☀️ JOIN SPN MOBILE
Forums
New posts
Guru Granth Sahib
Composition, Arrangement & Layout
ਜਪੁ | Jup
ਸੋ ਦਰੁ | So Dar
ਸੋਹਿਲਾ | Sohilaa
ਰਾਗੁ ਸਿਰੀਰਾਗੁ | Raag Siree-Raag
Gurbani (14-53)
Ashtpadiyan (53-71)
Gurbani (71-74)
Pahre (74-78)
Chhant (78-81)
Vanjara (81-82)
Vaar Siri Raag (83-91)
Bhagat Bani (91-93)
ਰਾਗੁ ਮਾਝ | Raag Maajh
Gurbani (94-109)
Ashtpadi (109)
Ashtpadiyan (110-129)
Ashtpadi (129-130)
Ashtpadiyan (130-133)
Bara Maha (133-136)
Din Raen (136-137)
Vaar Maajh Ki (137-150)
ਰਾਗੁ ਗਉੜੀ | Raag Gauree
Gurbani (151-185)
Quartets/Couplets (185-220)
Ashtpadiyan (220-234)
Karhalei (234-235)
Ashtpadiyan (235-242)
Chhant (242-249)
Baavan Akhari (250-262)
Sukhmani (262-296)
Thittee (296-300)
Gauree kii Vaar (300-323)
Gurbani (323-330)
Ashtpadiyan (330-340)
Baavan Akhari (340-343)
Thintteen (343-344)
Vaar Kabir (344-345)
Bhagat Bani (345-346)
ਰਾਗੁ ਆਸਾ | Raag Aasaa
Gurbani (347-348)
Chaupaday (348-364)
Panchpadde (364-365)
Kaafee (365-409)
Aasaavaree (409-411)
Ashtpadiyan (411-432)
Patee (432-435)
Chhant (435-462)
Vaar Aasaa (462-475)
Bhagat Bani (475-488)
ਰਾਗੁ ਗੂਜਰੀ | Raag Goojaree
Gurbani (489-503)
Ashtpadiyan (503-508)
Vaar Gujari (508-517)
Vaar Gujari (517-526)
ਰਾਗੁ ਦੇਵਗੰਧਾਰੀ | Raag Dayv-Gandhaaree
Gurbani (527-536)
ਰਾਗੁ ਬਿਹਾਗੜਾ | Raag Bihaagraa
Gurbani (537-556)
Chhant (538-548)
Vaar Bihaagraa (548-556)
ਰਾਗੁ ਵਡਹੰਸ | Raag Wadhans
Gurbani (557-564)
Ashtpadiyan (564-565)
Chhant (565-575)
Ghoriaan (575-578)
Alaahaniiaa (578-582)
Vaar Wadhans (582-594)
ਰਾਗੁ ਸੋਰਠਿ | Raag Sorath
Gurbani (595-634)
Asatpadhiya (634-642)
Vaar Sorath (642-659)
ਰਾਗੁ ਧਨਾਸਰੀ | Raag Dhanasaree
Gurbani (660-685)
Astpadhiya (685-687)
Chhant (687-691)
Bhagat Bani (691-695)
ਰਾਗੁ ਜੈਤਸਰੀ | Raag Jaitsree
Gurbani (696-703)
Chhant (703-705)
Vaar Jaitsaree (705-710)
Bhagat Bani (710)
ਰਾਗੁ ਟੋਡੀ | Raag Todee
ਰਾਗੁ ਬੈਰਾੜੀ | Raag Bairaaree
ਰਾਗੁ ਤਿਲੰਗ | Raag Tilang
Gurbani (721-727)
Bhagat Bani (727)
ਰਾਗੁ ਸੂਹੀ | Raag Suhi
Gurbani (728-750)
Ashtpadiyan (750-761)
Kaafee (761-762)
Suchajee (762)
Gunvantee (763)
Chhant (763-785)
Vaar Soohee (785-792)
Bhagat Bani (792-794)
ਰਾਗੁ ਬਿਲਾਵਲੁ | Raag Bilaaval
Gurbani (795-831)
Ashtpadiyan (831-838)
Thitteen (838-840)
Vaar Sat (841-843)
Chhant (843-848)
Vaar Bilaaval (849-855)
