After Death - What?

[KRS]

Share:

Facebook X (Twitter) WhatsApp Email Share Link

Dear Sri CLN Ji,

Most of the Physicists I know are not atheists (I have been trained in both Theoretical and Nuclear Physics at the doctorate level in the USA). The reason is that they understand the limitations of Science in answering the 'big' question.

There is no need for these folks to 'compartmentalize'. Science acts in one plane and their religious faith acts in another. There need not be any conflict between the two.

Saying that religion is like opium (Communist's favorite saying) is like saying a baby's need for milk is akin to taking drugs. There is a difference between things that gives us sustenance versus those that delude us.

Regards,
KRS

 

[sangom]

Dr. Collins, may perhaps be just one of the numerous samples, an illustrious person at that, of people using 'props' for their own comfort (notwithstanding Mr. Sangom not being in agreement with my "Props Theory"!). For, the owerpowering opiatic effect of Religion on humans of all cross-sections cannot be underplayed and wished away that easily. Religious beliefs, for those who have them, do serve the all-soothing effect on a mind tormented by even unpleasant mundane experiences like physical pain, disappointments, failures, losses etc., leave alone the elusive and ethereal quest for Universal Truth, Ultimate Goal, Parabrahmam and the like.

Dear Shri CLN,

I did not deny that "props" are, or, can be there; my view is that it is time people start growing up and rise above such mental props. In this the Brahmans who lay claim to many great things, should at least take the lead and show the way to others. But unfortunately, it is the Brahman community which is at the forefront of spreading all superstitious things in the name of "Bhakti". This is what I lament.

 

[CLN]

Dear Sri CLN Ji,

Most of the Physicists I know are not atheists (I have been trained in both Theoretical and Nuclear Physics at the doctorate level in the USA). The reason is that they understand the limitations of Science in answering the 'big' question.

There is no need for these folks to 'compartmentalize'. Science acts in one plane and their religious faith acts in another. There need not be any conflict between the two.

Saying that religion is like opium (Communist's favorite saying) is like saying a baby's need for milk is akin to taking drugs. There is a difference between things that gives us sustenance versus those that delude us.

Regards,
KRS

Dear Sir,

The question is whether not being an 'atheist' necessitates the person to be a 'theist'. Not necessarily so, I feel. As I have mentioned in #73, they can be 'deists' or 'agnostics', both of being which will not make them feel guilty for not conforming to religious practices. Apart from this, I don't dispute the fact that scientists do not have answers to all questions; but, again, this does not mean that the theists do have answers acceptable to all.

I concede that those who believe 'science' and 'religion' to be at two different planes may not suffer as such from any conflict syndrome, but in all likelihood, they will tend to develop 'dual' personalities which may or may not be discernible to others.

I wish to clarify that I have not used the word 'opiatic' in any derisive manner, as Communists do, but only to point out the utilitarian value Religion serves, as a powerful soother. Although we cannot deny the atrocities perpetrated by some 'heroes' (rather anti-heroes) in history in the name of religion, effectively pointed out by Prof. Nara and Mr. Sangom earlier, I do realize that those happenings, despite causing damages in plenty, have been still more in the nature of aberrations rather than everyday practice of most religious people, thank 'God'!. In fact, those atrocities are nothing but clear historical evidences as to how megalomaniacal minds masquerading as devout followers of religion can really hijack religion and wreak havoc on the society en masse.

 

[KRS]

Dear Sri CLN Ji,

You have said: I concede that those who believe 'science' and 'religion' to be at two different planes may not suffer as such from any conflict syndrome, but in all likelihood, they will tend to develop 'dual' personalities which may or may not be discernible to others.

There are at two different planes in the sense that one is based on logic and observable facts. The other is based on beliefs and faith. The former applies to the material world, the other has nothing to do with that.

Any scientist is a human being too. So they know that while these are two different things, Science is also the part of the greater mystery and therefore they do not see any dichotomy between the two.

Regards,
KRS

 

[Nara]

....Any scientist is a human being too. So they know that while these are two different things, Science is also the part of the greater mystery and therefore they do not see any dichotomy between the two.

Dear Shri KRS, your statement above leaves an impression that scientists in general believe in god and they do not see any dichotomy. This is far from reality.

