Q: Which of these two came first: science or religion?
Krishna: If I say in the order you wrote it? :) Yes, this is a fact!
Science has two aspects to it.
One: The principles with which this universe came into existence (to atheists), or created (to theists) and run by it.
Two: The process with which we study this universe.
People usually take only the second one into consideration, not the first one while dealing with this aspect. But the truth is, without scientific principles, this universe in which we live, wouldn't have come into existence in the first place. Only when the scientific principles based universe came into existence, the consequences like galaxies, stars, planets, origin of life, its evolution, human beings and finally their religions became a reality.
So science is the basis for everything. Period!
Q: Why is science against religion?
Krishna: Science is not against religion. Everybody has the right to believe in whatever they feel is right or true. Science respects that right. As long as you Keep it within you, science doesn’t give a damn about it. But…
If you misuse that right and cause harm to the society around by misleading it, scientists will not keep quiet. Like if you tell others, ‘’Just praying to God will cure you of your disease, there is no need to take medicines’’ or ‘’Vaccines are against religious beliefs, don’t get your children vaccinated’’ or “Blood transfusions are against religious beliefs. God wants you to suffer to become close to him and that is why he gave you this disease”.
True people of science cannot tolerate this misuse of religion, they think they have every right to fight the menace of religion if it comes in the way of science and progress of the world.
Q: Are religious beliefs a must for all intelligent living beings in this universe? Or is it science that drives them ?
Krishna: Now tell me this : Even some animals are intelligent, eventhough they are less intelligent than us. Do they have religions like humans do? NO!
Then there might be intelligent beings that are more intelligent than us and might have found out how this universe originated on its own and therefore there is no creator. They might solve their problems with their own mind power and science and don't need emotional support of a supreme being. They don't need imaginative explanations to find out things and "God did it'' escapism. Here too you don't find religions.
Only medium intelligent beings like we have on Earth need religion. Because we still have several unanswered Qs and our incapability and inadequacy make us hide behind "GOD" concept. We still don't have mental capabilities that can make us stand on our own. We need the emotional support of religion. Our medium intelligence is not even capable of accepting scientific facts of this universe and we still are not capable of accepting critical thinking as the best of all mental powers.
Q: Why are the smartest scientists and the genius people I know are atheists?
Krishna: Critical thinking can make somebody an atheist. Critical thinking is also associated with great intellectuals. Now you can make the connections!
Q: Which one should we trust : Science or Religion? Which one tells the truth?
Krishna: Imagine this situation...
A huge asteroid colloids with the Earth in the future. Everything here gets destroyed. All living beings. All religions. All the scientific knowledge written in the books.
Then life originates here again and evolves into intelligent beings. Then in the initial stages of its civilization when it tries, it comes up with new religious stories with different Gods because it doesn't have any knowledge about present ones!
But in the later stages, if it tries to gain scientific knowledge, surprisingly it finds that the Earth revolves around the Sun, Earth is round - not flat, realizes gravity and space-time in the same way as we did! It also finds millions of stars, galaxies and black holes like we did!
It sees atoms and molecules and chemical reactions exactly in the same way as we do!
Their 'medical field' evolves similar to ours! Their technology would be similar to the present one. In fact all their scientific knowledge will be similar to ours!
Even if this happens a hundred times the results would be the same each time!
If intelligent life evolves in different parts of this universe, and if it has to have 'religions' in each part, they would all be different to each other - like the different religious stories and beliefs we have in different parts of Earth. But their scientific knowledge would be exactly the same in all the given situations! Because scientific awareness cannot be different in various parts of our planet or universe.
Why does scientific knowledge remain constant while religion keeps changing?
Can you realize why? If you can, you will understand which one is telling the truth and which one you can trust ... Science or Religion?
Q: What if I prove that religious stories are true?
Krishna: If you prove all religious stories are true using strict scientific method, then they will become science and will no longer come under the realm of religion!
Q: Why is science often equated with atheism? Why do some scientists believe in God despite zero evidence?
Krishna: Science doesn’t accept something that you cannot provide evidence for. Theism has issues with science because of that. That is why science is equated with atheism.
Another reason could be most of the scientists are atheists and as science is ruled by scientists people assume science is atheist too.
However, some scientists are theists despite no evidence of supernatural because they need some sort of emotional support in their lives as they themselves cannot analyse things fully rationally with the help of their gray matter as it is conditioned by various biases.
You will find more Qs and answers on science and religion below - so don't stop here.
Q: How can you earn money by publishing a research paper?
Krishna: You cannot earn money directly by publishing a research paper. On the contrary, you need to spend money to get your research published in open access journals where the readers can download your papers free of cost.
However, if you are a JRF you will get promoted to SRF with enhanced fellowship if you publish the minimum number of papers required to get it. You can get patents for your research work and sell it to industry or academia. You can publish papers in good journals and prepare projects based on them to get funds. If you are working in the industry/academia, you can cite the number of papers published to get a raise or promotion.
Q: Ma'am how can we check the plagiarism in a paper we've prepared before sending it off for evaluation.
Krishna: You can try these and similar software and sites to help identify plagiarism. If identical texts are found, to verify that it is not a quote, with a reference to the author.
Q: I have published two papers one year before. I don't know anything about JRF .can you please explain me if u don't mind?
Krishna: Sure.
Usually fellowships for Ph.D. scientific research have different grades of fellowships. Junior Research Fellowship and Senior Research fellowship. In the first two years you will be a Junior Research fellow. You have to publish at least two research papers in good journals to get promoted to Senior Research Fellowship.
Krishna: Generalization, is an act of reasoning that involves drawing broad inferences from particular observations.
It is widely-acknowledged as a quality standard in quantitative research, but is more controversial in qualitative research. The goal of most qualitative studies is not to generalize but rather to provide a rich, contextualized understanding of some aspect of human experience through the intensive study of particular cases. Yet, in an environment where evidence for improving practice is held in high esteem, generalization in relation to knowledge claims merits careful attention by both qualitative and quantitative researchers. Issues relating to generalization are, however, often ignored or misrepresented by both groups of researchers. Three models of generalization, as proposed in a seminal article by Firestone are: classic sample-to-population (statistical) generalization, analytic generalization, and case-to-case transfer (transferability).
Q: What should a fresh PhD scholar do when his co-authors violate research ethics leaving him as a silent spectator?
Krishna: In such a scenario I would withdraw my name from the paper and complain.
Sooner or later these things will be found and nobody can escape the hawk eyes of the wider scientific community.
Q: What are pros and cons of life without a religion?
Krishna: I don’t think there are any negatives.
The positives are… you take responsibility for everything you do and don’t depend on some old books written some centuries back. You don’t have to fear something above. You have your own reasoning power to guide you- making you strong mentally. You need not waste your time on outdated rituals and use it for the welfare of mankind. You don’t judge people according to your belief biases. You become emotionally very strong.
Q: After reading your reply above I want to ask you the tough Q...religion or science which one do you trust more and why?
Krishna: The answer should be obvious to those who read my reply above ... but I feel you want to put me in a difficult situation... however, sorry to disappoint you I will not get bothered by these Qs...and my instant reply would be...
Undoubtedly science because it gave me realistic answers to several of my questions. It gave me strength to realize reality and overcome emotions in the right way. Without science coming to my rescue in the right manner, probably I would have become dead matter - both physically and mentally - by now!
Q: How can we convince atheists who are scientists about the existence of God? Most of my friends have STEM PhDs and most of them are atheists. Science make sense to them and “cuz Bible said so” doesn’t cut it. They are awesome and I’m not trying to necessarily convince anybody. However, I often struggle to have compelling arguments in a healthy debate we sometimes have. Krishna: Difficult to do. Show them God and your friends will trust you. Don’t just ask them to ‘imagine’ or ‘feel’ him/her (like several people do) because that is no evidence and will not convince the rational minds. Don’t tell stories about others’ ‘experiences’ because they are only their ‘perceptions’ about a situation. Don’t tell creative stories that were written several centuries back when people tried to ‘understand the world around with their limited scientific knowledge and unknown fears that needed a supernatural being to explain them to fill the gaps’ and stories about emotional dependence on something above. These things will not have any effect on your friends who are true people of science.
Q: With the current available technology, could we come to conclusion on Bermuda Triangle?
Krishna: Yes, we can. As far as science is concerned, there is no mystery…
Q: Why did the Bermuda Triangle receive so much attention from the media? Krishna: Just to catch eye balls and traffic! People get attracted to mystery. Even though science has proved that BT is no longer a mystery, media people try to mislead people by keeping them in the dark.
Q: How do scientists and techies get new ideas for innovation?
Krishna: You have knowledge in several fields. Then you have some problems. You try to get creative in your mind by bringing the knowledge from several fields to solve these problems. Watch this video that tells us how this process happens in the real world...
What is the difference between delta and estuary? Krishna: An estuary is a body of water, while a delta is a landmass. Estuaries are places where the river meets the ocean. Deltas are formed by the accumulation of sediments borne by the river.
Q:What is VX? Krishna: VX is a nerve agent, ethyl ({2-[bis(propan-2-yl)amino]ethyl}sulfanyl)(methyl)phosphinate, a compound outlawed internationally under the Chemical Weapons Convention. It was allegedly involved in the crime of killing Kim Jong-un, half brother of North Korean leader. VX is a yellowish, odourless and tasteless liquid that disrupts the body’s nervous system to lethal effect. Ten milligrams is enough to kill a person through skin contact although it can also kill through inhalation. VX can be made by mixing O-(2-diisopropylaminoethyl) O′-ethyl methylphosphonite (Agent QL) with elemental sulfur (Agent NE) or a liquid dimethyl polysulfide mixture (Agent NM).
VX inhibits the enzyme acetylcholinesterase, blocking the breakdown of a neurotransmitter, ultimately leading to convulsions and death
Q:Why are so many scientists atheists/agnostics despite so many miracles in nature? According to Wikipedia ~93% of scientists are atheist/agnostics. But they should be the first ones to recognize god’s intricate design in DNA, in perfect physical parameters ensuring life here, etc. So despite all these signs, why so many of them become godless? Hope responses of scientists ONLY. Krishna: Because miracles will be miracles only until they are explained by science. Because science takes time to grow and explain things doesn’t mean miracles remain miracles forever. They will be unraveled sooner or later. *Miracle:* anything with a probability of less than 20% DNA and Life are not miracles. They are natural phenomena, and can be expected to appear whenever there is a planet whose conditions duplicate those of the earth.
