Science and the Vedas
Came across this and it was pretty interesting.
Part 1
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rY4Q2xx7BTc
Part 2
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G2vhCPBjqcA&feature=related
Part 3
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FMlisMg4VPo&feature=related
Thought i'd show this for anyone whos interested.
Pretty cool. A little too biased, though they do a good job of hiding it until half way through the third one.
My general thought is that the thesis this guy is pumping would be the same as me saying that the Qu'ran is scientifically valid because a) it describes real battles that took place between muslims and other middle eastern communities and b) the muslims won.
Yeah, its does seem abit biased in places, especially in the last bit of the 3rs bit when they go into sound and mantra, where i just sitched off, but the actuall science stuff before was cool. I knew about the indus civilisation, but didnt I'm sure the text from the indus valley havent been translated
I've seen things similar to this both in video and in books. Basically, because they have less outlandish premises to begin with (usually, not always), Eastern religious beliefs are easier to parade around as "in conjunction with science."
My thought on the matter is twofold.
One, given the context and time period that many texts were written in, it becomes a stretch to see them as "science" at all. They are religious works that we look at with a current eye, and some simply have more flaws than others. Take enough religions and some will be in accord with science. The relative "rightness" of some doesn't make them more scientific, however. For example, science leads us to a (provisional) belief in a deterministic universe. So, for example, should that elevate something like Buddhist natural law teachings ahead of free will-based teachings? Perhaps, but in this case, and many others, it's a coin flip scenario. One side had to be right.
Second, a popular way to interpret Eastern thought is through quantum physics, or modern cosmology. At worst, this is used to attempt to validate paranormal beliefs. For most, this is a matter of limited knowledge that is far from adequate. Quantum physics, as with eastern thought, is esoteric and seems inherently philosophical. Therefore, they MUST be in accord, right? Well, not really. Usually this is due to either shoddy interpretation of science (Einstein, Heisenberg, Planck, etc....take your pick) or loose interpretation of vague scriptural passages. And the leap from one realm to the other is so huge that it defies description, but many are willing to overlook such concerns for the sake of a pleasing analogy that seems to unify the two schools.
...
As for the videos, the first two are largely just an affirmation of the culture and knowledge of the people who wrote and believed in the Vedas. The achievements of the Vedic culture are impressive but were matched in many cases by the ancient Greeks and Egyptians. They don't validate the beliefs, but merely speak to the culture's knowledge. Civilization possessed considerable knowledge even in its earlier stages. It is impressive, just like Asia's culture during the comparatively backward European Middle Ages, but neither one is particularly surprising. And this, in and of itself, does nothing to validate the beliefs themselves.
It also enjoys talking about English perversion of Vedic knowledge, and/or validation of them from English intellectuals. Again, fascinating as historical information, but it doesn't really deal with religious belief.
So they're a decent, though heavily biased, view of Vedic history. Only a few times to they stray from proven historical data into the purely speculative (possible atomic bombs in the 3rd millenia BC, for example).
I'd take issue with the idea that Eastern religions conform more to science (although I am aware thats not your position Digi 😉).
I'd say eastern philosophy has yet to really face true opposition from science, and thus, it is easy to pick and choose which facts from either field to highlight. I think the author of the video is also taking advantage of the fact that most people (ie, non-hindus who the video seems to be aimed at) will be unfamiliar with the scripts or any real controversy about them. (very little religious material is presented, aside from a couple choice quotes).
I asked my India prof about this briefly this morning, she said that this kind of thing is attached to the post-colonial, reactionary, Hindu nationalism that has emerged in India (and is HIGHLY comparable to the rise of Christianity in America and the rise of Islam-'ism' in the middle east as political entities). Looking to the Vedas to talk about modern issues (nukes in 3rd millennia BCE) is a trend in Hindu politics.
The American scientists are interesting, though my assumption is some degree of selective quotations.
Originally posted by inimalist
I'd take issue with the idea that Eastern religions conform more to science (although I am aware thats not your position Digi 😉).I'd say eastern philosophy has yet to really face true opposition from science, and thus, it is easy to pick and choose which facts from either field to highlight. I think the author of the video is also taking advantage of the fact that most people (ie, non-hindus who the video seems to be aimed at) will be unfamiliar with the scripts or any real controversy about them. (very little religious material is presented, aside from a couple choice quotes).
