To put the derailment of the thread back on course a little (sorry Vinayaka!), and tie the discussion back into the main topic, I am discussing Aupmanyav's assertion here where he says:
Science is the only means of knowing anything.
I want to contrast this statement with Vinayaka's nice list here:
All believe in freedom of religion.
Most believe the inherent divinity within all mankind.
Most respect the environment, and love Mother Earth.
Most respect other faiths, although importance put on them varies.
All believe in reincarnation, although specifics vary.
All believe in karma, although specifics vary.
All believe in a divinity, either within all things, separate, or both. This divinity can have form, be formless, or be both.
All accept the Vedas as authoritative. Most employ other scriptures from within the vast array of Hindu scriptures.
Most have goals that are Veda-based.
Almost all stick with Hinduism alone, but some complement their faith with aspects of other faiths.
Many know their branch, sect, or school. Many don’t.
Many are sect-centric, and know little about other sects or traditions beyond their own.
All see moksha as the ultimate goal of life, but recognise the other goals as legitimate.
Most believe in practicing dharma, although definitions vary.
Nearly all believe in ahimsa.
Most recognise and respect holy men and women of all traditions.
If we focus on the bolded items in the list, we can see how the assertion that science is the only valid way of knowing anything is a very revealing statement. It's revealing because science primarily operates using two means of knowledge (pramAna) to gather data about the objective world and formulate models about it. These two means of knowledge are sense perception (pratyaksha) and inference (anumAna).
Pratyaksha is utilised to observe facts in the natural world (such as the falling of an apple from a branch, the presence of fossils in the ground, etc) and perform repeatable and testable experiments which can be corroborated by other scientists. All observations of the objective world are fundamentally dependent upon sense perception.Telescopes, microscopes and other instruments we could say are extensions of our senses, as they allow us to see farther and deeper than our eyes naturally allow us to.
The second pramAna for scientists is anumAna, inference. Inference allows us to make hypotheses, or predictions, and create models to understand the data we accumulate through sense perception. Inference is also used to hypothesise the existence of things not directly available to the senses. For example, the presence of smoke on the horizon is an observed fact (pratyaksha), and based on this data we infer the presence of fire even though it is currently beyond our sight. The existence of gravity was first inferred through the observation of the apple falling from the branch. Likewise, the existence of dark matter, which so far cannot itself be the object of sense perception (since light cannot detect it) was first inferred through the observation (pratyaksha) of certain orbital velocities of stars in the Milky Way. All inference is dependent upon previous knowledge gathered through pratyaksha. In other words, if we do not see smoke, we will not infer fire, and if objects did not fall to Earth, we would not infer the existence of a force called gravity which pulls them.
If we only accept pratyaksha and anumAna as valid means of knowing anything, then this leaves Hinduism in rather dire straits. Hinduism, in particular Vedanta, accepts both pratyaksha and anumAna as valid means of knowledge- which is why I said Hinduism has no issue with science, but it also accepts that there are 4 other very valid means of knowledge for knowing things. In VedAnta ParibhASA the six pramAnas are outlined as:
1. pratyaksha (sense perception)
2. anumAna (inference)
3. shabda (verbal testimony)
4. upamAna (comparison)
5. arthApatti (postulation, presumption)
6. anupalabdi (non-cognition)
For our purposes the most important pramAnas in the discussion are pratyaksha, anumAna and shabda only.
Shabda is verbal testimony. It is the words of a trusted authority. For example, in the morning when we read the newspaper, or watch the news, we gain knowledge of places, events, and people which are very far away from us. For example, if there is an explosion somewhere in China, and I am sat in my bedroom half the world away, I have no way of knowing it has happened- nor can I infer anything whatsoever about it (such as its cause). If, on the other hand, a trusted newspaper reporter witnesses the event, and takes photographs of the event, then I can gain knowledge second-hand through his/her testimony, and then infer what I like about it.
There are two kinds of shabda in Hinduism, there is laukika shabda, and vedic (alaukika) shabda. Laukika shabda is verbal testimony relating to anything in the world available to the senses (such as the aforementioned
explosion in China), and vedic shabda is verbal testimony relating to anything supra-sensuous. This includes unseen effects of actions (karmas), the existence of devas, other realms, rebirth,
and God/Brahman. In other words, the Vedas talk about the existence of realities which we cannot know through our senses, nor infer.If we accept the authority of the Vedas to reveal knowledge of certain realities to us, then we trust that the testimony of the Vedas is true. This trust is shraddhA. ShraddhA in my opinion is totally essential in what makes a Hindu a Hindu, because it is that trust in us which connects us with the rishis and the sages to whom the Vedas were revealed. It is the trust that what the Vedas say is true and valid.
Science, on the other hand, does not accept shabda as a valid pramAna, since the process of science is absolutely dependent upon the capacity to repeatedly test, experiment on and refute established models of understanding. One might point to a science textbook as evidence of shabda, but there can be nothing published in a science textbook which has not first been peer reviewed by other scientists. In other words, there is nothing in a text book which cannot be observed oneself through one's own experiment and repeated testing. There is nothing in a science text book which is there simply because a particular scientist has said 'this is so and so'. Scientists test and corroborate/refute the observations of other scientists- that is how science works. We cannot,on the other hand, exactly repeat the explosion that happened in China- that is why we rely on the testimony of reliable witnesses.
The reason why there is no significant overlap between science and Vedanta/Hinduism is
because of the different emphasis on what is and is not a valid pramAna. Science only deals with objects knowable through sense perception and inference. Hinduism and Vedanta, on the other hand, deal with that which is not knowable through sense perception and inference, and which is revealed by the vedic shabda. That is why Hindus accept the existence of God,karma, samsAra, Atma, devas etc, and why science is silent on the existence of God, karma, etc; scientists have no way of proving or disproving these realities, as they are not available for knowing through pratyaksha or anumAna.
One may object that if there are supra-sensuous realities, how could they possibly be known by even the sages and rishis- their testimony, too,must be based on pratyaksha and anumAna. Further, surely the vedic shabda is unreliable, as even the reliability of the witness of the explosion in China can be questioned; humans are imperfect. An answer is that the Vedas are not authored by any human- apaurusheya, therefore their contents can be valid even without corroboration of pratyaksha and anumAna, they are free from the defects of the human intellect, and they were revealed specifically to rishis and sages who were exceedingly sattvic and able to intuit subtle realities beyond the ken of normal humans (alaukika pratyaksha).
These answers, however rational, are not acceptable to empiricists, as they only accept the validity of knowledge accessible through the senses and inference. Science is silent on the existence of supra-sensuous realities, but empiricists who claim that only science is valid for gaining knowledge of the world will reject shabda which reveals the existence of anything super-sensuous. This is why an atheist will say there is no God- because there is no evidence of God to be known via the senses, and a scripture (alaukika shabda) which reveals the existence of God is not recognised as a valid means of knowledge. Materialists deny that there is anything such as the soul, reincarnation, devas etc for the same reason.
More in the next post!
