From: prayaga@pax.usc.edu (Prayaga S. Ram)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.indian
Subject: Re: Do we need a religion?
Date: 19 Dec 1992 11:41:05 -0800
Organization: University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: pax.usc.edu


In article <1gtcvvINN5s0@phakt.usc.edu>, fafat@phakt.usc.edu (Vijay Fafat) writes:
|> Worma writes:
|> >	There is no such thing as reality according to science. 
|>                                  ^^^^^^^^^
|> 	You refer to objective, classical reality. 
|> 
|> >	Because reality is immutable and science is incapable of going behind 
|> >	the mutable. 
|> 
|> 	Don't throw around vague statements like this. First, *define*
|> 	your reality. Second, tell me *why* you assert so positively that
|> 	it's immutable.
|> 
|> 
|> >	The proofs of science are based on 'virtual reality', i.e., 
|> >	the reality which exist within the context of seeker's sense
|> >	instruments. 
|> 
|> 	you might be amused to know that Science does talk about a virtual
|> 	reality. However, that's not the one you're talking about. You're
|> 	talking about "operationally defined" reality and recent experiments
|> 	indicate that it's the only kind of reality.
|> 	
|> 
|> >	For example, for a 'color blind' person, there is 
|> >	no color and for a blind person there is no shape. 
|> 
|> 	The second example is wrong. He can feel. And the first one is specious
|> 	since you're assuming that there is a concept like "colour" which
|> 	can be defined by atleast one person (who's not blind). But if everyone
|> 	was blind, the concept would lose meaning and cannot be said to "exist"
|> 
|> 
|> >	a blind person. I use science to seek 'virtual reality'. For 
|> >	seeking 'real truth', I use religion.
|>                 ^^^^^^^^^^^
|> 
|> 	Define.  And on what basis do you say that Religion achieves whatever 
|> 	you claim it achieves? I can very well say whatever *I* say is the
|> 	real truth. Prove me wrong.
|> 
|> 
|> >	In other words, a blind person can never realize shape just based
|> >	on scientific proofs, whereas, a blind person can realize shape
|> >	based on religion. Yoga is such a religious technology.
|> 
|> 	bulldung. I can just turn around your statement and say religion is
|> 	bunkum. You give no proof, I give no proof.
|> 
|> 
|> >	Personally, I insist on 'realizable truth'. 'Proof' depends on belief.
|>                                                     ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
|> 	Like your belief that velocities should add and sun should go
|> 	around the earth. No, "proof" does'nt depend on plain belief. There's
|> 	a lot more to proofs.
|> 	
|> >	Proof is good for only 'understanding' the truth. Other than that
|> >	it has no useful purpose.
|> 
|> 	No. Proof is *necessary* to show that what you call "truth" satisfies
|> 	the definition of "truth". Otherwise, there are yellow elephants in
|> 	Africa who build invisible pyramids. Accept that without proof because
|> 	that's the ultimate truth.
|> 	
|> 	FFT
|> 
|> 
|> 
|> 


This reminds me of a quote from my favorite author, Douglas Adams, in his book,
the hitch-hikers guide to the galaxy:
       'This is the proof of the non-existense of god:
	God says: "I refuse to prove that I exist, for proof denies faith
			and without faith I am nothing!"
	"Ahh, but" says man, "but the babel fish is a proof of your existense
	and therefore by your own words - you dont exist. QED"

	and for an encore man goes to prove that black is white and gets
	himself killed on the next zebra crossing.'

DISCLAIMER: This is very badly quoted but the jist of the matter is present.
NOTE FOR IGNORANT READERS: The babel fish is an organism that takes in sound wave
			   as food and excretes the translated sound wave pattern
			   that the host can understand - in other words a 
			   universal translator that is placed in the ears.

Hope you enjoyed...

Ram.
Xref: sparky soc.culture.indian:40874 soc.culture.pakistan:18209 soc.culture.bangladesh:6748