Bhagat Bani (855-858)
ਰਾਗੁ ਗੋਂਡ | Raag Gond
Gurbani (859-869)
Ashtpadiyan (869)
Bhagat Bani (870-875)
ਰਾਗੁ ਰਾਮਕਲੀ | Raag Ramkalee
Ashtpadiyan (902-916)
Gurbani (876-902)
Anand (917-922)
Sadd (923-924)
Chhant (924-929)
Dakhnee (929-938)
Sidh Gosat (938-946)
Vaar Ramkalee (947-968)
ਰਾਗੁ ਨਟ ਨਾਰਾਇਨ | Raag Nat Narayan
Gurbani (975-980)
Ashtpadiyan (980-983)
ਰਾਗੁ ਮਾਲੀ ਗਉੜਾ | Raag Maalee Gauraa
Gurbani (984-988)
Bhagat Bani (988)
ਰਾਗੁ ਮਾਰੂ | Raag Maaroo
Gurbani (889-1008)
Ashtpadiyan (1008-1014)
Kaafee (1014-1016)
Ashtpadiyan (1016-1019)
Anjulian (1019-1020)
Solhe (1020-1033)
Dakhni (1033-1043)
ਰਾਗੁ ਤੁਖਾਰੀ | Raag Tukhaari
Bara Maha (1107-1110)
Chhant (1110-1117)
ਰਾਗੁ ਕੇਦਾਰਾ | Raag Kedara
Gurbani (1118-1123)
Bhagat Bani (1123-1124)
ਰਾਗੁ ਭੈਰਉ | Raag Bhairo
Gurbani (1125-1152)
Partaal (1153)
Ashtpadiyan (1153-1167)
ਰਾਗੁ ਬਸੰਤੁ | Raag Basant
Gurbani (1168-1187)
Ashtpadiyan (1187-1193)
Vaar Basant (1193-1196)
ਰਾਗੁ ਸਾਰਗ | Raag Saarag
Gurbani (1197-1200)
Partaal (1200-1231)
Ashtpadiyan (1232-1236)
Chhant (1236-1237)
Vaar Saarang (1237-1253)
ਰਾਗੁ ਮਲਾਰ | Raag Malaar
Gurbani (1254-1293)
Partaal (1265-1273)
Ashtpadiyan (1273-1278)
Chhant (1278)
Vaar Malaar (1278-91)
Bhagat Bani (1292-93)
ਰਾਗੁ ਕਾਨੜਾ | Raag Kaanraa
Gurbani (1294-96)
Partaal (1296-1318)
Ashtpadiyan (1308-1312)
Chhant (1312)
Vaar Kaanraa
Bhagat Bani (1318)
ਰਾਗੁ ਕਲਿਆਨ | Raag Kalyaan
Gurbani (1319-23)
Ashtpadiyan (1323-26)
ਰਾਗੁ ਪ੍ਰਭਾਤੀ | Raag Prabhaatee
Gurbani (1327-1341)
Ashtpadiyan (1342-51)
ਰਾਗੁ ਜੈਜਾਵੰਤੀ | Raag Jaijaiwanti
Gurbani (1352-53)
Salok | Gatha | Phunahe | Chaubole | Swayiye
Sehskritee Mahala 1
Sehskritee Mahala 5
Gaathaa Mahala 5
Phunhay Mahala 5
Chaubolae Mahala 5
Shaloks Bhagat Kabir
Shaloks Sheikh Farid
Swaiyyae Mahala 5
Swaiyyae in Praise of Gurus
Shaloks in Addition To Vaars
Shalok Ninth Mehl
Mundavanee Mehl 5
ਰਾਗ ਮਾਲਾ, Raag Maalaa
What's new
New posts
New media
New media comments
New resources
Latest activity
Videos
New media
New comments
Library
Latest reviews
Donate
Log in
Register
What's new
New posts
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Welcome to all New Sikh Philosophy Network Forums!
Explore Sikh Sikhi Sikhism...
Sign up
Log in
Discussions
Interfaith Dialogues
Is Science A Religion?