A study appearing in Nature magazine in 1998, summarized here, shows that an overwhelming majority of NAS scientists do not believe in god (about 70%), with physical scientists leading the way with 79%.

A more recent study conducted by Pew Research Center in 2009, reported in this LA Times article, says 51% of the members of the American Assn. for the Advancement of Science, a much broader group than NAS scientists, expressed belief in god or some higher power. Contrast this with Pew surveys, reported in the same article, that 95% of American adults say they believe in some form of deity or higher power. So, it seems to me, there is a significant inverse correlation between being scientific and belief in god or some form of higher power.

In as much as science is a process of careful observation, discovery and validation, I feel there is no mystery to science as in belief in god. In science we have knowns and unknowns, and scientists readily admit to what they do not know, they don't make up some kind of mystic explanation invoking intuition and superior intelligence that transcends scientific methods. For a scientist to believe in a personal god with intent to meddle in human affairs he/she must have a very high level of tolerance for cognitive dissonance.

Cheers!

 

[KRS]

Dear Professor Nara Ji,
Here is a Rice University survey from 2005:
Scientists' Belief in God Varies Starkly by Discipline | LiveScience

Here is a National Geographic study that gives a pretty good picture of how scientists view Science versus the concept of God.
Evolution and Religion Can Coexist, Scientists Say

Please see this article which shows why in some surveys it comes out that majority of scientists 'don't believe in God:
Do Scientists Really Reject God? | NCSE

I think that there are a better percentage of atheists in the scientific community as compared to the general public.

I also think that a majority of scientists believe in a higher power (they may not call it God) and also only a minority believe in a 'personal God'.

As I said, Science is about verifying the physical truth without depending on our senses, through logic and validation. Science can answer ultimately only the 'how'. It can never answer the 'Why?'

The role of religion is to try to answer 'why'. While Science can be a part of a religion, Science can never fulfill the role of a religion.

When you compare the two, you are comparing apples and oranges, my dear friend.

Regards,
KRS

 

[ambes]

Think Good, Do Good in your life time. It will take care after death. Do not worry about it now !!!!

 

[ShivKC]

Dear Shri KRS, your statement above leaves an impression that scientists in general believe in god and they do not see any dichotomy. This is far from reality.

A study appearing in Nature magazine in 1998, summarized here, shows that an overwhelming majority of NAS scientists do not believe in god (about 70%), with physical scientists leading the way with 79%.

A more recent study conducted by Pew Research Center in 2009, reported in this LA Times article, says 51% of the members of the American Assn. for the Advancement of Science, a much broader group than NAS scientists, expressed belief in god or some higher power.

Cheers!

sh.nara, one good thing I like in your post is, you being precise with your numbers and facts to prove your point. and here its all about religion and its followers amongst the scientific community. few posts down the line, sh.krs has given some more counter figures.

while holding that appreciation, could you please respond to my previous post, requesting you to justify your statement, in a similar way

Religions have done more killing than atheists, is what your claim is.. and I have asked you to quantify , with a generous tolerance of +/- 1 million. awaiting your supporting document on this.

 

[Nara]

....while holding that appreciation, could you please respond to my previous post, requesting you to justify your statement, in a similar way

Religions have done more killing than atheists, is what your claim is.. and I have asked you to quantify , with a generous tolerance of +/- 1 million. awaiting your supporting document on this.

ShivKC, I feel you acted as a bully against Happy. Even after I repeatedly requested you to let go, you kept at it, and you are still leveling snide innuendos, sufficiently camouflaged to allow you to innocently say, to anyone who objects like Shri Sangom did recently, you didn't mean him, or exhort them not to take it personally.

For this reason I wish to be excused from giving an answer to your valid question. I will gladly answer your question and even discuss further after you have addressed these issues in a forthright manner with Happy and Shri KRS.

bye ...

 

[Nara]

Dear Shri KRS,

...I think that there are a better percentage of atheists in the scientific community as compared to the general public.

I also think that a majority of scientists believe in a higher power (they may not call it God) and also only a minority believe in a 'personal God'.

This is what I was trying to convey. All University faculty are not scientists. From my last post I want to emphasize, "....it seems to me, there is a significant inverse correlation between being scientific and belief in god or some form of higher power."

