Mail Archive

Real Science

• Subject: Real Science
• From: David J
• Date: Thu Jul 13 23:40:41 1995
• Message-Id: id581

Dear David

Thank you for your letter. Hare Krishna!

<snip [I have read it]>


...just as religion CANNOT explain how God "breathed" life into man, or where
>God came from before hand.   However, science is ATTEMPTING to explain, by
>observations, where the singularity came from, and how it came into existance.
>

There is a difference. It is a different way of acquiring knowledge. Our method is
we accept knowledge descending from Krishna via a bona fide spiritual master. It
is called the disciplic succession. A bona fide spiritual master will only teach
his students what his spiritual master taught him. So if you can find such a bona
fide spiritual master he can give you the correct information immediately. You
don't have to do any research. On the other hand, however, scientists will NEVER
know if their answers are correct or not... It is always uncertain.

<snip>


>>No. Not always. Religion is not "blind acceptance". It is a real, tangible
>>thing, it is not quantifiable in material terms, but there is certainly
>>something there. In my case I am a devotee of Lord Sri Krishna and my life
>>has completely changed in so many ways in comparison to my prior life.
>
>Good for you...I by no means attack you for your personal beliefs.  On the
>other hand, I've been exposed to people who are religious, and from time
>to time, more than I'd care to admit, it seems that those who have
>religion are far more meaner and difficult to get along with than others
>who don't concentrate on religion.  I don't assume you're in this group,
>since I don't know you.
>


Someone who is spiritually advanced is not "mean". In fact quite the opposit is
true. He develops great compassion for all the fallen conditioned souls in the
world and he tries to help them by spreading God consciousness. He knows that the
only thing in short supply in this world is Krishna consciousness. That is the
missing point, that is the cause of all the suffering. So he wants to help people
come to Krishna consciousness. But the world is so constructed that sometimes his
helpful attempt is not appreciated by the materialistic people. There are so many
examples, look at Lord Jesus Christ, he was crucified by his "followers" for
trying to tell people about God... And there are also many rascals who have no
interest in God but present themselves as guru's and religious men to exploit the
public. This is the worst type of cheating and it has more or less spoiled the
whole process of religion. So many people have been cheated, so now its a case of
"once bitten, twice shy".

>>These are real, measurable changes. You may choose the "religion" of
>>science instead, but it can not be said to be superior by anyone. A purely
>>"scientific" understanding of the universe excluding anything beyond the
>>material elements: earth, water, fire, air and ether [which many
>>scientists don't even understand], leads to the destruction of the finer
>>sentiments, the more subtle things in life. Because one rejects them as
>>unimportant. If there is only matter then our only purpose is to "enjoy"
>>matter... It leads to a hellish world.
>
>I disagree.  One can follow science, and yet appreciate the small things
>in life.  I know that I do.  I don't see science as a religion, merely as
>a way to explain things I don't understand.

You can be a scientist and believe in God at the same time. I don't mean the
"small things". I mean the "subtle things". If you think there is only earth,
water, air, and fire you have missed the subtle things which amind,
intelligence, false ego [the sense of identity], the soul and above everything the
Supresoul, Krishna or God.

>
>>
>>BTW Science need not be limited to matter as it is currently. Science need
>>not be incompatible with a spiritual world-view. However that is the
>>direction it is taking at the moment.
>
>Could be.  I agree with your assessment of the incompatibility.  Many
>times I've argued, that even though the Bible says that the Earth and
>environment of it were created in 7 days, the question is, how long was a
>day then?  Was it 24 hours, or was it a half-billion years?  Things like
>this aren't explained, and therefore implied that they should be taken as
>told.

Yes. I'm sure you are correct. I would ask, "Where was God when He was creating
the earth?" He couldn't have been on the earth for it wasn't created yet! And we
can see time is different on different planets. Just look at the moon. On the moon
the days and nights are about 14 earth days long. We have information of planets
where the days are 6 months long. In the highest planet in the universe [the most
likely place the God in the Bible would have been doing His creation from] the
days are calculated at 1000 * 4,300,000 * 2 solar years. So seven days becomes a
very long time indeed!

>
<snip>

>
>Science at our present understanding level DOES explain things...it is
>that which we still don't understand or have observed, that has caused
>science to be less than 100% accurate.  And when we find something that
>doesn't fit in how we thought science explained it, we change our model.
>For example, it is science that led us to develop the technology which you
>are using to read this right now.

