Will Science Ever Explore Spirituality

Will science ever explore spirituality?
: Cutting The Edge Page 1 of 29

Hindustan Times
News Feed Comments
Cutting The Edge
Search this blog ... GO
HT Home / Blogs Home > Cutting The Edge / religion / Will science ever explore spirituality?
Will science ever explore spirituality?

111 Comments
It is difficult to negotiate physics and astronomy — particularly the origin of creation — without intersecting with God and religion. But in a recent
interview, physicist Stephen Hawking did just that. “There is a fundamental difference between religion, which is based on authority, [and] science,
which is based on observation and reason,” Hawking told ABC News. “Science will win because it works.”
I don’t think the issue is science versus religion, but science and spirituality. On religion, my views are fairly straight: it is one tool in the evolution of
society that helps people organise their morality better. It has evolved and must continue to evolve.
But coming to science and spirituality, I believe practitioners of both fields — the scientists and the mystics — need to move towards one another.
Each branch of knowledge looks at the world and attempts to decode it using methods, assumptions and principles that are unique to it. So, if it is
astronomy, you begin with light, space, electrons and time. If maths, it is integers, algebra, vectors. If economics, it is incentives, demand, supply.
And so on.
Understanding the origin of creation, however, is a difficult terrain for traditional scientists. First, there is no starting point. Nothing that can tell you
that these are the numbers or alphabets with which to write out an essay on creation. You begin with nothing, assume nothing, explore nothingness.
Tough.
Second, the assumptions you use turn useless within no time. If there was nothingness before and to nothingness is where we are headed, what
happens to the galaxies, solar systems, stars, planets, asteroids? And how does something like a Big Bang create a DNA at the peak of which stands
man?
Third, it is true that what was religion yesterday has been conquered by science today — the god of fire, as we all know, is combustion; the magic of
penicillin killed the devil of infection; the smashing of the atom demystified the origin of energy. Science has many conquests ahead and my best
wishes to it.
But that still doesn’t answer the question of what was before. And no amount of science — in the way we see it today — can answer that question,
behind which lies another one and another and another. The problem with science, while combating this particular question of creation, is that it leans
too heavily on data and methods that are observable, a strength while decoding cancer or genetic realignment, but a weakness when looking beyond.
How, for instance, can science infer this statement from the first Khanda of the Kena Upanishad:
1. The Pupil asks: “At whose wish does the mind sent forth proceed on its errand? At whose command does the first breath go forth? At whose wish
do we utter this speech? What god directs the eye, or the ear?”
2. The Teacher replies: “It is the ear of the ear, the mind of the mind, the speech of speech, the breath of breath, and the eye of the eye. When freed
(from the senses) the wise, on departing from this world, become immortal.
3. “The eye does not go thither, nor speech, nor mind. We do not know, we do not understand, how any one can teach it.
4. “It is different from the known, it is also above the unknown, thus we have heard from those of old, who taught us this.
5. “That which is not expressed by speech and by which speech is expressed, that alone know as Brahman, not that which people here adore.
6. “That which does not think by mind, and by which, they say, mind is thought, that alone know as Brahman, not that which people here adore.
7. “That which does not see by the eye, and by which one sees (the work of) the eyes, that alone know as Brahman, not that which people here adore.
8. “That which does not hear by the ear, and by which the ear is heard, that alone know as Brahman, not that which people here adore.
9. “That which does not breathe by breath, and by which breath is drawn, that alone know as Brahman, not that which people here adore.”
Scientists can ignore this as gibberish. They can say it is neither observable, nor definable, nor replicable — the three legs on which science stands.
But I don’t think it’s untrue either; somewhere inside, I sense its reality or let’s say the reality resonates within me. What I don’t understand is why
scientists — the decoders of the abstract, the excavators of the unknown — look away when facing notions that can’t be captured and sliced into bites
that can be analysed in their language.
We believe scientists when they say E = MC squared. We believe them when they expound that Pluto is not a planet. We believe them when they
claim we evolved from amoebas. We believe them when they lay out axioms and theorems that take us further on the frontier of our evolution. The
keyword is belief even though most of us do not comprehend the meaning of those equations. We believe them because a handful of people we call
scientists say that to be true, that the results are replicable, tested by peers and so on. Our “faith” in science is based on the knowledge of a few and I
have no quarrel with that.
But when it comes to experiments in psychology that lead us towards a greater exploration of the mind and beyond into spirituality, we are loath to
let go of the hold that we have inherited from scientific methodologies. If a spiritual guru, for instance, suggests that what he says is replicable
provided you follow his path of meditation or surrender, for instance — and let this be only instances, for there are as many paths as there are gurus
http://blogs.hindustantimes.com/cutting-the-edge/2010/06/27/will-science-ever-explore-s... 11/26/2010
Will science ever explore spirituality? : Cutting The Edge Page 2 of 29
— is the man of science willing to walk on that road? I have my doubts.
While the reverse is true and we have had many gurus who are trained in science and encourage scientific temper to all, I’m not sure whether the
reverse is true. That is, I’m yet to see a man of science walk down the road to spirituality, unless it is his personal belief system. A start has been
made by The Templeton Prize, but more such attempts are needed, more scientists need to embrace this upcoming “science”.
Perhaps a new methodology is needed, one that gets scientists to look within rather than outside for evidence. Call it the science of spirituality if you
must give it a label, but for scientists and rationalists to decode the origin of creation they need to look beyond their boxes of methodologies and
reach a new science. Only then will Hawking, who joined Perimeter Institute of Theoretical Physics last week, would be proved right in saying that
science will “win”.
The question is: does science have the humility to reach, as the lines of the Upanishads above suggest, the “mind of the mind”?
Postscript 1
As a college student, I enjoyed reading physicist Stephen Hawking’s A Brief History of Time. I remember the book’s power to make a subject as
esoteric as time, space and astronomy somewhat accessible to lay people like myself. Four years ago, I picked up the extension of his work, A
Briefer History of Time, and realised that howsoever perfect a work you do, there is always scope to make it better. If you haven’t read Brief, read
Briefer — this is a book I would strongly, strongly recommend to all school going people with even a passing interest in science.
Postscript 2
I must credit five of my regular readers and commentators on Cutting the Edge — Atif, Ashish, Shan, Priyanka, Bobby and Wiseadvizer — for a
lively discussion on science and religion in a previous post, Islam has a branding problem: Millatfaceook CEO. I think there are streams in that
discussion worth pursuing. My advice to all: let your discussion become less of trying to prove yourselves right and more towards moving towards a
greater truth. Also, as this post suggests, maybe it’s not a question of “versus” but “harmony”.
Religion this week
India must ask: where is the honour in killing?

Is Facebook A Sin? Some Muslims Think So
Christian ministers challenge arrests at Arab fest
China’s believers compete in first religious games
Israeli court overturns ultra-Orthodox jail sentences
Upset Hindus ask for immediate recall of skateboards with images of Hindu deities
Planned mosque near NY’s Ground Zero sparks debate
Saudi Arabia, four men and 11 women socialize: sentenced to prison and lashes
(9 votes, average: 4.33 out of 5)

Loading ...
Posted by Gautam Chikermane on Sunday, June 27, 2010 at 10:03 pm

Filed under religion · Tagged assumptions, asteroids, astronomy, Brahman, creation, demand, DNA, economics, evolution, galaxies, God, incentives,
morality, mystics, physicist Stephen Hawking, physics, planets, principles, psychology, religion, Science, scientists, solar systems, spirituality, stars,
Stephen Hawking, supply
Like 0 0Share · Comment (RSS) · Trackback
Comments
111 Responses to “Will science ever explore spirituality?”
1. shan says:
June 28, 2010 at 2:20 am
@Gautam , I happy to note that you found my contibution in your blog useful, Thanks. This one is very unlikely to degenerate into Indo Pak
religious war , and also for a change does not involve Islam. This blog article is a tough call , it is so esoteric.Many of Upanishad bit is
probably classical hindu fudge, can’t really make head or tail of it. In fact that is the problem of hindu outlook on life in general.Take for
instance the concept of Maya , AS I UNDERSTAND(and I may be talking complete bullshit). Say there is a big tree in front of your house .
You look at it . You again look at it five minutes later. To me it appears the same big tree. But apparently METAPHYSICALLY it is not the
same tree , because some where one leaf has fallen which does not make any difference to a ordinary observer, but metaphysically it is not the
same tree. So the argument goes that perhaps what we are seeing is illusion (maya) the real world of truth can only be uncovered by other
ways. But science says yes the visible world is limited to a range of frequency of light, but again what is not visble due to the limitation of your
eye to process that out of range of frequency , there is not agreat deal to be seen , few insects etc.As regards knowing about the transformation
of big bang to DNA , I am very very much influenced by what the German philosopher Schaupenhaur said. He said just like human eye has its
limitation it can see only upto certain distance and certain frequency of light , or hearing is limited to certain range of frequency surely human
brain must have its limits THOUGH GOING BY THE MIND BOGGLING RANGE OF SCIENTIFIC KNOWLEDGE ACCRUED EVERY
YEAR , DOES NOT LOOK LIKE IT IS LIMITED. THOUGH IT IS QUITE POSSIBLE THE BRAIN TO HAVE ITS LIMITS OF
THINKING AND INFORMATION PROCESSING. And if that is the case then surely we will never know all those questions that we are
running after. Now Hindu philosophy does throw things which has surprised the scientific community. Here is an anecdote. When Tagore met
Einstein , they were discussing a riddle. Suppose in a empty room there is a chair. According to Einstein , the chair exists irrespective of the
fact , that no one is witnessing it. But Tagore falling back on Hindu Philosophy(Satyer swarup, nature of truth) said the chair does not exist as
there is no body to witness it. INCREDIBLE MODERN PHYSICS HAS BORNE OUT TAGORE), I have trawled this information from “the
myriad minded man , biography og Tagore , by andrew robinson and , krishna dutta). Perhaps bobby would be able to throw some light on this
as his background is physics. As to the spiritual feeling and brain , I need to do some research by looking into Prof Ramachandran’s books , if I
can lay my hands on them.
[Reply]
JSDBSC Reply:
June 28th, 2010 at 6:53 am
Dears,
Please read, The Biology of Belief by Bruce Lipton, The Field & The Intention Experiment by Lynne McTaggart. Rather than going into a
lengthy discussion about the Science & God, I feel that science is an avenue and one of the many avenue to be one with God. One should also
try to read *** ji Sahib by guru Nanak in addition to Lord Krsna, Lord Rama, Jesus, Buddha, Torah, Koran Sharif & many more scriptures. If
one does not feel like reading from scriptures one should read books of Joseph Campbell especially interview by Bill Moyers of J. Campbell.
You will notice that theology(not any religion) has already answered many questions, what science is discovering now. One of the many
examples you can read from *** ji where Guru Nanak has already written his experience of witnessing many universes. I am not endorsing any
particular message or messenger but simply sharing the most easy to read. Let’s cooperate with each other to bring peace, prosperity, and
harmony! Blessings to All! With Regards & Smiles!
Japji Sahib by Guru Nanak,
[Reply]
2. Dr.G.Srinivasan says:
June 28, 2010 at 4:07 am
It is quite intriguing that psychology is called upon to explore the depths of the mind and more than that the mind of the mind. While the
worlds knowledge of the mind itself is not anywhere near completion nor has it managed to scratch the surface.What was intriguing is the fact
that an area of science — neurochemistry where it is beginning to be shown that or has already done so that chemical go on to play a role in
emotions and memory and the same chemicals which can create emotions can alter them also .So the chemicals being the inter phase between
mind and the environment can be one of the tools to explore the mind and not a subject like psychology or a person like psychologist. I may be
wrong
[Reply]
3. Jyotir says:
June 28, 2010 at 6:24 am
Thank you for an interesting article. While reading the quotes from the Upanishads, there is another very important aphorism that would
complete the enunciation of the problem: ‘Brahman cannot be the object of worship of men’. That sums up the problem of making that ultimate
knowledge, ‘knowing which all there is nothing more to be known and all knots of ignorance are cut asunder’ the object of intellectual pursuit.
Science is the study of objective truths, whereas religion is an individual pursuit, where the ‘knower’ and the ‘known’ become one and it
remains an individual experience. Science on the other hand pursues areas where the distinction between knower and the known remains.
Religion ultimately brings an individual experience whereas science reveals or is the study of objective truths. Because religion ultimately
brings an experience to the individual, there are many versions of how that is to be attained depending on how an individual pursued his or her
quest in contrast to Michelson-Morley experiment on which there can be no dispute on how to conduct it. That is why we have endless disputes
in the field of religion though those who have had the experience may not have any dipute with each other. In matters of that ultimate religious
experience, Wittgenstein’s observation holds: whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must be silent.
[Reply]
4. CNSwamy says:
June 28, 2010 at 6:26 am
Dear Sir,
Suggest that one to read :”The Science of Religion” by Sri Sri Paramahansa Yoganada- Author of world famous classic- “Autobiography of a
Yogi”
Albert Einstien said- Science with out Religion is lame and Religion without Science is blind.
[Reply]
Nikhil Rajpara Reply:

