Comments on: Scientists on Science and Religion

By: Vikram Ramsoondur

Vikram Ramsoondur — Wed, 04 Aug 2010 12:17:31 +0000

I agree, and I’m aware of at least one specific instance in which a dedicated practitioner of Chaitanya Vaishnavism ended up leaving the sect precisely because he could not experientially measure the progress he had made in his several years of devoted engagement in it. Another argument put forward at the time by the individual in question was that the ideal of Krsna Consciousness had basically ceased to signify anything meaningful to him, thus, regardless of how compelling the philosophy may still have seemed from an epistemic perspective, it just made no sense for him to continue being involved in a system the rewards of which no longer appeared alluring. That was of course a personal example, and there are no doubt many persons whose inner evolutions have followed diametrically divergent slants from the one above; the main point nonetheless remains that emotionally, mentally tangible feedback on some of the promises held by this peculiar school of thought, or any other in fact, is an eminently ‘scientific’ way of gauging how far one has reached in the practical application of one’s metaphysic of choice.

Certainly, not all professionals in the field of Psychology or its sister subjects will concur with this, but insofar as one’s capacity to evaluate the worth of carrying on along a given route goes, the fundamental idea articulated in this post does hold some water, in my analysis at any rate.

By: Ram

Ram — Tue, 03 Aug 2010 15:34:32 +0000

This view, which I know so well from my parents, associates the two realms with the objective and subjective aspects of the world respectively. Science is, so to speak, the manner in which we confront, in which we argue about, the objective side of reality.

I totally disagree with the fact that science speaks about an objective reality but rather it is about a subjective reality for it speaks on the basis of assumptions and thesis of those who are proponents of that school of thought equipped with limited sensory faculties.
Religion talks about the objective reality as it talks about the reality which is universal and about the absolute truth. Also that we are not faced with subjective reality or changing realities as it is in Modern Science.
Lastly Chemistry, Biology and Physics are just small branches to Philosophy which cannot replace its real mother (where science of the self has more to reveal to the much bigger equation of life).

By: Kula-pavana

Kula-pavana — Tue, 03 Aug 2010 14:50:51 +0000

For me personally the ‘science’ in the context of religion boils down to a very simple: “Does it work?”.
If a religion merely promises salvation after death, it is totally unscientific because it is totally unverifiable. Not only that, but such a religion is very likely simply a con game, a racket, a swindle. A religion must deliver as promised in order to be considered ‘scientific’. Deliver still in this lifetime.
The proces of bhakti-yoga is scientific, because it delivers bhakti still in this lifetime.

By: Gaura-Vijaya

Gaura-Vijaya — Tue, 03 Aug 2010 04:57:39 +0000

I like the insights of Heisenberg and the points he makes in the article, especially his discomfort with the idea that religion can be confined to just the moral realm and science can do the rest. Certainly, it would be good to engage thoughtful people in the scientific community who think like him. I especially like the following excerpt: Wolfgang shared my concern. “It’s all bound to end in tears,” he said. “At the dawn of religion, all the knowledge of a particular community fitted into a spiritual framework, based largely on religious values and ideas. The spiritual framework itself had to be within the grasp of the simplest member of the community, even if its parables and images conveyed no more than the vaguest hint as to their underlying values and ideas. But if he himself is to live by these values, the average man has to be convinced that the spiritual framework embraces the entire wisdom of his society. For ‘believing’ does not to him mean ‘taking for granted,’ but rather ‘trusting in the guidance’ of accepted values. That is why society is in such danger whenever fresh knowledge threatens to explode the old spiritual forms. The complete separation of knowledge and faith can at best be an emergency measure, afford some temporary relief. In western culture, for instance, we may well reach the point in the not too distant future where the parables and images of the old religions will have lost their persuasive force even for the average person; when that happens, I am afraid that all the old ethics will collapse like a house of cards and that unimaginable horrors will be perpetrated