Here let me cite Neil deGrasse Tyson, director of the Hayden Planetarium in New York, and host of the popular TV show NOVA ScienceNow, in a speech he gave in Beyond Belief 2006 conference in San Diego. In the following quotation, Tyson is referring to a study of NAS scientists conducted some months earlier and the following is at about 3 minutes.

Tyson: I want to put on the table, not why 85% of the members of the National Academy of Sciences reject God, I want to know why 15% of the National Academy don’t. That’s really what we’ve got to address here.
​

As I said, Science is about verifying the physical truth without depending on our senses, through logic and validation. Science can answer ultimately only the 'how'. It can never answer the 'Why?'

The role of religion is to try to answer 'why'. While Science can be a part of a religion, Science can never fulfill the role of a religion.

Science answers many "why" questions, including why tides come in why tides go out, which seems to puzzle Bill O. Yes, as we go deeper and deeper, there are many "why" questions science has not answered. It is very likely that science cannot answer all the "why" questions and humanity will have to remain ignorant of these questions.

Questions that science is unable to answer will have to remain unanswered. But I know that will never stop the faithful from claiming that religion can answer these not yet answered questions. But, how come there are as many answers to these questions as the number of religions, each claiming they have the right answers and all the others are wrong? It is not only Chrisitians, Muslims, but even within what is popularly called Hinduism, Advaitees say VA and D are false, etc.

Some may be tempted to say they all are right, but that is just a cop out, trying to sidestep the question. Any answer that cannot be demonstrated and repeated is no answer at all, it is just faith.

BTW, the religious authorities have a very poor track record with the answers they have given in the past to a range of questions. They claimed earth was flat and it is at the center, until science came along and showed otherwise. Religion said earthquakes and hurricanes are god's punishment (they still do), until science came along and explained the reason. Religion said certain deceases are punishment from gods until science came along and showed germs cause these deceases. Religion says there are things called mahath, ahankaram (not arrogance) tanmathrai,etc., that play some mysterious part in creation, none of these can be shown to exist in shape or form, they exist only in the imagination of the faithful.

The truth is, religion has not answered one single question properly in the long history of human existence, let alone the "why" question, but the faithful will never cease to claim it can and it has, and of course, as I observed earlier, the answer from each religion is different. Whose answer is correct? Well, when we take their track record into account, it is indisputable that they all are wrong.

As science explains more and more, religion retreats further back. But, the faithful will always have space from which to continue to claim they have answers to questions that are still unanswered by science. In as much as science may not be able to answer all the questions, religion will always have a place to hide where science has not reached, and make fanciful claims to knowing the "truth".

As Tyson puts it, with so many of religion's answers debunked by science, it is a wonder that many continue to put faith in religion, even a few scientists.

Cheers!

 

[KRS]

Dear Professor Nara Ji,

Dr. Tyson is an avowed atheist - so I won't waste my time commenting on his words.

When the tides come in, the scientist asks 'why', but the answer is always 'how'. If one takes the big bang theory, at the final step one is always stuck with 'why', because the 'hows' are exhausted. This is the nature of science.

Again an atheist's true religion is science. Implicit in the notion of atheism is the belief in material universe as the self generating, self sustaining organism, that does not need any external force to exist. Unfortunately, because Science works on Cause and Effect principle, this status will never be explained.

Science is also part of religions. All major religions do not discard new scientific discoveries. They only rject the idea that Science can be susbstituted for Religion.

Hinduism says that the supreme entity just exists. Science can not by its very nature state that the Universe is the ultimate and it just IS! So the conundrum. This will never be resolved.

They are two different things.

Regards,
KRS

 

[suba42]

Dear Sirs,

The fact that Einstein has stated that “God does not play dice with nature” is itself questionable, since he was the one of the creators of Statistical Mechanics which has 3 Major theories viz. Maxwell – Boltzman Statistics, Fermi-Dirac Statistics and Bose – Einstein Statistics, and Statistical Mechanics gave rise to Quantum Statistics which gave rise to Quantum Mechanics, which gave rise to Electronics and the computers we are using is the fruit of it apart from many other fruits.


Even if Einstein had stated those words, he was wrong since the great advancement in Technology could not have been achieved without Statistics.


There are also reports that Mileva Maric (Einstein's enstranged and divorced wife whome he loved and married when he was working as a clerk in the German Patent office and to whome he bequeathed his Nobel Prize money) was the brain to have formed the Special and General Theories of Relativity.


