Pranam
Mr G had compiled the science Vs Religion plucked out from the middle of
the branch, confusing where he traveled . Certain usages like science ,
scientists , supernatural, coverage of the unknown is religion etc are
freely used by the society who have no idea in depth study of any materials
including science ,trying to defend their taste as the right remedy to the
earth.
What is science? did it in vogue since 1600 AD only or at the mercy of
the science world of the English only knowing people?. BOWDIGAM is the
Physics which is termed as nature since the first literature Rig Vedam;
Vignanam is another term in sanskrit; the exposition of the 5 dimensional
multiverses are bound by the so called the science; Vedas and Upanishads
and other spokes speak only the science. Because it was and is a science,
it tells the way to live and the word Hinduism or religion were never
uttered anywhere in Vedas and the follow up even once. Rig Vedam
explained scientifically the entry and the exits of all matter out of the
mind of the Purusha together, existed as a Pure consciousness
comprehensible through the mind only, by scientific processes. Science is
only the DISCOVERY of the unknown and not that is unknown is GOD,
If one were to know where the butter is in the milk one has to learn
the concept of Milk , butter and the medium, the process etc before
describing the Butter. That aspect arises out of the mind. Mind gathers the
data from the perceptions of the senses. Identifications arise in the mind
in forms. Hence science discovers the matter to its ability often and draws
the conclusions refutable to changes and tries to reach the right target as
final. The ideas that arise keeps on changing is science. The Goal is the
unshakable truth. And the tool is the knowledge of the KNOWLEDGE. (VID).
Anything spoken other than that, is peripheral imagination or Maya which
recites that the truth is Maya. This is the principle of Vedantham the
science or the science of the Modern thinking rightfully. All thoughts are
small fountains ,may be good or bad for drinking but only when the thoughts
are akin to a vast sea, the truth unfolded. The unknown is discovered
scientifically which the illiterates term it as science and the yogis as
advaitham or GOD.
Hence anti nature might be unnatural; but the unknown nature is only
a sooooper nature - or the super-natural; ignorance is for those who do not
know; not the fault of the subject. Where the manifestations are nature in
whole some or Poornam, how the science as modern thinking goes can be
correct without the knowledge? As one who saw the tail of the elephant
thought it is a broomstick, so to the science ignorant consider the terms
as narrated by the articles speakers of the above . The fully glorified
Yogis and the scientists follow the GOD.
KR IRs 22221
On Mon, 22 Feb 2021 at 07:53, 'gopala krishnan' via iyer123 <
[email protected]> wrote:
> *CULTURAL QA 02-2021-19*
>
> *My notes 1. Being a compilation there may be errors** 2.It is a
> compilation of answers about death. Those not interested may kindly skip
> this QA*
>
> Q1 What do most scientists believe happens after death?
>
> A1 Nine very informative answers are given below:-
>
> Answer1 Ian Jenkins, Physician / professor of medicine with an interest
> in bioethics and religion Updated March 27, 2016
>
> I will generalize, and recap in my words things I've heard Sam Harris
> summarize nicely...
>
> Scientists are a rational bunch--that's pretty much the definition--and
> they try to form theories based on observations, and test those theories.
> *Problem
> is with death, no one comes back to tell you what happened.*
>
> Some people have near death experiences, and they can tell you what their
> brain decided was happening, but they weren't dead. Dead means permanent
> loss of brain function. So people who come back had functioning nerve
> cells communicating with each other in an abnormal, nearly dead way, and
> while coming back from that process, people probably experience some odd
> sensations or visions because the systems for processing data aren't fully
> running yet. I wouldn't trust any memories of wonderful things from people
> with near death experiences. People can remember all sorts of things that
> didn't happen, and it's pretty easy to implant memories in people. That's
> another story.