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="fsf" data-source="post: 184976" data-attributes="member: 19311"><p>No, science is a method that is necessarily fallible. Religious inquiry need not be fallible (though it can be). To the extent that the religious inquirer uses the scientific (ie prediction-making, falsifiable, methodologically and ontologically reviseable) method, then their inquiry can be a scientific one.</p><p></p><p>Science undergoes radical paridigm shifts, in which the basic terms of a theory have radically different meanings than they did in the old theory. When a religion undergoes a paradigm shift, it becomes a new, different religion. While a paradigm shift in science is certainly a new theory, it is the same science - the same fallible method - being used to explain the world.</p><p></p><p>This is not to say that people who don't understand science don't approach scientific facts religiously. They certainly do. We've all met the die-hard internet atheist that is bad at science or doesn't understand that our current science is incorrect (witness the contradictions between QM and relativity). But the fact that some are bad at science and approach scientific consensus (insofar as it exists) religiously instead of as a set of hypotheses that are the best we have (but inadequate) does not imply a conceptual collapse between religion and science.</p><p></p><p>Peirce wrote about four methods of inquiry. The scientific method takes the external world to trump all - scientific inquiry constantly revises itself in light of evidence provided by reality. The a priori method theorizes and then tries to fit the data to the theory, instead of the other way around. The method of authority believes whatever an authority says. The method of tenacity believes whatever it believes, just because it believes it.</p><p></p><p>(Although I say what follows as if it is the only understanding of Waheguru, I do not believe that. I do not even mean to say that it is the best (or even a good) understanding. It is MY understanding, and I would very much like to be corrected in my understanding where it is flawed, as I am sure it is.)</p><p></p><p>Of course, one could apply the scientific method to religion, but that will necessarily limit the ontological import of that religion (see the problematic commitments of Abrahamic traditions, though Maimonides and similar Christian and Muslim thinkers have understood god in less- or non-problematic ways). And this, I think, is why Sikhi is more compatible with contemporary scientific thought than many other religious doctrines. Waheguru is without form, is form itself. Waheguru is rationality as such - the very structure of the universe that allows rational inquirers to cognize it. And Waheguru is beyond this - Waheguru is also the brute fact of uncognizeability, the recognition of the fact that human inquiry is limited, that objects and dogs and other minds and moral laws are theoretical posits we project onto the chaotic and messy world to make sense of it. The <em>possibility</em> of rational structure and the inevitable violation of that structure we call 'Waheguru.' We need not believe in particular immaterial (or material, I suppose) agents that will respond to prayers or create miracles - we just need to believe that the world could make sense. And science is precisely that practice that tries to make sense of the world as it is, on its own terms.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="fsf, post: 184976, member: 19311"] No, science is a method that is necessarily fallible. Religious inquiry need not be fallible (though it can be). To the extent that the religious inquirer uses the scientific (ie prediction-making, falsifiable, methodologically and ontologically reviseable) method, then their inquiry can be a scientific one. Science undergoes radical paridigm shifts, in which the basic terms of a theory have radically different meanings than they did in the old theory. When a religion undergoes a paradigm shift, it becomes a new, different religion. While a paradigm shift in science is certainly a new theory, it is the same science - the same fallible method - being used to explain the world. This is not to say that people who don't understand science don't approach scientific facts religiously. They certainly do. We've all met the die-hard internet atheist that is bad at science or doesn't understand that our current science is incorrect (witness the contradictions between QM and relativity). But the fact that some are bad at science and approach scientific consensus (insofar as it exists) religiously instead of as a set of hypotheses that are the best we have (but inadequate) does not imply a conceptual collapse between religion and science. Peirce wrote about four methods of inquiry. The scientific method takes the external world to trump all - scientific inquiry constantly revises itself in light of evidence provided by reality. The a priori method theorizes and then tries to fit the data to the theory, instead of the other way around. The method of authority believes whatever an authority says. The method of tenacity believes whatever it believes, just because it believes it. (Although I say what follows as if it is the only understanding of Waheguru, I do not believe that. I do not even mean to say that it is the best (or even a good) understanding. It is MY understanding, and I would very much like to be corrected in my understanding where it is flawed, as I am sure it is.) Of course, one could apply the scientific method to religion, but that will necessarily limit the ontological import of that religion (see the problematic commitments of Abrahamic traditions, though Maimonides and similar Christian and Muslim thinkers have understood god in less- or non-problematic ways). And this, I think, is why Sikhi is more compatible with contemporary scientific thought than many other religious doctrines. Waheguru is without form, is form itself. Waheguru is rationality as such - the very structure of the universe that allows rational inquirers to cognize it. And Waheguru is beyond this - Waheguru is also the brute fact of uncognizeability, the recognition of the fact that human inquiry is limited, that objects and dogs and other minds and moral laws are theoretical posits we project onto the chaotic and messy world to make sense of it. The [I]possibility[/I] of rational structure and the inevitable violation of that structure we call 'Waheguru.' We need not believe in particular immaterial (or material, I suppose) agents that will respond to prayers or create miracles - we just need to believe that the world could make sense. And science is precisely that practice that tries to make sense of the world as it is, on its own terms. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Discussions
Interfaith Dialogues
Is Science A Religion?
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
Accept
Learn more…
Top