July 6th, 2010 at 6:33 am
100 % agree. This is the only book that can take science to the journey of soul.
[Reply]
5. Curious says:
June 28, 2010 at 6:43 am
I agree with the fact that human beings have limited knowledge and only to a certain extent can his brains be used. Scientist coming in the
same category could have the same limited amount of knowledge and Grey area that could be used to answer the BIG question of life.
Therefore, wouldn’t it just be natural to think that there is a power beyond human imagination that is behind all of the creation. A person who
completes his education goes on to finish their Phd’s also, only could specialise in one area of subject matter. So, wouldn’t it be fair to think
that there has to be a master behind all of this creation.
How dioes the human body come into existence and how very well it manges to function, isn’t there supposed to be a creator behind all this??
The vast amount of universe that surrounds us how does it come into being there has to be a player behind it. And for me that power is what we
call God.
I think if we do read our own scriptures which are said to be voice of God himself, then we would have a clearer picture. Instead, of depending
on someone who has a limited knowledge like us, ’scientists as we call them”
Woouldn’t you agree??
[Reply]
shan Reply:
June 28th, 2010 at 6:20 pm
@Curious, No dont agree , just because I cant explain I dont need to fill with a creater. This creater business is because we think everything
has to be created, that’s the limitation of thinking.of a particular kind(read religion) Suppose there is a house in lapland , where I have never
been , I do not know who lives there , but I am pretty certain no elephant lives there.
[Reply]
Curious Reply:
June 29th, 2010 at 6:43 am
@Shan
Ok well a very simple question to think about how does this Body maintain itself, having distinct parts to it which fullfill their roles in their
own respective ways.. When dead the Body doesn’t function all of a sudden.. is this merely an accident that one day we are alive and next
dead?? Is our body really a machine..
Everything created by Scientists could have a life of its own governed by our will. But, would the same be applicable to our bodies.. Well for
me this is really simple..But, I do understand not everyone has the capability fto grasp this.. Good Luck is what I would say for you to Discover
the TRUTH..
[Reply]
shan Reply:
June 29th, 2010 at 11:34 am
@Curious, Oh Hell , It is a machine like hell, in fact the joints function just like any ball beraings work you need lubricant , in the case of
humans it is known as synovial fluid.The fact that a child grows up to become an adult is a process, it has to do with the telomere in
chromosome, our knowledge in this matter is like a class one child when we need to decipher quantam theory , along long long way to go.
When this process goes pear shape you get PAA starring Amitabh Bacchan.
Curious Reply:
June 29th, 2010 at 11:47 am
@shan
I think we could go on and on about this topic…But, I guess just ponder over what you are trying to argue on.. If, everything needs to be
brought down to its most basic level there has to be a mastermind behind it all../ I just don’t see why its so hard to get it.. Anyways again I
would reiterate that you have long to go before all of this would make sense.. Good Luck )
6. Vinay says:
June 28, 2010 at 6:51 am
Every curious mind wants to find out what is “Ultimate”.
Science likes to find: What is the smallest of the small? Molecule? Atom? Nucleons?.. Quarks? Or biggest of big: stars? Galaxies? Clusters of
galaxies ? Universe? At the end, it wants to find out one thing: “The Ultimate Truth”.
Religion wants to find out – Who is the creator? Who gives our body power to work and think? (Jeev Aatma) Who runs this universe (Param
Aatma). End of the day, it wants to find out who is the “Supreme Power” who gives energy to everything in Universe.
There is one more branch: Artists, they could be musician or a poet or a painter. They are
behind one abstract perception. “The ultimate beauty”.
Everyone’s goal is different. Path is different. But their quest is for one thing “The Ultimate”
is same. Nature comes in many forms for each believer.
“SATYAM SHIVAM SUNDARAM”.
[Reply]
JSDBSC Reply:
June 28th, 2010 at 7:11 am
Well Done! You are right on the Spot! Keep Sharing & Spreading your message. Thank you. With Regards & Smiles!
[Reply]
Vinay Reply:
June 29th, 2010 at 4:13 pm
First one explores the route of reasoning, second one believing and the third one feeling.
[Reply]
7. Pankaj Seth says:

June 28, 2010 at 7:03 am
Another way to pose the question is to ask whether rationality can reach the question of origins. I don’t think so as rationality produces cause-
effect chains, which can never be closed off, the ultimate cause always unreachable. Thus there are mystical methods which transcend thought,
which seek knowledge by identity rather than through the subject-object construct, and which produce necessarily subjective knowledge. The
road further than where rationality/science leaves off will always remain personal, not consensual. The “beyond” is neither sensorily nor
cognitively near, but is existentially intimate. The methods of Yoga which lead to Samadhi, rather than the thought-subject/object method go
where rationality/science cannot, but obviously these methods do not replace what science has to offer. Science and Spirituality may never
meet as abstract concepts, but within individuals they can surely meet.
[Reply]
8. Prashant says:
June 28, 2010 at 7:37 am
Dear Gautam,
I would like to correct one statement in your blog. Religion, as we know it today, has not evolved for ages. It has only deteriorated. I would
encourage you to read “The End of Faith” by Sam Harris and also have a look into “Project Reason”. And make no mistake…God and
Religion are different.
You will find that a lot of things are already written in the Vedas and Upnishads because Hindus believe that the Universe works in cycles.
And therefore what the science is unraveling today might already have been discovered ages ago and then destroyed. This might be the classic
case of “reinventing the wheel”.
In my understanding, Spiritual is something that science has not been able to explain to date. Whatever can be explained and therefore
controlled (diseases, natural phenomenon etc) moves from the realm of “Spiritual” to the world of Science. Just because we have not been
explain some things today does not mean we will not be ale to do it in future. I am in absolute agreement with Stephen Hawking when he says
Science will win. Maybe its not about “win or “lose”. Its only about being able to provide some logic and reasoning to what happens around
us. And when we would have done that, we would have completed another discovery cycle only to be destroyed and reinvented in the next
cycle.
Prashant
[Reply]
shan Reply:
June 28th, 2010 at 8:19 pm
Prashant, as much as you like us to beleive , IT IS NOT REINVENTING THE WHEEL . Because Hindus may have made some speculation
some assumption but is a far cry from quantum mechanics , and relativity. In fact it is like comparing a class one student(ancient hindu) with
someone working with the god particle(Higgs Boson, apparently this Boson is named after The Indian Scientist S.N.Bose)
[Reply]
9. proj says:
June 28, 2010 at 8:34 am
Mani Bhaumik, a renowned physicist and the inventor of excimer laser technology is doing something like this. He is probably one of the
richest scientists in the world today. You might want to read his book “Code of god”.
[Reply]
10. MSR Ayyangar says:

June 28, 2010 at 9:43 am
Science is seeing Diversity in Unity! Spirituality is seeing Unity in Diversity! Both are simply view points. Both work and so both are true.
After all – what works is the truth. Mathematically putting – Differentiation is Science and Integration is Spirituality. Both processes – when
continued to the end will lead to “Zero” – which is the ultimate truth!
[Reply]
11. ns says:
June 28, 2010 at 9:57 am
Here are some of my observations.
Science, as you pointed out, is a process governed by definability, observability and replicability. As I understand it, science is not knowledge.
It is a process to acquire knowledge. By the above definition, science can only be utilized by using our five senses. Spirituality, on the other
hand is a method of acquiring the ultimate knowledge by going BEYOND THE FIVE SENSES. Science can only try to understand the maya,
the leela, the illusion – unfortunately, by definition, it cannot go beyond it. You can only realize the self, God or ultimate knowledge by
meditating and going way beyond your five senses – including mind. Exploring psychology or neuropsychology or any such field is just going
to give you a better understanding of the maya – it will never help you go beyond it.
As science (and Stephen Hawking) understands creation so far, there is absolutely no dispute between science and spirituality – unfortunately
not too many people (including Hawking) realize it.. Hawking would tell you that the big bang came from an infinitesimally minuscule particle
of infinite density – that’s what we have known all along – the shunya we have come from. He will tell you that time began after the big bang –
time is not defined before that. Our Gurus have known that all along. After creation it is all maya and God’s leela – spirituality tells you not to
waste too much time with that – let the theoretical physicists do that – that was just a joke, with due respect to all the scientists. Spirituality
tells you to lead a normal life, if you want to, while striving to achieve salvation and getting mukti from this cycle of life and death –
something that you can achieve only thru meditation. Just like the astrophysicists talk about wormholes (even though they have not proved its
existence) – a short cut to travel huge distances in the universe, similarly meditation is a short cut to achieve the ultimate truth. Science can go
on trying to send rocketships to the edge of the universe – they have a very simple roadblock called the speed of light.
Those who realize it and understand it – which may be a function of your past karma – would take the path of meditation to figure things out.
Theoretical physicists will tell you about the possible 10 or 11 dimensions. The Autobiography of a Yogi talks about the multiple planes where
souls exist.
Hawking believes that this universe may be self contained, self sufficient in itself. Without putting it in words, he implies there is no God. He
may be right. In spirituality you learn that God is within you – that is why we talk about self-realization.
When I was very very new to spirituality, I used to wonder why don’t the enlightened Gurus go on TV, reveal their powers and knowledge and
tell everybody what everything is all about. Gradually I understood it. They are not supposed to interfere with the leela. To each unto himself –
according to your karma. If you have good karma, you will seek the Guru and the knowledge.
So science will keep on its good work and we can keep on arguing and debating and the leela will go on. With due respect to you, you would
keep on trying to earn a paycheck and invoking a debate in your blog about science and spirituality (that was, again, said in jest) and while I
have a few minutes to kill I will write my bs on this subject, ultimately, all this is just part of leela – it is not for us to enlighten others. Those
who will get it, will go and meditate and enlighten themselves.
[Reply]
Bobby Reply:
June 29th, 2010 at 4:25 pm
Is there any difference in what this guy is saying and what atif and his friends were saying- they said everything is already there in the Quran
and this chap feels everything is there in the knowledge of our hindu ancestors…. fundamentalists of all religionsare bsically the same-
shortsighted
[Reply]
joydeep Reply:
June 30th, 2010 at 3:43 pm
Bobby, a lot of truth in what he said. However, you threw the baby out with the bathwater. The point is that spirituality and metaphysics are an
entirely different thing. You cannot attack them with “science” and “rationalism”, because the field of “battle” is not the same.
[Reply]
ns Reply:
July 2nd, 2010 at 3:34 pm
I don’t see anything of any substance to respond to but I will give some general comments and advice.
Just like Atif appears to be blinded by Islam you appear to be blinded by your “knowledge” of science. You need to do some more reading and
widen your horizons before calling anybody talking about ancient (Indian) wisdom as Hindu fundamentalist. You will never appreciate
spirituality by just reading but you will make some beginning.
Btw, Hindu and Hinduism are words introduced by westerners – they are not our terms.
The Indian in “ancient (Indian) wisdom” is deliberately parenthesized. It could have been Indian or Greek or Roman or anything. But the sages
here figured things out earlier and they happened to be living in this geographical location. So it is not about “Hindu Pride”.
[Reply]
12. Ashish says:

June 28, 2010 at 11:11 am
@Gautam,
My only reaction to this blog is to stand back, applaud and say, “Thank you for the education”.
I should read more. It is a pity that one leaves reading till so late.
[Reply]
13. dpbhasin says:
June 28, 2010 at 11:28 am
Spirituality has aleardy been explored by our Spiritual Scientists (RISHIS) long long ago and also given to the needy. You are looking for
2+2=4. Yes that is available in Self Realisation Fellowship (SRF) in Los Angeles and Yogoda Satasanga Socoety of India (YSS), Ranchi.
Become a member and see for your self whether it has been explored or not, it is 2+2=4. It cannot be assimilated by everybody and that is why
it is not given to everybody (but only who need it) like calculas may not be understood by a historian unless he makes an effort ot learn it from
somebody or somewhere. So if you hungry about spituality, you will plunge into it. I have shown you the door, now it is upto you to enter.
Remebr, SRF ot YSS. You can reach through Internet easily
[Reply]
14. Prasoon Choudhary says:

June 28, 2010 at 11:28 am
All the religion are now out dated concept. It has its own utility when human society was still evolving. But now its a big drag on humanity.
Only thing that can help the world is science. Weather its the global warming or food crisis or the energy crisis it is science which will see us
through.
I now people will say science created global warming in first place. But you will have to accept that science and technology has improved the
lives of billions of people around the world, it has raised the quality of life compared to what it was 2000 years ago. It has raised the life
expectancy of people. If science is not used properly then it can cause bad things like Hiroshima. It depends on people how they use it science
can not be blamed for our greed.
Nor has religion been able to stop this greed. In fact religion has failed us in multiple ways it has given nothing in return in modern time. No
progress can be attributed to religion in modern era. All the religion has some basic values like Honesty, Truth, ethical behavior, Altruism i,e
help other human being. But these are basic values of Humanity and part of constitution of many country you do not need religion for this. In
fact the constitution of many modern country also provides you many more things then religion like freedom of expression, liberty, secularism,
democracy etc which are equally important. If you choose religion to provide these basic values then you have to also deal with the tons of
**** written in the medieval books of these religion. Also the religion provides very narrow definition of the basic values, for example the
concept of universal brotherhood in Islam is only restricted to Muslims all other being are kafir, god is supreme, those who do not believe in
god are wrong king of people according to Islam, they have no right in society. Other religion have similar problems.
All religion suppresses evolution of human society. They want absolute submission with out any question asked and logic reasoning for any
thing found in these religion. I am sure most people 200 years from now will accept science and will seek logic behind every thing, they will
ask for sound reason for any thing before accepting it.
[Reply]
15. Sarang says:

June 28, 2010 at 12:12 pm
I think we all like complicating simple issues.
1) Science is cause and effect, spirituality is faith.

