A couple of years ago, I was invited to a panel discussion at Columbia University on science and religion. Not having a background in science, I was a bit uncomfortable with participating, but the group organizing the event really wanted an Eastern/Hindu perspective on how science fits into the Hindu philosophy and tradition. Hesitatingly, I agreed.
Right before the event began, I approached the professor on the panel to say hello. We had met once before, and as I stretched out my hand for a shake I noticed a hesitation on his part in return. Frankly, he didn't look very happy to see me, but I didn't make much of it. During the dialogue and discussion, I noticed he was very aggressive and took every opportunity to belittle all the aspects of spirituality and yoga, of which he had little or no knowledge about in the first place. I realized at that moment that there was a new breed of fanatics on the rise and this breed had nothing to do with religion.
I realized from this discussion that there is a more mature way to approach this dialogue, and in course of doing research for this dialogue, I discovered a wonderful synthesis between my faith and the cutting edge of science. It helped me to understand that science and spirituality aren't mutually exclusive. I also saw how much faith we place in the field of science and its theories.
Some would comment that faith is only necessary when it comes to matters of religion and that science is based on empirical evidence. Although this sounds nice, it's not 100 percent accurate. For example, we all believe in the existence of the atom. But how many people on the planet have actually seen an atom with their own eyes? I'm not in any way denying the existence of the atom. Nor do I dis-believe the people who have measured its existence. The point made here is that we are placing faith in those who have done the experiment and we are accepting their results. The masses are placing faith in the few who have done the experiment.
Another item we place implicit faith in is the "Big Bang Theory," which tells us that the universe began 15-20 billion years ago from a single point. Who can prove to us the reality of a phenomena that took place tens of billions of years ago? There's no instant replay when we're dealing with life and time. We can't be shown what happened that far in the past. There may be some evidence and reason to believe that this is how it happened, but at the end of the day we can't know for sure and that's where faith comes in.
This video clip from the famous astronomer/cosmoslogist Carl Sagan reflects a similar line of thought.
In a recent article, in the U.S. News and World Report, physicist Roger Penrose theorized that the Big Bang might be one in a cycle of such events, suggesting that the universe has had multiple existences. This is common knowledge to one familiar with Vedic philosophy and cosmology, which very clearly indicates that the universe has had many births and deaths.
The centuries-old wisdom of the Vedic texts doesn't stop there. They claim that our universe is just one of many universes, a concept entertained by modern science and referred to as "the multiverse theory." The description given is that our universe is one mustard seed in a bag full of a practically uncountable number of mustard seeds. This concept is toyed with in famous Hollywood movies such as "Contact" and "Men In Black."
In the West, Einstein is credited with the Theory of Relativity. However, one might be quite surprised to learn that there are multiple examples of it in the Puranic texts of India. Einstein's hypothetical experiment known as the "twin paradox" suggests that if one of a pair of twins travels to outer space at high speed, while the other remains on earth, when the space traveling twin returns, he will be younger than his counterpart on earth. The following passages from the Bhagavat Purana communicates the relativity of time:
"... One's life endures for only one hundred years, in terms of the times in the different planets... Eternal time is certainly the controller of different dimensions, from that of the atom up to the super-divisions of the duration of Brahmā's life; but, nevertheless, it is controlled by the Supreme. Time can control only those who are body conscious, even up to the Satyaloka or the other higher planets of the universe."
There is a wonderful synergy between science and spirituality within the Vedic tradition, and I don't believe there is a real border dividing them. It's all just wisdom and knowledge, which is what the term Veda means. These are all truths that are meant to inform us of the world and universe we inhabit so that we can understand our place in it. These truths help us to ultimately transcend the realm of matter, shed the material body we inhabit and endeavor to re-enter the spiritual realm.
Follow Gadadhara Pandit Dasa on Twitter: www.twitter.com/nycpandit
Hinduism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Science and Spirituality A Hindu Perspective
Makar Sankranti: A Hindu Celebration of Science and Spirituality
Postmodernism, Hindu nationalism and `Vedic science': MEERA ...
