☀️ 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: 185033" data-attributes="member: 19311"><p>Tejwant ji & Seeker9 ji,</p><p></p><p>Thank you for your response! I can see a few possible responses to it, but (spoiler alert!) at the end of the day I was wrong.</p><p></p><p>First, I could hold fast and say that the type of paradigm shift we see in science isn't present in Sikhi. While we certainly learn new things and correct what we take to be mistaken beliefs, a complete paradigm shift in this technical sense would be something entirely new, something that isn't Sikhi properly-speaking. This new religion would be something where we could see the ways in which Sikhi was right, and it would also let us understand how Sikhi could lead us astray. Our new vocabulary would better describe the world, but would also let us exactly describe just what's wrong with Sikhi. But this response fails. After all, adherents expect that the Sikhi of long study really <em>is</em> a radical rearticulation of the neophyte's Sikhi, and that even though the terms might look the same in each model, the meanings are radically different. Since we certainly want to say that both understandings are articulations of Sikhi (though the wise one corrects and accounts for the errors of the naive one), this response fails.</p><p></p><p>The second response would be that Sikhi is unique, and uses a fallible methodology where other religions do not. But surely this is false, too. Naive Christian understandings are radically incompatible with existentialist Christianity, and "Adonai" in storybook Judaism means something far different than "Adoni" on the lips of a negative theologian. So this cannot be right, either.</p><p></p><p>A third response (similar to the second) would be that religion proper is practiced non-scientifically, and Sikhi or Buddhism or whatever becomes a sort of interior/spiritual science or something when practiced fallibly. In this case, the practices of Sikhi (and other religions) wouldn't count as religion at all. As they approach science, they become scientific (as opposed to religious) inquiry. This is the direction I'd go if I had to defend my prior view, but I think the violence done to the term 'religion' is probably too much. As such, I think it's best to abandon my prior definition, as it simply doesn't match with what the word 'religion' actually means and how people use it!</p><p></p><p>I should have realized this when I said that religion can be practiced scientifically and fallibly, but I did not take the full import of this into account in my definition. If religion can be scientific, then something can be both religious and fallible. This obviously conflicts with my definition of religion as dogmatic, and was a mistake!</p><p></p><p>What, then, is the right definition of religion? I very much like the start that seeker9 ji gave us. To alter it a bit, perhaps religion is primarily about the subjective, the internal world as opposed to the external world (that is, all the evidence we have comes from us). Then the difference would be that only we can tell if a set of religious practices is right, because that is indexed to us. In any case, I certainly concede that my previous definition was wrong.</p><p></p><p>I think that most of my comments in the prior post can be preserved. Science really IS defined by its methodology, so that part at least was a-ok. There's still a distinction between science and religion, but now there's also room for an overlap of the two, in fallible religious inquiry. Which is much better than what I had before!</p><p></p><p>Thank you again Tejwant ji and seeker9 ji for your help in wrestling with this issue and for correcting my mistakes!</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="fsf, post: 185033, member: 19311"] Tejwant ji & Seeker9 ji, Thank you for your response! I can see a few possible responses to it, but (spoiler alert!) at the end of the day I was wrong. First, I could hold fast and say that the type of paradigm shift we see in science isn't present in Sikhi. While we certainly learn new things and correct what we take to be mistaken beliefs, a complete paradigm shift in this technical sense would be something entirely new, something that isn't Sikhi properly-speaking. This new religion would be something where we could see the ways in which Sikhi was right, and it would also let us understand how Sikhi could lead us astray. Our new vocabulary would better describe the world, but would also let us exactly describe just what's wrong with Sikhi. But this response fails. After all, adherents expect that the Sikhi of long study really [i]is[/i] a radical rearticulation of the neophyte's Sikhi, and that even though the terms might look the same in each model, the meanings are radically different. Since we certainly want to say that both understandings are articulations of Sikhi (though the wise one corrects and accounts for the errors of the naive one), this response fails. The second response would be that Sikhi is unique, and uses a fallible methodology where other religions do not. But surely this is false, too. Naive Christian understandings are radically incompatible with existentialist Christianity, and "Adonai" in storybook Judaism means something far different than "Adoni" on the lips of a negative theologian. So this cannot be right, either. A third response (similar to the second) would be that religion proper is practiced non-scientifically, and Sikhi or Buddhism or whatever becomes a sort of interior/spiritual science or something when practiced fallibly. In this case, the practices of Sikhi (and other religions) wouldn't count as religion at all. As they approach science, they become scientific (as opposed to religious) inquiry. This is the direction I'd go if I had to defend my prior view, but I think the violence done to the term 'religion' is probably too much. As such, I think it's best to abandon my prior definition, as it simply doesn't match with what the word 'religion' actually means and how people use it! I should have realized this when I said that religion can be practiced scientifically and fallibly, but I did not take the full import of this into account in my definition. If religion can be scientific, then something can be both religious and fallible. This obviously conflicts with my definition of religion as dogmatic, and was a mistake! What, then, is the right definition of religion? I very much like the start that seeker9 ji gave us. To alter it a bit, perhaps religion is primarily about the subjective, the internal world as opposed to the external world (that is, all the evidence we have comes from us). Then the difference would be that only we can tell if a set of religious practices is right, because that is indexed to us. In any case, I certainly concede that my previous definition was wrong. I think that most of my comments in the prior post can be preserved. Science really IS defined by its methodology, so that part at least was a-ok. There's still a distinction between science and religion, but now there's also room for an overlap of the two, in fallible religious inquiry. Which is much better than what I had before! Thank you again Tejwant ji and seeker9 ji for your help in wrestling with this issue and for correcting my mistakes! [/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