From: seeta@eng.wayne.edu (Seetamraju UdayaBhaskar Sarma)
Subject: ... another BS .... (Was Re: An article by Prof. Jayaraman)
Reply-To: seeta@eng.wayne.edu
Organization: College of Engineering, Wayne State University, Detroit Michigan, USA
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 1993 00:54:16 GMT

(Sanjeev Mahajan) writes:

Subject: Re: An article by Prof. Jayaraman

-+> these must trigger in any rational,
-+>secular-minded Indian the deepest foreboding.

		rational... hmmm

-+> In fact, India's finest historians, led by Romila Thapar,
-+>Sarvepalli Gopal, Irfan Habib, R. S. Sharma, K. N.  Panikkar and Amiya
-+>Kumar Bagchi, have done the nation proud by being at the forefront of
-+>the struggle against the communal abuse of history.


	But I remember reading news on mns, that their study was not
definitely conclusive.  And that this statement was made by studying
available information (OUTSIDE the RJM-BM complex) at that time.

He makes it sound like, they resisted hinduvta irregardless of their
study's results...



-+>The world is preoccupied with protecting the
-+>ozone layer; the computer revolution continues its headlong progress;
-+>medicine and biology constantly open vast new areas of knowledge; but
-+>in India, a horde of fanatics bent on redressing a `wrong' allegedly
-+>committed some four centuries ago -- there is not a jot of
-+>scientifically entertainable evidence that any temple existed at the
-+>site where the Babri Masjid was built around 1528 -- occupy
-+>centrestage.  In a nation which boasts the greatest mass of poverty in
-+>the world and where development should preoccupy both Government and
-+>citizen, the attention of both has been successfully diverted to the
-+>bloody antics of the forces of Hindutva.

-+>{Secularism Defined}
-+>Religion, being
-+>above all a matter of personal faith, cannot be used as the basis of
-+>settling questions of the real world, or of man in society.  While
-+>individuals in society may base their values on particular religious
-+>tenets, where such questions impinge on society as a whole the basis
-+>of discussion and social consensus cannot be religion, much less one
-+>particular religion.

-+> Despite the weaknesses of actual
-+>practice, elements of this understanding of secularism have been an
-+>essential part of the accepted political values of modern Indian
-+>society, leading, for instance, to the rejection of untouchability and
-+>sati, to the formal rejection of caste, and to the institution of
-+>affirmative action as a means of redressing socio-economic
-+>inequalities.  

		Aha ! got him....  Another brown sahib reciting ...
		Can U see the absurdness of the above statment...


-+>\section{Why Science is Secular}

-+>A working definition of science is that it is a human activity
-+>concerned with the organisation of facts about the material world into
-+>universal concepts. It is an essential feature of modern science that
-+>it deals only with the material world and that all explanations and
-+>concepts refer only to the laws of the material world. It is necessary
-+>that its predictions are testable against material facts and that its
-+>conclusions are falsifiable. It is also explicitly recognised by
-+>modern science that its explanations and theories are always subject
-+>to change based on fresh facts. It recognises that the boundaries of
-+>knowledge constantly change over time.


this man clearly has not had any touch with quantum mechanics, and even modern
astronomical theories and the accompanying philosophical imports...

He lives in the time of galilio, getting sustenance to his argument from
a faulty christianity of the pre-renaissance period...



-+>The point at issue here us was made sharply by the biologist J. B. S.
-+>Haldane: ``My practice as a scientist is atheistic.  That is to say,
-+>when I set up an experiment I assume that no god, angel, or devil is
-+>going to interfere with its course\ldots" (as quoted in Halsted,
-+>1984). The statement goes to the heart of the matter....

-+> Science does not
-+>recognise any kind of faith as an explanation. The explanation for
-+>material facts has necessarily to be found in the material world
-+>itself. Where science cannot find an answer or explanation it limits
-+>itself to noting its failure, for the present moment, recognising
-+>always that an explanation will be found later.


explanations and proofs are different things...  identically religion and
science are completely different things.  Makes no sense comparing them.

Science is mostly marking Ur tracks, while travelling to an unknown
destination, guided only by what U know..  The guidance also being LOGICAL.
But that logical search has failed.  See quantum mechanics/astronomical
theory.

Religion is `to hell with the path; I can find one of my own;  What's the
goal'...

This man is blabbering..  i..e, Dr. jayaraman...




-+> Many of the landmarks
-+>of this struggle are well known: they include Galileo's battle with
-+>the Catholic Church, characterised beautifully in a Brecht play, ``The
-+>Life of Galileo"; the burning at the stake of Giordano Bruno; the
-+>attack on the laboratory and house of Joseph Priestley; and, in the
-+>more recent period, the bitter debates following the work of Darwin.


A brown sahib down to the core.  Damn sure about it.  All his arguments
apply only to europe that was sunk in the mire of what was faulty
christianity, caused by inappropriate analysis of the bible.

Will someone ask this man to learn some geography, and realize the
fact that the universe is not just europe (just as it was proved it
wasnt earth-centered)...


I end reading this article at this point...

Seetamraju Udaya Bhaskar Sarma
(email : seetam @ ece7 . eng . wayne . edu)




Newsgroups: soc.culture.indian