• Welcome to all New Sikh Philosophy Network Forums!
    Explore Sikh Sikhi Sikhism...
    Sign up Log in

Is Science A Religion?

Tejwant Singh

Mentor
Writer
SPNer
Jun 30, 2004
5,028
7,188
Henderson, NV.
I have already clarified that my original point was that science is not a religion. You asked me a question in what I think religion is, then you ask 'so what?' I don't understand what you're trying to do.

So what if you claim that. It matters not because for me Sikhi is not a religion to start with. I have no problem in what you think or claim.

I don't think this story is in the Guru Granth Sahib but it is well known amongst Sikhs. This BBC video has a good overview of the story. http://www.bbc.co.uk/learningzone/clips/the-guru-vanishes/3778.html

This website goes into more detail. http://fateh.sikhnet.com/sikhnet/register.nsf/p/story1

Here you can see it said that 'God gave him (Guru Nanak) a cup of nectar and said, "I am with you."'

Here's a source. http://www.sikhs.org/guru1.htm

You can see that it is said that 'Guru Nanak was in holy communion with God' and that Nanak himself proclaimed that there is but one god. 'Holy communion' to me seems like Nanak had a 'spiritual experience' in which he had been paid a visit by something divine which is what leads me to think that Sikhism is a belief system based on revealed truth.

Harvir ji,

Guru fateh.

For a Sikh, the only reference is from the SGGS, not from some random posts. And where is the peer review regarding your claim as your scientific mind demands? You are not following your own principles. If you have any peer reviews about it, then we can take this further. The whole story defies nature where Sikhi embraces it.

The so called Sakhi/story also defies all what is written in the SGGS, our only Guru. I know you do not know that. If any story that defies the teachings of our Gurus in the SGGS can not be a good source and you should know better.

Regards.

Tejwant Singh
 

akiva

SPNer
Apr 20, 2011
126
154
65
Jerusalem

akiva

SPNer
Apr 20, 2011
126
154
65
Jerusalem
Tejwant Ji:

Re "Peer Review":

Would the collected teachings and talks by GurSikhs over the centuries count as "Peer Review" as regards Religious Teachings?

Just curious as to your position.

Respectfully
Akiva
 

Tejwant Singh

Mentor
Writer
SPNer
Jun 30, 2004
5,028
7,188
Henderson, NV.
Tejwant Ji:

Re "Peer Review":

Would the collected teachings and talks by GurSikhs over the centuries count as "Peer Review" as regards Religious Teachings?

Just curious as to your position.

Respectfully
Akiva

Akiva ji,

Guru Fateh.

Please stop avoiding questions when directly asked to you. Let's be honest with ourselves. Respond to my question.

The above dialogue is between myself and Harvir and he knows what I am talking about.

Let's stick to the post I sent you and do not forget to read the threads.

Regards

Tejwant Singh
 

akiva

SPNer
Apr 20, 2011
126
154
65
Jerusalem
Tejwant Ji

I asked you a direct question -- in all honesty, because I wasn't aware of any false claims I had made -- and you avoided it.

Dialog goes both ways -- but when people ask you questions you quickly turn them against the asker.

Please specify exactly what false claim I made. Please don't cop out.

Akiva
 

Tejwant Singh

Mentor
Writer
SPNer
Jun 30, 2004
5,028
7,188
Henderson, NV.
Tejwant Ji

I asked you a direct question -- in all honesty, because I wasn't aware of any false claims I had made -- and you avoided it.

Dialog goes both ways -- but when people ask you questions you quickly turn them against the asker.

Please specify exactly what false claim I made. Please don't cop out.eh.



Akiva

Akiva ji,

Guru Fateh.

Please respond to my whole post and then I will show you in it where you falsely claimed things.

Regards

Tejwant Singh
 

akiva

SPNer
Apr 20, 2011
126
154
65
Jerusalem
Tejwant Ji

1. When did this so called "Age of Reason" start and what is NOT to be gained from it? How reasoning has become the attack to the religions and their beliefs?

I apologize -- I assumed you were familiar with the term "Age of Reason". Maybe you are familiar with "Age of Enlightenment"? ......... it was a watershed period (17-18th century) where the understanding of the world shifted from a theological-centered to a scientific-centered worldview.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_of_enlightenment is a good summary -- I'm not going to parrot the history there.

My point was that, with that shift, religion (and religious word-views) came under attack -- and those attacks have increased since then as society has become more secular.

(And, yes, I'm aware that other cultures went through similar paradigm shifts, some earlier and some later.)

