What is wrong with science?

Originally posted by Dasa
No no no.....it should be like this

If science is harmonious with truth then it is correct.

If science conflicts with truth then it is false.

Is that simple?

The problem you are facing is that they do not understand that truth cannot be found between two polarities, they are not thinking in those terms, they are content with plausibilities, indeed, you can see this manifest in many ways, from moral relativism to ideas about the emergence and diversification of life. You are trying to describe what white light is to a person who has been blind from birth. Materialism is an insidious and corruptive force, you find it in all sorts of unusual and unexpected places.

Originally posted by finnegan
There are lots of versions of "religion" and also lots of versions of "Science."

In Science, for example, there was indeed a tradition that nothing was worth discussion that was not observable and reducible in principle to the laws of pysics. Against that tradition, others argue that there is no topic outside the scope of scientific invesigation, provid ...[text shortened]... and be more explicit about which versions of both "science" and "religion" it refers to.

I don't see a lot of difference between different “versions” of Science other than rather academic differences as they all use scientific method (and any "science" that is correctly said to not to is, by definition, not a “science”! ) and are in general agreement of what are and what is not the scientific facts to date.

Originally posted by finnegan
There are lots of versions of "religion" and also lots of versions of "Science."

In Science, for example, there was indeed a tradition that nothing was worth discussion that was not observable and reducible in principle to the laws of pysics. Against that tradition, others argue that there is no topic outside the scope of scientific invesigation, provid ...[text shortened]... and be more explicit about which versions of both "science" and "religion" it refers to.

Hullo....

Firstly and most importantly, there can be no debate, contest, argument, discussion.....without both sides thoroughly being committed to truthfulness.

Truthfulness must be upheld, to be able to define terms of any nature.

Some points to consider for truthfulness to exist.

1. Do not be biased.

2. Do not make uninformed comments..

3. Do not reject the authority (proven authority)

4. Do not exaggerate.

4. Do not embrace non discloser.

5. Do not manipulate.

6. Do not complicate the simple.

7. Do not reject for the lack of personal awareness.

8. Do not embrace double standards.

9. Do not refuse to intently listen.

10. Do not mis-represent.

11. Do not reject for lack of understanding.

12. Do not reject for lack of personal perception.

13. Do not be untruthful.

14. Do not fabricate.

15, Do not hide evidence.

16. Do not guess.

17. Do not pretend.

And so on.....and if persons can honour the above, then truth be determined for the good of all.

Originally posted by Dasa
Hullo....

Firstly and most importantly, there can be no debate, contest, argument, discussion.....without both sides thoroughly being committed to truthfulness.

Truthfulness must be upheld, to be able to define terms of any nature.

Some points to consider for truthfulness to exist.

1. Do not be biased.

2. Do not make uninformed comments..

3. ...[text shortened]... nd so on.....and if persons can honour the above, then truth be determined for the good of all.

1. Do not be biased.
You no doubt feel that your insistence on the 100% truthfulness of your favourite holy book contains no bias - and many people have tried to show you the error in your thinking here.

Let me ask you a question though (and it is relevant). Supposing I say "I don't believe your holy book is authoritative or true", how do you convince me that it is? without just repeating it is true?? (where I would have no choice but to say that I still don't believe you!)

Originally posted by Dasa
Hullo....

Firstly and most importantly, there can be no debate, contest, argument, discussion.....without both sides thoroughly being committed to truthfulness.

Truthfulness must be upheld, to be able to define terms of any nature.

Some points to consider for truthfulness to exist.

1. Do not be biased.

2. Do not make uninformed comments..

3. ...[text shortened]... nd so on.....and if persons can honour the above, then truth be determined for the good of all.

You have repeatedly broken most of those 1 to 17 rules yourself. So please don’t lecture us.

Originally posted by Agerg
[b]1. Do not be biased.
You no doubt feel that your insistence on the 100% truthfulness of your favourite holy book contains no bias - and many people have tried to show you the error in your thinking here.

Let me ask you a question though (and it is relevant). Supposing I say "I don't believe your holy book is authoritative or true", how do yo ...[text shortened]... ating it is true?? (where I would have no choice but to say that I still don't believe you!)[/b]

Its common knowledge that you cannot convince any man against is will.

But let me answer your question with a question....

You come into the spirituality forum and you are an atheist and you make an enquiry....and then I answer the enquiry from the authority of Vedanta, and you say I dont accept the answer....Why?

You reject the authority of Vedanta for what reason....let me help you with this and put up some reasons.

Reason 1. You reject because you have studied Vedanta for many many years and have put into practice all of its principles that purify the entire person....his body, mind intelligence and heart....and with this higher understanding you have realized that Vedanta is not the authority because you did not get any spiritual realization.

Or you have this reason.

Reason 2. I dont actually care for God or anything spiritual, and so I just reject whimsically anything that is put before me of a spiritual nature and I dont even know why I reject but I am not actually interested.

So the answer to your question is in my comment.....can you find it?

Originally posted by Andrew Hamilton
You have repeatedly broken most of those 1 to 17 rules yourself. So please don’t lecture us.

Your comment is of the automatic type.............did you just hit the Play button of your pre-taped voice recorder when you noticed that Dasa had said something.

Originally posted by Dasa
Its common knowledge that you cannot convince any man against is will.

But let me answer your question with a question....

You come into the spirituality forum and you are an atheist and you make an enquiry....and then I answer the enquiry from the authority of Vedanta, and you say I dont accept the answer....Why?

You reject the authority of Vedanta fo ...[text shortened]... not actually interested.

So the answer to your question is in my comment.....can you find it?