I asked my India prof about this briefly this morning, she said that this kind of thing is attached to the post-colonial, reactionary, Hindu nationalism that has emerged in India (and is HIGHLY comparable to the rise of Christianity in America and the rise of Islam-'ism' in the middle east as political entities). Looking to the Vedas to talk about modern issues (nukes in 3rd millennia BCE) is a trend in Hindu politics.
The American scientists are interesting, though my assumption is some degree of selective quotations.
As it pertains to the videos (and the cultural trend in the mideast) you're quite right.
Some Eastern sects simply aren't as intrusive into the realm of science. Christian dogma and science, for example, clash repeatedly. But something as scientifically null as, say, Taoism, can't really take a huge hit from science. The philosophy is about action and thoughts, spiritual and otherwise, but has very little (if anything) definitive to say about matters that would either agree or disagree with science. As it pertains to the Tao, the Tao is what is and what isn't. It's very solipsist, and not really an easily refutable stance.
Paranormal claims such as reincarnation, karma, chi, feng shui (sic?), etc. come into stark contrast with science. But those are (I think) more associated with Buddhism. Though I could be wrong. Still, even Buddhism has less unscientific claims than most Western schools. And more niche markets like Jainism, Confucianism, etc. aren't any worse. Hinduism straddles the fence, imo, because it is theistic but in a nearly pan-theistic sense, that it almost becomes closer to "enlightenment" religions rather than "deliverance" religions (my own labels).
That's why I think for many who become informed but can't give up the religious zeitgeist, so to speak, they drift East-ward, spiritually speaking. It's a little easier to stomach from a logical perspective, though like you said, still not immune to scientific debunking.
Re: Re: Science and the Vedas
Originally posted by Quiero Mota
I really don't see anything scientific about a four-armed man with an elephant's head...
😂
You have any idea what that actually symbolizes? Or are you just assuming it's a literal interpretation of their deity? Or that somehow it makes a testable statement about the world that would be subject to science, rather than being a spiritual symbol?
Re: Re: Re: Science and the Vedas
Originally posted by DigiMark007
😂You have any idea what that actually symbolizes? Or are you just assuming it's a literal interpretation of their deity? Or that somehow it makes a testable statement about the world that would be subject to science, rather than being a spiritual symbol?
I know who Ganesh is. I'm not assuming anything; just saying that the idea of him doesn't fit in with modern science. Or the giant mouse that he rides around.
Originally posted by DigiMark007
As it pertains to the videos (and the cultural trend in the mideast) you're quite right.Some Eastern sects simply aren't as intrusive into the realm of science. Christian dogma and science, for example, clash repeatedly. But something as scientifically null as, say, Taoism, can't really take a huge hit from science. The philosophy is about action and thoughts, spiritual and otherwise, but has very little (if anything) definitive to say about matters that would either agree or disagree with science. As it pertains to the Tao, the Tao is what is and what isn't. It's very solipsist, and not really an easily refutable stance.
Paranormal claims such as reincarnation, karma, chi, feng shui (sic?), etc. come into stark contrast with science. But those are (I think) more associated with Buddhism. Though I could be wrong. Still, even Buddhism has less unscientific claims than most Western schools. And more niche markets like Jainism, Confucianism, etc. aren't any worse. Hinduism straddles the fence, imo, because it is theistic but in a nearly pan-theistic sense, that it almost becomes closer to "enlightenment" religions rather than "deliverance" religions (my own labels).
That's why I think for many who become informed but can't give up the religious zeitgeist, so to speak, they drift East-ward, spiritually speaking. It's a little easier to stomach from a logical perspective, though like you said, still not immune to scientific debunking.
ouch...
digi 1, me 0
Originally posted by Quiero Mota
I know who Ganesh is. I'm not assuming anything; just saying that the idea of him doesn't fit in with modern science. Or the giant mouse that he rides around.
Hinduism has innumerable forms of Brahman, their god-figure. Saying that a symbol doesn't jive scientifically would instantly invalidate about 90% of religious symbology in any religion that is a part of the belief system, but not a literal statement of fact. No one thinks, for example, that giant mice carry gods around the earth.