2. Was Guru Nanak wrong in his reasoning when he refused to wear the Hindu Janeiu at the age of 7?

3. Was he wrong in his reasoning when he said pilgrimages, dips in holy waters, fasting, self immolation,animal sacrifices, Sati and many more are not the way to lead a truthful living?

4. Was he wrong in his reasoning when he started throwing water towards the West when he saw the Hindus throwing water towards the Sun?

5. Was he wrong in his reasoning when he says in Jap that there are limitless planets and galaxies? One can go on and on with his reasoning.

6.Who was he attacking with his reasoning?

7. What do have against reasoning?

8. Do you reason with yourself in order to make the right decisions?

Has nothing to do with what I said in my post -- because I wasn't talking about/attacking "reason" but talking about a period of history.



Please define religion so I can understand what you mean by it.

I will take your points one by one but before I do that, please explain what do you mean by " Religious believers"?

"Religious Believers" are followers of a religion.

"Religion" is a social/group expression of a belief system, where the members mutually reinforce that belief system. Maybe.

........................

And that's not a cop-out. The subject it that broad. I can give you a dozen different definitions - first we need to decide what system, what frame of reference, what worldview, what requirements, what assumptions we agree on. (and that's without getting into the question of/difference between Religion/Dharma)

And they are sometimes contradictory -- in the same way that different schools of economics can be contradictory, but at the same time true

Please name the embarrassed ones and in which religion and why do they feel embarrassed according to your opinion?

Please elaborate b) with concrete examples.

No.

I can point to movements/groups in Christianlty, Judaism, Islam, and Sikhi -- but the specifics aren't important. What matters is that they feel a need to "modernise" their religion to make it palatable to "modern man" -- and then those same groups complain that they are "losing the youth" and wonder how they can attract the youth to the church/temple/mosque/Gurdwara. Their answer is to compromise more -- become "more" modern.

Meanwhile, the groups that don't compromise - that recognise that compromise turns off the youth as being wishy-washy and non-comitted -- are growing.

Now

As you promised, please show me where I made false claims about Sikhi.

Akiva
 
Last edited by a moderator:

spnadmin

1947-2014 (Archived)
SPNer
Jun 17, 2004
14,500
19,219
This is the line of demarcation and it is date-stamped at 18:04 hours DST US when the tone of discussion has to change in this thread. I am receiving complaints from other members that they cannot follow the conversation and they have a point. A dividing line needs to be set. This is it.

Any open challenge for someone to clarify a stand I will leave alone.

Any open expressions of frustration with another's comments I will also let stand.

Resorting to sarcasm will be deleted, along with other forms of negativity that are part of our TOS.

Digressing rather than staying on topic - I have already made this point - will be deleted.

If you believe it is important to bring a related topic into discussion please explain how it is related to the thread.

Deletions may indeed follow.
 

Tejwant Singh

Mentor
Writer
SPNer
Jun 30, 2004
5,028
7,188
Henderson, NV.
Akiva ji,

Guru Fateh.

Let's start anew to create this conversation from the very beginning. This wonderful thread was started by fsf ji is regarding Science and Sikhi and let's stick to that subject. Let's not try to deviate from it. Even Harvir pitched in with his queries about the subject as others did. I am sure you have read the whole thread, if not, I urge you to do so. One does not assume things about others with one's preconceived biases, it shows one's own lack of reason for some reason.

Now let's go over how this thing about "Age of Reason" started. Mind you, let's not lose our focus on the thread which is Science and Religion (Sikhi).

This is what your response to Spnadmin ji's question was:

Originally Posted by spnadmin
Why are religious forums obsessed with the connection between science and religion?

With the "Age of Reason" religion and religious belief has come under attack.

Religious believers can be broken down into several categories:

a) those who feel "embarrassed" by the seeming conflict and are trying to reconcile the two;

b) those who attempt (poorly and invalidly) to use scientific discoveries to "prove" their religion

c) those who are not bothered by it -- because they consider the two complementary, not contradictory.

Types a and b are the ones usually discussing it.

Akiva

You connected the "Age of Reason" with Sikhi because as mentioned before, this thread is about Sikhi and I am sure you are aware of that which is implied by you that Sikhi is part of the same what Thomas Payne was talking about, where in reality Thomas Payne talks about Christianity and also about Judaism, the latter not in a positive manner.

As the thread has nothing to do with Christianity, the obvious conclusion through deductive reasoning is that you are attaching/attacking Sikhi with false claims in this way. I will not presume as you have and give you the benefit of the doubt that you know the meaning of deductive reasoning.