Q: What kind of evidence do atheists need to believe in God?
K: Just show them God. That ‘s all.
Q: Why wouldn't atheists cheat and steal something because they think there is no God to judge them? How can they keep away from crimes?
Krishna: Because that would emotionally hurt somebody - a human being just like them! That person might have worked very hard to earn, buy and own something. Atheists think they too can work hard, earn and buy it. Then why should they steal it?
Can't anybody with a mind think in this way to be good?
Q:What is the role of belief in science? Do scientists believe in science? What do you call that conviction that scientists have about the scientific method and the models that arise from it? Do they believe in science, trust it, know it? And how does that compare with the analogous process among the religious? Krishna: I trust in science and don’t blindly believe in it.
Belief is acceptance that something exists or is true, especially one without proof which is against scientific methodology but followed by people who pursue some religions.
My trust in science is based on my experiences. Science gave me several answers to my critical questions, helped me solve several problems. Religious belief failed to do what science did in my life. That is how trust in science has been built. But still I will have to keep my skepticism alive about science because science itself demands it. It says- always have an open mind about falsifiability.
Q: Why do people turn atheist?
Krishna: Simply because atheists used their grey matter to think critically and found no evidence of things people say exist or happen if you believe in higher authority in the sky! And they had the courage to say what they found and practice it!
Q: What is something about being an atheist that most people don't understand?
Krishna: An atheist’s courage to swim across the tide and take full responsibility for whatever happens! An atheist’s way of critical thinking.
Q: If atheists are science- minded, why can't they prove that God doesn't exist?
Krishna: First theists have to prove to them that God exists and they will try to falsify it using scientific method! :)
Burden of proof in science is the obligation on somebody presenting a new idea (a claim) to provide evidence to support its truth. It doesn't lie with other people or people who are opposing it. You have given birth to this idea. This is your baby. You have to bring it up, allow it to grow and show it to the world that it really exists. You cannot ask others to bring it up!
When you imagine that something exists, scientists cannot falsify something that exists only in your imagination.
Q: In your opinion if God existed what would he be like?
Krishna: If God existed, undoubtedly, he would be a great scientist because he created this universe based on great scientific principles!
Q: Do scientists believe that god created our planet? If god formed Earth then he is the reason behind other planets also..then why can't we live in other planets of our solar system
Krishna: Scientists who think critically and realistically don’t believe that God created Earth because there is no evidence to support that.
Other planets in our solar system do not have conditions that support life but scientists think moons of some planets might contain life-supporting qualities.
Q: Who invented the world and the universe?
This is what the scientists think ... (watch the video below) ...
Q: Why do scientists believe the universe just popped out of existence without a creator? Krishna : This is what they think might have happened…
Q: What is a scientifically plausible origin for a God or Gods?
Krishna: During the earlier times people saw lives with pains, tragedies and sorrows. They wanted some kind of theory which could explain all this. Therefore, they thought about explanations and theories which gradually led into beliefs. These beliefs, which were influenced by the times they lived in i.e., non-scientific reasoning, were products of constant fear of the unknown. Instead of taking on the fear head on and finding permanent solutions, they just escaped into the world of false beliefs that gave them temporary relief. In a world where people clutch at all kinds of straws to make some sense of the madness around them, truth can never be found. Instead of analyzing, examining and understanding why something happens and how it should be handled, they tried shortcuts by bringing unknown and untested factors to interpret things! These beliefs divided people because each person had a different set of experiences and those in turn influenced their explanations and the resultant beliefs based on their mental makeup and situations and not on one truth. That is how different beliefs - both religious and non-religious - originated.
Q: Why did various god cults and religions appear repeatedly throughout the history of mankind alongside scientific approaches at the same time? Archaeological artifacts suggests that religions appeared throughout history many times, at many places. While scientific analysis is what made us realize that hitting two pieces of flint together will produce sparks and light fire. Both science and religion are part of our human nature?
Krishna : Baseless beliefs take root only when critical thinking fails. People who lack critical thinking abilities believe in several things and take the route of uninformed imagination and never try to find the truth about their mind games.
There is a story… It seems two people stood in front of a cave. Both started imagining what would be inside. The first one thinks about demons, devils and all the evil things inhabiting the insides and harm he would face when he goes inside and just stares at it with fear.
But the other one thinks about beautiful water ways, wonderful lime stone formations, the lively unexplored life inside and dares to enter it. Need I say who this hero is?
Science and religion are part of human nature alright but if you fail to conquer your fear of the unknown, come out of your culturally, emotionally and religiously conditioned mind states, do unbiased reasoning you will never find facts. You will never be able to liberate yourself.
Q: What defines a truly exceptional PhD advisor? Krishna: The one that brings out the best in his /her student.
Q: If you die and then you are brought in front of God Almighty. If you have to say something to Him, what would it be?
The lifelong atheist and rationalist Bertrand Russell was once asked this question.
Some human: Lord Russell, what will you say when you die and are brought face to face with your Maker?
Russell: God, why did you make the evidence for your own existence so insufficient?
Krishna: I would ask him or her or it to show me first uncorrupted data to prove that S/he really is the creator of this universe! :)
Q: Why does science deny religion?
Krishna: Science doesn’t deny religion directly. But the realistic answers it provides to several questions posed by a human mind make religion look like creative fiction written centuries back when human understanding of the world around was in its primitive stage.
Imagine this situation...
A huge asteroid colloids with the Earth in the future. Everything here gets destroyed. All living beings. All religions. All the scientific knowledge written in the books.
Then life originates here again and evolves into intelligent beings. Then in the initial stages of its civilization when it tries, it comes up with new religious stories with different Gods because it doesn't have any knowledge about the present ones!
But in the later stages, if it tries to gain scientific knowledge, surprisingly it finds that the Earth revolves around the Sun, Earth is round - not flat, realizes gravity and space-time in the same way as we did! It also finds millions of stars, galaxies and black holes like we did!
It sees atoms and molecules and chemical reactions exactly in the same way as we do!
Their 'medical field' evolves similar to ours! Their technology would be similar to the present one. In fact all their scientific knowledge will be similar to ours!
Even if this happens a hundred times the results would be the same each time!
If intelligent life evolves in different parts of this universe, and if it has to have 'religions' in each part, they would all be different to each other - like the different religious stories and beliefs we have in different parts of Earth. But their scientific knowledge would be exactly the same in all the given situations! Because scientific awareness cannot be different in various parts of our planet or universe.
Why does scientific knowledge remain constant while religion keeps changing?
Can you realize why? If you can, you will understand which one is telling the truth and which one you can trust ... Science or Religion?
The answer is obvious for a mind that can reason well.
Q: related to the above answer of mine...
To imagine the events you described and say that science would remain fundamentally the same should be obvious, however, to say that religion would not be the same is wrong. There are forces that science cannot currently explain. Religion would develop to explain these forces and would be basically the same as it is now.
Krishna: There would probably be similarities, but it would be highly unlikely that the details would be the same. The names of gods, what the stories claim they look like, things they say and do, etc, would be different. Look how many thousands of gods and god stories humans have thought up so far!
There would be millions of Gods and different creative interpretations about the universe’s origin and a creator - as it has already happened. Here in India alone we have 3000000 (millions and millions) Gods and Godesses. Imagine how many of them we would have in the whole world! So my imagination is not wrong!
Yes science cannot answer some of the Qs. People say science cannot solve all the problems and doesn't answer all the questions human minds pose. True! But think about this: This universe started with a Big Bang ( according to one theory - which is not yet proved!) some 14 Billion years ago. But science is just a few hundred years old. It is still in its infancy. It has to learn a lot, study a lot, think a lot, experiment a lot and then only it can come up with all the answers we are seeking right now. How can you expect a child to solve all the problems of his ancestors? And answer the questions posed by his great, great, great, great grand fathers? Is it appropriate to even expect such a thing? I don't think so. We should be amazed at how we have been able to get so far in understanding the things in this universe despite our inadequacies! Science is doing its best with the limited resources it has to both answer the questions and solve the problems. As the time goes by, I am pretty sure, it will succeed more and more. Please have patience!
Okay if religion can really explain things as well as and as realistic as science does, it becomes science, it will not be a religion any more!
Q: If we keep a competition between God and science who will be the winner? Krishna: The creator, in case there really is one, himself would be a scientist. The greatest ever because he created this universe in a fully scientific way… naturally s/he follows science strictly in everything s/he does! If the universe is created based on strict scientific principles, you cannot separate the creator from his/her science. In such a scenario, the creator would have to fight with himself in a scientific way, following all scientific rules like science does! In the end the win comes in a scientific way too like it happens in science. Nobody, not even the creator, can overcome science. So science is the winner, hands down!
Q asked by a student based on the above reply:
God is the Creator, he's not a scientist.
Scientists don't “create” things… they simply discover things that were already there.
Was Electricity invented? Were all the materials, the elements invented? No.
God created everything. Even science and it's rules. It's funny that scientists bet on science so much but infact whatever they say is simply mere perception.
Something will be published in science journals and will be considered to be true… after a couple of years, something else will be considered to be true and the old fact will be left because it wasn't as accurate as this… This will continue to happen forever and we wouldn't reach the end of it.
Krishna: Your reply made me smile. Scientists who believe in God think he is a Scientist-creator, who created this universe using strict ‘scientific principles’, pure and simple. Being a scientist is a state of mind, not a profession. Electro-magnetic radiation, elements, stars and planets and everything here were created using science. Who says scientists don’t create things? What are scientific inventions, then? Scientific inventions - like machines, generators, etc. are brought before the world using knowledge creatively. It involves high ‘creativity’.
Scientific endeavour is a never ending pursuit, correcting itself all the while. Science advances by improving itself. If you don’t understand this self-correcting process, you will get confused.
People who don’t understand this world of science properly would say anything they want. You are highly confused about science, my friend.
