From: prasanth@gn.ecn.purdue.edu (Ravi K. Prasanth)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.indian
Subject: A Reply to Kamran's Post on Scientific Religion
Keywords: Arindam, Scientific Religion
Date: 16 Aug 92 03:57:13 GMT
Organization: Purdue University Engineering Computer Network


In response to my reply to Arindam's posting on scientific
religion, Kamran Hakim writes :

> Once again, it is very true that religion is based on belief as we
> set out to observe a "religious person". As far as the observer
> can see, "belief" is the only distinguishing factor between the
> "religious person" or "any other NONreligious person". However,
> I think you have missed the point which Arindam has attempted to
> make. Namely, RELIGION CAN BE SCIENTIFIC IN ITS APPROACH. That is
> to say, one can scientifically approach religion in order to adopt
> one's belief. The question is what does a scientific approach
> imply and how can such an approach be applied to religion?
> 
> [some statements about scientific approach deleted]
>
> Once again, how does this scientific approach apply to religion?
>
> There are two modes by which one can obtain one's "religious beliefs":
> 
> [deleted]
> 
> 2- Through INDEPENDENT INVESTIGATION OF TRUTH. This is a process in
>   which one subjects one's belief to FOUR criteria:
>
>   A- Observation through the power of SENSES.
>
>   B- Intellection through the power of REASON.
>
>   C- Scriptural or traditional authority.
>
>   D- INSPIRATION.
>
>   The criteria for acceptance would be when all four factors are in
>   agreement, else, rejected. If religious belief is subjected to such
>   a criterion for judgment, then one has scientifically established
>   his belief through independent investigation as oppose to blind
>   acceptance.
>
> NOTE: I hope you realize that neither Arindam, nor myself are mixing 
>      religion and science here.


I laud Kamran for his thoughtful and logical statements regarding
scientific religion. Having said that, I will set out to clarify
my disagreement with his and Arindam's positions. 

I will assume that that which Arindam is trying to discover/
understand exists and will refer to it as "the Ultimate Truth".
My discontention is with the inclusion of scriptural AUTHORITY
in the criteria for acceptance. You (Kamran) insist that if X is  
a statement about the Ultimate Truth that is true by (say) reason
but false by scriptures, then X is false. If such a statement (a 
statement that is true by reason and false by scriptures) exists, 
then reason and scriptural authority cannot simultaneously be used
to form a consistent approach to scientific religion. I will agree
with your position (and Arindam's), if it can be shown that 

(1).  Statements about the Ultimate Truth given in the 
      scriptures are true. 
    
(2).  Reason (or other means) CANNOT arrive at statements 
      that are false by scriptures.

(Suppose that (1) is false. Then, scriptural authority cannot be
included in the criteria for acceptance. So it is necessary that
(1) be true. (2) is needed to avoid contradictions that may arise
from the existence of statements that are true by reason and false
by scriptures). That is, a scientific approach to religion is
meaningful only if (1) and (2) are true.

IMO, that scriptures are true (1) is a belief that relies solely
on the scriptures for substantiation. There is no substantiation
whatsoever for (2). So I reject your (and Arindam's) positions.
I do not consider scriptures meaningless; it is the uncondtional
belief that scriptures contain the truth without knowing the truth
that I find irrational. 

A scientist also makes many assumptions/holds beliefs. But the
nature of those beliefs and assumptions are different from those
of a religious kind. Scientific beliefs are {\em aposteriori}
in nature; whereas religious beliefs are {\em apriori}. The 
former means that at any given time, a belief is held as true,
AFTER corroborating all its consequences with observed behavior.
On the other hand, from its start, Islam has held that Mohammad
is the last prophet.

IMO, one must shift the emphasis from religion and scriptures
to answering the following question :

Q.       Is there an Ultimate Truth or Absolute ?

Leaving aside the issue of solvability, can science with its
{\em aposteriori} nature solve Q ? Arthur Eddington in his book
"Space, Time and Gravitation" defines a relative Absolute -
something that remains the same no matter what it is relative
to. Religious speculation is about the absolute Absolute. IMHO, 
the true Absolute can be understood only by a combination of 
apriori and aposteriori methods.

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

IMO, a scientific approach to religion is as meaningless as a
religious (apriori) approach to science. While science and religion
share common problems, their methodologies are unrelated. Moreover,
one cannot be used to justify the other. 

>
> RKP>If beyond all the rhetoric, Arindam truly wants to understand
> RKP>the truth, then IMO, he should start questioning. Question 
> RKP>everything, including dead/living prophets. 
> 
>
> With all due respect I think that you are judging Arindam prematurely 
> prior to understanding what he is really saying. His zeal in sharing
> his new philosophical path in life is giving you a false impression
> that he is another religious fanatic who doesn't know what he is
> talking about.
>

If that is indeed the case, I owe Arindam an apology. 

>
> I hope this clarifies some of the misunderstanding.
>
> Warm regards,
>
> Kamran Hakim

With hopes of hearing from you
RKP