In any case, selective interpretation to make your point doesn't really validate your conclusions. It just shows that you're willing to pick and choose from other religions (and misinterpret them, to boot) to make your own seem preferable. I read a wonderful quote once from a scholar of religion who warned against mistaking the symbol itself for its "tenor" (i.e. meaning). As metaphor, symbols work fine that fall apart utterly when seen as literal truth. The same can be said of nearly any religion (Christianity included), and isn't such a bad religion in allegorical state, but only gets into trouble when people turn it into literal dogma.
Originally posted by inimalist
ouch...digi 1, me 0
Thanks, I guess, though I didn't know we were in disagreement.
Originally posted by DigiMark007
Hinduism has innumerable forms of Brahman, their god-figure. Saying that a symbol doesn't jive scientifically would instantly invalidate about 90% of religious symbology in any religion that is a part of the belief system, but not a literal statement of fact. No one thinks, for example, that giant mice carry gods around the earth.In any case, selective interpretation to make your point doesn't really validate your conclusions. It just shows that you're willing to pick and choose from other religions (and misinterpret them, to boot) to make your own seem preferable. I read a wonderful quote once from a scholar of religion who warned against mistaking the symbol itself for its "tenor" (i.e. meaning). As metaphor, symbols work fine that fall apart utterly when seen as literal truth. The same can be said of nearly any religion (Christianity included), and isn't such a bad religion in allegorical state, but only gets into trouble when people turn it into literal dogma.
👆
Originally posted by DigiMark007
Thanks, I guess, though I didn't know we were in disagreement.
not really, I was more conceding the point about Eastern religions and science.
You are totally correct, imho, Eastern religion is not, per se, more scientific, just the focus is less on claims dealing with the material universe, and more on subjective spiritual stuff.
My point was more that science in those parts of the world had yet to develop into an institution capable of challenging religious dogma, which I don't necessarily reject now, however I think you are more correct.
Originally posted by DigiMark007
Hinduism has innumerable forms of Brahman, their god-figure. Saying that a symbol doesn't jive scientifically would instantly invalidate about 90% of religious symbology in any religion that is a part of the belief system, but not a literal statement of fact. No one thinks, for example, that giant mice carry gods around the earth.In any case, selective interpretation to make your point doesn't really validate your conclusions. It just shows that you're willing to pick and choose from other religions (and misinterpret them, to boot) to make your own seem preferable. I read a wonderful quote once from a scholar of religion who warned against mistaking the symbol itself for its "tenor" (i.e. meaning). As metaphor, symbols work fine that fall apart utterly when seen as literal truth. The same can be said of nearly any religion (Christianity included), and isn't such a bad religion in allegorical state, but only gets into trouble when people turn it into literal dogma.
I know the concept of the different avatars of Lord Brahma. You're not telling me anything new. About Hindus taking it literally; it depends who you ask. Hinduism has no strict defining guidelines, that's why there are Atheistic Hindus, Monotheistic Hindus, and Hindus who believe that there's a blue-skinned four-armed guy that flies around on the back of a giant swan.
You see, the reason Hinduism has hundreds of gods with flashy skin colors, animal bodyparts and pets/mounts is because it rose around the same time as the Egyptian religion. So by the time religions like Buddhism, Christianity and Islam were forming, Hinduism was a living fossil that should've died out along with Zeus and Horus.
Originally posted by Quiero Mota
I know the concept of the different avatars of Lord Brahma. You're not telling me anything new. About Hindus taking it literally; it depends who you ask. Hinduism has no strict defining guidelines, that's why there are Atheistic Hindus, Monotheistic Hindus, and Hindus who believe that there's a blue-skinned four-armed guy that flies around on the back of a giant swan.You see, the reason Hinduism has hundreds of gods with flashy skin colors, animal bodyparts and pets/mounts is because it rose around the same time as the Egyptian religion. So by the time religions like Buddhism, Christianity and Islam were forming, Hinduism was a living fossil that should've died out along with Zeus and Horus.
Much the same could be said of Christianity, friend. Though I doubt you'd concur, so I won't bother discussing the issue.