Don’t worry, I could understand you well.
Q: Why would a physics professor believe in God? Although God has never been disproved there is also no evidence to prove he exists, so why would a physics professor who is trained to accept only what can be proven believe in a God. I have seen very prominent professors express belief in God ( this person named some names and they have been deleted)
Krishna: Yes, there are scientists who believe in ‘something up there’ even though there is no evidence. But they come under minority list.
Some people need external emotional support to cope with life’s issues if they cannot do it with their rational outlook and the resultant mental strength.
Critical thinking is a part of Science training. It has to be with you through out your life, when once you get it. But some people treat it like training in car driving - use it only on the road and forget it when you go home. Some scientifically trained people use their training only in the lab and forget it when they are dealing with other issues in life. And they give all sorts of excuses for doing that.
Anyway religion is a personal thing. As long as people don’t mix up things and don’t say ‘God did it’ like Newton did in the end and put a full stop to their genuine scientific pursuits, we can tolerate it.
Q: What is the percentage of scientist who believe in God?
Krishna: I have seen several things on several media platforms including some fabricated ‘research’ on this issue. So I don’t trust much of it.
Yes, there are some scientists who believe in God. Percentage?
No reliable information.
Q: Is there any relation between God and science?
Q: How can the relationship between God and science be described?
Krishna: Most people of science don’t believe in a creator because there is no evidence of him or her or it. However, some of those who believe think God is the greatest scientist and therefore, is their colleague!
One famous scientist once said, “Our creator, if there is one, is a brilliant Scientist. Because our creator is responsible for a wonderful and harmonious universe. He is responsible for fusion and fission reactions, time and space, gravity, chemical bonding, production of water and organic compounds, DNA & RNA and life itself. And all the rules that govern this universe were formulated by the creator himself.
This Universe itself is made of strict scientific principles. Scientists are only unraveling the mysteries of our creator. In that case you cannot separate science from its creator!”
Q: Do you talk to higher power when you feel down?
Krishna: My critical thinking and rational analysis are the highest powers in my life. You don’t feel down in the first place when you have those powers!
Q: Why do some scientists practice superstitions? For example I read that astronauts from NASA do these things before a space journey...
Astronauts and cosmonauts have superstition based traditions that trace back to the first people to fly in space. For cosmonauts, that would be Yuri Gagarin. As Yuri walked to his rocket, the chief engineer gave him a smack on the rear end. That practice is still followed. Yuri also took a leak on the tires of the bus that took him out there. That tradition is still followed (by male cosmonauts and astronauts).
Another tradition for cosmonauts, although it doesn't go back to Yuri, is to watch the film White Sun of the Desert the night before launch. Another more recent tradition is that a Russian Orthodox priest will bless the crew with water.
For NASA astronauts, the traditions go back to Alan Shepard. Alan had scrambled eggs and steak for breakfast, the day of his flight, so most astronauts do today.
Even here in India ISRO scientists perform various rituals before a space launch.
Do these rituals help them in any way?
Krishna: I am not surprised. Yes, throughout uncertain times, when stress, risk and death are involved, people tend to depend on external emotional strength and confidence boosters. And these are also the situations where people are highly vulnerable. Naturally during those situations they follow various superstitious practices to boost their mental strength.
How about giving the astronauts and other scientists lessons in critical thinking? I highly recommend this article:
Q: What happens if I prove Science greater than God?
Krishna: It has already been done! How?
Imagine this situation...
A huge asteroid colloids with the Earth in the future. Everything here gets destroyed. All living beings. All religions. All the scientific knowledge written in the books.
Then life originates here again and evolves into intelligent beings. Then in the initial stages of its civilization when it tries, it comes up with religious stories with different Gods because it doesn't have any knowledge about the present ones!
But in the later stages, if it tries to gain scientific knowledge, surprisingly it finds that the Earth revolves around the Sun, Earth is round - not flat, realizes gravity and space-time in the same way as we did! It also finds millions of stars, galaxies and black holes like we did!
It sees atoms and molecules and chemical reactions exactly in the same way as we do!
Their 'medical field' evolves similar to ours! Their technology would be similar to the present one. In fact all their scientific knowledge will be similar to ours!
Even if this happens a hundred times the results would be the same each time!
If intelligent life evolves in different parts of this universe, and if it has to have 'religions' and Gods in each part, they would all be different to each other - like the different religious stories and beliefs we have in different parts of Earth. But their scientific knowledge would be exactly the same in all the given situations! Because scientific awareness cannot be different in various parts of our planet or universe.
Why does scientific knowledge remain constant while religion and God keep changing?
Can you realize why? If you can, you will understand which one is telling the truth and which one you can trust ... Science or Religion?
Why science is greater than anything else.
The answer is obvious for a mind that can reason well.
Q: Why do some great scientists who are highly qualified believe in God? Does a person need to have lots of knowledge in a subject to sense God like some well educated people?
Krishna: You don’t need knowledge to sense God. Several illiterates without much knowledge and understanding about the world around here too do that!
Belief is what happens when your mind thinks you need some sort of external emotional support to balance itself. Then your motivational reasoning shapes up your perception of the world.
Q: Do you agree with some scientists who say they can 'see', 'feel' and 'sense' God?
Krishna: Belief is a personal thing. I can understand it and tolerate it as long as people don’t mix up things and say “God did it” instead of pursuing difficult things with a scientific zeal.
Belief is what happens when your mind thinks you need some sort of external emotional support to balance itself. Then your motivational reasoning shapes up your perception of the world.
But don’t forget even to prove or disprove that God exists, you need science!
Q: How come there are still "evolutionists" around even after Fox News has proven creationism to be a scientific fact?
Krishna: Because we are not dumb! We know what scientific methodology is and can differentiate between a hoax and proof in reality perfectly well.
Anyway, this shows that you can fool some of the people all of the time.
Q: What is the thinking of atheists such that they don't believe in gods and believe in science? Krishna: It is called critical thinking. Scientific analysis. Unattached, fearless, reasoning based on reality, facts and neutrality.
Q: Is science close to disproving that there is no afterlife?
Krishna: How can you prove or disprove something just based on a belief? Something that doesn’t exist in the first place in the physical world?
You came up with an imagination, which is not an informed one, but a wild one to say a dead person or soul will go to heaven or take rebirth. Then you ask science to prove or disprove it.
Scientists have better things to do than prove a baseless belief.
Anyway, science is trying to explain some things …
Q:Some children claim to see dead/unknown people who aren't there. How can incidents like these be explained with science?
Krishna: Some children make up things using the stories they hear, while some hallucinate.
According to neuro-scientists, a person whose brain has undergone some change or damage can 'imagine' things of the 'past life' and talk about souls wandering in the sky.
As long as these scientists don’t mix up things and say “God did it” like Newton did in the end and forget scientific methodology, we can tolerate their beliefs. Some people need external emotional support in life to sustain themselves. We understand that.
Q: When science does not believe in God, then why is religion available on earth?
Krishna: Some scientists, not science, don’t believe in God because science didn’t provide evidence till now that a creator exists.
Religion ‘originated’ much before science did. During the earlier times people saw lives with pains, tragedies, sorrows and several things around them. They wanted some kind of theory which could explain all this. Therefore, they thought about explanations and theories which gradually led into beliefs. These beliefs, which were influenced by the times they lived in i.e., non-scientific reasoning, were products of constant fear of the unknown. Instead of taking on the fear head on and finding permanent solutions, they just escaped into the world of false beliefs that gave them temporary relief. In a world where people clutch at all kinds of straws to make some sense of the madness around them, truth can never be found. Instead of analyzing, examining and understanding why something happens and how it should be handled, they tried shortcuts by bringing unknown and untested factors to interpret things! These beliefs divided people because each person had a different set of experiences and those in turn influenced their explanations and the resultant beliefs based on their mental makeup and situations and not on one truth. That's how different beliefs - both religious and non-religious - originated.
Despite immense scientific advancement, some people are still unable to ‘consider, analyse and understand things critically’. Their minds are conditioned by cultures, religions, emotions (mainly fears), politics and several other biases that cloud their thought process. Therefore, they still stick to ‘old ways of dealing’ with them.
Q: Does faith has any bad examples that science despises?
Krishna: Killing your own grand children to appease Gods.
Parents trying to murder their children by refusing to allow them to have blood transfusions because of baseless beliefs.
People who believe that Homeopathy is anything other than a placebo.
All the murders committed in all of the Crusades.
People refusing to get their children vaccinated because of their religious beliefs.
And ... the list can go on and on...
Q: Can we have a better alternative to religion?
Krishna: Yes, science and scientific way of living!
But some people still need a support system. So don’t expect that these people would accept an alternative, even if it is a better one. Nobody is thinking of abolishing religion. We live in democracies, don’t we?
Q: How is science related to religious beliefs?
Krishna: Science is not a belief and never endorses any blind belief system. So it is not related to any religion. But some people try to authenticate their beliefs using pseudo-science.
Some religious heads like HH Dalai Lama, whole-heartedly endorses science which is a good sign.
Q: From where does an atheist draw strength?
Krishna: Critical thinking and self confidence derived from it!
Q: Do scientists agree that science cannot deal with supernatural?
Krishna: Several scientists I spoke to think that if something exists in nature, you can probe it and explain. On the contrary, if people 'imagine' things or 'invent ideas to fill the gaps', they can't do anything about it and can only dismiss them as irrational.
Now come to your own conclusion.
But you people say some things are super natural. The again you bring some Gods into this world and tell us God did this miracle and that miracle. Science investigated those things, they were found not to be true. Or these things can be explained using science.
They are not supernatural at all! Just ordinary things that can happen here. So?!
Q: Have you ever preferred a religious ideology or any belief that defied physics or wasn’t compatible with physics, or to be more general, with science?
Krishna: No, never. I cannot trust something that exists only in peoples’ minds, in their imaginations, one that cannot be felt or seen by me. One that doesn’t exist in the physical world and doesn’t follow the principles set by a scientific world.
Show me something that you imagine, let me feel it like I can feel air, electricity for me to believe in it. Otherwise you can never convince me about its existence. Period!