Yes. Science works. I'm not saying it doesn't. But it has a very limited scope. It
depends on our sense perception and our senses are imperfect...

>

>
>
>>can explain everything from the Vedic scriptures, that is not a problem.
>
>Everything?  Since I'm not familiar with them, I have no points to bring
>up about them.  Let me ask you this...are dinosaurs explained in them?

Yes. Everything is there. There are huge birds that can pick up elephants and fly
away with them, there are big fish that can swallow up whales in a single gulp...

>The Bible makes no mention of these, that I'm aware, and yet there is HARD
>physical evidence of them.  They were real.


<snip>

>Isn't faith in God equivalent to someone's faith in the big bang actually
>occuring?

The faith is the same but the result is very different! The one who has faith in
God goes back home back to Godhead after leaving this body and regains his
original spiritual position of eternal youth, full knowledge and unlimited bliss,
but the man with faith in the "big bang" will have to take birth in this miserable
world again, and again, and again, and again...

>  You explain the Universe by God creating it, and someone else
>explains it by the big bang creating it.  God runs it for some, the laws
>of physics runs it for others.

No. God runs it. Some can see the hand of God some can't. God created the laws of
physics. If there are laws someone must have made them, that is God. He has
created the universes as self-contained units so they can be studied, and
eventually understood to a certain degree, by the scientific process. But God's
hand is behind everything.


>BOTH require a certain degree of accepting
>the initial occurence without being able to explain it.

No. We can explain everything. It requires some faith to accept the explaination,
thats all. But it is a perfectly logical explanation. Science, however, cannot
give such a logical explanation. They can't explain the source of the energy for
the big bang, nor can they explain how life starts. Evolution only starts when you
have a population of living beings... But how the first batch of living beings
came into existence is unknown...

>
>I also believe that faith is largely indoctrination, and that it is not
>intuitive.  Religion is mostly taught and passed on, not developed by an
>individual on his/her own.  Have someone with no contact with other
>people, and see what kind of religion they develop without external influence.

That's the whole point. It's a descending process not an ascending one. You have
to find someone who knows and hear from him. If you can actually find a perfect
authority you can get perfect knowledge. There is no other way. Of course such
pure souls are rare and there are many cheating rascals, but still if you can find
the real thing you can get the real knowledge...

>
>>>  So again, what's the
>>>difference in your argument?  From this perspective, both religion and
>>>science stand at about the same level, in regards to the argument you are
>>>trying to make.
>>
>>No. Everything can be explained perfectly logically and consistently from
>>the Vedic texts. Some devotees may not have the knowledge, that is another
>>thing. But science doesn't even claim to be able to do such a thing, they
>>make models that make predictions, that is all...
>>
>

>INCORRECT.  Science makes models to help us understand and explain WHAT WE
>OBSERVE.  We see what is

No you don't. Your eyes are imperfect. Just look into the sky, you see the sun as
a brilliant disk about the size of a dinner plate.. But it is really much bigger
than that! So we can't see very much at all...


>, and develop models to help us understand it.  If
>the models don't agree with what we see, then the models are changed.

Yes. Again, and again, and again... But never perfect knowledge. For that you need
a perfect authority.

>
>>>>>Of course it's not the best one they have. But they don't want to consider
>>>>>the only other one... That there is some intelligence behind the creation
>>>>>of the universe. It is a completely reasonable assumption to make. If we
>>
>>>Why?  Because you were taught to make that assumption?  What evidence do
>>>you have that there was intelligence involved?
>>
>>
>>>>>look at a very nice new building in the city and I tell you it was created
>>>>>by a "big bang" last night, would you believe me? No. [unless you are
>>>>>crazy of course]. Because the building is there we know there were
>>>>>engineers, buliders, plumbers, electricions, etc... We may not see them,
>>>>>but we know they were there. The "big bang" explanation is completely
>>>>>unreasonable...
>>
>>
>>>And that is because scientists cannot say what was there "before" the big
>>>bang, or where the initial singularity came from?  Tell me, where did God
>>>come from?  Again, same coin, different side.
>>
>>NONSENSE. You have just avoided the issue. If I show you a big new
>>building in the city and tell you it was created the previous evening by a
>>"big bang" would you believe me?
>
>Nope, haven't avoided the issue.  We understand that buildings that
>weren't there before were built, based on observations of buildings being
>built previously, and based on our own "learning" of making buildings.
>
>And if I told you that the building was put there by God, without human
>intervention,

THAT IS NOT THE POINT AT ALL. YOU ARE TRYING TO AVOID IT AGAIN!


