[Buddha-l] Hindu Fundamentalism
Richard P. Hayes
Richard.P.Hayes at comcast.net
Mon Aug 8 11:18:58 MDT 2005
On Mon, 2005-08-08 at 10:48 -0400, curt wrote:
> That is obviously not the point of the statement in question. The point
> was that science somehow provides evidence for the non-existence of
> Ram and Krishna.
That is how you read it. I did not read it that way at all. Gee, I
wonder if this suggests that texts might have an inherent ambiguity.
> Otherwise the statement would have to read "There is no evidence for the
> existence or non-existence of Ram and Krishna". But that's not what was said.
Ever heard of logic, Curt? Did you know that there is a theorem in logic
that P implies P or Q? So if it is true that science has no evidence for
the existence of Rama, then it is also true that science has no evidence
for the existence or the non-existence of Rama. So the latter need not
be said, because it is perfectly obvious.
> It is fine for scientists to admit that they are not able to determine
> whether or not Gods exist - but it is not fine for school textbooks to
> teach that science disproves the existence of Gods.
True enough. Now, tell me which text books teach that science disproves
the existence of gods. I have never heard of any.
> And it is even worse for textbooks to use intentionally misleading
> language so that they can imply that science disproves the existence
> of Gods without actually coming out an saying it.
Well, the onus of proof is on you to show somehow that the wording in a
given textbook is misleading. Then you must show that it was the
intention of the authors to mislead. You have a lot of proving to do,
young fellow. May I suggest you do it on your blog? This list is for
discussing Buddhism, and we'd love to see what you have to say about
"If you want the truth, rather than merely something to say,
you will have a good deal less to say." -- Thomas Nagel
More information about the buddha-l