Q: Why are we expected to oppose superstitions but tolerate religions? Krishna : Human reasoning takes several routes. It is highly influenced by biases and motivational reasoning. Intuition comes in and corrupts it too using memories of strange kinds and pattern recognition process. But intuition is very limited in its factual basis. Others, like our family members, close friends and relatives, people who we admire and adore, our groups and communities also influence our thought process. Individuals can’t justify their beliefs, but groups are great at justifying things (though not necessarily justifications that would be always right). A little social support from others can generate a lot of confidence and you can confidently go wrong here. :)
We can also reason by deliberating, thinking things through carefully. But we don’t do that very much, and we’re not very good at it as individuals. Unless you are a good independent critical thinker, have the courage to come out of influences, biases and support systems, you cannot free yourself of irrational beliefs.
Nobody can justify an irrational belief properly and correctly.
If you criticize superstitions, you are a hero. On the other hand if you criticize religion, you become a villain.
This is because social groups place religion at the highest level because it has something to do with what they think is the ‘highest authority in the universe’. If you try to fiddle with this thought process or belief system, you will have to face the music.
But at least you are allowed to oppose superstitions. Thank them for it! :)
Irrationality has no real justification. That is why it is called irrational!
Q:Why is it not so obvious to atheist scientists that the universe could not have created itself?
Krishna: Yes it did according to some scientists! This is the explanation they give...
Q: How can scientists justify atheism? Krishna: Not all scientists are atheists. Well, according to some scientists who are atheists... they cannot subscribe to something people imagined or invented to explain things when science was not even 'born'. When people imagine something, tell a story about it and ask them to prove it, they cannot do that. It is the people who put forth a story or their imagination or theory, who should prove what they think is a fact. They cannot go about proving everybody's wild imaginations. They can only explain and prove what really exists. If you say, this universe couldn't have created itself and therefore, there should be some higher entity to create it, they ask then how could that higher entity created himself/herself or itself? If God really existed and gave scriptures and holy texts like people say, he should have clearly stated in them how he created this universe using scientific principles. He wouldn't have told silly stories. Those stories are highly imaginative creations of human beings, that's all! Well points to ponder. Oh, my mind of Critical analysis, I need you here!
Q: According to Einstein,
Science without religion is lame,
And religion without science is blind.
What do modern scientists think about it?
Krishna: Einstein’s thinking reflected the times he lived in. Today’s scientists know that science doesn’t need religion to survive and definitely is not lame without religion. It just is an old way of thinking.
Q: Is there scientific evidence for spiritual enlightenment? Krishna: Science in itself is a spiritual journey. Unraveling the mysteries of the universe and trying to know the truth and meaning of our existence. Science and Spirituality (science-and-spirituality? However, what individuals ‘imagine’, ‘feel’ and ‘experience’ are their personal things of mind. “Imaginations, feelings and experiences in the religious realms ’’ are natural wherever human beings exist but not supernatural. If you ask for scientific evidence or say it is beyond science, it shows only peoples’ inexperience. You imagine something in your mind. And then ask science to prove what you have ‘imagined’ is right. What type of logic is this? Imaginations occur when your neural system works. That is the only evidence science can give using neural mapping while you are imagining things. If you are a critical thinker, you do unbiased reasoning and attain enlightenment in all aspects. If you are a motivational thinker, your mind becomes narrow and you choose and follow only one route and think only that one is right and it is beyond science to understand it! Hmmm! Science understands it alright and smiles at the incomprehension of other arenas!
Q: What is the science behind God?
Krishna: There is no science behind God! It just is a belief. You imagine something, weave stories to strengthen it and start asking others too to follow you.
But don’t expect science to authenticate your beliefs. Science’s way of working is different from that of religion. Without evidence, science doesn’t endorse the theory of “GOD”!
Q: Dr. Krishna, I am a devout Christian. I don't believe science made it possible man visit the moon. I don't trust Neil Armstrong landed on the moon. He refused to swear on Bible that he actually visited the moon. If he really did, why didn't he swear on God or Bible to accept the truth?
Krishna: Oh, my, what can I say?
Even if Neil Armstrong swore on the Bible that he landed on the moon, you people would say, he is still lying. What is the use of doing it then?
Armstrong wasn’t Christian. His NASA paperwork marks his religious preference as “none.”
You can’t beat conspiracy theorists. They never admit defeat. You are constrained by some kind of semblance to truth; they are committed only to their conspiracy theory. The only way to win is not to play.
Neil Armstrong was too much the gentleman to tell the stupid person to get lost. He refused to swear that his decade of training, thousands of hours of the hardest work and dedication anyone has been ever asked to do, and the most demanding mission in history, was real?
Neil Armstrong, Buzz Aldrin, and Michael Collins have nothing to prove to anyone - hundreds of thousands of people worked on the mission that sent them to the moon… Every one of them can vouch that it was a real mission, and men landed on moon. Whether you believe in it or not, that is the truth!
No scientist needs to swear on any religious text to prove what s/he did in his/her lab is real or no astronaut needs to prove to any one that he went to space. Peer reviewed papers, reproducibility of scientific work, established facts are enough for science to progress and the world to flourish! Period!
Q:How can one increase faith in God and develop a superb intellect?
Krishna: Developing a superb intellect has nothing to do with faith in God. Intellect develops when you do critical thinking - using unbiased and neutral analysis. If you are attached to a belief (or emotion or group or ideology), it fogs your reasoning power out of fear, hope, love or respect and affects your behaviour. A mind that is agitated by belief can never be free and therefore never know truth. If you don’t know truth and facts, you cannot develop the right intellect.
Q: Why do people belonging to different faiths attack one another?
Krishna : If you are attached to something, your thought process gets screwed up. It fogs your reasoning power out of fear, hope, love or respect and affects your behaviour. A mind that is agitated by belief can never be free and therefore never know truth. You cannot think clearly, neutrally and rationally. That is why people belonging to different ideals and religions clash and abuse one another. They defend their faith by resorting to unsocial behaviour.
This biased analysis of anything is due to the now well-known psychological phenomenon of motivated reasoning. Research suggests that all people tend to seek out information that confirms (or at least does not challenge) the conclusions they want to draw on a given topic. In other words, we will work to discredit or avoid information that might require us to reconsider our pre-existing beliefs. Motivated reasoning is particularly likely when taking the other side might create conflict within our social circle—like religious or political or social groups.
Q: Why did Neil Armstrong refuse to swear on the Bible that he actually did go to the Moon? Krishna: No scientist needs to swear on any religious text to prove what s/he did in his/her lab is real or no astronaut needs to prove to any one that he went to space. Peer reviewed papers, reproducibility of scientific work, established facts are enough for science to progress and the world to flourish! Period!
Q: Does religion have any place in the 21st century? Should religion be eradicated and a new 'religion' of humanity be constructed in a society based on science? Krishna: Will emotionally charged people listen? Not all can think rationally. Even if they can think, most people don’t have the courage to go against the tide. People do get trapped by the sweet talk and threats of hell and sin by the religious people. They need some emotional outside support and can’t stand on their own mental strengths brought by critical thinking. **A new 'religion' of humanity be constructed in a society based on science?** No new ‘religion’ replacing the old ones is necessary. Only scientifically inclined societies can do. These will be the most ideal ones. Unlike what several people think, science deals with all issues including moral and humanitarian ones. Science and Spirituality
Q: Why do some scientists attack religion?
Krishna: Scientists don’t give a damn as long as religions don’t cross the path of science and progress.
But if you mislead people by saying vaccines are against religious beliefs, just praying will cure people of their grave illnesses, blood transfusions are against religions and make a mockery of years of scientific research, you can surely expect a fight from the scientific community!
Q: Which is the most advanced religion that adhere to scientific principles? Krishna: If any religion adheres to scientific principles, it becomes science, not religion. However, most scientists ( in the world, not any particular region) think Buddhism is the most science-friendly religion because HH Dalai Lama loves science and said: "My confidence in venturing in science lies in my belief that as in science so in Buddhism, understanding the nature of reality is pursued by means of critical investigation: if scientific analysis were conclusively to demonstrate certain claims in Buddhism to be false, then we must accept the findings of science." No other religious leader said such things about science. Some even take the help of pseudo-science to propagate their beliefs and malign science in the process.
Q: Do you think science has an answer to spiritualism?
Krishna: An emphatic ‘Yes’! Science in itself is a spiritual journey. Unraveling the mysteries of the universe and trying to know the truth and meaning of our existence.. .
Q: What is the actual concept of God in scientific manner?
Krishna: Scientific manner? Science doesn’t accept anything that has no evidence. “God concept” has no basis according to science.
It just is belief based. Science keeps away from such things.
Provide evidence or keep it away from science. Period.
Q: Which one is believed by you, "science or religion", and why? Krishna : I have answered this question earlier also. I trust in science. Because it deals with real world and evidence based facts. It answered several of my questions and helped me in times of need better than anything else. Science never lets me down.
Creative and fictional stories don’t impress me at all.
Q: How is the advancement of science a threat to the existence of religions?
Krishna: Well, if religion says Earth or Sun was created by God some 6000 years ago or human beings were created as they ‘re now on a single day, science has evidence to show that it ‘s not true. It is there for every one to see and comprehend. If you ‘re not made blind, deaf and mind-imprisoned through faith or fear, you would realize what a scientific fact is. You will understand that all that’s written in ancient times is melting away now like scripts written on water.
Science in itself is a spiritual journey. Unraveling the mysteries of the universe and trying to know the truth and meaning of our existence. Unlike religion, science is on the pursuit of truth without any fear, illusions, preconceived notions and beliefs. Unlike what several people think, science deals with moral ( derived from reasoning related to...empirical evidence) issues too and can be a good guide to life's journey through thecheckerboardof blacks and whites.
Religious People who quote scientists to support their thought process, I noticed, quote from earlier century scientists and their words which reflect the situation they were in when science hasn’t developed much. These words were made redundant with the advancement of science.
Our consciousness is the outcome of our neural activity. There isn’t anything very special about it like religious people think.
