From: hakim@bigq.enet.dec.com (Kamran Hakim)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.indian
Subject: Re: A Reply to Kamran's Post on Scientific Religion (1/2)
Date: 18 Aug 92 12:35:49 GMT
Organization: Digital Equipment Corporation


In article <1992Aug16.035713.12768@gn.ecn.purdue.edu>, prasanth@gn.ecn.purdue.
edu (Ravi K. Prasanth) you write:

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

[quotation from my reply deleted]

RKP>I laud Kamran for his thoughtful and logical statements regarding
RKP>scientific religion. 

Thank you for the complement.

RKP>Having said that, I will set out to clarify
RKP>my disagreement with his and Arindam's positions. 

This is fine Ravi.

RKP>I will assume that that which Arindam is trying to discover/
RKP>understand exists and will refer to it as "the Ultimate Truth".

Let us subject religion in its entirety to this criteria.

RKP>My discontention is with the inclusion of scriptural AUTHORITY
RKP>in the criteria for acceptance. You (Kamran) insist that if X is  
RKP>a statement about the Ultimate Truth that is true by (say) reason
RKP>but false by scriptures, then X is false. 

Yes and no. I am suggesting that a scriptural concept (i.e. such as this 
concept of the Ultimate Truth.) can only be correct if it can pass all 4
criteria for judgment (1- Sensation, 2- Reason, 3- Scripture, and 4- 
Inspiration). That is to say, if one wants to determine the reality of
such a concept one must be able to subject it to all four criteria of
judgment and obtain positive feedback. Else, there is possibility for
error in each criterion.

RKP>If such a statement (a 
RKP>statement that is true by reason and false by scriptures) exists, 
RKP>then reason and scriptural authority cannot simultaneously be used
RKP>to form a consistent approach to scientific religion. 

If a concept is true by reason and false by scriptures it suggests
that there is something wrong either in the reasoning or in the way
we understand the scriptures. It does not say anything about scientific 
approach to religion except that one must be mindful. Let me give you 
an example of such issue. There are those Christians who believe that 
Jesus raised the physically dead (i.e. Lazarous) into life. It is true 
by the virtue of reason that such is an impossibility. Furthermore,
I have never been able to personally sense such a phenomenon, and I
do not have a good feeling about it either. However, many Christians 
would point out to me that my approach is false by the virtue of 
Scriptural authority, because scriptures say so.

Through scientific approach to religion I can find a perfectly
reasonable description to this issue which harmonizes the four
criteria of sensation, reason, scriptural authority and inspiration.

RKP>I will agree
RKP>with your position (and Arindam's), if it can be shown that 
RKP> 
RKP>(1).  Statements about the Ultimate Truth given in the 
RKP>      scriptures are true. 
RKP>    
RKP>(2).  Reason (or other means) CANNOT arrive at statements 
RKP>      that are false by scriptures.

#2 is demonstrably false. Reason can vary depending on many factors
and as a function of situation. In regards to #1, that is clearly
dependent on who is making the judgment (i.e. a religious person
would say it is true and a non-religious individual would say it
is false.

RKP>....That is, a scientific approach to religion is
RKP>meaningful only if (1) and (2) are true.

It is not necessary for these two conditions to be true for the
scientific approach to religion become meaningful.

RKP>IMO, that scriptures are true (1) is a belief that relies solely
RKP>on the scriptures for substantiation. 

Ravi, if the teachings of Scriptures can not be confirmed by the
virtue of experience (i.e. criteria of sensation, reasoning and
inspiration) then it is rejectable according to the Baha'i teachings.

RKP>There is no substantiation
RKP>whatsoever for (2). 

I think that I have already agreed with you on this.

RKP>So I reject your (and Arindam's) positions.
RKP>I do not consider scriptures meaningless; it is the uncondtional
RKP>belief that scriptures contain the truth without knowing the truth
RKP>that I find irrational. 

My observation is that you have not fully understood the Baha'i
position. One's examination and consideration of Scriptures MUST 
BE CONDITIONAL else, "independent investigation of truth" is 
meaningless. However, one's acceptance based on examination and 
consideration are apt to translate to faith within a person in 
time. Your objection appears to be with such faith which you define 
as "unconditional belief". Such an "unconditional belief" is defined 
in the Baha'i Faith in a very interesting and non-threatening way: 

"The essence of faith is fewness of words and abundance of deeds; he 
whose words exceed his deeds, know verily his death is better than 
his life." [Baha'u'llah] 

There is nothing irrational about living one's life as a token of 
one's "unconditional belief". In fact such an approach to FAITH 
translates it from the status of APRIORI to APOSTERIORI.

RKP>A scientist also makes many assumptions/holds beliefs. But the
RKP>nature of those beliefs and assumptions are different from those
RKP>of a religious kind. Scientific beliefs are {\em aposteriori}
RKP>in nature; whereas religious beliefs are {\em apriori}. 

Very wonderful observation you have made here. I have addressed
this issue in my reply to John Ainikkal in "Am I a Compu-evangelist".
The point which I'd like to emphasize here is that: It is irrelevant
whether a belief is "aposteriori" or "apriori" as long as we can
subject it or its effects and outcomes to the four criteria of
judgment. 

RKP>The 
RKP>former means that at any given time, a belief is held as true,
RKP>AFTER corroborating all its consequences with observed behavior.

Religions speak of love, justice, truthfulness, etc..., etc...
as crucial factors in the life of an individual and the society. 
Eventhough such beliefs are "apriori", yet, I propose that such 
beliefs can be held as true after corroborating all its consequences 
with observed behaviour.

RKP>On the other hand, from its start, Islam has held that Mohammad
RKP>is the last prophet.

The concept of finality of Muhammad's prophethood is a Muslim DOGMA
of no religious/philosophical value. It is concept the literal value
of which is theologically absurd and unreasonable. Actually factors
such as this (i.e. people's attachment to literalist interpretations 
of various Scriptures) are the reasons behind people's rejection of 
religion as a meaningful phenomenon in human life.

						Part 1 of 2
Newsgroups: soc.culture.indian