Our Physics friend in this forum will vouchsafe for the same.

Best Regards

 

[KRS]

Dear suba42 Ji,

What you are saying about the advent of Quantum Mechanics through Einstein's work is correct. But Statistics is an approximation tool in Mathematics, because we do not have any other way to account for the deviation behavior of particles within a class. So the only way to apply mathematics to that behavior is to apply the wave/particle theory, which is based on Statistical principle.

Einstein was frustrated by the limitations of Math in this regard.

I do not know what your statement about his ex wife got to do with what we are discussing here?

Regards,
KRS

 

[suba42]

Dear KRS ji,

This was only to bring to the notice of the members of this forum that science also has its limitations.

Again, the fact that non-believers or Atheists or Agnostics are in every walk of life and not only in people in the field of Science.

Again the statement that Crusade (1000 year war) was the only one fought on religion is questionable.

We all know that Galileo who invented telescope and said that earth is revolving round the Sun was taken as Anti Christian by the then Pope Contestine who ostracized Galileo (since according to Bible everything in the Universe revolves round the Earth) and when Galileo saw his wife and children die of hunger became mad and died as a mad man. Only late Pope John Paul II in 2008 publicly asked apology for the atrocities perpetrated to Galileo.

Again Hitler (who was a carporal in 2nd Reich army in Vietnam) and who usurped the thrown of Germany to form 3rd Reich, slaughtered millions of Jews (he pinpointed them only with the fact that Jews had the religious practice of Circumcision, which the Muslims copied) and reports are that he slaughtered Jews only under the instructions of Vatican, since he was a devout catholic Christian. And this led to 2nd World War and accounted for loss of millions of human lives all over the world.

Again loss of many human lives in the world over by the Jehadi Muslims is a day to day affair, since Kuran preaches death to all Kafirs (non believers of Allah).

Hence Wars, Battles and Skirmishes in the name of religion are going ad-infinitum.

Best Regards,

B.Subramanian.

 

[Nara]

Dear Shri KRS,

Dr. Tyson is an avowed atheist - so I won't waste my time commenting on his words.

You are wasting your time talking to one already .

Keep an open mind my friend, and see whether what he says makes sense. I invite other readers to view these series of videos, they are absolutely riveting. You will find a Tamilian making a presentation there as well, a good one.

Science is also part of religions.

Oh come on KRS, if you want to have faith in religion, that is fine, I respect that, but I don't know why you have to insult science by equating it to religion. I suppose it makes you feel better about your own faith, so be it.

I want the readers to think about one thing, no scientist will make a claim that religion is also science, but the religious want to drag science down to religion, why? This by itself speaks volumes.

Cheers!

 

[KRS]

Dear Professor Nara Ji,

But you are my wayward brother! (I wanted to paste a smiley face here, but don't know how to, really!))

Every major religion has fostered science. In my Hindu tradition, there is Nyaya, a discipline based on Logic. Like the western science evolved from Aristotelian logic, so did various scientific traditions evolve within India too. Mathematics and astronomy are two such subjects.

Christianity fostered science as well, despite the church orthodoxy's qualified support for it. Islam, as we know at the peak of it's power, contributed mightily to science.

So, if you think that my assertion that science is also part of religion is offensive, I am sorry. I am just repeating what I have read in books.

Regards,
KRS

 

[KRS]

Dear Sri Subramanian Ji,

Do you think that if religion is totally absent from this world, human beings would not be killing each other?

Regards,
KRS

 

[suba42]

Dear KRS ji,

You are wasting your time talking to one already .

Does Shri.Nara mean that interacting with me is a waste of time?

This is to bring to his kind notice that this is a public forum and any member of this forum has a right to express his/her views regarding the matter under discussion.

Science is indeed part of religion and there are umpteen number of proofs for this. Astrology itself is a wonderful proof. Our festivals are invariably based on science.

Whereas in no form of Bible, the birth date of Jesus as 25th of December is given, but that day is celebrated as Christmas for past two millenia.

Best Regards,

B.Subramanian.

 

[suba42]

Dear KRS ji,

Religion i.e faith in the maker Almighty is a tool for love and amity in this world. Without religion humans would have been another form of animals, and with the 6th sense, the destruction would have been enormous, the end of mankind would have been very fast.
Our history proves this.