People say science cannot solve all the problems and doesn't answer all the questions human minds pose. True! But think about this: This universe started with a Big Bang ( according to one theory - which is not yet proved!) some 14 Billion years ago. But science is just a few hundred years old. It is still in its infancy. It has to learn a lot, study a lot, think a lot, experiment a lot and then only it can come up with all the answers we are seeking right now. How can you expect a child to solve all the problems of his ancestors? And answer the questions posed by his great, great, great, great grand fathers? Is it appropriate to even expect such a thing? I don't think so. We should be amazed at how we have been able to get so far in understanding the things in this universe despite our inadequacies! Science is doing its best with the limited resources it has to both answer the questions and solve the problems. As the time goes by, I am pretty sure, it will succeed more and more. Please have patience! And let me assure you when science answers these Qs, they will not be silly stories like “God of Gaps” ones but religion-shattering true facts.
Q: Do you believe spirituality is linked with science?
Krishna: Science in itself is a spiritual journey. Unraveling the mysteries of the universe and trying to know the truth and meaning of our existence.
However, unlike what several people think, and define spirituality, science’s way of doing things is different. Science is on the pursuit of truth without any fear, illusions, preconceived notions and beliefs.
Find what path science takes in reality in its spiritual journey here:
Q: If people don't Question science, does i t then become religion?
Krishna: Science has built into its design a wonderful thing called scientific method. It is a fire wall that prevents people from getting into a delusion that their beliefs - how irrational they seem - are right.
People can question science and are doing so. But the questions they pose and the challenges they throw has to stick to scientific method. Otherwise, they will be of no use in the world of science and people who rule the world of science will just ignore them .
So, what is keeping science from becoming a religion?Scientific Method! Pure and simple.
Q: People of religion say "God doesn't need validation". But scientists say, 'he too needs validation' for them to accept him. Who is right ?
Krishna: Religion and beliefs don't need validation. They can just exist on the basis of people's imagination and faith.
But science is dependent on evidence to establish facts. God too needs validation, in the field of science. According to atheist-scientists, if you imagine something and think it is true, science cannot accept it. You have to show evidence for it to become a scientific fact or atleast truth. Science cannot accept your imagination as truth. It is logically wrong too. A belief cannot be logically true leave alone scientifically true. Even if your imagination is taken into account, the creator created this universe scientifically and runs it based on scientific principles. He is a scientist to the core. So he too is bound by it’s rules. He himself would have validated his presence if he really exists. He would have accepted the scientists' argument that he too needs validation in a scientific world created by him.
The very fact that a scientific creator didn't leave any clues of his presence, is evidence enough to deny his presence.
However, scientists are open to the idea that a creator could be in the form our senses or our scientific instruments in the present limited conditions can't perceive. Therefore, an atheist-scientist can be 99% atheistic and the remaining one percent, s/he leaves to open mindedness to consider any evidence provided either by nature or any other living form.
Well, now come to your own conclusion!
Q: Why do 12% of leading scientists believe in a personal god? Krishna: You must realize the lists mostly give the names of the ‘famous earlier century scientists’ or those born in the earlier centuries. Their beliefs represent the times they lived in.
Even if some believe in a person God now, these scientists need to have some sort of external emotional support as they are unable to stand on their own mental abilities.
Q: What do you believe more, science or religion?
Krishna: I trust science more than anything else. Because it answered several of my questions, brought peace to my mind, taught me all about human existence, morality, humane nature, universal brotherhood, secularism, tolerance, inner strength and everything a human being should be.
It gave me tremendous courage, power of the mind, and took me to ahigher state of consciousness.
Without science, I would have never reached the heights of mental abilities, I have reached. I owe my everything to science.
Q: What is more important ting to humanity today? Science or religion and why?
Krishna: Undoubtedly science. People can live without a belief in God (like atheists do). But even if you don’t trust science, this universe runs on scientific principles, life runs on scientific principles, and your body runs on scientific principles. This is an evidence based fact. You have to go to science to save lives. Control or eradicate several diseases. Stop pain and suffering. To feed the ever increasing population. To progress. To be comfortable in life. Even to ask Qs and give answers here. Science is the language this universe is written in. Scientists are only uncoding the language, when they discover something. And they are using this information for the welfare of mankind. It is based on reality, not imagination, like religion. If you want to live in reality, adopt science. Go to religion if you want to live in an imaginative world. The choice is yours. But let me assure you, even the most devoted religious person goes to a doctor when he is suffering from a serious health condition. May I now humbly ask a question: “Why can’t you cure your condition with just prayers?” That is the power of science! You can’t avoid it, no matter how much you try. Even to think about this, you need a scientifically working brain. Even to deny the importance of science, you need a ‘differently circuited brain’. We understand that. Now go ahead and thrash science, science deniers. We very well understand the science of your brain. You can live without a belief in God, but your system cannot survive without science.
Q: Is it possible to believe in religion when you have a scientific mind? Krishna : True scientists cannot tolerate cognitive dissonance ( science doesn't allow for the holding of two contradictory positions). They must choose the facts and stick to them.
Most of the religions originated in the pre-scientific era. They are based on imaginations, strange perceptions, and untested and tried views and unreliable beliefs.
Most of the religious beliefs are not evidence based. So it is difficult to trust them like we trust evidence established facts.
But some people who work in labs believe in religion and God. They need some sort of external emotional support because they are unable to get it from their own minds. We understand that. But I think they failed in getting a true scientific mind. Just because you get some degrees and work in a lab doesn’t get you a ‘scientific mind’.
Once trained, science and the process of scientific analysis should stay with the person 365X100, i.e., throughout his or her life and guide him or her in everything he or she does. If it fails to do so, either the training is lopsided or your mind is weak and therefore failed to retain it. We understand that too.
But a scientific mind also knows - when there are several possibilities, you have to keep your mind open to all such probabilities and the evidence, if at all presented by someone.
So at the moment, there is no evidence of God. Therefore, religion, with all its imaginative stories, is not trust worthy for a scientific mind. But it can be open to any scientific evidence presented for the presence of a creator.
Q: Why must it be religion OR science rather than religion and science?
Krishna: Some people say religion and science are two ways to discover truth and can co-exist!
Oh, yes, if you imagine Sun God is driven by seven horses in a chariot and that is how we get days and nights and different seasons or God created human beings as they are some 6000 years ago, is that truth? How can religious stories be truth?
True scientists cannot tolerate cognitive dissonance ( science doesn't allow for the holding of two contradictory positions). They must choose the facts and stick to them.
Most of the religions originated in the pre-scientific era. They are based on imaginations, strange perceptions, and untested and tried views and unreliable beliefs.
Most of the religious beliefs are not evidence based. So it is difficult to trust them like we trust evidence established facts.
For a genuine scientist, it must be only science and evidence based facts.
Oh, yes, we sometimes enjoy the creative explanations and stories of the religions and smile. And think some people need some sort of emotional support to live as they cannot derive strength from their own minds. We understand that too. So we tolerate religions.
As long as religions don’t obstruct the path of science and progress, we try to keep quiet. But when we notice they are coming in our way, we knew we have to get battle ready. Like we are fighting religious people now who are against vaccines.
In cases of life and death, it must be science, not religion. Sorry, in science democracy doesn’t work like that. We are going to fight and fight all the way till we win.
Q: Is religion an excuse for not knowing how to explain scientific questions/events? Krishna : It is one of the reasons. During pre-scientific era when people didn’t have realistic answers to their questions on creation, they invented “God concept” to fill the void.
Later some people started believing in God and depending on him for emotional support when their minds couldn’t stand on their own strength. This also led to ‘grouping’, which gave more support to those who needed it. It became an addiction and now people ‘defend’ their territory with all their might using force, terror and what not.
Science bashing is one of those things. When illusion makes you blind to reality, if what you imagine becomes ‘your truth’ , you become mentally weak even to accept evidence based facts.
You fail to realize that science controls this universe, life and even you! If only people have patience to wait till scientists find all the facts!
Q: Can our Indian sages be regarded as the world's greatest scientists?
Krishna: What?!
It might be your wishful thinking, but sorry, modern science is beyond any religion, ancient knowledge, and pseudo-science. Don’t even try to equate modern science with pseudo-science. You will fall flat.
Let your beliefs remain beliefs. Don’t bring them into the world of science. Don’t try to equate religion with science. They work in completely opposite ways.
Sages work differently from scientists. What they said in ancient times might be relevant then but modern science cannot accept anything without evidence and strictly following scientific method. Period!
Q: Were all the world famous scientists atheists or theists?
Krishna: Why do you want to link the word ‘famous’ with ‘atheism’ or ‘theism’?
Most scientists in the earlier centuries were theists ( most famous scientists belong to earlier times!). That reflected the times they were in i.e., culturally, religiously conditioned minds without clearly marked critical thinking skills. There were no clear cut scientific methods to demarcate what ‘s science and what ‘s not. But still some scientists overcame these limitations to develop a rational mind.
Now most scientists are atheists. This reflects modern day scientific thinking.
But still some scientists today are theists. Why?
Majority of human beings are emotional. Emotions screw up your thought process. That is why scientists are trained in critical thinking and scientific methods to overcome these things. But if this training is not up to the mark, outside of their labs, some scientists still are slaves to their emotions. They are mentally weak and need some sort of outside emotional support. That is where God and religion, no matter how irrational that might seem to some, are brought into existence to fill the emotional void. Without this emotional support of God some people would mentally collapse.
We understand that. That is why we tolerate God and religion. As long as these beliefs don’t interfere with science, progress and human welfare, we just ignore them.
Q: When scriptural truths are branded by scientists ‘pseudoscience’, how do rationalistic people put faith on them? Krishna : Your perception is wrong!
Scriptural stories are branded as pseudo-science only when you try to authenticate them using science. If you don’t try to enter the world of science taking your beliefs with you and remain where you are, i.e, in the world of religion, scriptures are just what they are - ‘perceived truth’.
Rationalistic people are supposed to know which ones to trust and which ones to discard. They don’t put faith blindly in some perceived truth. Don’t worry about them.
Q: What are some Qs that science cannot answer, but spiritual scriptures can?
Krishna: None! Yes, you heard it right. Spiritual scriptures are perception based. Perception need not be evidence or fact based. If the answers are not evidence based, they cannot be facts or what religious people call ‘truths’.