2) Science is reason to believe, spirituality is belief without reason.
3) There are scientist who are spiritual, I remember meeting a scientist in Oxford university in 2006. An impression he gave was that there are
many scientist who are spiritual, it’s just that public never accept the idea of science and spirituality going hand in hand.
4) Spirituality is an individual pursuit to know the divine. Science is a pursuit to know why, when, where, how of things.
Nutshell- Science and spirituality are two sides of the same coin. But due the ordinary and finite wisdom of man, most of us can see only one
side.
[Reply]
shan Reply:
June 29th, 2010 at 1:18 am
Spirituality is a feeling within yourself , and it is an inexplicable feeling, but it only a feeling, nothing more nothing less.
[Reply]
Sarang Reply:
June 29th, 2010 at 2:44 pm
Sorry, but I do not agree with you. Spirituality has nothing to do with feelings. Feelings make you high a day and low another. Spirituality is a
verb, its a choice, its an experience first and a lifestyle later.
Spirituality is beyond what you feel and think.
[Reply]
Vinay Reply:
June 29th, 2010 at 4:25 pm
Science go with reasoning. It knows its limitations and is honest. It says, ‘I don’t know beyond this’. That doesn’t mean it said ‘if you want to
know beyond this, follow the spiritual way’. Let us not put words into its mouth.
It is like astronomy and astrology. Both start with positioning of stars and planets on the sky. Both are accurate till there. Astronomy stops at
that, astrology extrapolates it to the events in life. If science says, I don’t know about the correlation of stars and human life events, that does
not mean Astrology knows what Astronomy has not understood. Even that could be equally blind. Just that, it is not as honest as Science.
shan Reply:
June 30th, 2010 at 2:50 am
@Sarang , by your own admission it is an experience which you experience , which is a feeling , just a different terminology.
Sarang Reply:
June 30th, 2010 at 10:16 am
Vijay, I think we are at different levels of understanding. I must confess, i know not much about astrology or astrology, just that God exist and
I practice His presence. Thats the bottom line. As i have said earlier, we just like to super complicated simple fundas. For a moment just this of
God, and what he thinks of us, even as we discuss and try to understand his infinite wisdom ? He surely must be smiling and thinking- ah,
these kids.
Shah- I wish you knew who God is, instead of what God is. I think its only after you have an encounter with the divine, will you know its an
experience and not a feeling. Hope you meet truth.
Vinay Reply:
July 1st, 2010 at 4:04 pm
@Sarang
By the way, it is Vinay. There is one more Vijay who is writing in this blog as well. Ashish would say what difference it makes. Yes, as long
as you don’t call me ‘dog’, it is alright (But an astronomer certainly feels bad when he is taken as astrologer. The last thing he wants would
be, people showing their palms by hearing he is studies astronomy:-)
Coming to your argument,
1> Yes, for a minute I presumed there is God.
2> I imagined what he would feel about our discussion, will he be laughing?
First act was faith(believing), second one was feeling. Both were not rational.
But I do “believe” in God. He is a good escapist route, when things are not going according to our plan. Also when I come across some
miraculous death escapes. I never say spirituality explains these. But sometimes when we are feeling low, weak we tend to think of a route
beyond logic.
16. Anirudh K. Satsangi says:

June 28, 2010 at 1:29 pm
Science has already explored spirituality;
Anirudh Kumar Satsangi said…
Johnjoe McFadden has given a Electromagnetic Field Theory of Consciousness/Mind. We all know that Physics describes four fundamental
forces in the universe. They are Gravitational Force, Electromagnetic Force, Weak Nuclear Force and Strong Nuclear Force. They are
responsible for the creation of particles, subatomic structures, atomic structures, molecules,elements etc. For natural things (life etc.)to be
created, natural forces (God Forces) act in natural ways. When man operates and manipulates these forces and creates some new things or old
one it is said ‘artificial’. For me everything is natural. Since man is the part of nature so everything created by him, in-vivo or in-vitro, using
Forces of Nature is also natural and not artificial.
I have given a theory of consciousness and mind as below:
“Gravitation Force is the Ultimate Creator”, I presented this paper at the 1st Int. Conf. on Revival of Traditional Yoga, held at The Lonavla
Yoga Institute (India), Lonavla, Pune in 2006. The Abstract of this paper is given below:
“The Universe includes everything that exists. In the Universe there are billions and billions of stars. These stars are distributed in the space in
huge clusters. They are held together by gravitation and are known as galaxies. Sun is also a star. Various members of the solar system are
bound to it by gravitation force. Gravitation force is the ultimate cause of birth and death of galaxy, star and planets etc. Gravitation can be
considered as the cause of various forms of animate and inanimate existence. Human form is superior to all other forms. Withdrawal of
gravitational wave from some plane of action is called the death of that form. It can be assumed that gravitation force is ultimate creator.
Source of it is ‘God’. Gravitational Field is the supreme soul (consciousness) and its innumerable points of action may be called as individual
soul (consciousness). It acts through body and mind. Body is physical entity. Mind can be defined as the function of autonomic nervous
system. Electromagnetic waves are its agents through which it works. This can be realized through the practice of meditation and yoga under
qualified meditation instruction. This can remove misunderstanding between science and religion and amongst various religions. This is the
gist of all religious teachings – past, present and future.”
I have also written one more paper on In Scientific Terminology, Source of Gravitational Waves is GOD and presented it at the 2nd World
Vedic Science Congress in Banaras Hindu University in 2007.
[Reply]
Bobby Reply:
June 28th, 2010 at 3:12 pm
JUNK from first word to last and the conferences you are attending are for crackpots.
[Reply]
17. Bobby says:

June 28, 2010 at 2:38 pm
I think one should first clarify what one means by spirituality. I recommend people to this brilliant speech by Javed Akhtar….. I know most
people will not agree with it, but I completely agree with it…. In any case its brilliant, and whether you agree with or not, its worth reading
once…..
http://palakmathur.wordpress.com/2009/05/09/speech-javed-akhtar-india-today-conclave-session-on-spirituality-halo-or-hoax/
I think to say that science will never be able to answer the starting point, is a bit of a cheat, because not just science but actually nobody can
answer that questions… one may have an opinion, but thats it… Science in that sense is honest enough to admit that one does not know….
Religion is plain dishonest in this regard……
Regarding having “faith” in science, well there is a reason that Layman has a faith in science, … because of its track record……The
applications of science can never be negated, from the internet to space exploration, to remarkable medical progress …. these applications are
for everyone to see….. the ideas of General Relativity, or the understanding of the human body, evolution, are based on the same principles,
whose applications these wonderful things are….. So people have “faith”in science because of the evidence the see in confirmation of its
ideas….. this is very unlike religion, where people believe with no evidence at all…..
Look at astrology for instance… Its been proved to not work, and yet people still believe in it….. That how it unfortunately is…..
There is no known alternative to the scientific method to understand the world around us… and thats just a fact. That does not mean that there
will be no unanswered questions, it means that one simply has to accept there will be somethings which can not be answered….. Thats not any
argument in favor of spirituality or religion…..
Regarding the Tagore and Einstein discussion, well its a bit more complicated…..
Whether something exists when there is no observer is a philosophical question. One can take either position… Science of course takes the
position that there is always a universe independent of the observer.
During the early 20th century, when quantum theory was taking birth….. there was a lot of dicusssion over its meaning… This is because its
highly counter intuitive. For instance, ordinarily we would always give a position to an object and say its here and we talk of events like say “I
was at this place at this time walking at this speed”…. In Quantum theorry, one cant do that…. One can only talk in terms of probabilIty….
one assigns a probabilty to events happening. The probabilty becomes a certainity only when one makes a observation….. This caused all these
discussions at that period…. Einstein was one of the people who was seriously perturbed by this feature of quantum theory…
However now we have a better understanding of whats going on…. these puzzles have a better understanding….. anyways thats a digression,
in any case the connection to hindu philosophy is a bit too stretched, and I suspect one finds this more in India because hindus are more in
number here, just like in pakistan or arabia, one finds these weird comparisons of scientific facts with quranic statements….. One can safely
dismiss it as wishful thinking of an over enthusiastic religious guy
[Reply]
shan Reply:
June 28th, 2010 at 6:25 pm
@Bobby I was looking forward to your elucidation in simple terms, the riddle of the chair,Can you please elaborate a little more. Your
Exposition about the quantam theory was brilliant . Is that is what isalso popularly known as Schrodinger’s cat.
[Reply]
Bobby Reply:
June 28th, 2010 at 7:20 pm
Dea Shan…
To elaborate, basically in classical mechanics, objects are in specific states. In newtonian mechanics, a state is defined by a specific position
and a specific velocity.
In quantum theory, an object is defined not by a specific position and velocity, but rather by a “probability wave” which follows an equation
called Schrodinger’s equation, just like in classical mechanics particles follow Newtons equation.
The Probability wave tells us the probabilty of a particle being in some state or the other. When one does an experiment one finds the particle
in some state or the other, but this cannot be predicted by the theory…. what is predicted is probability of finding the particle in that state. So
for instance if the experiment is repeated a thousand times, then the quantum theory will tell us how many times a particle will be found in
each state. Equivalently if one prepared many particles in the same state, then also the quantum theory will predict the number of particles in
each state.
Now what should be understood is that this is NOT a problem with the theory, but rather that the particle ITSELF IS IN A SUPERPOSITION
OF STATES, and ONLY THE ACT OF OBSERVATION COLLAPSES THE WAVE INTO ONE STATE OR THE OTHER.
This is very counter intutive, and especially for the original discoverers so tuned to thinking classically. However even though its hard to
understand, or picturise what is happening, Quantum theory is true beyond doubt, because experiments over the last hundred years have ALL
been consistently explained to remarkable accuracy by Quantum theory. In fact the Quantum theory of Electrons and Light is the most accurate
scientific theory ever. This is the theory for which Feynman, Schwinger and Tomanago shared the Nobel Prize.
The Schrodingers cat experiment is a hypothetical experiment thought of by Physicist Schrodinger, to emphasize the dramatic consequences of
Quantum theory. In this “thought experiment” , a cat is kept inside a box, which is connected to a chamber with poisonous gas in it. The
chamber and the box are separated by a small window, which can be closed or opened depending on whether a electron is in state “A” or in
state “B”.
Now classically of course the cat is either dead or alive depending on whether the electron is in state A or state B, but in the quantum world,
the electron is in a SUPERPOSITION of state A and B, which means that the CAT is in a SUPERPOSITION OF DEATH AND LIFE .
Only the act of observation pushes the CAT into one of the two states- death or life.
One might ask how come we dont observe all this in our day to day life– the reason is that even though Quantum mechanics is the true theory
describing our world, its effects are large at the level of microscopic objects- for sub atomic particles. For large objects that we come across in
our day to day lives- the effects are small, put in another way, the probabilty wave is very sharpely peaked around probabilty =1 for
macroscopic objects, hence the deviation is very small from certainity.
[Reply]
Amit Julka Reply:

June 28th, 2010 at 7:46 pm
man didnt you bell the cat
shan Reply:
June 28th, 2010 at 8:23 pm
@Bobby, Brilliant
neelkanth Reply:
June 28th, 2010 at 11:18 pm
Javed akhtar’s speech only showed how little he understands. It was completely off the mark, and was not a critique of spirituality. However, I
admire him for being a muslim and having the balls to say he is an atheist.
[Reply]
Vinay Reply:
@Bobby
Why do you say people turning up to an astrologer as unfortunate? I feel it is a great thing, when you consider it as an art. (It may claim itself
as Science or Spirituality. That doesn’t matter to me).
Consider, I pledged my home.. gambled in a horse race… lost everything.
1> Science would tell me, probability of winning the race was only 1%. There was more probability of loosing the race than winning it. Did
this answer console me ? NO.
2> Spirituality might ask me to surrender to God, take a deep breath, do prayer etc. But my mind
and body are not in that condition to reciprocate.
3> I go to an astrologer. He would say, “The Saturn in the 5th house is looking straight opposite
to Venus, that is why you are in trouble”. It pacified me a bit.
Next he will say, after six months when Saturn leaves that corner everything is going to be fine for me (how?). Anyway, by now I am totally
satisfied and I don’t mind parting up with 100 more Rs.
Astrology is like listening to Jagatjit Singh ghazal when you are depressed (that is why I called it an art. It gives a consoling “feeling”).
Astrologer is the last person in this world to tell me, “you are in this position because you were an idiot” (I never wanted to hear the logic
anyway, I keep hearing it from everyone else). He always puts in on the co-ordinate of the star (or planet) in the sky at the time of my birth, to
cover my idiotism.
Astrology is here to stay, because we need it.
[Reply]
18. vijay says:

June 28, 2010 at 3:16 pm
Sir,
I work in the area of String theory ( a branch of theoretical physics) where we attempt to study the properties of fundamental units of this
universe.
First I request to put a question mark at following point of your blog:

“But that still doesn’t answer the question of what was before. And no amount of science — in the way we see it today — can answer that
question, behind which lies another one and another and another. The problem with science, while combating this particular question of
creation, is that it leans too heavily on data and methods that are observable, a strength while decoding cancer or genetic realignment, but a
weakness when looking beyond.”
Let me clearly mention that it was never the intent of Science to answer for all.
The way you defined religion as