Best Regards,

B.Subramanian.

 

[KRS]

Dear sri B.Subramanian Ji,

To be frank, I don't know what your position is regarding the atheism versus religion.

On one hand you talk about Science and Jihad to support the atheism pov, and on the other hand your last two posts suggest that your views are theistic.

Can you please explain this apparent dichotomy?

I am a very simple man, with limited cognitive skills. So, please put up with me on this request and humor me. Thanks.

Regards,
KRS

 

[CLN]

Dear KRS ji,

This was only to bring to the notice of the members of this forum that science also has its limitations.

Again, the fact that non-believers or Atheists or Agnostics are in every walk of life and not only in people in the field of Science.

Again the statement that Crusade (1000 year war) was the only one fought on religion is questionable.

We all know that Galileo who invented telescope and said that earth is revolving round the Sun was taken as Anti Christian by the then Pope Contestine who ostracized Galileo (since according to Bible everything in the Universe revolves round the Earth) and when Galileo saw his wife and children die of hunger became mad and died as a mad man. Only late Pope John Paul II in 2008 publicly asked apology for the atrocities perpetrated to Galileo.

Again Hitler (who was a carporal in 2nd Reich army in Vietnam) and who usurped the thrown of Germany to form 3rd Reich, slaughtered millions of Jews (he pinpointed them only with the fact that Jews had the religious practice of Circumcision, which the Muslims copied) and reports are that he slaughtered Jews only under the instructions of Vatican, since he was a devout catholic Christian. And this led to 2nd World War and accounted for loss of millions of human lives all over the world.

Again loss of many human lives in the world over by the Jehadi Muslims is a day to day affair, since Kuran preaches death to all Kafirs (non believers of Allah).

Hence Wars, Battles and Skirmishes in the name of religion are going ad-infinitum.

Best Regards,

B.Subramanian.

There is a basic difference between "Faith" and "Reason". "Faith" involves 'acceptance without questioning', whereas "Reason" uses questioning as its very tool. For this very reason, "Faith" is capable of generation "Passion" whereas "Reason" cannot/should not, because inherently, it involves 'dissension' 'counter-arguments' and 'contrary view'. If any person who attempts reasoning with another becomes over-zealous, he is likely to develop passion in which situation he might slip into a "faith" mode to establish his side of the argument and he may not be any more 'reasonable'!

if I am faithful and you are unfaithful, I may dislike you, detest you, hate you and may even kill you, depending upon the level of passion that the situation has generated in me! On the other hand, if I am unfaithful and you are faithful , I disagree with you, I try to convince you, and if I still do not succeed, maybe, I dislike you and try to be estranged with you, but never develop any passion to the extent of hating you or killing you. I may, at the most, sneer or snigger at you but no more than that, because, reasoning, by its very nature accepts dissents and counter-arguments. No reasonable person who wishes to stick to 'Reason' can expect that the opponent has to accept what he says blindly; because, the moment he starts doing that, he passes on into the realm of "Faith", from "Reason"! [This logic applies even to this sort of discussions in this very Forum where we find worthy members becoming offensive to others some times, even if unconsciously!]

In a nutshell, "Faith" can easily lead one into "Intolerance", while "Reason" cannot. I feel that this is the root cause of all the notorious religious killings we have come across in history and we witness even today. For this very reason, I am afraid, we will not be able to root out religious killings in future too.

By the way, when you mentioned 'Vietnam', what you had in mind was perhaps 'Vienna'.

 

[suba42]

Dear KRS ji and CLN ji,

[FONT=&quot]Our Sannathana Dharma (Sanaathana – which has no origin, Dharma – way of living) was fully based on science, logic and reason whereas the western religions were only based on blind faith. Hence comparing Sanaathana Dharma with them is unethical and unjustified.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Only because of the blind faith, the exterminations of humans (By Muslims on those who are not belonging to their faith - Kafirs – Non believers of Allah) and (Jews - since a Jew Juda was responsible for the crucifixion of Jesus (Even Jesus was born to Jew parents)) was rampant. This is the same cause for rampant conversions in Christianity and Jehad marriages in Islam where a girl of other faith is first converted to Islam and then married. And during the formation of Islam, since they had so many wars, the Islamic Shariath law prescribed marrying of 4 females to single male in order to increase the Muslim population. [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]
[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Though the western religions is only around 2000 years old, our Sanaathana Dharma [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]We had fulfledged systems like Shilpa Shaasthra, Naatya Shaasthra, Sangeetha Shaasthra, Vaana Shasthra, Yoga Shashaasthra, Vaasthu Shaasthra and even Yudhdha Shasthra which were based on logic and reason, which was not available in the western religions.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]
[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]In Sanaathana Dharma, though there were six school of knowledge viz. Artha, Vyaakarana, Nyaaya, Vaisheshika, Poormeemaamsa, and Utharameemaamsa, and six sects viz. Shaiva, Vaishnava, Shaaktha, Ganapathya, Kaumara, and Kaalaamukha and there were many heated discussions by the men belonging to each school to justify their school of thought, there was not war or Killing.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]
[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Hence our Dharma is a good tool in good hands whereas western religions is a bad tool in bad hands.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]
[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Best Regards,[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]
[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]B.Subramanian.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]

 

[suba42]

Dear KRS ji and CLN ji,

[FONT=&quot]Our Sannathana Dharma (Sanaathana – which has no origin, Dharma – way of living) was fully based on science, logic and reason whereas the western religions were only based on blind faith. Hence comparing Sanaathana Dharma with them is unethical and unjustified.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]Only because of the blind faith, the exterminations of humans (By Muslims on those who are not belonging to their faith - Kafirs – Non believers of Allah) and (Jews - since a Jew Juda was responsible for the crucifixion of Jesus (Even Jesus was born to Jew parents)) was rampant. This is the same cause for rampant conversions in Christianity and Jehad marriages in Islam where a girl of other faith is first converted to Islam and then married. And during the formation of Islam, since they had so many wars, the Islamic Shariath law prescribed marrying of 4 females to single male in order to increase the Muslim population. [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]
[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Though the western religions is only around 2000 years old, our Sanaathana Dharma [/FONT]is ageless.

[FONT=&quot]We had fulfledged systems like Shilpa Shaasthra, Naatya Shaasthra, Sangeetha Shaasthra, Vaana Shasthra, Yoga Shashaasthra, Vaasthu Shaasthra and even Yudhdha Shasthra which were based on science, logic and reason, which was not available in the western religions.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]
[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]In Sanaathana Dharma, though there were six school of knowledge viz. Artha, Vyaakarana, Nyaaya, Vaisheshika, Poorvameemaamsa, and Uththarameemaamsa, and six sects viz. Shaiva, Vaishnava, Shaaktha, Ganapathya, Kaumara, and Kaalaamukha and there were many heated discussions by the men belonging to each school to justify their school of thought, there was not war or Killing.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]
[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Hence our Dharma is a good tool in good hands whereas western religions are a bad tool in bad hands.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]
[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Best Regards,[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]
[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]B.Subramanian.[/FONT]

 

[Nara]

.....You are wasting your time talking to one already .

Does Shri.Nara mean that interacting with me is a waste of time?

Dear Shri suba42, no I did not mean anyone else but myself - nara. I have made it very clear in this forum, and it is well known as well, that I am an atheist (technically an agnostic, but for all intents and purposes an atheist).

Here is an example of not naming my own name made Shri suba42 mistaking that I meant him. This shows the dangers of writing in innuendos.

Take it easy ....

Cheers!

 

[Nara]

Dear Shri KRS,

Dear Professor Nara Ji,

But you are my wayward brother! (I wanted to paste a smiley face here, but don't know how to, really!))

Ah, that is good, as a wayward brother I can be rash and reckless, but, as a responsible older brother, you have to be patient and tolerant with me -- just type a colon and a right parenthesis and it will show up as a smiley. A colon and left parenthesis will produce a frowny face like this .

Sparing use of icons adds one more dimension to the written words and conveys a little emotion. However, overuse, especially the animated kind, makes it tedious and annoying to read.

So, if you think that my assertion that science is also part of religion is offensive, I am sorry.

No, it is my bad, I mistook what you were saying. I thought you were saying that science is also a kind of religion, an opinion many religious people hold. I was talking about that. If your point is religion allowed science to flourish, I agree. But they acquiesce only to the extent it does not threaten their belief system. If it does, they shut it down like in the case of Galileo, or just ignore it as in the case of Hinduism.

Cheers!