http://www.hindu.com/op/2005/03/22/stories/2005032200211700.htm
i was reading this interesting article on the relation of science n faith that was discussed in this article... maybe science and religion need not be orthogonal to each other.
it says that the conflict arises because we believe that science can be proven wrong where as most of believe that the scriptures are always rite. agreed that is why the "faith" is used to describe religious attachment. but often we forget that most (if not all) the scriptures that r prevalent in this world have passed through human intervention. a fact that all of us ignore blatantly. then by saying this i do not need to mean that all of them have to be rehashed or rewritten or thrown away. as far the scientifc theories that exist are as rite as a "human being" can be... and that should keep us firmly planted on the ground and prevent us from claming it to be all "true". there is balance that is needed between what we know, what we do not know, what we understand, and what we do not understand.
knowing and understanding maybe imples true.
but not knowing and/or not understanding does not imply not true.
i was reading this interesting article on the relation of science n faith that was discussed in this article... maybe science and religion need not be orthogonal to each other.
it says that the conflict arises because we believe that science can be proven wrong where as most of believe that the scriptures are always rite. agreed that is why the "faith" is used to describe religious attachment. but often we forget that most (if not all) the scriptures that r prevalent in this world have passed through human intervention. a fact that all of us ignore blatantly. then by saying this i do not need to mean that all of them have to be rehashed or rewritten or thrown away. as far the scientifc theories that exist are as rite as a "human being" can be... and that should keep us firmly planted on the ground and prevent us from claming it to be all "true". there is balance that is needed between what we know, what we do not know, what we understand, and what we do not understand.
knowing and understanding maybe imples true.
but not knowing and/or not understanding does not imply not true.