From: hakim@bigq.enet.dec.com (Kamran Hakim)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.indian
Subject: Re: A Reply to Kamran's Post on Scientific Religion (2/2)
Date: 18 Aug 92 12:38:14 GMT
Organization: Digital Equipment Corporation


Continuation from part 1:

RKP>IMO, one must shift the emphasis from religion and scriptures
RKP>to answering the following question :
RKP>
RKP>Q.       Is there an Ultimate Truth or Absolute ?

RKP>Leaving aside the issue of solvability, can science with its
RKP>{\em aposteriori} nature solve Q ? 

Do you mean God by the term Ultimate Truth of Absolute? What is gained 
by such an effort? In my opinion we must first understand religion and
remove superstition from reality by subjecting religion to the four 
criteria under discussion. If and only if religion proves to be sensible
then we can start asking such questions (IMHO).

RKP>Arthur Eddington in his book
RKP>"Space, Time and Gravitation" defines a relative Absolute -
RKP>something that remains the same no matter what it is relative
RKP>to. Religious speculation is about the absolute Absolute. IMHO, 
RKP>the true Absolute can be understood only by a combination of 
RKP>apriori and aposteriori methods.

Religion fulfills several tasks in human life, one of which is reference
to the Absolute (i.e. God). There are several profound reasons for the
existence of such a pivotal concept in religion which is a topic of a
separate discussion. It is rather unfair to reduce religion to the
level of "speculation" about the Absolute.

>RKP>It is an
>RKP>irony that the person who wants to establish "scientific 
> RKP>religion" claims to be of Bahai faith.

KH> Another aspect of Arindam's posting has dealt with the spiritual 
KH> aspect of human existence, suggesting: As "science" (and by science I 
KH> mean scientific approach -a methodical approach in understanding the 
KH> physical phenomena-) has assisted us to gain deeper insight into how
KH> physical laws operate, by the same token we should be able to apply  
KH> same phenomena) has assisted us to gain deeper insight into how 
KH> physical methodology and approach to religion.The benefits of such an
KH> approach is twofold: Either we learn to PROPERLY use religion as a 
KH> positive factor in human life, or we can demonstrate it total 
KH> uselessness and reject it once and for all from human affairs.

RKP>IMO, a scientific approach to religion is as meaningless as a
RKP>religious (apriori) approach to science. While science and religion
RKP>share common problems, their methodologies are unrelated. 

Religion has in the past been based on belief alone. Mainly due to
human condition. Humanity has outgrown its collective childhood
stage and has entered the age of mental maturity. This is why reason 
must play a pivotal role in religion according to the Baha'i Writings. 

The difference between science and religion is that the former is 
methodically defined by observation and reason seasoned by one's
sense of inspiration, yet, the latter is established through the
medium of revelation. So, religion and science have different origins
and proceed from different sources. However, regardless of their origins, 
Baha'is believe that observation, reason and inspiration MUST verify 
religion, else, it is rejectable as superstition. While their origins 
are unrelated, the methodology used for determination of their truth 
is the same. Please allow me to give you an example: 

Parents offer their children certain knowledge based on their personal
experiences and understanding. Children are expected to accept that 
knowledge and benefit from them. However, due to their limited under-
standing they might not be in a position to verify the truth this 
imparted knowledge. As far as they are concerned this knowledge is 
APRIORI in nature (lit. Based on theory rather than experience). Through
experience (observation, reason, inspiration) this knowledge will be 
validated or rejected as children  grow older and become mentally more
mature. In fact most of the things we attempt to teach our children
are APRIORI in nature and are validated in time by experience, thus
become APOSTERIORI. The same thing is true about religious knowledge.
It is conveyed by a Christ figure who claims to a higher knowledge.
People learn and benefit from this knowledge, and this knowledge must
of necessity prove its viability by the virtue of experience, thus the
saying, "Ye shall know a tree by its fruits." [Christ]. Abdu'l-Baha
describes the nature of this phenomenon as follows:

"Know that perception varies. The lowest degree of perception is that of 
animals -that is to say, the natural feeling which appear through the 
powers of the senses, and which is called sensation. In this, men and 
animals are sharers; moreover, some animals with regard to the senses 
are more powerful than man. But in humanity, perception differs and 
varies in accordance with the different conditions of man.

The first condition of perception in the world of nature is the perception 
of the rational soul [i.e. the human mind]. In this perception and in this 
power all [i.e. human beings] are sharers, whether they be neglectful or 
vigilant, believers or deniers. This human rational soul is God's creation: 
it encompasses and excels other creatures [i.e. other than man like plants 
and animals]; as it is more noble and distinguished, it encompasses things. 
The power of the rational soul can discover the realities of things, 
comprehends the peculiarities of beings, and penetrate the mysteries of 
existence. All sciences, knowledge, arts, wonders, institutions, discoveries 
and enterprises come from the exercised intelligence of the rational soul. 
There was a time when they were unknown, preserved mysteries and hidden 
secrets; the rational soul gradually discovered them and brought them out 
of the plane of the invisible and the hidden into the realm of the visible. 
This is the greatest power of perception in the world of nature, which in 
its highest flight and soaring comprehends the realities, the properties 
and effects of the contingent beings. 

But the universal divine mind which is beyond nature, is the bounty of the
Preexistent Power. This universal mind...embraces existing realities, and 
it receives the light of the mysteries of God. It is a conscious power, 
not a power of investigation and of research. The intellectual power of 
the world is the power of investigation, and by its research it discovers 
the realities of beings, and the properties of existences; but the heavenly 
intellectual power, which is beyond nature, embraces things and is cognizant 
of things, knows them, understands them, is aware of mysteries, realities 
and divine significations, and is the discoverer of the concealed verities 
of the Kingdom. This divine intellectual power is the special attribute of 
the Holy Manifestations and the Dawning-places of prophethood; a ray of 
this light falls upon the mirrors of the hearts of the righteous [i.e. 
among human beings], and a portion and a share of this power comes to them 
through the Holy Manifestations. 

The Holy Manifestations have three conditions: one, the physical condition; 
one that of rational soul; and one that of the manifestation of perfection 
and of the lordly splendor."	[Some Answered Questions, Abdu'l-Baha]

I hope this example clarifies the point I am attempting to convey here.

RKP>Moreover,
RKP>one cannot be used to justify the other. 

Science and religion have been portrayed in the Baha'i Writings as follows:

"Religion and science are the two wings upon which man's intelligence can 
soar into the heights, with which the human soul can progress... Should a 
man try to fly with the wing of religion alone he would quickly fall into 
the quagmire of superstition... with the wing of science alone, he would 
also make no progress, but fall into the despairing slough of materialism." 

					Abdu'l-Baha, Paris Talks p 143

While the two wings of a bird must flap in unison in order for the bird 
to fly, neither of the wings can change their scope of operation and flap 
outside of their domain. That will make flight impossible.

Furthermore, science and religion are not used to JUSTIFY each other.
The idea is advanced that as one can methodically apply observation (i.e
sensible information), reasoning and in some cases inspiration to
understand the physical universe and formulate its behavior, it must
also be possible to apply the same criteria to religion. If it is
sensible, reasonable and induces a positive feeling in the individual
then it must be accepted, else it must be rejected as superstition.
In this situation science is not used to justify religion, rather
the same methodical and rigorous approach used in science is applied
to religion to determine its validity.

RKP>With hopes of hearing from you

Likewise. Please accept my apologies for the length of this reply.

						Part 2 of 2
Warm regards,

Kamran Hakim
Newsgroups: soc.culture.indian