If you want answers to be very accurate, you have to go to science, there is no other go.
Science has two aspects:
The principles that are responsible for the origin of our universe, governing it after its origin and running it. These are absolute facts because the evidence that this universe is running on them without any hitches is itself proof that they are beyond any question. The process with which we study our universe and try to understand it. To overcome the inadequacies in the second aspect, scientists invented the scientific method. Despite that this second one can go wrong sometimes because of human mind limitations.
But the moment the second aspect results match with the first one during the second process, you get an absolute answer to your question!
So, only science can provide the right answers, no matter how much you argue against it, facts are facts.
Q: What traditional knowledge has been proved wrong in recent years? Krishna : Most of it is religion based explanations about the universe. And pseudo-scientific explanations about our culture and traditions.
Religion says Sun God is driven by seven horses in a chariot and that is how we get days and nights and different seasons or God created human beings as they are some 6000 years ago, is that truth? How can these stories be truth, when disproved by science?
Q: Which is more powerful, blessing or medicine?
Krishna: To all those who say both are equally powerful: Okay, next time you get a dangerous infection, take only blessings and no medicines and see what happens, because according to you both have equal capacity to cure!
Rationalists go for medicines only. Did they face any bad consequences because of this? No!
Scientific studies have shown that mere prayers don’t help. Recently researchers found that having people pray for heart bypass surgery patients had no effect on their recovery. In fact, patients who knew they were being prayed for had a slightly higher rate of complications.
Science and its universal rules don't work like people want them to. And these rules will not be bent in any way for anybody or anything. Even if you pray perfectly and practice priest-prescribed procedures. Your unrealistic wishes of bending Scientific rules with magical powers will never come true! Science will surrender to only science. Nothing else!
Q:Scientists, do you agree with this quote from Louis Pasteur: "Little science takes you away from God, but more of it takes you to him."? Krishna: No!
Louis Pasteur’s time was another century ( Born: December 27, 1822, Died: September 28, 1895).
That thinking of his reflected his time. Now we have more of science, not less of it like in the earlier centuries. Unlike earlier centuries, we have more atheist scientists now. Moreover, there wasn’t any clearly defined scientific method then. We have to confirm everything in this universe based on the scientific method now.
If the scientific method says, ‘no evidence’, we, the modern day genuine scientists, have to accept that provisional fact. Until somebody brings genuine evidence, that provisional fact stays.
But there are a few scientists who still go against this scientific method while believing in certain things. Because their scientific training is inadequate and they are not mentally strong to stand on their mental capabilities alone. Without the emotional outside support of God they would collapse mentally. We understand that. That is why we tolerate them.
As long as their beliefs don’t interfere with science, progress and the welfare of the world, we keep tolerating it.
Q: Is there reason for why would God prevent us from discovering him through science?
Religion and beliefs don't need validation. They can just exist on the basis of people's imagination and faith.
But science is dependent on evidence to establish facts. God too needs validation, in the field of science. According to atheist-scientists, if you imagine something and think it is true, science cannot accept it. You have to show evidence for it to become a scientific fact or atleast truth. Science cannot accept your imagination as truth. It is logically wrong too. A belief cannot be logically true leave alone scientifically true. Even if your imagination is taken into account, the creator created this universe scientifically and runs it based on scientific principles. He is a scientist to the core. So he too is bound by it’s rules. He himself would have validated his presence if he really exists. He would have accepted the scientists' argument that he too needs validation in a scientific world created by him.
The very fact that a scientific creator didn't leave any clues of his presence, is reason enough to deny his presence.
However, scientists are open to the idea that a creator could be in the form our senses or our scientific instruments in the present limited conditions can't perceive. Therefore, an atheist-scientist can be 99% atheistic and the remaining one percent, s/he leaves to open mindedness to consider any evidence provided either by nature or any other living form.
--
If we eliminate religion and instead rely entirely on science to make sense of the world, can we depend on science to help us create a human ethics? Are scientists good/capable ethicists? What would a scientific approach to ethics look like?
At least some scientists are atheists. Don't they follow ethics? They do! Without the help of religion. Ethics are not the sole property of religion.
Ethics is an integral part of science too. Like science, it requires us to be consistent and empirically justified in our interpretations of the actions of scientists. The ethics of science and science itself share the goal of comprehending in human terms scientists' actions in manipulating the physical world.
Anyone who knows how a nervous system works ( like a person of science) during pain processing can do no physical harm to any living being. And anyone who knows how the brain really works ( like a scientist or a medical doctor) at the emotional level will never try to harass another living being. Any person who has seen how the scientific rules are followed universally in a given set of conditions, and understood its beauty can never think in local terms and can never come under the influence of artificially created races, castes, groups, communities or citizenships. He sees all the living beings as his own images - following universal rules of life and as citizens of this universe.
To be frank science is a neutral study of the universe without any biases and prejudices. It exactly shows what reality of our universe is. And if that helps in human culture moral judgements? (3)
Like DNA fingerprinting helps in finding the culprits in forensic science who cheat others?
When it comes to questions of morality and meaning, the way we go about deciding what is right and wrong, and meaningful or not, is not the same as the way we discover what is true and false or facts. Some emotions like kindness and empathy will be involved. Controlling them is highly important to arrive at a good decision. Just because a criminal cries and acts funnily, you cannot support him. Oh yes, his brain could be differently wired! You try to analyze what could make any person behave so differently from others. On the other hand you can empathize with a poor thief when he steals food. But if you are a logical thinker you will try to understand what circumstances made him steal the food and try to correct them. Critical thinking helps here.
So far science has described how various social animals work in their groups, using various mechanisms to interact collectively. Bees use pheromones. Humans use emotions. And morality is just a word for emotional responses for how people do or do not behave according to 'rules' of the group they identify with. And science described it in spite of centuries of claims of mystical magical forces that made people behave as they do.
Unlike what several people think, science deals with moral ( derived from reasoning related to...empirical evidence) issues too and can be a good guide to life's journey through the checkerboard of blacks and whites!
I learned all about human existence, morality, humane nature, universal brotherhood, secularism, tolerance, inner strength and everything a human being should be from science! (1)
The reactions of non-specialist observers to complex ethical problems raised by cutting-edge science such as embryonic stem-cell research are no more justified or useful than their opinions about the technical difficulties yet to be overcome. The central issue in the ethical debate surrounding the embryo is not whether it is wrong to kill innocent human beings, but what the embryo and its disaggregation constitutes. The specialist scientific community's familiarity with the facts places it in a privileged position in determining the interpretation or interpretations best supported by the facts. (2)
As well as thinking of their actions in terms of future experimental design, scientists must explain the significance of their actions in the wider scientific and human contexts and remove misconceptions about science and scientists. Scientists must take the lead in ensuring that the progress of science is both ethical and as free from political and outside intervention as possible.
Scientists should strictly follow scientific method in the lab. No other rules can be applied to science. If they follow scientific method, scientists are following 'their rules'.
This universe itself follows scientific principles. It came into existence using these principles, and runs on them.
As a part of this universe, we human beings are also bound by these principles. Morals interrelated to emotions are indirectly controlled by 'science of this universe'.
Only thing is people outside of science should learn how this happens to go about morals without the help of religion if they want to like atheists and atheist-scientists do.
Q:Can the universe be understood to the most spiritually rather than by science? Does science have its limits but spirituality does not have limits of knowledge?
Krishna:
This is a troll Q because the person who is questioning is suggesting answers in his Q itself to confirm his preconceived notions instead of expecting a neutral answer.
Anyway I am going to answer this Q like a scientist does whether you like it or not.
Spiritual journey is actually an inquiry into one's own existence. It is an inquiry into existence and non-existence and the relationship between these two. It is realizing true existence. An inquiry has to be open without any fear in mind about the ability or outcome. So being fearless is the first step in the path of realization. We are always under the influence of some or other fear. The fear is an outcome of either illusion or weakness to understand and tackle the situation. Illusion can be overcome by acquiring knowledge while weakness can be overcome by acquiring strength. Fearlessness is prerequisite as well as an outcome of spiritual quest. For this to happen, you have to be emotionally neutral. First you should not get associated with anything mentally and should be able to analyze everything rationally. That is what science tells us to do!
Science in itself is a spiritual journey. Unraveling the mysteries of the universe and trying to know the truth and meaning of our existence.. ..Science it is on the pursuit of truth without any fear, illusions, preconceived notions and beliefs.
On the other hand what religion says is based on primitive understanding of the world around us and is full of creative stories based on beliefs and cannot be verified to become facts. In such a scenario how can the statement made in the Q ‘the universe be understood to the most spiritually rather than by science’ be true? Can unverified things be facts? Can unverifiable things become truths? How?
‘spirituality does not have limits of knowledge’.
Yes, religious stories and imaginative narrations cannot have limitations. You can have as many as you want like you have so many religious stories now. But that is not knowledge, just creativity based on your perception.
Finally does science have limits?
If I say ‘no’? Wait a minute before you open your mouth and listen to this:
Science has two aspects to it.
One: The principles with which this universe came into existence (to atheists), or created (to theists) and run by it.
Two: The process with which we study this universe.
People usually take only the second one into consideration, not the first one while dealing with this aspect. But the truth is, without scientific principles, this universe in which we live, wouldn't have come into existence in the first place. Only when the scientific principles based universe came into existence, the consequences like galaxies, stars, planets, origin of life, its evolution, human beings and finally their religions became a reality.
So science is the basis for everything. Its knowledge holding capacity is limitless.
It is the limitations of human mind that is making us unable to fathom this limitless scientific knowledge.
These limitations of a human mind also make us incapable of understanding the universe through religious means.
But, if anything can give us evidence based facts about this universe, it is science, not religion.
--
Q: Being too much scientific, can we lose our faith in God?
Krishna: What is ‘too much scientific’? You can’t even survive without science in the first place!
This universe and everything in it came into existence using scientific principles. They are run by science. Remove science, everything in the universe and life in it will collapse and become non-existent!
Scientists are just trying to understand how this universe and everything in it works using scientific method. They are not discovering or inventing something out of nothing! They are finding things because they exist - making use of scientific principles - in this universe.
