Posts Tagged ‘religious texts’

Criterion of finding truth in religions and non-religions

April 7, 2014

The viewers should access the following link to know the context of the discussion; and only then one should form one’s own sincere and independent opinion.

http://jerichobrisance.com/2014/04/02/snapthought-wrested-from-my-hands-by-god/comment-page-1/#comment-6620

paarsurrey says:
April 7, 2014 at :
@(Matt) Brisancian :April 6, 2014

“If you would, please give your criterion for falsifiability of religious texts as either divinely inspired or merely human in origin. However, the criterion cannot be circularly dependent upon the text itself or the author(s).
Your answer will be the beginning of my response.” Unquote

One could be born in any religion or without a religion. It is beyond one to decide where to be born. Wherever one is born; that starts one’s journey to find the truth.

The tools make easy for one to do a job. It is therefore important for one first to find a tool that gives equal opportunity to every religion to search.

Using a tool and then making a comparative study of religions to find which one is the most truthful religion is therefore most reasonable and rational.

I give here a principle of comparative study of religions which was suggested by Mirza Ghulam Ahmad- the Promised Messiah 1835-1908 in an essay that was read in a Conference of Great Religions held at Lahore in 1896; and was later published in a book form titled “The Philosophy of the Teachings of Islam” translated in many languages of the world.

I give below the principle and its explanation in precisely his words:

“It is necessary that a claim and the reasons in support of it must be set forth from a revealed book”
“I consider it essential that everyone who follows a book, believing it to be revealed, should base his exposition upon that book and should not so extend the scope of his advocacy of his faith as if he is compiling a new book.

As it is my purpose today to establish the merits of the Holy Quran and to demonstrate its excellence, it is incumbent upon me not to state anything which is not comprehended in the Quran and to set forth everything on the basis of its verses and in accord with their meaning and that which might be inferred from them, so that those attending the Conference should encounter no difficulty in carrying out a comparison between the teachings of different religions.”

Mirza Ghulam Ahmad adhered to this principle and answered the five important questions set by the moderators of the Conference:

1. The physical, moral and spiritual states of man
2. The state of man after death.
3. The object of man’s life and the means to its attainment.
4. The operation of the practical ordinances of the Law in this life and the next.
5. Sources of Divine knowledge.

One could access the following link to read the book available online, freely:

http://www.alislam.org/library/books/Philosophy-of-Teachings-of-Islam.pdf

The Atheists/Agnostics/Skeptics don’t have a book to follow. They extol science to find answers to all the questions in the world. Although the questions don’t fall within the scope of science and would overburden it; yet they are open to answer with the condition that they quote some standards text book of science for the claims to answers as also to the reasons given specifying the discipline of science that legitimately deals with it.

Please take your time for your journey of search and as to how the criterion is to be applied. Please read the small book mentioned above; that will provide ready-made solution to many questions that arise.

Wish you good-luck.

Thanks and regards

Love of science

April 6, 2013

My friend “Nick T ” here in the wordpress has given long comments on a post reblogged by me. It may be viewed @
https://paarsurrey.wordpress.com/2013/03/30/3349/#comment-2148

The points raised by him in his commendable comments deserve to be appreciated, discussed and shared with the wordpress community. We both don’t like to debate; that is also correct.

First, I will recount his full comments below.

Nick T Says:
(addressing paarsurrey)

Thanks for your comments, respectfully received. I appreciate your views on the poor acts of the clergy in recent times in their attempted oppression of scientific endeavor.

With regards to your thoughts on the founding prophets; It’s rather difficult to respond to these thoughts because for the most part they’re non-falsifiable. These prophets were alive when scientific knowledge wasn’t able to adequately challenge the religious beliefs of the time, beliefs which dominated most of the explanations for recognized phenomena. For example, lightening was considered the wrath of god, the Earth was flat and the shining celestial bodies were gods of the sky.

Science now explains clearly the very phenomena that god is credited for in religious texts; the origins of the cosmos, astronomy, biological evolution. So while religious texts don’t necessarily condemn science per se, many of the modern practitioners do, because the science of today is not the same science that existed when these religious texts were written.
But what is a religion if not its practitioners/followers? To insist that the pope is not a true representation of the catholic church because he attempted to obscure the path of science, is to commit the ‘no true Scotsman’ fallacy

(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_true_Scotsman)

; without a legitimate living prophet to encourage scientific endeavor, the pope and clergymen, and the equivalent priests and clerics in other religions take the mantle as head. Although I certainly don’t know for sure, I suspect that these religious leaders do oppose science, it is the responsibility of the more rational religious masses to speak out and condemn their objections so we can co-exist in peace. More importantly, it is not religious objections to science that is a problem, but more so the religious objections to other religions.

Finally, I must apologize if I don’t post frequent responses on this or future threads, although I will try; while you seem like an articulate and intelligent individual, I’ve been in these debates many times before to know that there will be no mutual conclusion, and I fear that regardless of the evidence presented on both sides, neither of us will be able to empathize whole-heartedly with the other’s viewpoint. I began writing my blog to share my love of science, not to engage in conclusion-less debate about religion.

What I will do, however, is recount the end of a conversation I had with a Muslim chap just a few weeks ago that was handing out fliers. Young, fresh-faced, cheerful and respectful, he tried to convince me that humans came from Adam, created by the one true god. After twenty minutes of spirited debate I emphatically explained that, as a scientist, I would not be able to agree with his viewpoint. However, we shook hands and agreed that while we may have alternate viewpoints on WHERE humans all came from, we could certainly agree on the fact that we all came from the ”same place”, wherever that may be, and as such, we’re all brothers and sisters on this planet!

Peace to you.

Paarsurrey says:

I have highlighted the points I want to discuss and share with my friends here. Others could also join the discussion, if they so like; no compulsion though.

My friend loves science; and I love both religion and science and I don’t think love of one precludes the other.

This will be the topic of my next post, very shortly.