(source: Hinduism Today April/May/June 2007 p. 14).”
The Magi or wise men (scientist), from the new testament, were one of the first to find out about the birth of Jesus, by the knowledge of the stars. They followed a bright star, which lead them to where Jesus was born. They knew to bring gifts and to worship the "king of kings" when they saw him. If scientist today were to have the same ambition, not doubting that God exsist, I believe they would find God again. The one true God, not the fallen angels, who claimed to be gods.
They weren't worshiping anything, nor were they in search of a God. If one truly examines the path of Christianity one would find that the story matches more with the "fallen angels who claimed to be god", rather than god. The true divine isn't that particular about what name his/her devotees apply or what ritual they choose. Anyone who doesn't get that, doesn't get god.
http://www.worldwisdom.com/uploads/pdfs/237.pdf
please.
the expansion of the universe was first measured only in the 1930s. and the inference from that and from the elemental abundances and the microwave background, followed over the ensuing few decades. I don't recall the Vedic texts being advanced as arguments against the single big bang back then. Only when someone comes up with a scientific hypothesis (please don't use the word "theory" for the multiverse idea - it doesn't have the evidential backing yet) do we get the "oh we have known this for centuries" line. How did you know it? where did you get the microwave antennae, spectrographs etc.? I'm sorry but if we're supposed to be slapping our foreheads and saying "oh if only we had asked the Hindu elders what the Universe was like we could have saved ourselves from having to go and find out", we're not.
we're talking past each other I think. I'll get my coat.
That does not mean that I can't apply that same reasoning to my religion. The faith and teaching of Buddha and Jesus - that we must change ourselves, and let that change radiate out from us in order to change the world - is both counter-intuitive and perhaps the only way that real change can happen.
"Who can prove to us the reality of a phenomena that took place tens of billions of years ago? There's no instant replay when we're dealing with life and time."
Firstly, you do realize that 'phenomena' is the plural form of phenomenon, do you not? Your skills as a journalist reflect your abysmal understanding of modern scientific theory.
Secondly, is this really your argument? That because we have no instant replay we can't prove what happened? The criminal justice department should altogether resign, then. If we can garner enough evidence from the aftermath of a phenomenon we can generally piece together what happened - we are limited only by the amount of evidence we can gather & its cumulative detail. The entire night sky is screaming the story of its formation into our faces, as you mess about in your yoga class.
You want a replay? Look up into the sky with an open mind.
Finally, what a miserable load of apologetic, disingenuous hogwash - as the vast majority of religious articles on HP are.
Your response seems to be rather extreme, based on the article above. What argument was there exactly that wasn't explored on both sides? That faith is present in many aspects of life, and that scientific thought flows harmoniously in the realm of religious texts as well?
He seems to understand modern scientific theory just fine.
Perhaps you need to take a deep cleansing breath and chill out a tad.
He also suggests that we must have faith in those who conduct experiments to accept the results of said experiments, which is missing the point of the scientific method entirely. The results are published, as are the methods to obtain such results in repeated experiments. The experience is shared, the data peer-reviewed. That it is necessary to have faith in the original experimenters to accept the results is to say it is necessary to have faith in the original author of a song in order to enjoy playing it yourself.
As for being chill, this is something I'm passionate about & this journalist has no idea what he is doing. Perhaps you too should take a deep breath.
Sincerely,
tolerant
It all depends on how one analyzes a text. So while these claims are interesting, it is better not to worship a text, but worship regardless of what a text says.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=983112177262602885
The video is pertinent to this thread, because it addresses both how and why the dharmic traditions and science have mutually complimentary approaches and information to offer one another, outlined by someone who understands both disciplines, based on many years of personal and professional experience.
http://www.spaceandmotion.com/
"In India science and religion are not opposed fundamentally, as they often seem to be in the West."
http://www.hinduwisdom.info/Hindu_Cosmology.htm
(continued from my 9.09AM response of yesterday)
Consider the quote:
``Whatever the differences of opinion about the nature of God, I know of no religion that does not teach that God is a mind`` ….. ….. God and the new Physics …. By Paul Davies
Isn’t that a profound statement? Who can refute it? Which religion will not accept it?
