--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "anatol_zinc" <anatol_z...@...> wrote:
>
>
> What is Science?
Good question, how about: A quest to explain the universe
independent of our beliefs/opinions of what it might be?
Or simpler: The search for what *is* rather than what we want
it to be?
> Ok, let's see what I can offer from my 2cents physics PhD about the
> following quote:
>
>
>
> Hawkins ~ "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."
>
>
>
> Is above assumption the whole truth and nothing but the truth?
>
>
>
> No, it is not!
>
>
>
> Hawkins is taking a very narrow view and polarizing it by taking the
> worst of religion and the best of science. This makes me say that
> Hawkins, if the above quote is accurate, is much much less of a real
> scientist than Einstein was. It is true that as a young man Einstein
> felt that much in the bible was not possible, but as he got older he
> became more tolerant toward religious views, and overall he had his own
> cosmic religion and did not shy away from using the word God to mean the
> supreme unknown intelligence of the universe.
Like most physicists (indeed humans in general) Einstein
would be fascinated by concepts of god but that doesn't
mean he believed it and even if he did it wouldn't mean
such a thing was any more or less likely. There are plenty
of religious scientists as science is simply a tool for
working things out, some of these are religious by upbringing
and simply ignore the contradictions between faith and
discovery, like the school science teacher on a recent TV
doc who believed the world was only 4000 years old but knew
from experiment (and taught as much to pupils) that it is in
fact billions of years older. He couldn't explain his personal
disconnect between the two positions but was convinced he was
right about the biblical age(I consider him functionally
insane). Of the others I don't know, you'd have to ask
them but I'm sure they'd agree that a belief in god can't
be acquired scientifically.
The knowledge uncovered by science is what is important here,
a scientist believing in god doesn't make god more likely,
the only thing that would do that is if god turned out to be
a better explanation than any of the alternatives.
> Maharishi said, don't remember his words exactly, that the word God
> is the most [exalted] of all the words and that not believing in God is
> simply due to a weak mind.
Rather self-serving don't you think?
I know that Maharishi is right about this
> from my years of studying engineering, math, physics( PhD ) and giving
> up on God; until I met Maharishi and his lecture "atheists shaking
> hands with God" ; thank you Maharishi.
>
>
>
> But, before having all sort of discussions about Hawkins etc,
> shouldn't we first ask the question whether the initial assumption
> is valid and true? Even if it may be partially valid, is it not
> necessary to look at the whole picture, as wide a scope as possible, if
> one is interested in the whole truth and nothing but the truth?
>
>
>
> So, how about asking "what is science?"
>
>
>
> We could define science initially as :
>
> Observation => recording observation => analysis => making an initial
> assumption and giving it a fancy name hypothesis => further observation
> to confirm assumption => repeated confirmations elevate the assumption
> into a theory => using theory to make predictions and/or technological
> applications => often newer better theories replace older narrower
> theories =>
>
>
>
> sometimes older theories have to be discarded as bogus, as mistakes due
> to wrong assumptions; on the other hand some old theories continue to be
> practical in the limited environment where they work very well like
> Newtonian Mechanics
>
>
>
> However, observation and reason in the above steps are only part of the
> story. We need to ask "where do the hypothetical assumptions come
> from?" Einstein said that his [amazing] insights came not from his
> rational mind of observation and reason, but from intuition. And besides
> that Einstein had a scholarly friend who was into eastern philosophy.
> Hmmmmm, perhaps the idea for Einstein's Unified Field Theory came
> from the Vedic view of Brahman, the Absolute Source of All?
And then again perhaps not. The thing about Einsteins insights
(and all similar scientific revelations like the discovery of
the shape of DNA in a dream) is that he spent his entire life thinking about
physics, energy and matter. He is the first to
admit that he was standing on the shoulders of giants, if it
wasn't for the discoveries of Newton, Poincare etc. he would
never have had his revelations.
That the unconscious mind does our thinking for us should come
as no surprise as it runs our bodies for us without us even
noticing (have you seen how much work goes into programming a
robot to walk? we do it automatically) so someone who has
both an enquiring mind and extensive knowledge of maths and
physics is actually rather likely to have big ideas.
The unconscious is powerful but is it what you claim it to be?
On the evidence I would say no because there are too many simpler
explanations that don't require infite beings of pure knowledge
for them to work. If Einsteins theory of relativity had popped
into the head of someone with no knowledge of physics I'd be
impressed, but things like that never seem to.
Here is how science works: Someone like Einstein notices that
a current explanation is inadequate to explain the observations
we have. Experiments are carried out to see if the new theory
better fits the observations if it does then that theory stands
until some new evidence comes to light that disproves the old
idea. So far with Einstein that hasn't happened despite many
tests, in fact like the theory of evolution only evidence to
confirm the idea has been found.
Contrast that to religious thought. How much of that actually
stands up to analysis? I find the idea of received wisdom
fascinating but have doubts about whether it is all it's
cracked up to be. If you could really close your eyes/climb
a mountian etc. and get knowledge handed to you from god
wouldn't some of it mirror what has actually been discovered
by science? You'd think so but where is the knowledge about
the true age of the earth in the vedas? Same with DNA,
evolution, astronomy etc. It seems to me that science has
provided us with a demonstrably far superior view of where and
what we are without ever claiming to be absolutely true, in
fact quite the opposite.
The so-called "truths" of religion are a bit disappointing if
we are totally honest.