Though I am concerned at the seeming hatred you have for it, and the flippancy with which you dismiss it as something that should be gone. Something tells me that any answers to be found within religions, and the interplay between them, will only come through acceptance, not callous dismissal.
But your comments just go to show the point that there are as many gods as their are people who believe in them. The same is true of all religions. It's just more pronounced in Hinduism.
Personally, I'd value a religion that promotes personal freedom over one that claims to be a purveyor of universal truth.
Originally posted by DigiMark007
Much the same could be said of Christianity, friend. Though I doubt you'd concur, so I won't bother discussing the issue.Though I am concerned at the seeming hatred you have for it, and the flippancy with which you dismiss it as something that should be gone. Something tells me that any answers to be found within religions, and the interplay between them, will only come through acceptance, not callous dismissal.
But your comments just go to show the point that there are as many gods as their are people who believe in them. The same is true of all religions. It's just more pronounced in Hinduism.
Personally, I'd value a religion that promotes personal freedom over one that claims to be a purveyor of universal truth.
I have no hatred or callous towards Hinduism. Are you denying that Hinduism is over 4,000 years old?
Horus and Ganesh are both animal heads on a man's body that came into being around the same time, the only difference is that one is 'extinct' and the other has a billion worshippers.
Originally posted by Quiero Mota
I have no hatred or callous towards Hinduism.Horus and Ganesh are both animal heads on a man's body that came into being around the same time, the only difference is that one is 'extinct' and the other has a billion worshippers.
Mithra and Jesus were savior figures that cropped up around the same time. Only one is extinct and the other has a billion worshippers. Thus my earlier point.
As before, Ganesh is symbolic. You're mistaking the tenor for its literal form. Same with Jesus, I might add, but that's a different can of worms.
Originally posted by Quiero Mota
Are you denying that Hinduism is over 4,000 years old?
The hell? When did I say anything even remotely resembling this?
Originally posted by DigiMark007
Mithra and Jesus were savior figures that cropped up around the same time. Only one is extinct and the other has a billion worshippers. Thus my earlier point.
Because people saw Mithra for what he was.
Originally posted by DigiMark007
As before, Ganesh is symbolic. You're mistaking the tenor for its literal form. Same with Jesus, I might add, but that's a different can of worms.
As before, it depends who you ask. Some Hindus view Ganesh as a personality of Bramha (a metaphor) and other sects view him as his own entity and existence.
Originally posted by DigiMark007
The hell? When did I say anything even remotely resembling this?
You said I "dismiss it as something that should be gone". I didn't say that as in "I say so!", I said that because among religions, it's a living fossil that saw its day. Buddhism came about 2,500 years ago, Christianity 2,000 and Islam 1,400. By the time Islam was gaining members, Zeus and Horus were cast aside, and Hinduism which was already thousands of years old should have joined them (not because I say so, but because of era and style; ie: many gods with animal associations). Hinduism has no known founder, wanna venture a guess why?
The reason Hinduism has outlived religions that it coincided with is because of India's location, the Indians' prolific reproduction/population, and it's pantheistic and adoptive nature.
Originally posted by Quiero Mota
Because people saw Mithra for what he was.
Yet they can't do the same for Jesus yet. A shame.
Originally posted by Quiero Mota
As before, it depends who you ask. Some Hindus view Ganesh as a personality of Bramha (a metaphor) and other sects view him as his own entity and existence.
K then. Just like various factions of any religion, with some more reasonable than others.
Originally posted by Quiero Mota
You said I "dismiss it as something that should be gone". I didn't say that as in "I say so!", I said that because among religions, it's a living fossil that saw its day. Buddhism came about 2,500 years ago, Christianity 2,000 and Islam 1,400. By the time Islam was gaining members, Zeus and Horus were cast aside, and Hinduism which was already thousands of years old should have joined them (not because I say so, but because of era and style; ie: many gods with animal associations). Hinduism has no known founder, wanna venture a guess why?The reason Hinduism has outlived religions that it coincided with is because of India's location, the Indians' prolific reproduction/population, and it's pantheistic and adoptive nature.
Still failing to see what age of the religion has to do with anything. If it survived, it survived. All major religions are "dinosaurs" compared to our current understanding of the universe. That alone does nothing to invalidate them, though reasoned objections usually do, for this or any religion.