>
> So: *how do scientists decide what to believe about death? Well, there's
> religious theory, that we go to Christian heaven or reincarnate if we're
> Hindu etc etc.*
>
> Problem is there's just zero evidence for religion, or anything
> supernatural. There are some things we haven't explained yet, for sure, but
> to claim that means there must be a god or heaven makes about as much sense
> as it did for ancient Greeks to say God had to exist because they didn't
> know how lightning worked so God (zeus) must be throwing it around. Other
> people say religion is useful, which doesn't prove anything, or that it's
> meaningful and they felt it--problem here is people have these sincerely
> held beliefs and experiences and convictions and they're mutually
> contradictory. God sent me to blow up those people vs God sent me to stop
> that terrorist from blowing up those people. Or: God reincarnates us or he
> doesn't. Jesus is God or he isn't. God showed us the book of mormon on gold
> plates with seeing stones, or he didn't. Clearly beliefs aren't enough to
> hang your hat on, because they can justify everything and contradict each
> other. So that's out.
>
> *Most (not all) scientists look at the universe and say "either there's no
> god or there's a god who made a universe that looks just like there's no
> god."*
>
> So: now what? Well, let's look at the process of losing brain function. We
> can watch people lose bits of their mind, literally. Phineas Gage had a
> tamping rod shot through his frontal lobes and he became
> insufferable--great example. *Other people lose specific functions and we
> can see on their scan or autopsy what part of their brain was involved*.
> Over time neurology has been able to assign pretty clear functions to a lot
> of our brains.
>
> *Specific functions (sight, moving your left thumb, speech) are easy to
> nail down, but we also see what happens when enough gray matter (cortex) is
> lost.*
>
> * We know that if you pluck out enough parts over time, what we call a
> person gradually goes away. Dementia is a good example. Nerve cells die,*
> sometimes globally, sometimes more in certain areas (like frontal
> dementias), sometimes from sequential small strokes (vascular dementia). *But
> the effects are similar: memories are lost. Functions are lost. Speech,
> creativity, relationships, compassion, dreams, interests, all these things
> slowly go away until your dementia patient gets an infection or another
> problem that kills them*, or there's so little brain left they can't
> properly swallow, *and then they either aspirate some food and die of
> pneumonia or they can't take anything in and die of kidney failure from
> dehydration.*
>
> People are pretty frank about this: when a relative finally dies, it's
> definitely a loss, but they're acclimated to it at least in part. *The
> person they knew was being lost piece by piece*. It's heart breaking.
> Many people only feel relief when the process is finally over; *the
> person that connected with them was already gone, and just the body alive.*
>
> So what does a scientist think of that? Consciousness, person, what
> religious people call *soul--its an emergent property of brain function.*
> When you take parts of brain away, you lose parts of function. When you
> take ALL of it away, the person is gone. Brain death is the end of the
> person--that's the logical conclusion. Either that terrifies you or you
> view it as natural and right that people make way for their children and
> grandchildren after a while.
>
> What would be irrational, and counter to data, would be to suggest without
> any reason other than local cultural tradition and hope, *that a person
> who has gradually lost every function of their brain, and then loses the
> LAST neuron and is totally brain dead, *reappears somewhere else in full
> mental and neurologic health, speaking English and giving thanks to a deity
> who designed a universe billions of light years across, full of uncountable
> clusters of galaxies with uncountable stars--just to put humans in it on
> one planet, after a brief preparatory period of 13.82 billion years, and
> who communicated with all of the continents and peoples of earth (at least
> according to the great monotheisms) solely by sending inspirations to
> certain individuals in a small region in the middle east.
>
> Addendum:*Good comments asked about supporting evidence for my claim
> scientists believe dead is dead with no afterlife. I turned to google for
> numbers and found this:*
>
> Scientists and Belief
>
> Scientists are MUCH less religious than the general public, as expected, *but
> I was surprised to see how many believed in God: 33% (in 2009). *That
> doesn't specifically tell us about what happens at death, but religion is
> the only way out of the end of a person; *there's no scientific (ahem)
> explanation for us going on without our bodies, so I assume people who
> don't believe in supernatural things assume death is the end. *I mean,
> their could be a 35 foot tall hello kitty doll floating around past the
> orbit of pluto, but there's no evidence of that, so I am going to say there
> isn't one, or that its highly unlikely.
>
> How can this be? Scientists believing things without scientific evidence?
> Well, one, it speaks to the power of upbringing. *If you raise a kid by
> ISIS standards in today's Raqqa, kid's probably going to believe that
> stuff. Raise a kid with a broad education in reality and the natural world,
> tell the kid about ISIS ideas at age 40* (while informing them there have
> been thousands of other religions and they can pick from those too), eh, a
> lot less likely you get an ISIS recruit, right?