> Maharishi also said that all new valid knowledge should be traceable to
> Vedic knowledge, which does seem to have some validity;
Oh yeah? I think the vedas contrast quite markedly with the
way we look at things now. So what do you mean exactly?
but I still
> strongly disagree with his approach to stamp the label of
> "Maharishi" on all Vedic knowledge; in India the strength of
> everything Vedic has been built and maintained, not by one organization,
> by innumerable individual realized sages, known and unknown, all real and
> supreme scientists
> Instead of billionare $ atom smashers, telescopes, and other
> high-technology to study the huge but limited universe of matter and
> energy, the ancient Vedic scientists transcended the limited mind of
> thoughts to plunge into the depths of unbounded/infinite awareness
Great fun, I've done it myself but what amazing knowledge did they uncover that
actually features as a testable hypothesis? I don't
believe there has ever been a spiritual revelation that turned
out to have a basis in fact. Please correct me if I'm wrong.
> So now, perhaps we can define science more accurately as:
>
> "observation, reason, and faith in intuitive insights which are
> sometimes called the `Ahaa!' experiences."
Correct except for the "faith" part. It doesn't matter
where the theory comes from as long as it stands up to a bit
of probing.
>
> "faith in intuitive insights" sounds like the best of religion
> to me instead of the worst of religion as authoritative dogma and
> beliefs based on fear.
>
>
>
> OK now we're getting somewhere. What kind of sciences are there
> overall:
>
> Science of Matter and Energy
>
> Science of Unified Fields
>
> Science of Mind/Psychology
>
> Science of Medicines
>
> Science of Spirituality
Not a real science.
>
> Science of Religion
Ditto
> Science of Economics
>
> Science on Oil Spills( ooops )
Wish it was a real science.
> Science of Engineering/Technologies
>
> Science of War/Torture
>
>
>
> And of course all the Vedic Sciences ( on meditation, breath, sound,
> environment, devotion, health, yoga, family, renunciation,
> consciousness, etc)
> Science on Nutrition and Health as in www.thechinastudy.com
> <http://www.thechinastudy.com/> supposed to be the largest research
> study on nutrition conducted over a period of two decades
>
>
>
> And how about Science of Common Sense; in everyday life, don't we
> observe, make assumptions/hypothesis, act accordingly and suffer the
> consequences good or bad; and don't we sometimes get "aha"
> insights when our thoughts stop for a moment? True it's our common
> sense reason which makes either good use of our insights or not, due to
> our conditioning.
>
>
>
> And what is the best way to get rid of negative conditioning? Well,
> reason can help if reason is part of our good conditioning. But the
> supreme way, is pure observation, free from thoughts, from the clear
> view of our own awareness. And it seems to be my experience that faith
> in our own awareness is what makes progress possible in this area.
>
>
>
> There, I have done it, shown that the highest science is actually based
> on faith,
Not really, we can kid ourselves too easily, common sense tells
us that the sun goes round the earth, it can't be trusted.
As Einstein said: Common sense is the collection of prejudices acquired by age
eighteen
>but please remember that it is faith in our own awareness;
> not faith in dogma( religious or scientific or political or economic );
> actually if we look into it, it is not "faith" in dogma, it is
> all fearÂ…and fear clouds reason, observation and faith
>
>
>
> From my observation, people define "God" in a limited way and
> say I don't believe in such a "God." Well good for them!
> How about we define "God" as the unbounded infinite
> awareness/consciousness/supreme-intelligence in which all phenomena
> appears, persists temporarily short or long, and disappears? Hmm.
How about we don't define god at all until someone comes
up with a whole in understanding so big that only some sort
of infinite being can fill it?
To me god is simply a way people have always had of accounting
for things that we have no explanation for, god used to be the
all powerful creator but in this age of quantum tunnelling and evolution by
natural selection poor old god has been forced into managing the gaps between
the bits that make up the bits that
make up atoms, poor guy!
I'm not being hard on our amazing ancestors, they didn't know
any better. I do think it's reasonable to have a god to explain
things when you don't have another way of finding out, seems
obvious to our common sense that complex things must have a more complex
creator. And this is where science has done us proud, evolution and the
physical sciences have shown us that that is
not only unnecessary but that it never happened, at least in any
way taught to us by any religion you could name.
What next for knowledge? Is it true that every subatomic particle
in the multiverse is micro-controlled by a supreme being but
in a way that makes it all look random? It's possible, but is it likely?
May
> take a little honest persistent investigation, real science free from
> the limitations of fear. We can start with our own awareness and get a
> hug from Amma currently touring America and ending in Canada on July
> 22nd.
>
> http://www.amma.org/tours/amma-tours/n_america.html
> <http://www.amma.org/tours/amma-tours/n_america.html>
So all this was a plug for a hug?
OK I'll give it a try but don't expect a major conversion,
amazing states of consciousness are fun but don't mean that
the explanations for given for them by the provider are
necessarily correct. Am I a sceptic or what?
> it all comes down to faith and depends on what you choose, some limited
> dogmatic science or some limited dogmatic religion, or your own
> unlimited awareness free from dogmas enjoying the best of everything,
> the best of religion, the best of science, the best of life; and if
> suffering comes, knowing that too is best for the time being
>
> thanks for listening
A pleasure. Can I ask you a question? As someone who claims
a PHD in physics, do you believe there is any possible way
in physics for yagyas to do what is claimed for them?
And if so, how?
> Om Namah Sivaya,
Very probably the same to you.
>
> anatol
>