“On religion, my views are fairly straight: it is one tool in the evolution of society that helps people organise their morality better. It has
evolved and must continue to evolve.”
In the same very way science has a meaning to help sustain the evolution of technology in conjunction with our understanding about nature.
And it must grow. So “there is a question behind a question” is the only logic allowing growth of science.
It is truly lame thing to craft the inability of science for not able to answer things in spirituality. It is not our motivation. We have very lucid
and specific physical phenomenon which we are slowly progressing to understand.
I promise we will reach a day when we would tell you, “What is consciousness”.
Anyways thank you for your blog.
Regards
Vijay
[Reply]
shan Reply:
June 29th, 2010 at 12:37 am
@Vijay, congratulations, couldn’t have articulated any better. One can almost detect a paronia , and that green eyed monster thing , when
threatened by the obvious and inevtability of the outcome of any encounter with science.by the people who shall we say would like to see
science humiliated.
[Reply]
19. Naras says:

June 28, 2010 at 6:08 pm
How one interprets and describes phenomena depends on one’s belief system.
The modern human being has a belief system. It is called Reason. This system is based on the belief that all things experienced by the 5 senses
really exist. And that things not perceived by the 5 senses and the mind do not exist.
Science basically operates on this paradigm. Thus the scientist
1. Observes a phenomenon
2. Gathers sense data about the phenomenon.
3. Forms hypothesis, theory or a model of the phenomenon. (S)he may either describe it in these terms or form hypothesis about the causes.
4. Tests the hypothesis with more sense data of the type observed and gathered, varying the controlling conditions in a measured manner.
5. Proves that the hypothesis/theory holds for a set of data and conditions.
6. Gets/allows other people to also repeat the tests and validate the hypothesis.
A diligent, admirable and overwhelmingly successful method no doubt. This is an iron-clad, closed-loop system. Does it have limitations?
Science forgets, disregards or minimizes the following fact. All data about phenomena are sensory inputs experienced by the perceiver. Any
perceiver with X number of senses and the step-by-step, sequential reasoning mentality – will tend to experience and think about the
phenomenon in question in broadly the same way. It is a highly left-brain oriented thinking style.
Imagine a remote planet where human-like beings exist. The only thing lacking in them is the sense of sight. They are all blind. Thus shapes,
colours, forms, changes of state of these properties etc cannot be perceived. They do not see clouds, the blue sky, the far-away stars, birds
flying silently in the sky, distant blue seas, lush green forests and so on. Undoubtedly a greatly diminished life, compared to people like us.
Now, if one or two of them acquire eyes somehow, a whole new world opens up. They start experiencing and describing things that seem
incredible to other people. They may be considered to have too much imagination, or even mad. They may eventually be persecuted or thrown
out of the human community.
The history of science itself has plenty of these happenings. Until radio waves were discovered, Science did not know of its existence, though
radio waves have existed for all time. This example extends to x-rays, gamma radiation and many other phenomena discovered at some point
in time.
If due to some future catastrophes, suddenly the faculty of colour is lost, then Science will gradually start to deny the existence of colour. If
people with long memories, or memories of their ancestors’ tales, talk about these things, they will be considered superstitious.
Another way of looking at it is as a dream. Everything that happens in a dream is unreal outside that dream, but real inside it! The community
of scientists and reasoning members can also be considered to be in a collective dream, experimenting, verifying, validating and reinforcing
each others’ experiences and belief systems!
[Reply]
shan Reply:
June 29th, 2010 at 1:10 am
That two plus two is four , is it dependent on any beleif system to arrive at the answer. Amoeba cannot see or hear ,so it is not party to any
rational thought. There is probably thought in all species and they use it to good effect. That the hyena and fox wait for the lion/tiger to have its
fill , and then steps in to scavange the leftover of gazelle is product of his thinking. Of course you need the sensory inputs , but that doesn’t
invalidate the processed information . so I am not sure what the hell you are talking about.
[Reply]
20. Gautam Chikermane says:

June 28, 2010 at 8:40 pm
I’d like to add two more links to this discussion that came today.
1. Consciousness and the End of the War Between Science and Religion by Deepak Chopra
“Nothing gets as vicious as fighting for a lost cause. If the proverbial Martian landed in a flying saucer today and saw how religionists war
against scientists, he would be surprised at the vehemence on both sides. What is the war about? Fact beat out faith long ago. When Darwin’s
theory of evolution replaced Genesis to explain the appearance of human beings, which was in the middle of the 19th century, the trend away
from faith was already old. The world had been remade as material, governed by natural laws, random in its effects, and immune to divine
intervention. Not just science but thousands of unanswered prayers did their part to dethrone God.”
Read full story here: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/deepak-chopra/consciousness-and-the-end_b_620133.html
2. What Scientists Think About Religion by Elaine Howard Ecklund

Almost a quarter of Americans think scientists are hostile to religion. But what do we really know about how scientists think about morality,
spirituality and faith?
From 2005 to 2008, I surveyed nearly 1,700 natural and social scientists on their views about religion, spirituality and ethics and spoke with
275 of them in depth in their offices and laboratories. It turns out that nearly 50 percent of scientists identify with a religious label, and nearly
one in five is actively involved in a house of worship, attending services more than once a month. While many scientists are completely
secular, my survey results show that elite scientists are also sitting in the pews of our nation’s churches, temples and mosques.
Full story here: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/elaine-howard-ecklund-phd/the-contours-of-what-scie_b_611905.html
[Reply]
shan Reply:
June 29th, 2010 at 12:55 am
@gautam, Very Very interesting, but you seem to be forgetting , standing on a pulpit doesn’t make one holy , similarly working in a discipline
called science doesn’t mean he is bereft of all prejudices and darkness(ignorance)..That means many of these scientist are bit like technicians.
We see in India , you go to a garage , see the mechanics fix your car engine , but probably didn’t have formal education , so they can go only
that far , they wont be able to appreciate or go deep into traction geometry . And when they identify with a religous label , I think they are
speaking in cultural terms and the aspects of their personality and behaviour they owe to that religion. And at the end of the day as I have said
before some of it is hard wired , and religion is such cosy refuge for the ones who are haunted by the thought of impernance.
[Reply]
21. akshay says:

June 28, 2010 at 9:11 pm
“We believe them because a handful of people we call scientists say that to be true, that the results are replicable, tested by peers and so on.”
Huh?
You don’t have to believe the scientists. You can test theories on your own, you just choose not to (ok it might be a little expensive to test
some theories but it can be done). Science thrives on asking questions, testing theories and busting dogmas (including long established
scientific theories which have become dogmas).
Spirituality thrives on the unknown, science explains it.
[Reply]
shan Reply:
June 29th, 2010 at 11:25 am
@Akshay, absolutely true , not only that when it comes to day to day to living , and craving for all the comforts, the AC, the fridge , for that
matter electricity , incresed food production chatting on internet , TV , more than happy to use the fruits of scientific logic, but when it comes
to unknown science is viewed as a ” trouble maker”
[Reply]
22. Bob Ellal says:

June 28, 2010 at 10:23 pm
I’ve always been a skeptic–history degree. When I was diagnosed with stage four lymphoma cancer in ‘91, a death sentence–I looked to
Eastern meditation as a way to calm my mind and focus my will–and to withstand the chemotherapy. Got into qigong–Chinese internal energy
exercises. Didn’t really believe in the concept of chi, or vitalism. Didn’t feel any electrical occurences in my body until a couple of years of
practice–weird stuff I can’t explain by blood circulation that continues to this day. Qigong is not magic; despite my hours a day of practice, the
cancer came back three times, and I endured two bone marrow transplants. But I continue to practice and have been clear of disease for 14
years. Perhaps it’s all one big placebo effect. But I’m alive and have seen my sons grow from infants into men. Perhaps I’m really dead and
just think I’m alive. I feel so foolish!
Bob Ellal
‘By These Things Men Live: Chronicles of a Four-Time Cancer Survivor’
[Reply]
23. neelkanth says:

June 28, 2010 at 11:33 pm
@Gautam Chikermane
QUOTE/What I don’t understand is why scientists — the decoders of the abstract, the excavators of the unknown — look away when facing
notions that can’t be captured and sliced into bites that can be analysed in their language./UNQUOTE
It is because these things lie outside the scope of science. Science is only applicable to the phenomenal world, ie the world which can be
perceived through the five senses. Science is not applicable to anything outside of this.
[Reply]
shan Reply:
June 30th, 2010 at 2:46 am
@neelkanth, classical hindu fudge, the bit that is not visible ,or perceivable can be nontheless tracked, like the smashing of atoms. Also science
enables you post such porkys, anything where science cannot be applied , doesn’t need to be applied, like mother’s love for its child, though to
be frank if you are prepared for it , there is science in it, but you would not like to apply.
[Reply]
neelkanth Reply:
June 30th, 2010 at 2:34 pm
No my dear shan, whatever you wrote shows that you didnt get the point of the classical hindu fudge. All the best.
[Reply]
24. ns says:
June 29, 2010 at 1:07 am
Here are some more of my comments. (I guess I have more time to kill).
I read Javed Akhtar’s article. With due respect to Mr. Akhtar, his comments and arguments are pretty facile and puerile. It is like saying that
physics helped us create the atom bomb so physics as well as all physicists are evil. I can go on and on demolishing his arguments but this last
sentence pretty much sums it up.
(Javed is a leftist. And his lumping together of spirituality with arms and drugs shows his level of ignorance on the subject.)
It is fashionable in India for people to claim to be anti-religious/ant-spiritual. (We got plenty of gurus anyway – so we need to balance that.) I
remember my teen years and at least a couple of decades after that when I would have belonged – and wanted to belong – to that camp.In the
West, since there aren’t that many gurus, there is probably a better appreciation (or maybe just a better reception) of the subject.
It is important to distinguish between religion and spirituality. I am not going to bother trying to define that. Most of us have a good sense of
that distinction. If not, check out Wikipedia to get some sense of it.
With due respect to Mr. Chikermane, this discussion is interesting, it will be educational for many of us, but frankly, it is not going to lead
anywhere. Spirituality is not something you can debate or argue or convince or get convinced about. It is something you experience – not from
your mind, not from your heart, but something from very deep within – I do not have the word for that. It is a personal experience that, I
believe, you will get it if it is the right time for you – again, it might be a function of your past karma.
If you ask me, it really does not matter if more people become spiritual or not or if the scientists understand spirituality or not – let all of them
be.
Going to (a lecture by) a Guru does not make you spiritual. Doing all the rituals and the pujas (even though, they all have their meanings and
significances and symbolisms) does not make you spiritual. Reading the Vedas, Gita, Puranas, Quoran, Bible and Torah does not make you
spiritual. I remember an elderly intellectual person telling me once that he read all the vedas and puranas, etc. but couldn’t really find anything
other than the books telling him to love God and love other human beings. I realized much much later why you need a Guru.
Spirituality is not astrology.
Just like all politicians, teachers, scientists are not equal, similarly, all gurus are not the same. Making inferences about spirituality based on
such and such guru is pretty inane. The real Gurus – you will probably never hear about them.
And yes, like Sri Sri Ravishankar (and many others have) said, spirituality is intoxicating – you will never know it unless you taste it.
Science is doing great wonders and will continue doing that. However, it will never be the right tool or paradigm to answer the ultimate
question. Ask Stephen Hawking where that particle which caused the big bang came from. He will tell you that science, probably, can never
answer that.
Science helps us produce more food, tackle more diseases and so on and so forth. No doubt about it. Science is a tool for this (illusory) world –
this world where we live with passionate attachment to everything. Spirituality will teach you compassionate detachment to everything and
everybody. You will be able to see all the disease and hunger and death and pain in the right perspective and it will affect you a lot less. In the
big picture, all the pain and suffering really does not mean much. It is all, probably, a personal journey. (As an aside, we got enough food in the
world but people are still dying of hunger; yeah, yeah I know it is a transportation problem.)
FWIW, many of the arguments I see here and in Javed Akhtar’s article, I used to use the same arguments before I got introduced to spirituality.
Spirituality is a journey of such a duration that science can never prove or disprove anything. So discussions and arguments are not going to
lead anyone anywhere. It might open a few more eyes. Maybe that’s good enough.
[Reply]
Bobby Reply:
June 29th, 2010 at 11:43 am
Sri Sri Ravi Shankar is a hypocrite. If he has some breathing excercise techniques which might be benefecial to people, well that’s nice… but
there is no need to make such a big song and dance about it… put on a sadhu robe, and introduce all the BS talks and theories about spirituality
into this. He could as well have said that I have some techniques, which might be of some help to some people… simple… no need to
complicate it …. but then how will he get a fan following….
[Reply]
Vinay Reply:
June 29th, 2010 at 2:42 pm
Spirutuality + Politics = Religion

