PDA

View Full Version : Science and Religion in the Modern World



saidevo
07 August 2006, 06:37 AM
Science and Religion are both after the Truth. That is, pure science and pure religion.

Religion, specially the Vendanta philosophy of Hinduism has proclaimed eons ago (and at least 7,000 years ago in the researched history of mankind), that the Truth is Brahman or Tat. This Brahman or Tat is both energy and intelligence that manifests as the universe and all its contents.

Modern science is already on the way towards a unified theory of everything, and only needs to account for how intelligence fits into this theory.

So, pure science and pure religion are both good and necessary for mankind's evolution towards the Truth.

Pure science, since it is after the Truth, cannot bother about the repercussions of its revelations. Pure religion, in its essence, is also not bothered about the acceptance or otherwise of the Truth it proclaims. While pure science chooses a materialistic path to the Truth, pure religion chooses a spiritual path.

Then why is the clash and strife between religion and science? Actually, the clash and strife is not between pure science and pure religion, but between applied science and applied religion. To be precise, while this clash and strife is rampant in the case of Semitic religions, it is far less marked in the case of Indian religions, which from their origins have fostered the growth of science.

For example, the four Upa-Vedas of Hinduism fostered the earliest versions of science and art known to mankind: Ayurveda, which is one of the current international buzzwords, is the science of health. Dhanur veda is the science of weapons and the military. Artha Shastra is political science. And Gandharva veda is the science of music. Thus science has been a way of life and, along with the six darshanas (philosopies) of Hinduism, an accepted path to the Truth in the Indian culture, which is why the name Sanatana Dharma (dharma that is universal), that unfortunately carries the misnomer Hinduism as its name today.

So the clash is between the applied sciences and applied religions and among the applied religions themselves. Both of them are bad, to a lesser or a greater extent, and delay the spiritual progress of mankind.

Technology, as the face of applied science, breeds desire in common man and greed in the powerful, and in both cases, blunts spirituality in man. As Buddha said, desire is the cause of all miseries in the world. Since science is after all for the welfare of mankind, why don't the countries pool their technological resources and strive to establish a hunger-free and disease-free mankind in all parts of the world, irrespective of creed and color, which are supposedly the bane of applied religions? It is not happening because of the greed (for wealth and power) of the key players--nations, politicians, corporate houses and people who matter.

Dogma and rituals, as the face of applied religions, divide mankind even more than the applied sciences. They pamper the ego of their followers: my god and my path are better than yours, or worse, my god needs me to convert you to my path or kill you.

When the followers of applied religions unite with mutual understanding, tolerance and help, then will be the time when technology will be cleansed of its ill-effects. But this is not going to happen in the foreseeable future, so the drama of strife goes on, on the stage of this holy earth.

The Occult
29 September 2011, 02:24 PM
There is less friction between science and Sanathana Dharma, in fact there is no need of any friction only but there are people who create friction unnecessarily.
These are a whole group of people who have this inferiority complex and think whatever westerners say are the truth.That's why they attack the religion without even knowing what it actually has to say.Even in science,they undervalue Ayurveda and consider it a pseudoscience.Whenever a foreigner says its good,they follow it.For example, Yoga.

Anyone who is following religion should do a research on whether his beliefs has any basis and anyone who calls themselves a scientist or consider themselves as someone who follows scientific path should do it genuinely and not do it just because "it sounds realistic".There are a lot of stuff in science that are even crazier than religion,but the moment they talk about it,they jump of the pedal simply because its not realistic.What's realistic?.....reality is such a complex term and not just a set of rigid and fixed set of rules

In any case, if you call yourself a free thinker, your mind should be free to think what you honestly believe, having reasons and justifications in your own way and it should be simply because religion says so and it should not be simply because science says so, it should not be simply because it sounds rational or realistic,it should be because of something that make you feel good enough to be justifiable,make an strong assertion of it and honestly believe in it