Vedanta and Brahman vs Ether and Brains in a vat

When I came across this comment on my Vedanta article on Nirmukta, I could not be sure if the responder was in favor of Vedanta or against it.

This is how the comment of one Azad goes:

The Brahman symmetry

"The concept of Brahman seems similar to a scientific element known as ether which was also believed to be everywhere. Of course for science, this was a rational scientific hypothesis which  could be proved or disproved as was done by michalson and morley. This is in sharp contrast to the brahman which can neither be proven nor refuted despite the idea being around for quite a few centuries. It does not take a nobel laureate to decide the intrinsic merit of the idea. As for the 'all the hidden truth , all is an illusion' proponents I suggest you look up brains in a vat scenario. You may understand why science is naturalistic. Hail discordia."

 In the above para, I have edited the comment to correct its spelling, structure and punctuation so that meaning and import of comment comes thru better and clearer. Though  the comment in the end leans in favor of the naturalistic disposition and method of science, some poorly structured and thrown in remarks do give the appearance of giving Vedanta some credence and respectability:

The commenter first says that concept of Brahman seems similar to Ether

Now which kind of Ether out of these is similar to Brahman:

The Ether Pixie and Pixie Dust for you

1. Any of a class of organic compounds in which two hydrocarbon groups are linked by an oxygen atom.

2. A volatile, highly flammable liquid, C₂H₅OC₂H₅, derived from the distillation of ethyl alcohol with sulfuric acid and used as a reagent and solvent. It was formerly used as an anesthetic. Also called diethyl ether, ethyl ether.

3. The regions of space beyond the earth's atmosphere; the heavens.

4. The element believed in ancient and medieval civilizations to fill all space above the sphere of the moon and to compose the stars and planets.

5. Physics An all-pervading, infinitely elastic, massless medium formerly postulated as the medium of propagation of electromagnetic waves.

To make matters worse for this comparison, there are more definitions of the Brahman than that of Ether:

1. Brahman (ब्रह्मन् brahman) is "the unchanging reality amidst and beyond the world"^[1], which "cannot be exactly defined"^[2], but is Sat-cit-ānanda (being-consciousness-bliss)^[3] and the highest reality.^{[4][note 1][note 2]}
2.  ^{Brahman is conceived as personal (Saguna Brahman, with qualities), impersonal (Nirguna Brahman, without qualities) and/or Para Brahman, supreme, depending on the philosophical school.} 
3. Brahman is the ultimate essence of material phenomena (including the original identity of the human self) that cannot be seen or heard but whose nature can be known through the development of self-knowledge (atma jnana).^[7]
4. Radhakrishnan, who is representative of the "Modern Hinduism"^{[note 3]}, refers to Brahman as the Absolute or Godhead which is the Divine Ground^{[note 4]} of all being.
5. Isha Upanishad says: Auṃ being supreme Brahman is infinite, and this conditioned Brahman is infinite. The infinite proceeds from infinite. If you subtract the infinite from the infinite, the infinite remains alone.
6. Brahman means: a. A religious formula or prayer and the holy or sacred power in it and in the officiating priest.b. The holy or sacred power that is the source and sustainer of the universe. c. The single absolute being pervading the universe and found within the individual; atman.



The very Brahman Himself in meditation

7. Brahman is the concept of God in Hinduism. It is a word of the Sanskrit language. Brahman (or God) is said to be infinite, with no beginning or end. Brahman is changeless and is the source of the universe in Hindu beliefs

 These are only some of the definitions and descriptions of Brahman that I could lay my hands on for now. That does not mean that these are the only or major definitions of Brahman. There can as many definitions, descriptions and theories of Brahman as there are delusions and feverish imaginations of Hindu beliefs and irrationality. You may also refer to this reference on Wikiquote to hear or know more head-spinning and mind-numbing definitions of Brahman, provided you head is not already spinning after going thru the ones above.

I pity Ether for its misfortune of being compared to Brahman. Now the question is which kind of Ether is compared to which kind of Brahman. The bigger problem is after all the countless and breathless definitions of Brahman, do we even know what Brahman really is?. 

Then Azad says that Ether could be proved or disproved by science. Again science may be able to settle the issue with the definitions 1.2  and 5 above. The other 2 seem to  relate  to the non-falsifiability trap that skeptics fall into or concede to the theists and the other self-serving protagonists of theism and religion. 

Then to add to the confusion, Azad suddenly turns around and claims that:

 

This is in sharp contrast to the Brahman which can neither be proven nor refuted despite the idea being around for quite a few centuries.

Did not Azad just a sentence ago claim that Brahman seems similar to Ether. Now how does it somehow become a sharp contrast to Ether. And why is this canard that something which cannot be disproved cannot be refuted being accepted as a given and a point to be conceded to the merchants and peddlers of delusion. 

I don't know if Azad knows or understands that there is a difference between disproving and refuting. Even if some part of the difference be considered semantic, it is still significant. Refuting is different from disproving since it involves some of these aspects:

• Negating the validity of some assertion or idea
• Demonstrating the untenability of some opinion or assertion or statement
• showing the extreme unlikelihood or improbability of some aspect of phenomenon or idea
• revealing or exposing the contradictions, incongruity or incoherence of an idea, opinion or assertion.
• Demonstrating how contrary to reason,logic and experience, the supposed assertion is.
• Providing means and arguments to expose the absurdity and   meaninglessness of an opinion or idea from a broad perspective of application of  general rules of reason, inference, deduction and other tools of ascertaining the validity of an idea.

Using these principles and guiding rules, we can definitely try to refute the Vedanta. The attack on Vedanta is an offensive of refutation, not an exercise in disproving. I hope this distinction will be looked into and examined not only by the sympathizers of religion, but also confused and ambivalent skeptics. 

As if the slippery slope of non-falsifiability was not enough of a crack in the door, Azad goes ahead and throws another bone to  Vedantic apologists with this comparison of the skepticism of Vedanta to a 'Brain in the Vat' analogy.


As for the 'all the hidden truth , all is an illusion' proponents I suggest you look up brains in a vat scenario. You may understand why science is naturalistic.

Interestingly this argument, analogy or scenario is not very new, though the variation is like a 21st century version of extreme philosophical skepticism (Cartesian). 

Before one rushes to make any comparison of Vedanta to 'Brain in the Vat' or any other type of extreme philosophical  skepticism, one should pause and ponder whether the Vedantic assertion of an illusory world/existence is a doubt or a dogma. While extreme philosophical  skepticism poses the doubt of whether sensory perception and experience can ever validate reality or phenomenon, Advaita Vedanta goes to the length of discrediting all sensory perception and experience and substituting it with the testimony of Upanishadic scripture. 

Advaita Vedanta's (AV) position or assertion of Mayavada  looks more like a cynical and negative ploy of representing a metaphysical position than a doubt or skepticism. Because AV has not a doubt about the Brahman being the only reality, even it has been plucked out of the thin air of Upanishadic mumbo-jumbo and there are no credible means or sources to support its position.

I did not mean to be hard on Azad, who I am sure could be on the side of reason and rationality. But improperly framing arguments and poorly representing the arguments that need to be marshaled against irrationality and dogma, hurts the cause of skepticism and refutation more.