>
> Two, some of these scientists are only nominally religious or speaking in
> metaphor. When Einstein said "God doesn't play dice," he did not mean he
> thought there was a bearded dude on a throne with one probably blond and
> blue-eyed middle eastern son who oversees the world. He meant "the natural
> world isn't driven by chance events" (about this, he was wrong--I do love
> how Einstein admitted he was wrong about things when it was proven, like
> the cosmologic constant he stuck into equations that shouldn't have been
> there).
>
> Three, some scientists believe this stuff because they are willing to
> grade religion on much weaker evidence than (e.g.) global warming (in which
> 99% believe). Francis Collins, director of the Human Genome Project, is a
> first class scientist and engaging thinker--he gave a great address at my
> college graduation in 1997. But, I saw an interview where he says he's
> mostly a biblical literalist and devout christian. He said yeah the books
> are inconsistent and that's what you'd expect from a historical record from
> that time. I can't get my head around this; there's nothing in the Bible
> that is unexpected for the musings of some flawed, premodern humans, which
> is of course the best explanation for its claims. *Is there ANY other way
> Mary could have gotten pregnant? Is there ANYTHING in the old testament
> some bronze age tribe wouldn't have known?*
>
> Collins is a great scientist who is trying to find some way that his book
> isn't false. If he'd been born in Tehran or Beijing or New Delhi he'd
> probably be justifying very different myths, and that alone should give us
> great pause. I guess this really just brings us back to item one. Once a
> mind is on a certain track its tough for it to jump to a new one.
>
> But, the survey at least shows us that embracing a scientific mindset
> vastly reduces religiosity.The Zen of Science - Consciousness & Quantum
> Physics
>
> *2nd answer*
>
> *Jeff Simpson, Software professional for 30 years, Philosophy amateur
> Answered March 24, 2016*
>
> Firstly, I think that depends heavily on their religion or lack of
> religiosity.
>
> I think that this question insinuates that scientists lack religiosity and
> therefore do not think that anything (in the spiritual or supernatural
> sense) happens to them.
>
> Some, however, believe that they will go to heaven (whatever that means to
> them) (Judeo-Christian-Islam) or be reincarnated (Hindus and
> Scientologists) or achieve Nirvana (Buddhists) or get their own planet
> (Mormons) or one of many, many afterlife theologies. There are many
> scientists who are devoutly religious - however, they all leave their
> religiosity outside the lab (In science there is no "hey, I can't explain
> this - so God must have done it" - that just doesn't happen).
>
> *However, I will tell you one thing that all scientists fundamentally wish
> will happen to them after they die:* They hope that their published
> research continues being cited. To a scientist, that is immortality.
>
> Either way, we're all equally scared of death in one way or another -
> scientist or not. That is a built-in primal fear - for good evolutionary
> reasons, I suspect.
>
> *3rd answer**- Javed Aslam, Have spent enough years in scientific
> disciplines* Updated April 2, 2016
>
> The term scientists can be rightfully applied to many different
> professionals. These days most scientific disciplines have very narrow
> areas of expertise largely because of the immense growth of knowledge and
> understanding. As a physician with three areas of board certification and
> fellowship of royal college of physicians of Canada, I would never give
> an opinion concerning something outside of my specialty. Why? Because
> specialization vastly narrow one's area of expertise.
>
> The reason I point this out is the way you have worded your question, as
> if saying, "*Okay, now for the last word and the truth concerning death
> and the life after, let's ask the final authority, the scientists."*
>
> Most scientists outside of medical professions, haven't even seen a person
> in the process of dying. If there is any scientific discipline whose
> practitioners deal with death day in and day out, who fight to keep people
> alive, and who have the chance to be at the bedside, and hear the last few
> words of a dying person, who see the agony and hear the final gasp, ending
> in a final silence, it is the medical practitioners and allied
> professional like nurses.
>
> As an oncologist who stood by the bedside of a dying person many a time, I
> do not think that I have ever had even the slightest sense of where the
> person's soul went and what happened to it.
>
> Such questions are better addressed to your religious authorities.