Okay, if you are a theist and believe in God ask him why he made this universe using only science and nothing else. Why he used so much science ( or too much science in your own words) to create this universe. He must be a scientist to make this universe scientifically. Then he must also provide scientific evidence for his existence. If he doesn’t, any rational individual or scientific minded person cannot believe in someone who creates everything using scientific method but refuses to follow his own rules and provide evidence for his existence.
Yes, too much science but not scientific enough minded God to provide evidence for his own existence! What an irony! Why blame science for it? Science is following its rules perfectly and is asking for evidence to believe in something you imagine exists!
And if you don’t mind ‘too much science’ of your creator, please follow this space:
Religion is completely backward, stagnant, stubborn ( refuses to get updated), demands blind faith, and irrational.
Science works in a totally opposite way. So it is several steps ahead of religion.
If you compare the followers, here too even the people who follow religion unwittingly accept science by using it. If they get a deadly disease do majority of people go to a religious place or to a hospital? Do they still use bullock carts or modern transport system brought by science and technology? Do they sow their seeds in the fields and pray or go ahead and do whatever they can using science as an aid to get better results?
Yes, but still if people think religion is ahead, they are living in a pseudo-world.
--
Why can't spirituality be science?
Krishna:It can be if it follows genuine scientific method.
But if it tries to be ‘scientific’ without following the scientific method, it becomes pseudo-science.
If it tries to be genuinely scientific by following the scientific method, it ceases to exist as spirituality (based on blind belief) and becomes genuine science based on evidence and data.
Now can you see why spirituality cannot be science?
Can religious belief and scientific thinking coexist in a scientist's mind?
Krishna: When I embraced science and scientific method before entering my lab all the beliefs I had got a thorough analysis and those that didn’t follow the latter and couldn’t stand up to the scrutiny were tossed out of the window.
A true scientist cannot tolerate cognitive dissonance.
But, some people need some sort of external emotional support, especially when their minds are conditioned to follow certain things and when their scientific training is inadequate and therefore unable to overcome it, to surmount their problems in life. We understand this and therefore tolerate it as long as their beliefs don’t interfere with their work in the labs.
However, if you couldn’t overcome your beliefs and biases once, where is the guarantee that this will not happen again and again? How can you trust such people?
Some of these are creating pseudo-science by combining science they are doing with their beliefs. Although the scientific method keeps a check on this, these people are trying to hoodwink it by creating their own science journals, submitting their papers to only peers who have similar beliefs to theirs and by following all unscientific ways. We see this happening around us.
So?!
--
Q: Which teaches us more, science or religion?
Q: Which is true, science or god? Where do I believe?
Krishna: Forget the word ‘more’. Ask the Q, ‘Which one gives us the most trustworthy explanation about the universe around us?’
Imagine this situation...
A huge asteroid colloids with the Earth in the future. Everything here gets destroyed. All living beings. All religions. All the scientific knowledge written in the books.
Then life originates here again and evolves into intelligent beings. Then in the initial stages of its civilization when it tries, it comes up with new religious stories with different Gods because it doesn't have any knowledge about present ones!
But in the later stages, if it tries to gain scientific knowledge, surprisingly it finds that the Earth revolves around the Sun, Earth is round - not flat, realizes gravity and space-time in the same way as we did! It also finds millions of stars, galaxies and black holes like we did!
It sees atoms and molecules and chemical reactions exactly in the same way as we do!
Their 'medical field' evolves similar to ours! Their technology would be similar to the present one. In fact all their scientific knowledge will be similar to ours!
Even if this happens a hundred times the results would be the same each time!
If intelligent life evolves in different parts of this universe, and if it has to have 'religions' in each part, they would all be different to each other - like the different religious stories and beliefs we have in different parts of Earth. But their scientific knowledge would be exactly the same in all the given situations! Because scientific awareness cannot be different in various parts of our planet or universe.
Why does scientific knowledge remain constant while religion keeps changing?
Can you realize why? If you can, you will understand which one is telling the truth and which one you can trust ... Science or Religion?
---
Q; Is there anything in our universe that cannot be explained by science or religion?
Krishna: There are several things that cannot be explained by both.
Science ( the subject with which we study the universe) cannot explain these things because it is still in an infant stage as Human beings still do not have neither the capability nor the right equipment to investigate everything in this universe.
Religion tries to ‘invent primitive stories’ based on a creator and so says everything is created in this way by GOD. That is the only explanation given by it and is completely unverifiable and therefore totally irrelevant to our understanding of the universe.
However, whatever science has explained till now is closer to reality and therefore more reliable than religious explanations. As time goes by more and more progress occurs in the scientific explanations and with evidence we get more closer to facts.
Q: Do you think science will answer all questions about the life of a human or help of God and spirituality required?
Krishna: Science will try its best to answer all the questions it can. What limits science is human inadequacies, not science’s inabilities.
The more human brain works to tackle these inadequacies, the more answers we get. Scientists are doing their best to overcome these problems.
And God and religion are coming in the way!
Forget God and related topics. Because, first of all there is no evidence of GOD. It is human imagination that such an entity exists. To meet their emotional needs human beings invented something called GOD.
And people are investing both their time and money in GOD and religion more than they are investing in scientific research. People donate money to GOD, not to science. Then how can science find answers if you don’t provide adequate funds to scientists and waste them on religion?
Then people spend more time on thoughts like “GOD did ( or do) things in that way”. Like newton did (1). If they find some problem instead of finding the real solution, they go after, ‘divine solution’, filling the gaps with GOD, religion, creator and what not.
Don’t you think, they are going the wrong way? If you are attached to a belief (or emotion or group), it fogs your reasoning power out of fear, hope, love or respect and affects your behaviour. A mind that is agitated by belief can never be free and therefore never know truth (2). You shouldn't reason backward from belief to evidence because that will subject you to numerous cognitive biases and you risk fooling yourself about the nature of reality.
Science is in pursuit of the facts and the conditions in which these facts evolve so that we can give a meaningful definition to our existence.
In the long run, it is better to understand the way the world really is rather than how we would like it to be.
Science is closer to truth than any other belief. GOD, spirituality and religion cannot give you the evidence based facts like science does.
We need only science to answer the questions in the right way (3). Just have patience. God and spirituality can never give you the correct answers in the present situation.
Q: If science has replaced religion, what do you think will replace science?
Krishna: Nothing! Unless you want to get into another pseudo-world or fantasy situations like religion.
Because scientific principles are the ones that govern this universe. They are the facts of this universe and run it. You cannot replace them with anything else and succeed in running this universe.
But has science, the study with which we try to understand the world around us, really replaced religion? Several people still want to live in a pseudo-world that primitive imagination took us into. As long as these people refuse to come out their shells and as long a some people try to keep them there in the darkness to exploit them, religion can’t be replaced.
----
Q: How can anyone who is intelligent believe in god?
Krishna: “People's beliefs are shaped by a wide range of factors including personal experiences, cultural influences, upbringing, and personal reflections.”
“Conditioning of mind” ( cultural influences, upbringing) that one couldn’t negotiate accurately , strange interpretations of personal experiences ( personal reflections), unsubstantiated blind beliefs, strange values that lack the right evaluation - all these need not be mark of ‘right intellectual capabilities’.
They are ‘some capabilities’ not related to intellectualism.
When things that were thought when human knowledge was just born, and when these thoughts refuse to evolve with the human mind, when people still remain in ancient times and with primitive intellectual capabilities - these things do not stand for intellectualism.
Yes, some people who are branded as ‘intelligent’ believe in GOD.
But their intelligence is limited to certain fields they were trained and worked in.
Intelligence is the ability to learn or understand or to deal with new or trying situations : the skilled use of reason ( Definition of INTELLIGENCE ).
If these ‘intelligent” people don’t expand their training and deal as efficiently as they deal with their fields in other arenas, can you still call them intelligent?
For instance a scientist who is trained to trust only evidence based facts stumbles and forgets this training while dealing with the GOD concept and fears to overcome his conditioning of mind, unable to erase his unknown fears, unable to deal with life’s ups and downs without external emotional support of ancient religions and someone above the sky, can you still call him a person with a highly evolved brain that can work with full efficiency?
And if he gives strange explanations and cover ups to support this behaviour of his? Do you still think he has intellectual capabilities? Oh yes, he has them but is misfiring his neurons to go the untested and unverified wrong routes to win a battle unethically - against his own training and community.
People give examples of earlier era “scientists” like Newton - who represent the times they lived in ( Newton was called a natural philosopher then).
Why, I can give names of present people who call themselves scientists too.
But, Being a scientist is a state of mind, not a profession!
That state of mind never allows cognitive dissonance.
----
Q: Is belief in something that cannot be proven scientifically, such as God, necessary for the study of science?
Krishna: It is not at all necessary. Science doesn’t need the God concept. It doesn’t deal with it in the first place. Belief in a supernatural God is outside the natural domain of scientific investigation because all scientific hypotheses must be falsifiable in the natural world. Why do you try to bring something not related to the subject into the domain of science?
Krishna : You asked about scientific perspective. Does God has evidence? NO!
Then how can you say GOD exists?
So from a scientific point of view, you cannot confirm that GOD exists.
So it is just peoples’ imagination that such an entity exists. Many in the world of science think man invented GOD and religion
1. to meet his emotional needs, to gain mental strength if he is weak.
2. to explain things that are still can’t be explained using scientific method
3. to fill the gaps (using unverified methods) in our understanding of the universe
4. to gain power and money
5. to hoodwink people and keep them under his control
6. to keep away from things he fears would disrupt his world and way of thinking!
--
Q: How do science and technology help us to understand religion?
Krishna: Science helps us understand the universe we were born into as it is. This universe came into existence based on certain scientific principles. When what we study and understand match with these principles scientific facts get established.
Technology is based on these principles. Technology works because what we found is correct.
Now religion. Most religions came into existence when human thinking was at a primitive stage. When scientific thinking and methods didn't get established. Most of the religious stories originated from the human mind's imagination. There is no evidence to say that they are true. It is just a blind belief system.
When scientific facts get established, they shatter these myths of religion. You get the story 'as it is' and not as you want it to be like it was told in the religious stories.