Spirituality + Economics = Ravishankar, Swami Nityanandaji etc
[Reply]
Vinay Reply:
June 29th, 2010 at 4:11 pm
Labeling only these Gurus will be an injustice. In fact, most of the religious “organizations”
make use of the commercial aspects. Be it temples, churches, mutts or waqfs. The property value of these Organizations (call it religious
empire) might be worth more than many of the international companies. (Also, they branch out their portfolios. Before it used be Engineering
and Medical Colleges. Now it is International Schools and Corporate hospitals).
ns Reply:
My comment about Sri Sri Ravishankar was based on the article about Javed Akhtar’s speech. I don’t know Sri Sri Ravishankar and have not
done his Art of Living course so I can’t personally vouch for him. But others seem to like what he teaches.
He probably is a spiritual person but he is teaching only what he thinks he can help others with. He is probably using a fraction of his
knowledge to provide service the way he thinks it would help others most. In the same way one can say why is Stephen Hawking writing and
selling his many books for laymen. Stephen Hawking has a lot of advanced knowledge but he puts them in simple language for average people
to understand, I don’t think Sri Sri Ravishankar has grandkids to leave an inheritance for but Hawking sure does. My analogy is just to explain
the situation to you. I have the deepest regard for Hawking and his work and I think he is writing the books because he loves to share his
knowledge with the general population. Royalty is just a bonus and a byproduct.
And, btw, I am not sure if you know the importance of breathing exercises. Read the book by Paul C. Bragg. He came to India a very long time
ago, learned all the breathing exercises from a Yogi in the Himalayas and that formed a cornerstone of his education to others. You will see
pictures of 80+ years old men with 6-pack abs (well, maybe a bit exaggerated but you get the idea).
[Reply]
ns Reply:
And close your eyes and take a deep breath before responding any further.
[Reply]
25. Atif says:

June 29, 2010 at 9:05 am
Gautam thanks for the appreciating the contributions.
As I said in the last blog, you are doing a fabulous job, it is unfortunately some extremist people who start a slandering match and force the
others to retalitate only to cry foul later to “prove” their innocence. (it is sad that the igniters have been extremist hindus but good that a person
like you is there, who seems to be maintaining neutrality despite having personal opinions).
As for the topic, I totally agree that Religion and Science should go hand in hand/ The only point which I’ve reached after a long journey and
years of wandering in the rollercoaster of intellect, reasoning and arguing, is that there is atleast one religion which not only does that but in
effect is science. A religion which starts with the order “Read”, one which declares that research into the universe is prayer in itselg, one which
makes it mandatory on its followers to seek knowledge and one which asks for prayers to keep one motivated to study and research. And that
one is Islam.
Unfortunately due to the situation now a days and as Mr. Meer said in your interview with him in the Blog. “Islam has a branding problem:
Millat Facebook CEO”. The title says it all. Islam is on the wrong side of the new world order and hence the object of critique of the ordinary
and even the scholarly forms an unintentional bias as we are humans and scientifically prone to propogandas. Otherwise if one look at Islam
objectively, it is essentially what you are after. The highest peak where religion and science not only hold hands in harmony but goes to the
level of becoming one.
(NB: Hate Mongers pls stay away. Sensible and decent people are most welcome to comment.)
[Reply]
Atif Reply:
June 29th, 2010 at 9:10 am
Typos:
1. Thanks for appreciating the ….
2. itself
By the way many congrats Gautam for your historic blog http://blogs.hindustantimes.com/cutting-the-edge/2010/06/13/islam-has-a-branding-
problem-millatfacebook-ceo/
707 comments and counting. Never seen anything like this in the blogosphere before.
[Reply]
shan Reply:
June 29th, 2010 at 11:15 am
Here we go again , we are the best , we are the last , we are science , rest are false. Twinkle Twinkle little star , how I wonder what you are.
[Reply]
Atif Reply:
June 30th, 2010 at 11:31 am
Welcome dude seems like you just saw the mirror. My advise read the NB note and now take a walk in the fresh air and if you really are
objective, as you want the rest of us to believe whats the issue. Go and read yourself. Once you know the subject than debate.
Uttering rubbish for no reason only makes you look like a dwarf from fairytopia wonderland
[Reply]
joydeep Reply:
June 30th, 2010 at 2:49 pm
Dude Atif, what you wrote about islam makes me suspect that you dont read much else. Whatever you have found in islam, you will also get
from many non islamic sources. If you are really a spiritual person, then you should be reading texts of many different traditions instead of
claiming supremacist ideas.
Atif Reply:
June 30th, 2010 at 9:29 pm
Joydeep infact contrary to your perception I’ve been to them all. Please feel free to “enlighten” me with what I seem to be missing out on
[Reply]
26. Vinay says:

June 29, 2010 at 2:32 pm
Your paper reminded me of my first course in “Reiki” healing technique. Person spoke a lot about
“Cosmic Energy” healing the body etc. Didn’t ask him whether he knew cosmic rays are protons. Obviously did not bother to go to the
advanced courses.
I feel the highlight of your paper is:

“Gravitation can be considered as the cause of various forms of animate and inanimate existence. Human form is superior to all other forms.
Withdrawal of gravitational wave from some plane of action is called the death of that form”.
—- I am still breathing.
Of course, a bit offset from from this blog. Once I noticed a prescription of an Ayurvedic doctor to his patient. It was an Allopathic medicine. I
will not debate about the diseases Ayurveda or Homoeopathy can cure. But it would be preferable that they restrict themselves to what they are
trained with (instead of trying hands in the field they have not specifically studied).
I am trying to be too polite unlike Bobby, so will not say anything more
[Reply]
Vinay Reply:
June 29th, 2010 at 2:36 pm
Sorry it was a a reply to Anirudh K. Satsangi

Didn’t reply under his name properly.
[Reply]
27. Ashish says:

June 30, 2010 at 5:01 pm
@Bobby
What we know, can verify and find rational explanations for is the scientific universe.
Beyond that is God! See, how simple it is
Now you can call God, Dog for all I care. I frequently do
But think of it:

We do not know what happened before the big bang; can speculate but, definitely not know.
We do not know what lies beyond this universe — that is to say, we do not even know what the word “beyond” means anymore.
So, I just say anything beyond our understanding (okay, dude, current understanding, if you prefer) can be called God.
If we know more in ten years than we do today, I am willing to bet we will have even more questions (a larger set of unknowns) than today.
So, God will be even bigger, more mysterious..
Seems surprisingly close to what the scriptures (I only read the quotes here, understand) say: God can’t be fathomed, felt, seen.. acts in
mysterious ways…
The above in a nutshell is my view of God: still an atheist but I don’t want to make a religion out of my atheism- I just label the entire un-
explored, unexplained part of our consciousness and our universe as God.
Or Dog, if you prefer.
What’s in a name? Why be allergic to a label?
[Reply]
Gautam Chikermane Reply:

June 30th, 2010 at 6:26 pm
Ashish:
You could be referring to agnosticism.
Here’s a beautiful article from Slate titled The Agnostic Manifesto http://tinyurl.com/2feck49
[Reply]
Ashish Reply:
June 30th, 2010 at 7:36 pm
Thanks, Gautam.
Incidentally your link is giving some trouble; so I Googled Slate and Agnostic Manifesto and came to this link; I hope this is the one you
meant. I certainly enjoyed it.
http://www.slate.com/id/2258484
This is truly a lot closer to the way I think.
[Reply]

July 2nd, 2010 at 11:50 am
Ashish:
I just checked — the link works.
But the idea was to introduce you to good writing on Agnosticism.
Ashish Reply:
Yes, thanks. Quite brilliant.

I am discomfited by any triumphalism and supremacist posturing. While not believing in God is fine, turning this lack of belief into an article
of faith and worse, thinking that believers are somehow “lesser men” is as bad as religious fanaticism; the kind I frequently rant against.
shan Reply:
It is not a question of “beleiving”, rationalist dont beleive in anything THEY ARRIVE AT CONCLUSIONS AFTER LOGICAL
REGRESSION ANALYSIS. So they dont have starting point nor have a end point but a process of logical deduction which is diametrically
opposite to BLIND FAITH.
Shan Reply:
June 30th, 2010 at 6:28 pm
as Bobby has so persuasively and brilliantly argued that INTRODUCING GOD does not solve anything it merely is a cop out., (That is my
opinion)and as Bobby has rightly said then you are saddled with another set of problem as to dissecting GOD.and explaing his whereabouts.
[Reply]
Ashish Reply:
July 3rd, 2010 at 11:30 am
It will be interesting to know what you really understand about regression analysis, particularly where it can be applied and where it can not
be..
Did you ever perform one?
[Reply]
shan Reply:
July 4th, 2010 at 4:18 pm
@Ashish, oh hell anybody connected with modern medicine does, infact the sad fact is medicine is getting mired in this statistical mumbo
jumbo, but we have to live with it. regression analysis is if you have two sets to data to compare with lot of variables , so to to arrive at the
“truth” of a hypothesis , you need to take care of these variables so that they dont influence the outcome of the final analysis.
28. Anusha says:

June 30, 2010 at 5:25 pm
Personally I like to interrelate science & spirituality… intriguing article Gautam
[Reply]

July 2nd, 2010 at 11:54 am
Anusha:
Glad you liked it. You might also enjoy the other links I’ve posted on this issue.
[Reply]
29. Shan says:

July 1, 2010 at 6:16 pm
@blog readers et al. , sorry to dissapoint you gautam , dont need to prod the scientist to look into spirituality , a lot have been done already, had
ample free time today in my work so i reasearched the internet. Just type Prof V ramachandran , in wikipaedia , and follow the links you will
arrive at your destination. A little background in biology will help.This is essentially about evolution of brains of Homo Sapiens, sapiens as
you know means wise. Apparently the current size of brain 1400 gms has reached this size only 200000years ago . but apparently first evidence
of any human crude attempt at tool making is 40000yrs ago . So why is it gap. Apparently some mutation or something happened that
according to one theory three parts of brain starts coordinating , or according to professor born in tamil nadu , now in california one particular
variety of nerve cells M neurons mutiplies and became prolific,. This particular variety FIRES in IMITATING , as you know imitating is also
learning . To cut long story short very sophisticated brain scanning tools have shown , there is increased blood flow to prefrontal cortex and
related ares during religious meditation , and so called spiritual thoughts . SO BOTTOM LINE IN ANALYTICAL LOGICAL REGRESSION
ANALYSIS WILL LEAD TO ALL ANSWER , MAY AT THE END PROOVE THAT HOMO SAPIENS IS NOTHING BUT A
INCREDIBLY SOPHISTICATED BRAIN , AND IS A PRODUCT OF EVOLUTION.AND JUSTIFIES THE TERM SAPIENS.
[Reply]
30. Atif says:

July 1, 2010 at 7:43 pm
Why is that scientologists like to speak in ifs and buts and possibilities but portray as they have found the crucks of the matter?
Anyway as for God or Allah the concept is so str8frwd that it amazes me how some people refuse to see.
The basic thing is that everything is creaated by someone. Even if you go by regenration and monosopic throries still there has to be someone
or a mechanism to create the basic molecues and elements. Now for that to create that mechanism there has to be someone . THe final piece in
the puzzle.
One thing scientologists need to realise is that our intelligence is garnered from our enviornment as most of our examples are based or research
directed on the basis of what we know or expect. That is why exploring the unknows have always been such a challenge.
The 3 major arguments ppl put against the existance of God really made me laugh (I must admit once I was one of them too but Alhamdulillah
got the light of guidance):
1: Why would there be a God (Allah).
WHY NOT. AND AS EXPLAINED BEFORE BECAUSE EVEN IF A LITTLE PIN CANNOT BE MADE WITHOUT A CREATOR HOW
CAN THE ENTIRE UNIVERSES BE MADE WITHOUT ANY REASON. AND LIFE CANNOT JUST EXIST WITHOUT ANY PURPOSE
JUST TO LIVE 50-80 YEARS AND THE END OF STORY. THERE HAS TO REASONS FOR EXISTANCE.
2. Science had not yet proved the existance of God (Allah).
SCIENCE IS NOT ABSOLUTE BUT EVOLVING. EVERYDAY THERE ARE NEW RESEARCHES DENYING THE OLDER ONES.
AND THERE ARE THINGS BEYOND THE COMPREHENSION OF THE SCIENCE AS WE KNOW IT.
IN ANY CASE IT IS SOMETHING A VAST MAJORITY OF HUMANS HAVE A CONNECTION WITH. THIS ARGUMENT IS LIKE A
KID PROPOSE TO THE ENTIRE CLASS TO ASK THEIR PARENTS FOR DNA TESTS TO PROVE THEY ARE ACTUALLY THEIR
PARENTS. THE KID NEEDS SOME CHECKUP FOR SURE. THERE ARE WAYS TO HOW THINGS WORK.
NOW I CAN GIVE A LONG LIST OF THINGS SCIENCE BEFORE DENIED BUT THAN ACCEPTED. JUST TO QUOTE A COUPLE:
A) WHEN MUSLIMS WERE ORDERED TO DO TAYAMUM (USE CLEAN MUD WITH DIRECT SUNLIGHT CONTACT TO CLEAN
IN CASE WATER IS NOT AVAILABLE), FOR CENTURIES SCIENTIS LAUGHED AND CLAIMED THAT THIS WOULD RESULT IN
DISEASES BUT NOW FINALLY SCIENCE HAS CONCLUDED THAT YESSSSSSSSS IF MUD HAS DIRECT SUNLIGHT THE
GERMS DIES AND IT CONTAINS SOME ELEMENTS THAT WILL KILL GERMS OFF HANDS… SO SCIENCE WASN’T RIGHT
EVOLVED TO BE RIGHT
B) SIMILARLY WHEN PEOPLE USED TO RECITE FORM HOLY QURAN THAT (TO THE NEAREST EFFECT) TRY TO GO OUT OF
THE BOUNDS OF THE EARTH AND YOU CANNOT EXCEPT WITH SHEER EXTREME FORCE, SCIENCE USED TO LAUGH THAT
HOW IS IT POSSIBLE. NOW THAT SAME SCIENCE HAS EVOLVED TO ACCEPT THIS IS INFACT THE BASIS OF MODREN DAY
SPACE SCIENCE.
C) WHEN QURAN (AND BEFORE THAT BIBLE ALSO) TOLD THAT JESUS WAS BORN WITHOUT A FATHER, SCIENTIS
LAUGHED OFF. NOW THE SAME SCIENCE IS USING CLONING TO PRODUCE OFFSPRINGS WITHOUT FATHERS … AGAIN
WHO WAS RIGHT?
So my dear friends understand this basic that science is NOT absolute but evolving and there are some suprenatural connections BEYOND
comprehension of science studied in the comparatively newer branch of PAranormal Physics.
Again the basic stepping stone of debate is to seek knowledge and accept the truth. I’d suggest people to do study atleast ISlam
comprehensively if they cannot do for other religions too and InshAllah they would find the answers to their burning questiosn WITH proofs
with science is not able to provide yet, but may in future, as in the examples above.
[Reply]
shan Reply:
@Atif, As much I dont mind you coming back to these blogs , but surely by now you must have understood, we Indians generally are too
sophisticates and with a scientific and rational bent of mind to swallow your porky’s er sorry nice stories.
[Reply]
Atif Reply:
July 2nd, 2010 at 10:19 am
@ satan the disgrace this is typical when you can’t answer you start babling bullshi*. Ok let me answer you in your language.
Being a ****** you just cannot stop shi*ing out of your mouth can you By the way you guys are the ones who love pork so it has to be your
porky shi*y stories r8 hehehehe
Don’t ridicule the Indians by associating them with yourselves. If yours is the level of “intellect” (self-praiser LoL) than God pity India.
(I’m glad there are decent people in India else lunatics like you try their best to destroy the image of that country).
[Reply]