Based on the deductive reasoning, you were falsely claiming that Guru Nanak, with his reasoning did the bad thing. For that reason I asked you the questions. In order to be more clear that you were talking strictly about Christianity, you should have mentioned that explicitly, which you failed to do. Once again, this thread is about Science and Sikhi.

Now let's get back your response to me.

=akiva;185256]Tejwant Ji
I apologize -- I assumed you were familiar with the term "Age of Reason". Maybe you are familiar with "Age of Enlightenment"? ......... it was a watershed period (17-18th century) where the understanding of the world shifted from a theological-centered to a scientific-centered worldview.

Akiva ji,

I never get offended by someone's preconceived bias about others. I am not offended by anyone's ignorance either. I like to give the benefit of the doubt by asking questions in case I do not know which I did ask relating to this particular thread and its subject. You wrongly assumed with your own personal bias that I do not know anything about the "Age Of Reason". It is not my loss in any way,shape or form.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_of_enlightenment is a good summary -- I'm not going to parrot the history there.

Quoting Wiki is parroting in a very shallow manner because as mentioned before it is one of the worst references to pull one's knowledge from because it can be edited by anyone, anytime. So, I do not give any credit to your reference as I have mentioned before in another post of mine.

My point was that, with that shift, religion (and religious word-views) came under attack -- and those attacks have increased since then as society has become more secular.

Define secular for me please. Who do you define as secular? Once again, please do not forget we are talking about Sikhi here in this thread.

(And, yes, I'm aware that other cultures went through similar paradigm shifts, some earlier and some later.)

Which is natural but I fail to see the point you are trying to make and how does it relate to the subject being discussed in this thread?

Has nothing to do with what I said in my post -- because I wasn't talking about/attacking "reason" but talking about a period of history.

Let me take your words for it, then it becomes your duty and responsibility to explain that you were changing the subject from Sikhi to Christianity when you mentioned "Age Of Reason" and also should have given the time period -circa- to differentiate the both by also clarifying that you were not talking about Sikhi for some odd reason, the very discussion of the thread.

"Religious Believers" are followers of a religion.

"Religion" is a social/group expression of a belief system, where the members mutually reinforce that belief system. Maybe.

There is a big difference between the religions which are based on deities and subjective truths and Sikhi. Belief system in a religious connotation is void of objective reality, whereas Sikhi is not. Please feel free to ask questions in order to learn the difference.

And that's not a cop-out. The subject it that broad. I can give you a dozen different definitions - first we need to decide what system, what frame of reference, what worldview, what requirements, what assumptions we agree on. (and that's without getting into the question of/difference between Religion/Dharma)

Well, then the onus and the responsibility is on you not to mix apples with oranges and stick to the subject being discussed in the thread.

And they are sometimes contradictory -- in the same way that different schools of economics can be contradictory, but at the same time true

They can only be true in a subjective ways, hence opinions which have nothing to do with the objective reality.

I can point to movements/groups in Christianlty, Judaism, Islam, and Sikhi -- but the specifics aren't important.

I beg to differ with you. Specifics are not only important but are essential to further this conversation and please point out the movements in Sikhi- the subject of this thread with concrete examples. You can start a different thread/s about the other religions and we shall discuss the specifics there.

What matters is that they feel a need to "modernise" their religion to make it palatable to "modern man" -- and then those same groups complain that they are "losing the youth" and wonder how they can attract the youth to the church/temple/mosque/Gurdwara. Their answer is to compromise more -- become "more" modern.

Who IS they? What do you understand about Sikhi? In what way is it trying to modernise itself? Please be specific with concrete examples, otherwise it becomes mere rhetoric full of babble.

Once again, let's stick to the subject of this thread.

Meanwhile, the groups that don't compromise - that recognise that compromise turns off the youth as being wishy-washy and non-comitted -- are growing.

Please give concrete example regarding the subject of this thread about your claims.

Now

As you promised, please show me where I made false claims about Sikhi.

Let me mention this again. Your false claims about Sikhi were when you lumped Sikhi with the "Age Of Reason" without differentiating the two for the reasons only known to yourself and that premise is totally false as challenged by my questions to you.

My last point is that I am a bit surprised by this altered post of yours. When I read it for the first time, you had flaunted your preconceived bias regarding me not having studied in the West, hence having no inkling about the "Age Of Reason", which was a false assumption on your part laced with ignorance.