You have yourself said the buildings [organized structures] were obviously built
by someone because you have seen other organized structures built by people
before. So you would reject my "big bang" creation of the building. But the
building is a small universe or the universe is a bg building. They are both
organized structures. Perhaps a child is even a better example. If I tell you a
child resulted from a big-bang in my back yard would you believe me? No. A child
results from the combination of a mother and father. A child is a small universe
and the big universe is created in the same way by the combination of the Supreme
Father, Krishna and "mother" nature. It is only logical. It is reasonable to
assume and it is predicted by the work of Mandelbrot [and others] that we would
expect to see similar things happening on different scales... So why should the
creation of a child [a small universe] be any different from the creation of the
big universe?

<snip I'm sorry it is very late and my mail folder is still very full!>

>I'll have to accept your word on the Vedic.  I can understand your point
>about the understanding, and would agree with you.  And just as you see
>the need for a logical, philosophical and scientific understanding of God,
>that is the same for the big bang.  Just as a thought experiment,
>substitute the big bang for God, in both "models".  The beginnings are

>similar...something came from nothing.

NO. God has no beginning.. He is not material.

<snip>

>Most people follow others and many "leaders", including
>>science in general, are promoting a godless world-view. This is having the
>>effect of turning the earth into a very uncomfortable place. We are
>>missing the point of human life. The human body is equipped with a brain
>>capable of pondering the more subtle questions such as "Who am I?", "Why
>>am I here?", "What is the purpose of life?" and "Where do I go after
>>death?". But in our society these questions are being replaced by
>>questions concerned with satisfying our base animal desires only: eating,
>>sleeping, sex and defence. This is a great pity.
>
>Wrong.  Science in fact DOES try to answer those questions.  Had we only
>been interested in eating, sleeping, sex and defense, then WHY would we
>even bother with trying to figure out the universe, as we do now?
Because you want to paint God out of the picture...

Why
>would we put the Hubble Space Telescope in orbit, to better observe the
>universe?  Why would we develop better computers to deal with the all the
>information that we use?  Why create libraries, which help broaden the
>mind?

It is all about sense gratificiation, that's all. Better eating, better sleeping,
better sex and better defending... And science is about becoming the controller.
"Knowledge is power". They want to understand the universe to exploit it, to
conquer it...

>
>If those 4 activities were the only thing that we were concerned with,
>then why would "non-religious" people (i.e. scientists...making a
>generalization here) even be concerned with trying to investigate the big
>bang and how it came about?

Because they want to smash people who believe in God. Don't you see it. Tune into
any of the religious groups on the net, you will find so many "scientific"
atheists ripping the Christians and co. to shreds.. It's about smashing religion,
it's about developing a "religion" the atheists can adopt without having to
believe in God. That's the motivation. They are envious of the almighty, exalted
position of God...

>  It seems that trying to find our origin, no
>matter which view you support, takes some blind faith in an event that
>came from "nowhere".

Only the scientists have "faith" in such nonsense. Nothing comes from "nowhere".

>If you can accept a God that has no beginning, then
>you are not far off from being able to accept a "big bang" that had no
>beginning.

You have lost it here. God is defined as eternal so He has no beginning or end by
definition so there is no need to even consider the creation of God. But the
alleged BB is an event that is conjectured to have happened at a certain time. It
must have had a cause. You can't say it had no cause. But your pride will not
allow you to say, "We can never know the cause..."

>The concepts are too similar to be able to accept the idea of
>one, and not the other.
>
>
>If you're not from/in the U.S., I'd be curious to hear more about your
>culture, since I think that differences in cultures may explain our
>differing viewpoints.  However, as I said before, I only discuss religion
>on a academic level, so that's one aspect of your culture that isn't
>necessary for me to hear about, as far as being on a personal level.


I am form the spiritual world but I have come here, like everyone else here, as a
rebel. I wanted to enjoy separately from Krishna, so that is not possible in the
spiritual world. There everyone is serving Krishna. So we are all here trying to
be Krishna, trying to be God, but all our efforts are being frustrated. This place
is designed to frustrate us so after many, many such lives of frustration, of
birth, old age, disease and death, we will come to our senses and realize life is
not so good here after all. Then we can start looking toward the spiritual world
and go back home, back to Godhead.

• Prev: Real Science
• Next: Real Science
• Alpha: Sudarsana Mail Archive - Alphabetical Index
• Date: Sudarsana Mail Archive - Date Index