July 2nd, 2010 at 11:46 am
shan, Atif:
As much as I enjoy your participation on this blog with your insights, I am personally getting tired of your language. I have said this earlier and
I say it again: please use arguments and facts rather than name-calling or abusing. Don’t tell me who began it or why. Just end it. I say this in
the interest of other commentators and more for many more who are not commenting.
Tks
[Reply]
shan Reply:
Well gautam , if you like propaganda , that’s your preference, the point is if you want to elevate the discussion FROM A RELEGION ,
CONSTANT ATTEMPT BEING MADE TO THRUST DOWN YOUR THROAT AS “THE RELIGION” THAT IS WHEN THE PROBLEM
STARTS. Also some of the argument is pretty pathetic, like jesus being born without a father , that is the catholic version ,.so who was joseph,
and to equate that to clonic just reduces the discussion to just short of ludicrous. In fact Bishop of Durham said in no uncertain terms that he
thought RESURRECTION is be taken as SYMBOLIC rather than actual physical resurrection having taken place. Every time you point to the
facts they will resort to vile remarks, I dont mind sarcasm , for that is an art itself, in fact bobby got so pissed off he remarked he has never
come across a nutter like this before.

shan:
I have no problem about anyone writing anything so long as there is an argument, either of reason or faith, behind it — not name-calling and
reducing the discussion into a You versus Me.
The problem could be that since nobody knows who anyone is, it becomes easy to say things that in a civilised world we would not. Just
transport that civilised language on this blog and allow it to become a fountain of ideas rather than a hurricane of abuses.
As far as you personally are concerned, I respect what you say — even though I might disagree with some of your arguments — but allow
others to have their say without being branded.
It would help us all if you began by exercising restraint. I’m sure Atif and others will follow.
Atif Reply:
July 2nd, 2010 at 10:53 pm
Thanks Gautam. I agree. Even if you see his response to you that is aggressive and derogatory while he feels ok to use pathetic arguments and
try to push them down our throats he has a problem when he cannot respond. I already left a note asking only decent people to answer the
arguments but he alway come rushing with foul language. Anyway I didn’t reciprocated the above post respecting your guideline and hope
you’d take action on his next abuse.
NB: As for Jesus that version of Account is supported by both christians and Muslims (over 3.7 Billion) which is app 60% of world population,
a clear majority. And since Mr. shans brain doesn’t allow him to listen to opposing views decently you’d be able to appreciate that I was
making a point that the genetic research is now proving that having a baby WITHOUT a father is POSSIBLE which was deemed Impossible
before.
thanks and continue the good influence
Atif Reply:
July 2nd, 2010 at 10:56 pm
Perhaps Rahela, Wise, etc can tell you themselves how they regarded mr shan as “retarded” and to be ignored. Anyway I hope you will tame
him now.
So anyone with ARGuMENTS and answers to my points above
Ashish Reply:
July 3rd, 2010 at 12:03 am
@Atif,
Your points may seem novel but, they are in fact old hat.
You are arguing from the corner of creationism while we have seen the arguments from the evolution guys as well.
The point that you don’t seem to get is that even if I accept that God (or Dog) created the universe, the mystery still remains that then, who
created God?
Now, if you tell me that in the beginning there was nothing but God, I say “Ha, tell me another one”. You have no proof; not only that, you
cover for that by saying God has no shape, no beginning, no end, can’t be seen… blah, blah..infinite strength (irresistible force and immovable
object, combined)…
To be absolutely fair to you, the so called scientific thinkers are as hard pressed to explain the origin as you are.
But, with all that, science does a far better job than faith or religion in running my life. And, so long as you are not bothered about afterlife, as I
am not, why would I change?
[Reply]
Atif Reply:
July 3rd, 2010 at 12:22 pm
To be concise what proof who have for anything otherwise or the “theories” science is working on
[Reply]
Atif Reply:
July 3rd, 2010 at 12:24 pm
And please do refer to the specific case in points proving the basis of Islam and where science initially got it wrong and now conforming
Ashish Reply:
July 3rd, 2010 at 7:18 pm
Atif,
1. “Why not?” is not an answer. Onus is upto you to prove Allah or God or any such thing/ person existed or exists.
2. If even a small pin can not be made without a creator, then this universe must have been made by someone… . So, agreed. Now tell me, who
made Allah? A bigger Allah? What was there before Allah? Can you find reasons and purpose behind all Allah’s actions? If you tell me that
only Allah can explain all his reasons and purpose behind everything that is going on today, it is even less satisfactory that the scientific view,
which at least accepts that it does not know but works to find it.
3. “Science had not yet proved the existance of God (Allah)”. Yes, and even Allah has not proved his existence to me If you have a proof,
please post a video, on Youtube, preferably.
Not just science, we hope religion evolves and changes to accommodate the new demands from society, people’s aspirations and needs.
No one denies that a vast majority(??) of people may believe in God of some sort. That does not make it true or infallible.
Your kid in the class is normally not asked to prove his parentage; but, if is needed to settle a paternity suit, you do need DNA tests. No
religion can help there.
4. Cloning is science; immaculate conception is ahem, a nice story. Enough said.
I did not understand how a simple sentence like “extreme force to escape earth” can be enough to be the basis for modern space science. All I
can say is that you do not know how complex Space Science is.
[Reply]
Atif Reply:
Thanks for a decent reply Ashish
Actually the onus is on you too to prove that science knows better (or we can go Gautam’s way or should I say Islam’s way of treating both in
harmony)
Now re Allah (God’s) Existance. I’m glad u accepted that there has to be a creator now you raised two very valid questions:
a) How many Gods are there?

b) Who created him/them?
a) There has to be only ONE God. Why? Because we all know even the best of friends and brothers have disagreements and whenever two
parties of equal standing are involved in a disagreement the result can be a standstill.
If there was to be more than one God than the universe wouldn’t be able to work so meticulously in perfect harmony and based on the best
principles of mathematics and science. Multie Gods would at the least have disagreements like one might like the sun to come out from west,
the other from east. Another might want 2 suns to come instead of one etc etc. I hope this clarifies and answer your question. Right?
Now lets move onto the second one:
b) Who created God?. And If no one than how is that?
Well God (Allah) is an eternal Almighty force since ever and for ever. Before going further we need to understand a basic principle of science
that all research and knowledge is based on one’s ability to comprehend and examplify. For example if we go to some tribe inside the forests of
Africa and show them planes they would start kneling believing you are GOD as they CANNOT comprehend the phenomenon outside their
socio-intellectual fabric.
Now there are few who are able to visualise and try to work on it and they are the ones who lead to discoveries.
So back to the issue, there is a continuation of creations and a chain with interconnections. You created a robot which creates a car which is
driven by you. You get stuck in a storm created by the Almighty. Now the chain cannot be infinite as explained in 1 above there has to be an
end for it to make sense re the control and perfect mechanics of the universe. That ULtiMATE end of the chain is the power called Allah (God
or Bhagwan by other religions).
This leaves open one question. What was before everything and what exactly is Allah. What we know about it is that Allah is an extreme Noor
(light) and eternal. And the final question re what was before all is something beyond comprehension but open for all to try to research into (for
that first need to master the subject to either confirm or reject it i.e. Islam based on Quran and Hadith and not just popular media). The example
of our comprehension, before thinking negatively, is like an intelligent gaming character which is given limited intelligence to comprehend the
atmosphere in the game and decide the course of its action even leading to the destruction of the entire gaming platform. However that
character won’t be able to comprehend the programmer as it is beyond its sphere of intelligence and how it perceives its “universe”. (Not the
best of examples as programmer is not the ultimate end of the rope but it conveys the point of sphere of comprehension).
And re your surprise about space program please remember it was 1500 years ago when let alone space or flying, people were scare to travel in
case they “fall” out of earth. And a person (Prophet Muhammad PBUH) is telling the people that amongst the numerous things told by their
creator the ultimate Allah Almighty one is that they CAN go out of the bound of this universe and CAN try to do that and they can ONLY
SUCCEED in it with sheer force. this was challenging all the perceptions at that time and much later when it was thought that the gravitational
force makes it impossible to reach for the space.
Also see the other examples quoted:

EVOLVED TO BE RIGHT
As for Hazrat MAryam (RAU) (Mary to christians), the cloning proves that contraception WITHOUT fathers and sperms IS TOTALLY
PRACTICAL AND POSSIBLE.
One of the ultimate reason to create the universe was to create the ultimate creation Human and test it against its competitor (Devil). It is just
like a very sophisticated game is created with good and bad characters and they allowed limited intelligence and freedoms of their actions
which can lead to their success or destruction.
Now finally why Allah do any particular thing, you got to be specific. We have been told in Quran and HAdith with logic and sense the
answers to MOST. With only a few areas left for us to seek with a guidance how to go about it. For that again you got to equip yourself with
the relevant knowledge of Islam from GENUINE SOURCES. Despite the bias, I’d suggest Dr. Zakir as a convinient way as always provide
genuine references, logics and comparisons.
I hope this answers your questions. If any more queries please ask point by point
[Reply]
Ashish Reply:
@Atif,
Since you are on God’s side, first prove there is God.
No, Atif, I never accepted there is creator. Please understand the use of rhetoric. When I say, “so agreed”, it does not mean that I agree but
intend to show that following the agreement leads to illogical conclusions.
a) there has to be only one God? Why? Have you met him? And he told you so? This brother-sister-family disagreement is no logic at all; it is
your desire to “reverse engineer” a proof of a belief that you hold because that has been told you by someone and you accept it.
b) Who created Allah? Again, you have no answer but to re-state your belief that Allah is Noor or whatever. Proof, please?
Space program: ha! So, we have Hanuman jumping over the the sea, Sudarshan Chakra killing hundreds, Agni-vaan decimating an entire
military… so, we should conclude that our ancients knew about airplanes, nuclear weapons, guided missiles? What nonsense.
If such things are being quoted in support of the greatness of a religion, then you should follow Nostradamus; who was, by the yardstick of
prophecies, a bigger prophet
http://www.nostradamus101.com/prophecies/part2/
(light) and eternal. And the final question re what was before all is something beyond comprehension but open for all to try to research into
(for that first need to master the subject to either confirm or reject it i.e. Islam based on Quran and Hadith and not just popular media).
When you say, what we know, can please explain, how you know?
So, what was there before Allah, is beyond anybody’s comprehension, but open to research? Then why are you so contemptuous of the
scientific view which says, it does not know what happened before the big bang, what is the limit/ shape of the universe? At least the science
has made some headway and is willing to admit it does not know and works to find out. The religious view seems to think God started it all is a
source of comfort and does no more exploration. Now, I have no problem with you holding a belief or having faith, but you can’t expect others
who want to be guided not by faith but by logic and reason to be similarly satisfied.
Listen, you are welcome to your personal sense of hygiene.
To think of the universe as a massively multiplayer online game with a supremelt gifted programmer pulling strings is akin to what Krishna
said to Arjuna in the battlefield.. “everything is pre-ordained.. I have already decided who has to be killed and who will survive”.. it is a point
of view. But, nothing more, nothing less.
Why did Allah send the Tsuami or the earthquakes or as Syed has been asking, the babies with birth defects?
Atif Reply:
@ Ashish Its so sad to see you are NOT reading my post fully or ahm ahm
Sinc eyou are mostly repeating same questions so i got to repeat the answers untill u can address them or ask something new which II will
answer. Before that:
You hanuman examples are funny as you try to relate to space program since monkeys do jump (its no revelation) and even if we just go by it
than it was within the BOUNDS of earth and didnt defy the power of gravity or gavee clues that it can be defied to such extent to go to outer
space.
As for Hygiene it is not my choice BUT SCIENTIFIC FACTS PLS CHECK
As for the example of programmer it is to make you understand. And science accepts it doesnt know and where it doesnt it later shows (as in
the case of the examples I gave where it latter evolved.) Pleaseread below and the latest comments by Wise on the Millat Facebook CEO
interview (It also anwers someof your questions).
“Now re Allah (God’s) Existance. I’m glad u accepted that there has to be a creator now you raised two very valid questions:
a) How many Gods are there?