And secondly, in the end of the post you challenged me that when I read the books by some authors, one of which I remember was Huxley as I just glanced through the thread before getting busy in something else, then you would discuss with me.

If both of your comments were deleted by Spnadmin ji, then I have nothing to add because it was a very wise decision by the Admin and I commend her for doing so.

In case you deleted them, firstly, it is a cop out, and secondly it shows your sheer arrogance laced with ignorance in a very pompous manner. I want to assure you that I never get offended by it because it shows more about you than about anyone else. It shows your bias against people who challenge your intellect.

Next time, please ask questions in order to find out if people have read the books you are mentioning rather than having some preconceived bias.

This is not the way to start a conversation as you so much desired initially but a confrontation and being a bully. And I am not interested in either.

Regards

Tejwant Singh
 
Last edited:

spnadmin

1947-2014 (Archived)
SPNer
Jun 17, 2004
14,500
19,219
Tejwant ji

I deleted material in Akiva ji's reply indicated by the red dots. Then I left a note at the bottom of the comment.

If that caused any confusion, I apologize for that.
 

Tejwant Singh

Mentor
Writer
SPNer
Jun 30, 2004
5,028
7,188
Henderson, NV.
Tejwant Ji

The thread is not about Sikhi. It is discussing if science is a religion.

My comments were only about that

Akiva


Akiva ji,

Guru Fateh.

I will take your words for it but if you check the posts, all of them are related to Sikhi but so much the better because by claiming that you have shown the mistakes you have made.

If this thread is about religion not about Sikhi as you claim, then why didn't you clarify your mentioning "Age of the Reason" from the Christian point of view rather that implying that into Sikhi as you did?

Please clarify what you are talking and learn by teaching others that you may think the subject they do not know anything about.

I have no idea how many people here know about the " Age of Reason" . Your preconceived bias showed that I did not because I am not from the west as you are, hence you conclude that you know a lot more than I do. And the same goes for my lack of reading habits and not knowing the authors the ones you have read about according to your prejudgment.:)

This is sheer bigotry to put it mildly especially coming from a person who wants to be god loving,

This is the attitude you come to the Sikhi forum with while claiming that you want to have a conversation.

It is a shame indeed!

And lastly, please respond to my questions in the previous post with concrete examples.

Regards

Tejwant Singh
 
Last edited:

akiva

SPNer
Apr 20, 2011
126
154
65
Jerusalem
Tejwant Ji

1) I assumed you were familiar with the Age of Reason. I also make no assumptions as to how much you know. I certainly don't think I know more than you.

2) very little of the thread has to do with Sikhi --

3) lastly -- dialog is only possible when mutual respect is shown. Since that is lacking I'm respectfully refusing to continue this dialog with you.

Akiva
 

chazSingh

Writer
SPNer
Feb 20, 2012
1,644
1,643
Yes many of you are probably thinking science is the ultimate antithesis of religion but if you break it all down science shows all the signs of a faith. Like religion science attempts to explain how we got here and how we continue to live (big bang and evolution), how to live (common medicinal practices i.e vitamin intake, diets etc) a baptism of sorts (vaccines and shots during infancy), predictions of future catastrophes similiar to armageddon but without the horesmen.....hehe.(which involve asteroids or other natural or man made destructive forces.) Priests, Sheiks, Rabbis = doctors and scientists. Ten commandments = laws of physics etc. Charismatic figures in religion such as Jesus Mohammed Buddha Nanak... in science Darwin Einstein Mendell. Rituals in religion= scientific method in the lab. Blame for the worlds problems have been placed on both science and religion as well as its saving. These similarities, though many may argue are rooted in different things (science in "fact" and religion in "fantasy") nevertheless are rooted in the same intentions or ideals of the followers of either one. and who is to say it isn't the other way around, that religion is the fact and science is the fantasy, though on paper science may win that war or perhaps not? other similarities... Many Sikh Gurus & Jesus were killed for what they believed and preached, so were many scientists through out the ages.

All this may seem far fetched to most but consider all these similarities and think of your own ones.


With Science, some things i can experiment with and find out for myself (my own experienced proof through scientific experiments) ... but most things i rely on others (scientists) to find out for me ... but it's their experience...not mine....therefore it's a religion to the scientist...not for me

Religion (sikhi) for me gives me insight into what existed before creation, exists now, and forever will exist past creation... then tells me to go and experience it all, discipher it all, and go beyond it all myself, in this life - no one else required :)
 

❤️ CLICK HERE TO JOIN SPN MOBILE PLATFORM

Top