form this life-force also

disintegrates and is no more, or by the law of entrophy, the aggregates that form the life-force dissolve into the cosmic life-force or just as well reaggregate to form another entity.

Whatever you choose to believe is not relevant beyond a point. What is relevant, is that you have the power within you to find out for yourself. Just like any other endeavor, you can choose to do it (I climb the mountain, because it is there) or diregard it as the vast majority do.

Venki

Re: afrasiyab

``What happens to that soul, life force or whatever you wanna call it after you die.``

If you were an agnostic, you would say `I don`t know`. If you were religious, depending on your faith, you would say it goes to heaven or hell, or is reborn based on its Karma (you reap what you sow in an unending cycle of birth and death), or that the aggregates that form this life-force also

disintegrates and is no more, or by the law of entrophy, the aggregates that form the life-force dissolve into the cosmic life-force or just as well reaggregate to form another entity.

Whatever you choose to believe is not relevant beyond a point. What is relevant, is that you have the power within you to find out for yourself. Just like any other endeavor, you can choose to do it (I climb the mountain, because it is there) or diregard it as the vast majority do.

Venki

Re: afrasiyab

``What happens to that soul, life force or whatever you wanna call it after you die.``

If you were an agnostic, you would say `I don`t know`. If you were religious, depending on your faith, you would say it goes to heaven or hell, or is reborn based on its Karma (you reap what you sow in an unending cycle of birth and death), or that the aggregates that form this life-force also

disintegrates and is no more, or by the law of entrophy, the aggregates that form the life-force dissolve into the cosmic life-force or just as well reaggregate to form another entity.

Whatever you choose to believe is not relevant beyond a point. What is relevant, is that you have the power within you to find out for yourself. Just like any other endeavor, you can choose to do it (I climb the mountain, because it is there) or diregard it as the vast majority do.

Venki

Re: Afrasiyab

``U say that all we have are our senses, intellect and emotions. Would you be so kind as to point out which one is the result of the other.

Did we acquire senses first to end up with intellect and emotions or did we go through the intellectual path to `come to our senses` and realize that we have senses we can use.``

I`m not an evolutionary biologist, but I suppose these three faculties co-evolved. We find precedents of these faculties (the five senses, intellect, emotion) in other life forms. There is no need to assume that one was the origin of the others.

``If none of the three exist after we die then should we assume that there is a fourth thing called soul or consiousness(sp?) that came from somewhere. Where would you propose its origin to be?``

There is no need to assume a soul exists. Consciousness is an emergent property of our biology that ends when we die.

Re: Venki

I think you accidentally posted your last reply under Wasiq`s ``Rumba...`` article, but I`ll reply to it here.

``The moment the trancendent is put into words it enters this world with its dual nature of subject and object and cause and effect and hence suffers from diminution.``

Interesting point. Maybe we shouldn`t discuss mystical experiences then, since words don`t do them justice. However, I`m still not convinced that the existence of a `transcendant reality` is a valid assumption to begin with.

``But while science is concerned with the mundane and hence essentially limited, although enormously useful, the study of the trancendent and the reaching of the goal (if I may so put it) encompasses everything in the UNITY of itself including science.``

You`re assuming that there is a `goal` to be reached. I don`t agree with this assumption. Why do you believe in this assumption?

Venki:

What happens to that soul, life force or whatever you wanna call it after you die.

Kafir and SR:

Would you agree with Venki`s point made here.

If none of the three exist after we die then should we assume that there is a fourth thing called soul or consiousness(sp?) that came from somewhere. Where would you propose its origin to be?

Re: afrasiyab



``U say that all we have are our senses, intellect and emotions. Would you be

so kind as to point out which one is the result of the other.``

All three owe their existence to the soul, consciousness or life force or whatever you want to call it. When you die none of the above three exist:)

Venki

Re: afrasiyab



``U say that all we have are our senses, intellect and emotions. Would you be

so kind as to point out which one is the result of the other.``

All three owe their existence to the soul, consciousness or life force or whatever you want to call it. When you die none of the above three exist.

Venki

re: kafir
While I agree with most of what you say, I feel you are confusing my reply with Venki`s. I not saying that eastern religions, in their spirituality and mysticism, are scientific or a science. I am saying they are not necessarily at odds with science. To take an example, a lot of the doctrine of Buddhism falls under psychology and is even seen as psychotherapy. A lot of these religions deal with things which science is not dealing with. Hence there is not necessarily a conflict with sceince. I was, of course, bringing this up with regards to the article where the author seems to be having a science vs religion debate and only looking at where revealed religions are at odds with science. Some of the eastern religions in their philosophy encourage self discovery and experimentation. This does not mean that it is scientific. After the experimentation, spirituality and mysticism do NOT provide any proof of their theories. However, they are not contradicting what science is saying either. In the 70`s and 80`s a lot of Western scientists wrote books about reconciling Western science and Eastern philosophies (which come from the religion). A lot of times these scientists actually drew inspiration from eastern philosophies within eastern religions (re: Tao of Physics - Frijtoff Kapra (sp?)). On the other hand, you are more likely to run into a believer of eastern religions who will claim any and all scientific achievements as a rehash of what their `text` said long time ago. Of course this is also based on just interpretation and can not be proved. Read the book `Tao of Physics`. You will at least get a kick out of it, and will also see what I am saying.

I, especially, agree with the line ``Science is the only universal epistemology and the only plausible one for a globalized, pluralistic world.`` Simply because it goes beyond just faith, and experimentation is required to culminate in some evidence of the theory. BTW I am also sensing that the word `faith` has different connotations within eastern religions and revealed religions.
Afterall, a scientist also pursues his/her theories and experiments with as much `faith` until the theory is proven. Only after that does it stop being just a belief (ie theory) and becomes a Law.
I believe modern day science, psychology, sociology, secularism, humanistic law & order, etc. should all provide for society what different religions had provided for different societies at various times. So the debate is beyond just religion vs science. Religion needs to reconcile itself in todays pluralistic, global world in more areas than just science.

re: Sajid
I agree with pretty much everything you say. But to do that it is important to start by demystifying religion as we may know it. And you would have to separate the culture, the spirituality, the law, the politics, psychology, even the foriegn policy ;-) from religion first. That itself will be rejected by the orthodox who are interested in a text and only their own interpretation of it. They are not exactly tolerant of different interpretations of that text, and will also quote the same text to label you blasphemous. ( I think I may have just commited blasphemy by saying that ....)

regards
RanaRansher

It is silly to equate religion with science. Religion is faith. Science is rational and analytical inquiry. They do not, and need not, agree.

I am sorry guys. I realize that I should have posted these two questions together but I had not read SR`s reply until after I had replied to kafir.

SR, I was wondering if you can perhaps shed some more light on your,IMHO, a highly subjective statement that,

`If we take the fundamantal theologies of the world`s major religions we see that they are mutually contradictory`

Which religions are we talking about?

If you are talking about the big three, what are the contradictions?

What do you mean when you say `fundamental theologies`?

I am also unclear on whether you feel that organized religion in its entirety is evil or that the presence of a God is implausible?

I would just like to hear what you have to say. I know what you are refering to here but to carry on this discussion a little further I would like to make sure of your stance.

Kafir,

Let me ask you this.

U say that all we have are our senses, intellect and emotions. Would you be so kind as to point out which one is the result of the other.

Did we acquire senses first to end up with intellect and emotions or did we go through the intellectual path to `come to our senses` and realize that we have senses we can use.

It is imperative that we make the distinction here that one of the three is the origin of the other two. I hope you can give me some input as I am lost at this puzzle.

Re: Sajid:

Well said. You need have no shame saying any of it. And, damn it, be frank and tell it to your mamma too. I remember when I did (decades ago) there was a lot of hot air and smoke at first, but if you are firm in your convictions, your loved ones do come around to accept you any way.

Lots of highly intelligent people have bent over backwards justifying why religion is right, or good or necessary.

The question of religious faith being ``right`` is quite independent of whether or not it is ``useful`` as a social device.

If we take the fundamantal theologies of the world`s major religions we see that they are mutually contradictory. Thus, obviously, AT MOST, only ONE of them can be entirely true, if indeed any are true at all. Now which one is the `true` one depends on where one is born. It is therefore only based on baser emotional instincts that are developed when one is young and unable to think independently. It has little to do with truth.

I contend, that not only are the religions flawed in their cosmic views, they are also far more dangerous and harmful than they are useful. The history of humanity is replete with examples of the horrendous cost paid by our species in its infantile pursuit of, and dogged devotion to, religious faith.

The `faithful` mindset prevades all. It goes far beyond supernatural superstitions. It also penetrates the materialistic mind. The `church of reason` can be just as dogmatic as the traditional faiths` superstitions. Marx said it is the opium of the masses. I say, it is one of the biggest curses of the human condition.

...SR