b) Who created him/them?
a) There has to be only ONE God. Why? Because we all know even the best of friends and brothers have disagreements and whenever two
parties of equal standing are involved in a disagreement the result can be a standstill.
If there was to be more than one God than the universe wouldn’t be able to work so meticulously in perfect harmony and based on the best
principles of mathematics and science. Multie Gods would at the least have disagreements like one might like the sun to come out from west,
the other from east. Another might want 2 suns to come instead of one etc etc. I hope this clarifies and answer your question. Right?
Now lets move onto the second one:
b) Who created God?. And If no one than how is that?
Well God (Allah) is an eternal Almighty force since ever and for ever. Before going further we need to understand a basic principle of science
that all research and knowledge is based on one’s ability to comprehend and examplify. For example if we go to some tribe inside the forests of
Africa and show them planes they would start kneling believing you are GOD as they CANNOT comprehend the phenomenon outside their
socio-intellectual fabric.
Now there are few who are able to visualise and try to work on it and they are the ones who lead to discoveries.
So back to the issue, there is a continuation of creations and a chain with interconnections. You created a robot which creates a car which is
driven by you. You get stuck in a storm created by the Almighty. Now the chain cannot be infinite as explained in 1 above there has to be an
end for it to make sense re the control and perfect mechanics of the universe. That ULtiMATE end of the chain is the power called Allah (God
or Bhagwan by other religions).
(light) and eternal. And the final question re what was before all is something beyond comprehension but open for all to try to research into (for
that first need to master the subject to either confirm or reject it i.e. Islam based on Quran and Hadith and not just popular media). The example
of our comprehension, before thinking negatively, is like an intelligent gaming character which is given limited intelligence to comprehend the
atmosphere in the game and decide the course of its action even leading to the destruction of the entire gaming platform. However that
character won’t be able to comprehend the programmer as it is beyond its sphere of intelligence and how it perceives its “universe”. (Not the
best of examples as programmer is not the ultimate end of the rope but it conveys the point of sphere of comprehension).
And re your surprise about space program please remember it was 1500 years ago when let alone space or flying, people were scare to travel in
case they “fall” out of earth. And a person (Prophet Muhammad PBUH) is telling the people that amongst the numerous things told by their
creator the ultimate Allah Almighty one is that they CAN go out of the bound of this universe and CAN try to do that and they can ONLY
SUCCEED in it with sheer force. this was challenging all the perceptions at that time and much later when it was thought that the gravitational
force makes it impossible to reach for the space.
Also see the other examples quoted:

EVOLVED TO BE RIGHT
As for Hazrat MAryam (RAU) (Mary to christians), the cloning proves that contraception WITHOUT fathers and sperms IS TOTALLY
PRACTICAL AND POSSIBLE.
One of the ultimate reason to create the universe was to create the ultimate creation Human and test it against its competitor (Devil). It is just
like a very sophisticated game is created with good and bad characters and they allowed limited intelligence and freedoms of their actions
which can lead to their success or destruction.
Now finally why Allah do any particular thing, you got to be specific. We have been told in Quran and HAdith with logic and sense the
answers to MOST. With only a few areas left for us to seek with a guidance how to go about it. For that again you got to equip yourself with
the relevant knowledge of Islam from GENUINE SOURCES. Despite the bias, I’d suggest Dr. Zakir as a convinient way as always provide
genuine references, logics and comparisons.
I hope this answers your questions. If any more queries please ask point by point”
shan Reply:
@Ashish, For once I have to say you “Brilliant”
Sajjad Reply:
July 5th, 2010 at 12:04 pm
Atif wonderful It is so good to see someone with sense among the nostalgia. Keep up the good work. Awesome
31. ns says:
July 2, 2010 at 6:02 pm
Gautam, in his article, mentioned how we put “faith” in the collective wisdom of science but most of us, and the scientists, refuse to put faith in
our ancient wisdom.
Let me make some observations on that.
Before I go any further, lest all the science fans put a fatwa on me, let me clarify that even though I no longer work in (hard) sciences,
whatever I do will qualify as science or scientific methodology. I would consider myself a scientist in some sense. (See, I might be even better
qualified to comment on this than a journalist – just a joke, Mr. Chikermane).
Most of the scientists are paid to do their job. If they see something interesting (quite often not even interesting) they would try to get peer-
reviewed and published. More often than not, their job would depend on their list of publications. (An exception to this is one of the greatest
work of the previous century – Einstein published his work on general relativity while working as a patent clerk.) If your peers agree to your
conclusion, you get published (and I know enough to tell you that there is plenty of politics and use of connections in that too, but good work
eventually wins out) and your conclusions may be verified and supported by others. That becomes the collective scientific wisdom as of that
time. The general population or Mr. Obama does not bother verifying that.
(And if you are doing research for some drug company and financed by the drug company, there is a very high probability (or almost certain)
that your results are totally biased and distorted to suit your masters. But the doctors (and their national medical associations) who are sort of
bribed by you with lots of gifts/trips/hookers will all claim that all the research is supported by double-blind studies.)
Science said less than a century ago that space and time were absolute. Now we say that they are warped. Earlier we thought there was only
one solar system, then one universe; now we talk about multiple universes and even multiple histories. Such examples (and not just related to
cosmology) in our history can go on and on. Each of those conclusions were supposed to be peer-reviewed and verified and we made the
claims about the “collective scientific wisdom” with the fullest of confidence. My point is that many of these scientific wisdom are only as of
that point of time and it is hard to say that that is the final word.
Now suppose you decide to become a sadhu, you go to the Himalayas and if the forest department permits you, you sit in a cave for decades
and decades and meditate and you get lucky and get the “ultimate truth”. Now what do you do? You don’t have a drug to sell so you don’t go
on TV. You don’t need money for anything because you know better. Many of you will be in such a state of bliss that you don’t need to do
anything else at all. And nobody gives you a Nobel and nobody hears about you. The leela just goes on without you.
Some of you would like to come back to humanity and serve others in some way. Now if you tell anybody that you are “enlightened” they
laugh at you and ask you to prove it. Now how do you prove it. You do not have the mandate to prevent world war 1’s, and 2’s and 3’s –
remember you are not supposed to interfere with the leela too much. You can do some small magic but PC Sarkar says I can do better. You
might cure some incurable disease but the scientists might call it a placebo effect or a coincidence. You are not supposed to go around curing
all the cancers and AIDs anyway. You might walk on water but the scientists might come up with some scientific explanation 2000 years later.
Now if you tell people that they can also try to achieve it with sincere effort, how many of us would like to leave this life with all the wine and
women and sit and meditate with no foreseeable or appreciable (with our current faculties) benefits. So there goes peer review and publication.
Replication is not guaranteed anyway – just because you meditate does not guarantee you the truth.
So the general populace is never going to believe it. And that, probably, is the divine design. Remember, it is all a play.
[Reply]
Ashish Reply:
July 2nd, 2010 at 10:14 pm
@ns,
loved your essay.
Here’s a modern “sadhu”; peer-reviewed to boot
Russian mathematician wins $1 million prize, but he appears to be happy with $0 (for those with no time to follow the link, this mathematician
from Russia, Perelman, proved the Poincare conjecture; a problem that has eluded mathematicians for more than 100 years.. and then refused a
million dollar prize)
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/07/01/AR2010070106
247.html?hpid=topnews
[Reply]
Ashish Reply:
July 2nd, 2010 at 10:54 pm
try this link; the previous URL got malformed trying to cut and paste
http://bit.ly/asrtAF
[Reply]
shan Reply:
July 3rd, 2010 at 2:06 am
@ns, Thanks for posting an incredible piece of reactionary hindu thought. This very thinking is root cause of thousand years of slavery. Just
like another kind of thinking says there is BIG BROTHER watching you and unless you “submit” just wait for your calling and then you will
be roasted and then when the skin falls off new skin be applied so ythat you feel pain , alternately there is heaven with virgins for following the
dictat. Lets take his LEELA, or his holinesses GREAT GAME. If you submit(same submit) to this thinking then whatever you do or not do is
predestined, it is mind bogglingly FATALISTIC. So there is no incentive to do anything, because whatever you do it is all predestined,
CONTRAST THIS WITH WESTERN CIVILIZATION , “MAN IS HIS FATE MAKER”, or Rene Descartes,COGITO ERGO SUM(latin),
plain english, I DOUBT , THEREFORE I THINK , THEREFORE I AM. An extension of this would be YES I CAN DO IT. This” I ” at the
centre of everything is RENAISSANCE, instead of his holinesses.And thank goodness there was renaissance , otherwise ns you wouldn’t have
lived this long (cholera, typhoid would have cut short your life span)and wouldn’t be able to disseminate these society regressing
ideologies.The next is the ultimate truth, what a waste of time this all effort in CERN chasing the GOD PARTICLE (higgs Boson, this boson is
named after S.N.Bose), when all it needs a sojourn in himalayas, imagine the savings. AND SPARE A THOUGHT ABOUT OUR FELLOW
BLOGGER BOBBY, MATE YOU ARE A DUFFER TRYING TO DECIPHER THESE HORRENDOUSLY ABSTRACT CONCEPTS ,
WHEN ALL YOU NEED ACCORDING TO NS IS A PAD IN LEH OR UTTARAKHAND. Guys like you have done enough harm to india’s
progress and just when one thought that we had been able to junk that mental garbage , ns wants us to embrace that garbage. If only our fellow
human beings of a particular type could cast aside this DEAD WEIGHT of doctrineand think for themselves , it would be an infinitely better
world for those fellow human beings.
[Reply]
Ashish Reply:
July 3rd, 2010 at 11:25 am
If doubting the existence of God is okay then doubting the all-explaining nature of science is “scientific” too.. I don’t see what the problem is.
If ns is happy (he never said he was, personally) in a pad in a cave in the Himalayas, surely that is his personal choice?
Quote from Tagore (I would not be a bong if I did not get him into this at some stage, would I?)
(I am indebted to the following link for the quote and translation:
http://mauzziemuses.blogspot.com/2010/05/shishir-bindu.html )
“dekha hoy nai chokkhu meliya
.. ghor hotey shudhu dui pa feliya
… ekti dhaaner shisher upor
…. ekti shishir bindu….”
It’s taking me back about 2 decades, to that large L-shaped classroom of my elementary school… weird curriculum of grade 5, where a poem
of this multitude of meaning was taught to a bunch of 10 year olds… !
The rough translation of these lines goes somewhat like this:

“I never did open my eyes to see
.. just two steps away from me
… in the paddy field there, the beauty
…. in one single drop of dew on one single rice seed…”
Shan, why are you talking about the experiments in CERN, Bosons and the like? Are you qualified to comment?
[Reply]
shan Reply:
July 3rd, 2010 at 4:26 pm
@Ashish, I am dissapointed , this coming from a bengalee who hais from a place where still stands a cultural museum called coffee house.(I
am aware it is a museum now).NS has every right to beleive in whatever he would like to beleive , so long he doesn’t parade it as truth and
something beyond reproach. As I have explained before this “virus” is best kept in miniscule pockets and one needs to do everything to prevent
its spread by rational argument.. As to CERN and boson , I would dare not comment , but I am posting all that i have read in newspaper and
science magazines. As to your couplet , I came across that when I was age nine, however the one that has enduring effect on me is the
timeleess one
Chool jar ghono bidisha r nesha , mukhe jar sravostir karukarja, ……sabuj ghaser desh jokhon shay chokhe dekhey daruchini dwiper bhitor
bolochey shay “etodin kothai chilen ”
Pakhir neerer motho chok tulle natorer banolata sen , For the non bengali readers this a translation by Clinton B. Seely from his book “A POET
APART” ,
I remember her dark hair as night at vidisha , her face an im,age of Sravasti, as the pilot , undone in the blue milieu of sea , never twice saw the
earth of grass before him .I have never seen her , Banalat Sen of Natore. The translation is same taste as hamburger when one likes Biryani.
Also can you do me a favour can you posy any book seller who sells “A literary Miscellany ” By Taraknath Sen , I have searched Flipcart ,
rupa and the rest on internet , apparently it is out of print, Thanks Shan
32. wiseadvizer says:

July 9, 2010 at 12:36 am
……
….Very interesting debate………………
Like it…….
[Reply]

July 9, 2010 at 1:34 pm
Since one of my post is misunderstood and qouted HERE…..I wish to Clarify here too as I clarify it at the relevant blog…MFB ceo interview,,,
T H E C L A R I F I C A T I O N:::::::::
To clarify…..This:::::::::::
……………………………………………………………….
syed Reply:
@Shan,
Chose the scientific option, why????
Did someone not say that the quran contains all the knowledge in the universe!
………………………………………………………………….
My Reply:::::
I wrote the word “BOOK” in my post dated…27 june 2010
………….This word was not in connection with “QURAAN” as some of my friends thought alike. I wrote:::::::
————————————————————————————
“””””””””………………………….. THE CO-CREATOR.
As co-creator human are capable of doing maximum things to some extent that ALLAH does. Even human can create some kind of life……no
surprise..
The massive PROGRAM was preserved in a BOOK. That contains the detailed and COMPLEX data of efforts and results and Universal laws
and Systems..”””””
————————————————————————————-
DEARS….
Here as per QURAAN that BOOK is called “Kitabim-Marqoom’ and it is defined as containing each and every thing well defined and written
in it”
If we think and research about it,
“IT MAY JUST LIKE A VERY COMPLEX SOFTWARE DATA BANK CONTAINING ALL THE DETAIL ABOUT ACTION n
REACTION AND CAUSE n EFFECTS REGARDING HUMAN BEHAVIORS and LAWS AND SYSTEMS in relation to that “GAME”
played here.
This huge system was created by ALLLAH and ALLAH says in QURAAN, that,
“”It took Six days of “YOUR CALCULATION” for me to establish this system of universe”””.
Then ALLAH Settled at “”ARSH”.After establishing that system and from where now ..
HE says :”BE” it comes in BEING”:( see why………. “YOURS calculation”!!)
CAN WE UNDERSTAND THAT COMPLEXITIES…..YES if we have been provided that mental strength and intelligence required but that
at this moment is not there.
What the “ARSH” is.