You forget reason 3:

I have only a finite amount of time to exist on this planet, and given I'll spend 1/3 of this time asleep (on average), another 1/3 of this time working (or presently studying); then even if we assume I devote the rest of this time (neglecting all other activities) to reading holy books I would not have enough time to read all holy books purported to be 100% true by adherents of a number of different religions. I therefore, without any means to differentiate between any of them (and so prioritise my reading), assume they all have the same degree of integrity - neglible! (in lieu of some convincing argument to the contrary by some theist or collection of theists of course.)

Originally posted by Agerg
You forget reason 3:

I have only a finite amount of time to exist on this planet, and given I'll spend 1/3 of this time asleep (on average), another 1/3 of this time working (or presently studying); then even if we assume I devote the rest of this time (neglecting all other activities) to reading holy books I would not have enough time to read all holy b ...[text shortened]... ome convincing argument to the contrary by some theist or collection of theists of course.)

Your response is typically contrived to evade the question....but evasion means that you are subscribing to the second reason, which has then answered your first question.

Simply put you are saying....I have no time to enquire about the purpose of my existence for I am too busy living in ignorance of my true purpose.

It is a self defeating loop that only you can break.

Originally posted by Dasa
Your response is typically contrived to evade the question....but evasion means that you are subscribing to the second reason, which has then answered your first question.

Simply put you are saying....I have no time to enquire about the purpose of my existence for I am too busy living in ignorance of my true purpose.

It is a self defeating loop that only you can break.

I didn't evade your question; I merely disagreed with your suppositon that there are only two reasons for failing to see your Vedanta as being wholly true. To this end I supplied my own reason.

Tell me, have you read every holy book that has ever been written and claimed to be true by some group of people!? If not why not??? 😕

Originally posted by Agerg
I didn't evade your question; I merely disagreed with your suppositon that there are only two reasons for failing to see your Vedanta as being wholly true. To this end I supplied my own reason.

Tell me, have you read every holy book that has ever been written and claimed to be true by some group of people!? If not why not??? 😕

Do you think I just popped out of the womb and immediately accepted Vedanta?

I have certainly practised what I preach and have studied all of the relevant religions of the world, before understanding that Vedanta is the original and authentic of them all without error, and I have even lived some of those religions to get the true feel.

Sometimes you can understand if a religion is bogus very quickly if it presents error early on in it writings.

Originally posted by Dasa
Do you think I just popped out of the womb and immediately accepted Vedanta?

I have certainly practised what I preach and have studied all of the relevant religions of the world, before understanding that Vedanta is the original and authentic of them all without error, and I have even lived some of those religions to get the true feel.

Sometimes you can understand if a religion is bogus very quickly if it presents error early on in it writings.

But in response to that I have to say that much of what you present to us from the teachings of your holy book are, by inspection, erroneous or ill-substantiated. Indeed I remember a while back we had a lengthy discussion about some part of your Vedanta which made a claim that, by some trivial numerical calculation on my part, was demonstrated false. I forget precisely when and where this took place though. Some thread about aliens if I recall


As for "relevant" religions, what about the seemingly irrelevant ones? What if the majority of people have unfairly overlooked some obscure book of truth that is more true than any other?

Originally posted by Agerg
But in response to that I have to say that much of what you present to us from the teachings of your holy book are, by inspection, erroneous or ill-substantiated. Indeed I remember a while back we had a lengthy discussion about some part of your Vedanta which made a claim that, by some trivial numerical calculation on my part, was demonstrated false. I forget ...[text shortened]... f people have unfairly overlooked some obscure book of truth that is more true than any other?

When you have the original and the eternal teaching.......there cannot be another eternal original teaching, but there can be many more substitute teachings which are immediately rejected.

What I just said is very important because there is not one religious teaching in the world that can make claim to being eternal.

Vedanta is eternal and there was never a time when it did not exist.

But if you go back 10000 years there was no Christianity and no Islam and no Buddhism and no Judaism, and these are what is called substitute for they are attempting to replace the true authentic teachings of Vedanta.

Substitute religion is created to cater to the whimsical materialistic desires of insincere persons.

Originally posted by Dasa
When you have the original and the eternal teaching.......there cannot be another eternal original teaching, but there can be many more substitute teachings which are immediately rejected.

What I just said is very important because there is not one religious teaching in the world that can make claim to being eternal.

Vedanta is eternal and there was never ...[text shortened]... titute religion is created to cater to the whimsical materialistic desires of insincere persons.

What remains then is the surely trivial task, on your part, of substantiating that "Vedanta is eternal and there was never a time when it did not exist" is correct. Accomplish this and I will surely give your book the attention you feel it is due. Until such point it stands no taller than any other holy book vying for my attention.

Originally posted by Agerg
What remains then is the surely trivial task, on your part, of substantiating that "Vedanta is eternal and there was never a time when it did not exist" is correct. Accomplish this and I will surely give your book the attention you feel it is due. Until such point it stands no taller than any other holy book vying for my attention.

Just like I could not give you understanding of God even if you gave me one trillion dollars.....I could not give you understanding of the eternal nature of Vedanta, for to realize this yourself you must involve yourself with Vedanta for some time and practice the principles of purification to qualify yourself for the understanding to develop.

If a person has a truthful heart they can understand the eternal nature of Vedanta just from Vedanta itself for it describes this eternality itself.

When a person practices the principles of devotional service to the Lord, they develop spiritual insight which is like a sixth sense and gives them a higher capacity to perceive and understand spiritual knowledge which is generally beyond mundane understanding.

Just like you could not understand sheet music unless you involve yourself with the study of music for much time.

Vedanta is certainly the original eternal teaching for understanding your life and God.....but only genuine sincerity will have you do what is necessary (live and practice spirituality) to develop this insight required to know without doubt.

Any person can reject anything and everything, its not hard to do....but it is very difficult to become an informed person because it requires personal time and effort.