• This forum contains old posts that have been closed. New threads and replies may not be made here. Please navigate to the relevant forum to create a new thread or post a reply.
  • Welcome to Tamil Brahmins forums.

    You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our Free Brahmin Community you will have access to post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join our community today!

    If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact contact us.

War between Science and Religion.

Not open for further replies.

Hey Anand, million thanks for this link, fantastic this Mano Singham, wonder what his full name is.

... but the onus of proving it is on science as the believers don't have the tools to prove them.
Under this standard any belief however outlandish will have to be given a pass. Science does not work that way. The onus of proof is on those who propose a theory. You prove it to the satisfaction of your skeptical peers, then it gets accepted. If you don't have the tools, develop them. If you are not able to, then that is just too bad, but not a problem for other scientists who are busy trying to prove what they are interested in.

All they have is their faith.
Anand, please allow me to quote from the blog post you cited.
Mencken said of Bryan's religious beliefs, ...... What should be a civilized man's attitude toward such superstitions? It seems to me that the only attitude possible to him is one of contempt. If he admits that they have any intellectual dignity whatever, he admits that he himself has none. If he pretends to a respect for those who believe in them, he pretends falsely, and sinks almost to their level. When he is challenged he must answer honestly, regardless of tender feelings.

While Mencken's use of the word "contempt" is perhaps too harsh, he makes a valid point: that no beliefs should be exempt from scrutiny simply because many people have held them for a long time. It is time to remove the veil that has protected religious beliefs for so long. After all, if we concede without argument that mainstream religious beliefs are compatible with science, how can we argue that witchcraft and astrology are not?
Cheers, and once again, thanks Anand for introducing me to Mano
Shri. Nara,

You are most welcome. I know how the Scientific Method and Process works. But in reality, , we do see Science and Scientists interested in the so called religious beliefs, superstitions, rituals and curious to find out what it is all about. What I meant to say is the common man anyway has his faith and he is needing no further proof than that but Science in its spirit of inquiry is curious to find out if there is any provable truth in those beliefs at all or is it just hallucination.

I also have to add that the practitioners are not proposing any theory as such from a scientific point of view. They go on with their practices and beliefs and as long as they are harmless to themselves and the society, I don't find anything wrong. The problem starts when they start accusing science and say their beliefs are the only ones which is right. I don't support these people.
I don't support these people.

Dear Anand, is it serendipity ;) that no less a person than Stephen Hawking has a given an answer to the question on the title of this thread -- Science will win.
When Sawyer asked if there was a way to reconcile religion and science, Hawking said, "There is a fundamental difference between religion, which is based on authority, [and] science, which is based on observation and reason. Science will win because it works."
Huffington Post article here.

Not open for further replies.

Latest ads