And it doesn’t contradict any part of `y`.
For those who have not yet read Erwin Schrodinger`s ``What is life and Mind and Matter``, I recommend they should read it. Perhaps It could change their life.
Consider Schrodinger’s concept pertaining to the unification of minds or consciousnesses. ``Their multiplicity is only apparent, in truth there is only one mind. Its just that consciousness is always in the singular``. Consider his appreciation of the doctrine of the Upanishads and the equation ``Atman = Brahman`` signifying that the personal self equals the omnipresent, all comprehending eternal self. Is it not the grandest of all thoughts?
Does not this omnipresence of the mind (called God) prove God and immortality at one stroke.?
All this may appear to be too farfetched to comprehend? But ... consider that our body contains trillions and trillions of cells, each one of which is a unit life in itself; its awareness is in the singular, but we in our consciousness – albeit in the singular - are possessed with the sum total of the awareness of all the cells.
(to be continued)
And it does not contradict any part of `y`.
On the other hand a miracle performing physical God is impossible to imagine without violating `y`.
At first ,at the classical level how do we define a `Miracle`?
In my understanding If Newton`s laws are violated, we can say a miracle has been performed.
But has anyone seen Newton`s laws getting violated so far?
I guess not. He would have rushed to get a patent for his discovery, and there are no such pending patents of this category for consideration.
By all means we must follow the teachings of our great religious leaders including Christ. But there should be no requirement to believe that he rose from the dead, or walked on water.
It is impossible for the Creator God to be a physical function, made up of atoms and molecules, occupying time and space, sitting somewhere – say in the Andromeda galaxy - and creating living creatures, giving them a free will, keeping a comprehensive track of their deeds and then rewarding and punishing them accordingly. All this would be impossible without violating the laws of science created by the same creator ie Newton`s laws of motion (classical level) and Einstein`s special relativity and many other laws. Hence not compatible with `y`.
(to be
Newtons laws are found to be in error in a relativistic system.
Newton's Laws of Motion while not really proved wrong, were shown to be not quite right either. For example in relativity or on the very small scale they don't hold.
Newton's laws are inappropriate for use at very high speeds.
It is not necessarily that we are breaking the laws of physics in these instances, it is more attributed to human error in understanding the laws of physics.
Further, there are unexplained phenomena that appears to break Newtons Laws of physics. One instance is in smashing subatomic particles where an extra quanta of energy as yet unexplained is released. Another is Quantum Entanglement as the property of two particles with a common origin where a measurement on one of the particles determines not only its quantum state but the quantum state of the other particle. There are other examples but these two will suffice for your question.
But what does this mean in regards to your statements or I should say Paul Davies statements (either way). Newton's Laws apply to the physical world, and sometimes they don't. But certainly they do not apply to the spiritual world or our concious. Do miracles happen, depends on your definition of miracle.
This immediately raises the issue of khyati (epistemology). How can one be certain about non-material things like Brahman, Atman? Is meditation enough? Hindus who are atheists differ from other Hindus on the question of epistemology. They believe that only way to know is pratakhsya (direct perception). Since Brahman, Atman etc are not observed through direct perception, they do not exist in the view of Hindu atheists.
Even Hindus who are not atheists agree that one should not blindly believe in scripture or any thing for that matter. I have given below some quotes regarding this view:
Sri Vacaspati Misra, another Advaita Vedanta philosopher, says, "Even one thousand scriptural statements cannot transform a jar into a piece of cloth".
(Vedas). Pratakshya is sensory perception. Every minute of our waking life we
gather data through this means. Anumana allows us to deduce from indirect
evidence. Sabda Pramana is simply the Yogic experience obtained through
spiritual practice. Vedas are simply the most ancient spiritual experiential
data that is available to us.