[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]
Re: Faith & Healing
In article <4rejsg$r12@babbage.ece.uc.edu>, Giri <mgiridhar@ucdavis.edu> wrote:
>Vijay Pai wrote:
>>But it's only stuff like that that a certain
>>segment of scientists are going to look at, unfortunately.
> Not necc. They have looked at different states of consciousness
>using biofeedback instruments and brainwave studies (alpha, beta etc).
True, but even there they have to be prompted into it by promises of
mysticism, or something like that.
> As you know, scientists can never *measure* happiness, or bliss.
>The concept that you can be extremely happy by merely serving God [to the
>best of ability] is beyond the grasp of any scientific instrument.
The problem is also that many of them aren't willing to enter the laboratory...
>>> For example, the dasa-avatars of Vishnu are linked to show the
>>>evolution of being according to Darwin. But there is no scriptural support
>>>for this (as far as i know).
>>In fact, as far as I can tell, it would take a really twisted view of
>>the scriptures to come up with this.
> Yes. But the statement of mine was based on some poster's remark
>on SRH how Hindus thought about evolution *like* but *before* Darwin.
Oh no, I understood that. I was agreeing with you.
>> For example, if one insists that
>>Matsyaavataara represents the lowest stage of evolution, one must ask
>>why there were humans (such as Satyavrata Rshi -- maybe I had better
>>say "human-like lifeforms" since I'm not sure if Rshis are actually a
>>higher species) present at the same time?
> Maybe they were alien lifeforms. Just kidding.
Crick might have gone for that, but I don't think current evolutionary
biologist go for the "evolution by alien invasion" theory...
>>>Darwin's theory is the best science can offer
>>>right now, but that may change with time and new evidence. Hence association
>>>of things like avatars to an imperfect science is not only dangerous but
>>>may look foolish in the long run.
>>Right; as an orthogonal point, there is also a danger in saying "God
>>is in the details [the gaps that science hasn't filled in yet]"
>>because in a few years science might fill those gaps in [since not
>>even the _greatest_ astrologer can predict what science will come up
>>with next], and guess what, that person's view of God just
>>disappeared...
>>-- Vijay
> Maybe you can post in alt.jyotish and ask what science will come up
>next :-)
I already did -- there and also to alt.flame.jay-stevens in the very article
to which you responded.
> Regarding God in the gaps of science, I thought He was everywhere,
>both inside and outside the gaps :-).
tad antarasya sarvasya / tad u sarvasyaasya baahyataH
Right, I meant "It is dangerous to say God is _only_ in the gaps"
>Namaste.
-- Vijay
