[Buddha-l] Hindu Fundamentalism

[Richard P. Hayes]

On Mon, 2005-08-08 at 10:48 -0400, curt wrote:

> That is obviously not the point of the statement in question. The point 
> was that science somehow provides evidence for the non-existence of
> Ram and Krishna.

That is how you read it. I did not read it that way at all. Gee, I
wonder if this suggests that texts might have an inherent ambiguity.

> Otherwise the statement would have to read "There is no evidence for the 
> existence or non-existence of Ram and Krishna". But that's not what was said. 

Ever heard of logic, Curt? Did you know that there is a theorem in logic
that P implies P or Q? So if it is true that science has no evidence for
the existence of Rama, then it is also true that science has no evidence
for the existence or the non-existence of Rama. So the latter need not
be said, because it is perfectly obvious.

> It is fine for scientists to admit that they are not able to determine
> whether or not Gods exist - but it is not fine for school textbooks to
> teach that science disproves the existence of Gods.

True enough. Now, tell me which text books teach that science disproves
the existence of gods. I have never heard of any.

> And it is even worse for textbooks to use intentionally misleading
> language so that they can imply that science disproves the existence
> of Gods without actually coming out an saying it.

Well, the onus of proof is on you to show somehow that the wording in a
given textbook is misleading. Then you must show that it was the
intention of the authors to mislead. You have a lot of proving to do,
young fellow. May I suggest you do it on your blog? This list is for
discussing Buddhism, and we'd love to see what you have to say about
that.

-- 
Richard Hayes
*** 
"If you want the truth, rather than merely something to say,
you will have a good deal less to say." -- Thomas Nagel