It is a “CONTROL ROOM” of ALMIGHTY from where ALLAH keep grip on every single movement in the smallest particle visible or
invisible.
For us it is just like NASA control room from where you can see any part of this world through satellite cameras. Further you can listen one’s
voice from any part of the world through sensors or other devices..
You are visible at NASA control room without even knowing!
It is written In QURAAN that there are TWO ANGELS, invisible to your eyes, deputed on you to record every action you take…good or bad!
And you would not be able to deny your deeds at the judgment day.
CAN YOU?
SCIENCE must research and Find the AUTHOR of a BOOK that very much Physically exist and contain magical characteristics as it is not
changed for 1.5 thousands years, further IT can be learn by heart and It Changes its meanings with passage of time………THE QURAAN…..
My Friends! Be honest to accept that your belief and thoughts are incomplete and not clear as crystal as MINE.
Actually the way Islam is presented by me with scientific angle surprised you as you might have never thought about it with this angle.
You all here have a pre-defined Narrow-Minded-Religion concept of Islam and you are unable to come out of it. Yours Fault.
As Farzeen wrote that Islam should not be judged by the Muslims.
My RABB ALLAH Says,
“I will make you wondering in your desires, unless you accept my Desire.””
Science would reach its Creator sooner or Later…no other way bro…
Read the Quraan and see for yourselves that “CAN A HUMAN TALK AND WRITE LIKE THAT < WITH SUCH ASSURANCE,
AUTHORITY AND SUPERIORITY.””
ALLAH SAYS. In QURAAN”
HUMAN! USE YOUR WISDOM TO EXPLORE UNIVERSE AND INSIDE YOU,. YOU WILL FIND UNCOUNTABLE SIGNS OF ME.
ROTATION OF DAY AND NIGHT AND PHASES OF MOON ARE MY OPEN SIGNS.
.
“FOR HUMAN’S, WHAT HE STRIVES FOR!’
( what you struggle, you can get)
“ THE MISERIES ARE THE OUTCOME OF HUMAN DEEDS ITSELF.”

(cause and effect….action and reactions.)
´MOON AND SUN ARE FLOATING IN THEIR “RESPECTIVE” CIRCLES.

( Remember 1.5 thousand year before….who knew it.. Respective orbits!)
JUDGMENT “DAY” IS EQUAL TO YOUR 50,000 YEARS.

(Time and space…Relativity)
ALLAH IS THERE….. ALL ACTIVE, ALIVE, AND INVOLVED….

………………………………..
FRIENDS, Your all discussions are based on presuming a conflict between science and religions BUT…BE INFORMED THAT THERE IS
No conflict between science and Islam..
Bobby and Friend, it is not a story,,,But

A FACT HAVING AVERY FORCEFUL PHYSICAL EVIDENCE…
If you are capable to realize and accept.
I wonder……
Be Happy……….
[Reply]
[Reply]
shan Reply:
Can’t remember last reading a rant of a demented bigot. We are the best , we are the last , we are science the rest are kuffers. The earliest
preserved specimen of full quoran is two hundreed years after his death , yes to claim it is unchanged is laughable. I have read that the reason
why quoran was written down (previously it was reciters) was because every body was doing whatever suits them and claiming it is from
quoran , so it was decided to write it down and hadith eight hundreed years after prophet’s death from hearsay, the more you post these things
you expose islam’s followers to be a bunch of ignorant irrational people of mental stone age.
[Reply]

July 9, 2010 at 10:14 pm
Shan Sahab:
I can reply but It would be deviation from the discussion:
Just reply ,” Why not the laws and law of Laws develop itself through evolution to make our daily life easier. Why it has stopped entering in
our daily life, as it revolves around us to make us alive, providing, air, water and so many things, but do not provide us, clothing, breakfast or
some time an apple at the table cut in pieces.? or a supper ready with out any efforts of us?
There is a book, in this world, claiming that It is from our creator, Who is the writer?
Is there anything Meta-physical?
[Reply]
shan Reply:
July 10th, 2010 at 4:44 am
This is so childish , it doesn’t deserve a reply in this matured discussion. All that has happened is because as i have pointed earlier as Rene
Descartes said, I doubt , therefore I think , therefore I am . There was no clothing ten thousand years ago , in fact earliest evidence of tool
making was FORTY THOUSAND YERS AGO , now some evidence that it may be hundreed fifty thousand years ago. So why did allah wait
this long to send his messenger.
[Reply]
July 10, 2010 at 8:49 am
Shan:
You as usual pick a part to reply.
And Really your replies are so childish that made some laughing stuff even to student.
As.. In reply to my same question about laws and systems. you earlier described that car opens its door automatically in Volvo. Was that a
mature answer?
I think your thinking is so narrow that you have become the prisoner of your predefined thoughts. I do not find it beneficial to continue with a
person sitting in a Volvo and watching only the wipers moving.
As you ignored my Important Question about Author of a ‘Book’ as usual.
I will lastly quote one sentence from it for the common person to evaluate that Can a human write like this?
In Quraan, our Lord, The Creator, The Preserver Says;
“ O’ Human, What made you unmindful of your Kind Creator WHO created and Gave you a Form whichever HE liked.”
I want to clear here that I respect all religious believes and think that a religious person at least recognizes his Creator, but for atheist they are
blind and living in a dream world of physics. They deny spirit. They are not only fooling themselves but the whole humanity.
Quraan says for this situation that,
“Neither I am going to accept your worships, nor you are going to accept my worships, For you, your Belief, and for me My belief.” Al-
Quraan.
Goodbye…..
[Reply]
shan Reply:
July 10th, 2010 at 12:47 pm
@wiseadvizer, goodbye and goodriddance to those obscurantism and blindness.
[Reply]
Trackbacks
Check out what others are saying about this post...
1. Darwiniana » Will science ever explore spirituality? says:

June 28, 2010 at 10:21 pm
[...] Will science ever explore spirituality? [...]
Speak Your Mind
Tell us what you're thinking...

and oh, if you want a pic to show with your comment, go get a gravatar!
Name (required)
Mail (will not be published) (required)
Website
Submit Comment
Recent Posts
I am a professional laugher: Dalai Lama
Ayodhya: from the confines of law to the realm of theology
Ayodhya: 18 hours to Judgement Day
Ayodhya: Judgement Day tomorrow — brace yourselves
A Judgement Day for THE Judgement Day
Highest Rated
I am a professional laugher: Dalai Lama (5 out of 5)
Shed a tear for Shanno… (5 out of 5)
The fishermen of Pondicherry (5 out of 5)
Must education have a religion? (5 out of 5)
Is India ready for scriptural reasoning? (5 out of 5)
Popular Tags
Allahabad high court Ayodhya Barack Obama China Christians economists economy Facebook faith French President Nicolas
Sarkozy G 20 G20 G20 summit GDP globalisation God Hindu hindustan times IMF India Inflation Islam Judgement Day Lehman
Brothers London London Summit Mahabharata market Muslims news Pakistan Peter Drucker politics Pondicherry Pranab Mukherjee Railway
Budget Recession religion religious Research scientists sex Supreme Court UK US
Archives
October 2010
September 2010
August 2010
July 2010
June 2010
May 2010
April 2010
March 2010
February 2010
January 2010
December 2009
November 2009
October 2009
September 2009
August 2009
July 2009
June 2009
May 2009
April 2009
March 2009
February 2009
January 2009
All HT Blogs
Dabs & Jabs
HT Blogs
Our Daily Bread
Singly Political
Foreign Hand
Expletive Deleted
Shoot At Sight
Capital Closeup
@ Hindi Heartland
Fad For Thought
Madversity
The Delhiwalla
Just People
Separated At Birth
Middle Order
Tailor Talk
Download Central
Gyan at a Glance
Sportoholic
They Call Me Muslim
Desi in DC
Medium Term
To The Point
Page Turner
Cutting The Edge
Footloose
By The Way
Bat On Regardless
From The Pavilion
Expat On The Edge
Page One
¼th Of Me
Adventures of Inderjeet
Counterpoint
Rude Food
She Baba
Turned On
Pursuits
Rude Hotels
Editorial
Blogroll
A new world order is born: Brown
A rotten joint venture
All in the family
Blog: Is Indian economy fundamentally sound?
Buffett à la carte
Dialectic mysticism
G20 leaders hope to revive global economy
G20 should help reverse slowdown: Manmohan
Gautam’s personal blog
India can borrow $39 billion from IMF, World Bank
Interim Budget: Poll dance, but no item number
Obama, PM off to a good start
Searching high and low for the law
Time to bring on the shrinks
Categories
religion
Research
Admin
Log in
WordPress
XHTML
Advertisement
HT Media Network:
News | Views | Business | Cricket | Cinema | Lifestyle | Tabloid | Photos | Video | Blogs | Events | Weather | ePaper | Classifieds | HT Syndication |
Job Search in India
About us | Contact us | Work with us | Privacy Policy | Disclaimer | Archives | Sitemap
Switch to our mobile site

Will Science Ever Explore Spirituality

Enviado por

Dados do documento

Descrição original:

Direitos autorais

Formatos disponíveis

Compartilhar este documento

Compartilhar ou incorporar documento

Opções de compartilhamento

Você considera este documento útil?

Este conteúdo é inapropriado?

Direitos autorais:

Formatos disponíveis

Will Science Ever Explore Spirituality

Enviado por

Direitos autorais:

Formatos disponíveis

Will science ever explore spirituality?

: Cutting The Edge Page 1 of 29

News Feed Comments

Cutting The Edge

Search this blog ... GO

Will science ever explore spirituality?

Religion this week

India must ask: where is the honour in killing?

(9 votes, average: 4.33 out of 5)

Posted by Gautam Chikermane on Sunday, June 27, 2010 at 10:03 pm

Like 0 0Share · Comment (RSS) · Trackback

111 Responses to “Will science ever explore spirituality?”

Japji Sahib by Guru Nanak,

Nikhil Rajpara Reply:

Woouldn’t you agree??

Every curious mind wants to find out what is “Ultimate”.

“SATYAM SHIVAM SUNDARAM”.

7. Pankaj Seth says:

10. MSR Ayyangar says:

Here are some of my observations.

12. Ashish says:

13. dpbhasin says:

14. Prasoon Choudhary says:

15. Sarang says:

I think we all like complicating simple issues.

1) Science is cause and effect, spirituality is faith.

Coming to your argument,

1> Yes, for a minute I presumed there is God.

16. Anirudh K. Satsangi says:

Science has already explored spirituality;

Anirudh Kumar Satsangi said…

I have given a theory of consciousness and mind as below:

17. Bobby says:

Amit Julka Reply:

man didnt you bell the cat

Consider, I pledged my home.. gambled in a horse race… lost everything.

Astrology is here to stay, because we need it.

18. vijay says:

First I request to put a question mark at following point of your blog:

The way you defined religion as

Anyways thank you for your blog.

19. Naras says:

Science basically operates on this paradigm. Thus the scientist

20. Gautam Chikermane says:

2. What Scientists Think About Religion by Elaine Howard Ecklund

21. akshay says:

Spirituality thrives on the unknown, science explains it.

22. Bob Ellal says:

23. neelkanth says:

Spirituality is not astrology.

Spirutuality + Politics = Religion

25. Atif says:

Gautam thanks for the appreciating the contributions.

26. Vinay says:

I feel the highlight of your paper is:

Sorry it was a a reply to Anirudh K. Satsangi

27. Ashish says:

But think of it:

Gautam Chikermane Reply:

Gautam Chikermane Reply:

Yes, thanks. Quite brilliant.

28. Anusha says:

Gautam Chikermane Reply: