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: 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: What defines a truly exceptional PhD advisor? Krishna: The one that brings out the best in his /her student.
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!
Q: Why do scientists know close to nothing about God whereas theists know everything there is to know about God?
Krishna: When people try to imagine something, each person’s imagination will be different based on their creative abilities. That is why different theists’ have different versions of God.
When you imagine things, your imagination need not have any boundaries. You can go as wild as you want. That is ‘everything there is’ to a subject.
Scientists can’t go that wild because the validation problem exists in science. Validating an imagination is extremely difficult in most cases.
That is why scientists don’t know much about ‘invalidated imaginative things’. Got it?
953
--
Q: What does science have to say about things that require a little faith?
Krishna: Things that require faith include: believing in a higher power or deity, trusting in someone or something without complete proof, relying on a future outcome despite uncertainty, having confidence in a loved one's abilities even when faced with challenges, and believing in personal goals even when obstacles seem insurmountable; essentially, putting trust in something beyond what can be fully verified by sight or tangible evidence.
Science has nothing to do with faith in higher power. Science doesn’t say anything about most of these.
Having confidence in somebody’s abilities : That will usually be based on your observation about that someone, and your previous encounters with their nature. It has some base and not completely evidence less though you may go wrong in your assessment.
‘Believing’ in personal goals : Science doesn’t deal with belief.
But in the field of psychology, "hope" is defined as the perceived ability to identify pathways towards desired goals and the motivation to use those pathways to achieve them , essentially a mindset that enables individuals to believe they can overcome challenges and reach their aspirations.
Probability is a branch of mathematics and statistics that measures the likelihood of an event occurring. It is a number between 0 and 1, where a larger number indicates a higher likelihood of the event happening.
Winning and losing - both have some chances - so what is wrong in trying something? In science, "probability" refers to the likelihood or chance of a specific event occurring.
The result can go either way but if you don’t try you will lose that chance of going it your way completely.
Isn’t it better to have ‘some probability’ in your pocket as less probable events can still happen if you try?
It is giving that some probability a chance to happen.
Is it faith? You can call it with any name you want, but I think it is a low probability coming true when given a chance.
