A Vedantic apologist's frustration with Science providing a better and superior basis of understanding reality

Sometime back, Nirmukta carried a blog post by Dr. Vinod Wadhawan on a work of Dr. Stephen Hawking called the 'The Grand Design'. It was a very interesting and informative post. It provided overviews of quantum mechanics, cosmology, origin of the universe, alternative theories of how this universe and other universes (multi-verses) can come into being and possibly exist and function according to their own set of physical/quantum laws.

Not all including people like me would find this easy to follow or relate to. But the methodical nature of review, its explanations and treatment of advanced scientific topics are something that can be found in that post and appreciated.

Most significantly that post makes an important point of how reality or the state of  our existence or  this world or universe can only be understood in relation to a model or a theory or hypothesis and measured, tested and validated with reference to that model.

As Dr. Wadhawan points out very significantly the authors of the reviewed work argue that we can only have ‘model-dependent reality‘, and that any other notion of reality is meaningless.


This kind of methodical, evidence based reasoning obviously amounts to pouring cold water over the hopes, claims  and fancies of idealists, religious followers and spiritualist faddists, who keep spinning mind-boggling theories of ultimate reality, heaven and transcendence.

But the religious and spiritual apologists are not the ones to give up easily and the Vedanta apologists are the more enterprising and intrepid among the idealist and delusive lot. As I had mentioned on my article on the Vedanta Quantum lingo soup, the smallest whiff or the mention of cosmology or phenomenon is enough  to send them on their pattern-seeking trips of finding the almost impossible link between modern knowledge and the Vedas/Vedanta.

Those who may have followed my Vedanta refutation series on this blog or on Nirmukta, would see that the vanities of Vedantic delusion are many and diverse. For every effort of refutation that we make, the Vedantic apologist has his own species of rhetorical fallacy to mislead any argument or debate.    

But there are instances such as these where the defenses of the Vedantists break down and their frustration and dismay at the way empiricism and scientific method exposes the hollowness of their high-sounding theories is barely concealed.

Below is such an example from one such Vedantic apologist, by the name Ramesh Umarane who tries to pose as a Trojan horse of religious idealism camp, but has been beaten back with ridicule and scorn and exposed for his fallacy ridden arguments and posers.

Highlighted below is his comment to Dr. Wadhawan's review and under that is my riposte to his rambling rant against science and horrible defense of the Vedanta.

Agreed Vinod,

That Science is progressing and not finished giving ‘theory of everything’.

Does this mean that what all the science is saying or scientific method has established is all beyond doubt? It has succeeded to the extent of giving only comfort and not yet solved the big question beyond that. It has given us the complacency well within the definitions of the science itself and not beyond that.

The problem is that this science has gone beyond its achievement and made the Vedanta look ‘foolish’ and full of superstitions WITHOUT EVER UNDERSTANDING WHAT IT ACTUALLY MEAN OR WITHOUT POSING THE RELEVANT QUESTIONS EITHER’ Isn’t such sort of science with such sort of scientists especially athiests/naturalists committing a fraud far worse than the religious dogmatists (who do not understand either Vedanta as well)?

Essence: Science is yet to make a long (infinite?) journey and even before it has started questioning the Vedanta even without understanding it. Do you justify this?? I am not for Gods which is never in the Vedanta in true sense and Brahman is altogether different topic.
Reply

  

Thus goes my stinging riposte to Ramesh:

"Are you Ramesh? – The Troll, the ever watchful and diligent sentinel of religious apologists.

Maybe I am walking into a troll trap, but nevertheless will hazard this risk

You started with what seemed like an honest doubt or question about the scope and methodology of science, but in a trice, lightning quick digression and volte face ended up flashing the Vedanta card trying to allege a conflict between Vedanta and science.

 IMO, this review post is not about Vedanta. There is discussion of cosmology, but the fantasies of Vedanta seem to be the least of the concerns of the article.

To establish the primitiveness and absurdity of the cosmology of the Upanishads (Vedanta), it does not require sophisticated science.

Practical philosophy and strong critical reasoning have already exposed the ‘emperor’s clothes’ of vedantic myths and delusions.

I will not for now delve into the details of how critical reasoning can and has debunked the imposture and fraudulence of Vedantic thought, as it has been done many times in Nirmukta and its fora and other freethought media. Also there is no need to accord respectability to the fool-hardiness of the obstinacy of the apologists of Vedanta, by engaging them in all their trivialities.

And in such a short comment of Ramesh, there are so many ambiguities. Here are some of them in quotes:

- “The problem is that this science has gone beyond its achievement”

It is hard to figure out what this means. How can somebody or something go beyond their own achievement. Achievement or accomplishment is the culmination of a goal, mission or objective. Once that is met one has to move on other goals and objectives. I sometimes doubt if Hindu apologists like these even know to ask or frame questions sensibly or in a way that they can be understood.

But what I can sense is Ramesh’s frustration that Science is making Vedanta look foolish, without “truly understanding it”.

But for this sorry fate of Vedanta, Vedanta itself and its countless apologists are to blame, not science.

It is surprising that Ramesh expects atheists/naturalists to understand when by his own confession “religious dogmatists do not understand either Vedanta as well”

Now if Ramesh is neither an atheist/naturalist nor a religious dogmatist, what is he then, other than being a pesky troll?

- “Science is yet to make a long (infinite?) journey and even before it has started questioning the Vedanta even without understanding it.”

    Again it is hard to make out what an infinite journey is and how is science is making such a journey, for what and to where?. This is a vague and poorly framed argument and query. Also why should science be concerned with Vedanta and its numerous confusions and abstractions. This is once again an instance of attempting to make out irrelevant connections between 2 totally different issues.

- “I am not for Gods which is never in the Vedanta in true sense and Brahman is altogether different topic.”

This is a case of a false, deceptive and slippery argument. “If Gods are never in the Vedanta in true sense”, are they there in a false sense? Indians are supposed to be following Vedanta, yet millions are worshiping Gods, “which is never in the Vedanta in true sense”, so who is foolish, Vedanta or millions of believers or both or neither?.

 - “Isn’t such sort of science with such sort of scientists especially athiests/naturalists committing a fraud far worse than the religious dogmatists”


What sort of science? and what sort of scientists? and how are they committing a fraud? and what sort of fraud? Critics need specifics. It is very difficult to attempt answering half-baked or unbaked questions.

Ramesh, you need to frame your questions properly and cite specifics and facts that can clarify the assumptions and bases of your questions or arguments. In the absence of such clarity, you cannot expect meaningful answers. Else expect a backlash of sarcasm and fallacy-finding from critics, that too up to a point and not more."