When you understand this, you awaken to reality. You realize that religious stories were narratives written on water, melting and getting erased as the scientific flow continues.
In what way do you understand religion then?
That depends on the type of person you are!
If you are afraid, you completely deny what science says and stick to your ancient mind set and still believe in religious stories.
If you want to make peace with science, but still can't come out of your ancient mind set, you try to connect science and religion and create pseudo-science and try to live in that pseudo-world.
If you are a critical thinker you understand what science says is true and completely abandon ancient thinking and religion and live a peaceful and enlightened scientific way of life.
--
Q: What if humans give up on God and become absolute atheists?
Krishna: What if?
I ‘m already one and there are several others like me!
Atheists used their grey matter to think critically and found no evidence of things people say exist or happen if you believe in higher authority in the sky! And they had the courage to say what they found and practice it!
From where does an atheist draw strength? Critical thinking and self confidence derived from it!
We are relived we need not look up to someone in the sky to get things done. We go and do things ourselves. We need not practice religious rituals and waste our time. We can spend our time on more useful things.
We go to science to save lives. Control or eradicate several diseases. Stop pain and suffering. To feed the ever increasing population. To progress. To be comfortable in life. Even to ask Qs and give answers here. Science is the language this universe is written in. Scientists are only uncoding the language, when they discover something. And they are using this information for the welfare of mankind. It is based on reality, not imagination, like religion. If you want to live in reality, adopt science. Go to religion if you want to live in an imaginative world. The choice is definitely humanitys’.
We have chosen our way.
---
Q: Is it possible for science to prove pantheism or panpsychism as correct beliefs?
Krishna: Mere beliefs can’t be correct. People imagine, say and believe in so many things.
People ask ‘why can’t science ( they actually mean scientists) prove this, or prove that?’ My Question is, “Why should it (or they)?”
You imagine several things. Your creativity goes wild. Each person can have his own set of ideas based on their strange experiences, strange interpretations of those exposures to various situations, perceptions based on shoddy thinking, above all theories based on all these processes.
Scientists have better things to do. They can’t cater for each silly demand of the public.
Religion and baseless beliefs have least priority in science.
You can call this universe, Universe or call it God. Science doesn’t care.
But the universe is natural , so science deals with it. God is supernatural , science doesn’t deal with it.
If you try to equate natural with supernatural, that is your business, not science’s!
If you believe your neighbour is a devil who ‘s sent to harm you, it is your belief, not mine.
That belief is your baby, you deal with it or your doctor will deal with it.
Why should I bother?
I have to deal with hunger, food, diseases and how to feed and protect millions from harm.
Q: How can we explain to non-believers that science and religion can coexist and complement each other?
Krishna: Co-exist, yes, as long as religion doesn’t interfere ( I will tell you how below) in matters of science.
Complement - ummm …. let us see.
We understand that some people need some sort of external emotional support. These people need religion and God and the mental comfort that brings with the belief that someone up in the sky is taking care of them. We don’t want to remove this emotional strength from these people. We can tolerate it as long as they keep it to themselves.
Right. But …. if these people tell us that their religious beliefs don’t allow them or their children to take vaccines and send their infected children to schools and if they themselves go to offices to spread their infection, we will be forced to act. Because they are putting other peoples’ lives to risk.
Public health officials in Philadelphia were granted a court order in 1991 after multiple children died from measles (1). The city forcibly vaccinated six children even though their families had refused the shots for religious reasons. Schools are banning children who are not vaccinated and courts are even ordering children in certain states of the US not to attend schools and stay at home if they are not immunised . These people are responsible for spreading the diseases by their irresponsible behaviours. They have to be stopped forcefully from doing that.
Several earlier scientists were killed by religious people( 3), although that is rare now.
Public acceptance of scientific facts may sometimes be influenced by religious beliefs such as in the United States, wheresome reject the concept of evolution by natural selection, especially regarding Human beings (2).
If people refuse to study evolution and reject it and force the governments to remove it from school syllabus, and try to keep people in the dark forever, that too is an uncomfortable situation for science education. Previous surveys have shown that, indeed,among religious populations, evolution is usually rejected by the majority(Pew Research Center 2016), and societal religiosity was offered as an important factor that may influence biology teachers and teaching worldwide (4,5).
In some cases people are trying to take the help of science to authenticate their religious beliefs by twisting the science creating pseudo-science in the process. You have some God men (I need not mention their names) who try to sell their spirituality with pseudoscience (6). This is causing severe harm to science.
So, all the above things are undermining science's importance and causing great inconvenience to science. That is why some people of science and even rationalists are opposing religion.
“Why do you people try to come into our domain and interfere with our understanding of the universe and educate people in the right way?”, they are asking.
Do you have the right answers to these questions?
Now tell me in what way religion can compliment science? I have seen people of religion severely criticising science, ridiculing it, and their outright rejection of it. We think they fear science because if people come to know the facts with evidence, they will lose their power and manipulative tendencies and therefore are trying to keep it at bay.
Some scientists who also practice religion are supporting the latter and are batting for co-operation* between the two, but I don’t think two things that completely work in two opposite ways cannot mix well, unless religious people try to revisit their beliefs..
*“Our scientific understanding of the universe … provides for those who believe in God a marvelous opportunity to reflect upon their beliefs." — Father George Coyne, Catholic priest and former director of the Vatican Observatory
“If scientific analysis were conclusively to demonstrate certain claims in Buddhism to be false, then we must accept the findings of science and abandon those claims.”
Creationism and Evolution cannot complement each other.
Science is not the only way of knowing and understanding. But science is a way of knowing that differs from other ways in its dependence on empirical evidence and testable explanations. Religion cannot provide it.
Science and religion are based on different aspects of human experience. In science, explanations must be based on evidence drawn from examining the natural world. Scientifically based observations or experiments that conflict with an explanation eventually must lead to modification or even abandonment of that explanation.
Religious faith, in contrast, does not depend on empirical evidence, is not necessarily modified in the face of conflicting evidence, and typically involves supernatural forces or entities. Because they are not a part of nature, supernatural entities cannot be investigated by science. In this sense, science and religion are separate and address aspects of human understanding in different ways.
It is easy to say ‘let us co-operate’. But where is the common ground to even consider it?
So you go your way and we go our way, we are parallel lines. We will tolerate religion as long as it doesn’t interfere with our scientific world. That is the only way both arenas can co-exist.
Q:Do supernatural powers exist? Are they proven in a scientific way?
Krishna: Supernatural refers to phenomena or entities that are beyond the laws of nature.
Science deals with the natural world. It doesn’t deal with supernaturals.
However, people imagine supernaturals and bring them into the natural world. They tell stories. They interpret some natural things as ‘supernatural’. They describe magic.
Burden of proof in science is the obligation on somebody presenting a new idea (a claim) to provide evidence to support its truth. It doesn't lie with other people or people who are opposing it. You have given birth to this idea of supernaturals. This is your baby. You have to bring it up, allow it to grow and show it to the world that it really exists. You cannot ask others to bring it up!
When you imagine that something exists, scientists cannot falsify something that exists only in your imagination.
But if you bring supernaturals into this world and say God was born in this form or that form on Earth and did this or did that to help people, science can ‘investigate’ such things.
But till now no such genuine evidence was found to support supernaturals by science.
If you say other supernatural things like ghosts* exist and do this or that on Earth, science investigated that too and found no proof! Click on the link below and find out why.
*The term supernatural is often used interchangeably with paranormal
Supernaturals also include claimed abilities embodied in or provided by such beings, including magic, telekinesis, levitation, precognition, and extrasensory perception.
Science either provided explanations to these things and proved them as natural phenomena or debunked them totally.
Miracles will be miracles only until they are explained by science. But some people refuse to accept reality as it is. They still want to live in an imaginary world. For them supernaturals give a “kick”.
Q: Can you believe in science and religion at the same time?
Krishna: Difficult.
True scientists cannot tolerate cognitive dissonance ( science doesn't allow for the holding of two contradictory positions). They must choose the facts and stick to them.
Moreover, you don’t ‘believe’ in science. You ‘trust’ science because it establishes facts using genuine evidence.
Religion is based on ‘blind belief’.
Now consider the following picture:
( Image source: Quora)
If you are a scientist, you automatically get this answer in your mind. Then you don’t think about God’s miracles.
That is what my mind is made of. Complete and genuine science. There is no room for supernaturals there, because ‘there is no gap’ to fill it with GOD. Most of the gaps are filled by science. Some gaps are in the process of getting filled.
But some people need some sort of external emotional support even when they are in the field of science because they are not mentally strong to deal with their problems and lives. Such people derive that strength using the God concept and religion.
Some scientists are unable to come out of their conditioned minds. They too are afraid of going against their religious beliefs and the comfort it gives.
Those who are strong mentally don’t look up at the sky and supernaturals that they were told reside there and help them if they pray for support. They can depend on their own mental capabilities and help themselves. These people don’t need religion.
But I think if you really understand science to its core, it makes you mentally strong too.
So for a true and genuine scientist, there is no need for religion.
When two things work in opposite directions, if you try to follow both at the same time, you lose your balance and give all sorts of silly excuses to support your ambiguous position.
We can empathize with these people, but don’t support such positions. NO!
---
Q: How can one respond to the statement "I believe in science, not religion"?
Krishna: I trust science, not believe it because it gave me genuine evidence and accepted all challenges and questions I posed. It works before your own eyes most of the time.
Science is the only ‘right way’ to explain everything in our universe. To beat human inadequacies, to find facts as they are scientific method is the best in the present circumstances. The scientific method attempts to minimize the influence of bias or prejudice in the experimenter and bring out the best.
You can tell other creative stories using your imagination but where is the evidence that they are true? If they are not true, how can you use them, how can they work?
I neither trust nor believe in religion as it never accepts questioning, and never provides genuine evidence. It gives outdated explanations to all that we see around that makes no sense at all.
I have no faith in just belief system.
When I have all the right answers to several of my questions why should I go for silly stories?
I am wiser than that.
I know no one can respond to my statements correctly.
Yes, I trust science, not religion.
Go ahead and respond in a convincing and scientific way if you can!
