[Buddha-l] Hindu Fundamentalism

[Bob Zeuschner]

It seems to me that whenever a religion makes an empirical claim, this 
is in the realm of science.
"The universe was created in six days" is an empirical claim.
It seems to me that whenever a religion makes a value claim, this is not 
in the realm of science.
"The universe is good."

To the extent that religions offer testable arguments for the existence 
of a deity, to that extent it is scientific.
I think it is correct to assert that there is no empirical evidence for 
the existence of any deity.

To bring it back to Buddhism, consider "Mt. Meru is the center of the 
universe." This is a tough one. Is it intended to be empirical or a 
value judgment? In an expanding universe, is every point the center?
Bob Zeuschner
Dept. of Philosophy

curt wrote:
> 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
>