[Buddha-l] Hindu Fundamentalism

[curt]

The statement "there is no scientific evidence of Ram or Krishna"
is true only in an extremely trivial sense. It is true only in so far as the
statement "science is not able to contribute meaningfully to the question of
whether or not deities exist" is also true. But to baldly assert that
"there is no scientific evidence of Ram or Krishna" without making
it clear that this is actually a statement about the limitations of science
is intentionally misleading. It is also facetious - like the statement
attributed to a Soviet cosmonaut that he did not see any evidence of
God while he (the cosmonaut) was in earth orbit. The cosmonaut's
statement is true - but is not relevant to any serious discussion about
the existence of Deities.

Since you admit that it is not possible to perform experiments to
test for the existence of Deities - this means that science has nothing
to say on the issue. But to imply that science somehow does, in fact,
have something to say - and that, in fact, science lends credence to
the assertion that Deities do not exist - is both wrong and wrong-headed.

- Curt

Richard P. Hayes wrote:

>On Sun, 2005-08-07 at 19:31 -0400, curt wrote:
>
>  
>
>>But the claim of the existence of Gods is not, on its own, subject to
>>scientific proof or disproof.
>>    
>>
>
>Thank you for stating the obvious in such eloquent terms. And so you now
>agree that there is no scientific evidence for the claim that Rama
>existed.
>
>  
>
>>For example: can you describe an experiment which can be
>>conducted to test for the existence of Ram and/or Krishna?
>>    
>>
>
>No. As the gentleman said, this is not a scientific question. It is a
>dogma. And to impose a dogma on an entire nation by expecting every
>citizen to agree with it or shut up is to many of us (those of us who do
>not regularly watch Fox News) objectionable. And this is precisely why
>many folks in India make the perfectly reasonable claim that Rama's
>existence is not a scientifically established fact or a well-grounded
>historical claim. It is a personal conviction that, with ALL religious
>claims, belongs in the private home, not in the public sphere.
>
>  
>