>
> 4th answer Frank P Mora, Studied philosophy and logic in school. I became
> enamored with programming, my job, through HP programmable c… Updated
> March 31, 2016
>
> *Science cannot answer well certain questions. That's why we have logic
> and philosophy.*
>
> Science cannot, now, answer whether gayness is biological or not.
> Gayness, based on overwhelming logic and reason, says it is certainly
> biological.
>
> Science cannot even ask about things that are non-material. Science cannot
> ask about the supernatural. Logic, however can. *Logic may take into
> considerations scientific laws, such as the second law of thermodynamics in
> making determinations*. It may ask questions, such as, is the motivation
> for believing in life after death the persistence of consciousness? *How
> can consciousness exist extra-physical?*
>
> *Even the transmigration of consciousness or the soul is wrought with
> problems such as the persistence of consciousness and memory.*
>
> *5th answer **Krishna KumariChalla, A Ph.D. in Microbiology. An artist
> who specializes in science* based art. A writer, a poet, a designer, a
> netw…Answered June 29, 2016
>
> Reality! No false illusions.
>
> After our deaths and destruction of our physical bodies, *we return back
> to the universe as individual atoms and energy, to the one body that
> recycles them and we all belong to whether we lived with our conscious
> bodies or existed as inanimate forms.*
>
> Read the detailed process here:
>
> Science tries to strengthen our minds permanently by making us realize
> reality!
>
> 6th answer- Nadir Cardaklija, DBA & System Administrator Answered January
> 15, 2018
>
> Most scientists have observed that *after death a body slowly decays and
> eventually turns, given enough time, into a pile of bones and dust due to
> bacterial processes. *It can be cryopreserved, though, but it's still
> dead, it's just decaying a lot slower.
>
> This is from a scientists' point of view. Now, if said scientist is also
> religious, he can believe other things, but this is beyond his
> "scientistness".
>
> 7th answer- Abdullah Alzarouni, i am a human who believe in afterlife !
> Answered March 25, 2016
>
> hello there everyone !
>
> all the scientists is mortal and therefore they cannot give answer on that
> ! you have to ask supernatural being which is immortal !! what I mean that
> already have been done by ALLAH in his religion books to the earlier human
> and the ancient !!!thanx
>
> 8th answer Lame Rishab Answered March 24, 2016
>
> After death our soul comes out of our body.Science cannot answer well
> certain questions. That's why we have logic and philosophy.
>
> Science cannot, now, answer whether gayness is biological or not. Gayness,
> based on overwhelming logic and reason, says it is certainly biological.
>
> Science cannot even ask about things that are non-material. Science cannot
> ask about the supernatural. Logic, however can. Logic may take into
> considerations scientific laws, such as the second law of thermodynamics in
> making determinations. It may ask questions, such as, is the motivation for
> believing in life after death the persistence of consciousness? How can
> consciousness exist extra-physical?
>
> Even the transmigration of consciousness or the soul is wrought with
> problems such as the persistence of consciousness and memory.
>
> 9th answer- Martin Hogbin, studied Physics at University College London
> Answered April 4, 2016
>
> One chap that used to post on the science newsgroups a lot put it this
> way, 'Science and religion are orthogonal'. To put another way they are
> different subjects covering different things. *Science covers what can be
> detected and measured; if you cannot detect or measure it it is not science*.
>
>
> Religion covers what cannot be detected or measure; that which requires
> faith and hope. Some of the word's best scientists were, or are, highly
> religious; others atheists.
>
> In my opinion religion should never try to interfere with science. When it
> comes to detactable, measurable .
>
> All the above QA are based on Quora digest to me on 21-2-2021. Quora
> answers need not be 100% correct answers
>
> *Compiled and posted by R. Gopala krishnan on 22-2-2021*
>
>
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "iyer123" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
> email to [email protected].
> To view this discussion on the web visit
> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/iyer123/2128312498.715488.1613960594653%40mail.yahoo.com
> <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/iyer123/2128312498.715488.1613960594653%40mail.yahoo.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer>
> .
>
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Thatha_Patty" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
to [email protected].
To view this discussion on the web visit
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/thatha_patty/CAL5XZoot_z68Q6u-cgV4B9NFGf5a0FySv6XWc_C-yNnWff0cLQ%40mail.gmail.com.
