Sikhi is Science of Religion.
Is Science A Religion?
- Thread starter Neutral Singh
- Start date
- Replies 96
- Reads 14K
Sikhi is Science of Religion.
akiva ji
The questions Tejwant Singh ji is referring to are at this link.
http://www.sikhphilosophy.net/interfaith-dialogues/519-is-science-a-religion-2.html#post185203
I am not sure "false claims" applies to those specific questions. He was asking for clarifications. Some of your statements in that post were actually responses to questions I had asked in an earlier comment.
The questions Tejwant Singh ji is referring to are at this link.
http://www.sikhphilosophy.net/interfaith-dialogues/519-is-science-a-religion-2.html#post185203
I am not sure "false claims" applies to those specific questions. He was asking for clarifications. Some of your statements in that post were actually responses to questions I had asked in an earlier comment.
So what if you claim that. It matters not because for me Sikhi is not a religion to start with. I have no problem in what you think or claim.
Harvir ji,
Guru fateh.
For a Sikh, the only reference is from the SGGS, not from some random posts. And where is the peer review regarding your claim as your scientific mind demands? You are not following your own principles. If you have any peer reviews about it, then we can take this further. The whole story defies nature where Sikhi embraces it.
The so called Sakhi/story also defies all what is written in the SGGS, our only Guru. I know you do not know that. If any story that defies the teachings of our Gurus in the SGGS can not be a good source and you should know better.
Regards.
Tejwant Singh
spnadmin ji
I'm aware of that post -- and haven't answered it yet (I've been away most of the day and the answers will take time to write).
The post above re "No god in sikhi" was a comment Tejwant Ji made to HArvir007 Ji --
http://www.sikhphilosophy.net/interfaith-dialogues/519-is-science-a-religion-7.html#post185188
I was just commenting on that in order to point out that it's not an absolute Sikhi position.
Possibly Tejwant Ji confused the two of us?
Akiva
I'm aware of that post -- and haven't answered it yet (I've been away most of the day and the answers will take time to write).
The post above re "No god in sikhi" was a comment Tejwant Ji made to HArvir007 Ji --
http://www.sikhphilosophy.net/interfaith-dialogues/519-is-science-a-religion-7.html#post185188
I was just commenting on that in order to point out that it's not an absolute Sikhi position.
Possibly Tejwant Ji confused the two of us?
Akiva
Akiva ji,
Guru Fateh.
Please stop avoiding questions when directly asked to you. Let's be honest with ourselves. Respond to my question.
The above dialogue is between myself and Harvir and he knows what I am talking about.
Let's stick to the post I sent you and do not forget to read the threads.
Regards
Tejwant Singh
Tejwant Ji
I asked you a direct question -- in all honesty, because I wasn't aware of any false claims I had made -- and you avoided it.
Dialog goes both ways -- but when people ask you questions you quickly turn them against the asker.
Please specify exactly what false claim I made. Please don't cop out.
Akiva
I asked you a direct question -- in all honesty, because I wasn't aware of any false claims I had made -- and you avoided it.
Dialog goes both ways -- but when people ask you questions you quickly turn them against the asker.
Please specify exactly what false claim I made. Please don't cop out.
Akiva
Akiva ji,
Guru Fateh.
Please respond to my whole post and then I will show you in it where you falsely claimed things.
Regards
Tejwant Singh
Tejwant Ji
I apologize -- I assumed you were familiar with the term "Age of Reason". Maybe you are familiar with "Age of Enlightenment"? ......... it was a watershed period (17-18th century) where the understanding of the world shifted from a theological-centered to a scientific-centered worldview.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_of_enlightenment is a good summary -- I'm not going to parrot the history there.
My point was that, with that shift, religion (and religious word-views) came under attack -- and those attacks have increased since then as society has become more secular.
(And, yes, I'm aware that other cultures went through similar paradigm shifts, some earlier and some later.)
Has nothing to do with what I said in my post -- because I wasn't talking about/attacking "reason" but talking about a period of history.
"Religious Believers" are followers of a religion.
"Religion" is a social/group expression of a belief system, where the members mutually reinforce that belief system. Maybe.
........................
And that's not a cop-out. The subject it that broad. I can give you a dozen different definitions - first we need to decide what system, what frame of reference, what worldview, what requirements, what assumptions we agree on. (and that's without getting into the question of/difference between Religion/Dharma)
And they are sometimes contradictory -- in the same way that different schools of economics can be contradictory, but at the same time true
No.
I can point to movements/groups in Christianlty, Judaism, Islam, and Sikhi -- but the specifics aren't important. What matters is that they feel a need to "modernise" their religion to make it palatable to "modern man" -- and then those same groups complain that they are "losing the youth" and wonder how they can attract the youth to the church/temple/mosque/Gurdwara. Their answer is to compromise more -- become "more" modern.
Meanwhile, the groups that don't compromise - that recognise that compromise turns off the youth as being wishy-washy and non-comitted -- are growing.
Now
As you promised, please show me where I made false claims about Sikhi.
Akiva
I apologize -- I assumed you were familiar with the term "Age of Reason". Maybe you are familiar with "Age of Enlightenment"? ......... it was a watershed period (17-18th century) where the understanding of the world shifted from a theological-centered to a scientific-centered worldview.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_of_enlightenment is a good summary -- I'm not going to parrot the history there.
My point was that, with that shift, religion (and religious word-views) came under attack -- and those attacks have increased since then as society has become more secular.
(And, yes, I'm aware that other cultures went through similar paradigm shifts, some earlier and some later.)
Has nothing to do with what I said in my post -- because I wasn't talking about/attacking "reason" but talking about a period of history.
"Religious Believers" are followers of a religion.
"Religion" is a social/group expression of a belief system, where the members mutually reinforce that belief system. Maybe.
........................
And that's not a cop-out. The subject it that broad. I can give you a dozen different definitions - first we need to decide what system, what frame of reference, what worldview, what requirements, what assumptions we agree on. (and that's without getting into the question of/difference between Religion/Dharma)
And they are sometimes contradictory -- in the same way that different schools of economics can be contradictory, but at the same time true
No.
I can point to movements/groups in Christianlty, Judaism, Islam, and Sikhi -- but the specifics aren't important. What matters is that they feel a need to "modernise" their religion to make it palatable to "modern man" -- and then those same groups complain that they are "losing the youth" and wonder how they can attract the youth to the church/temple/mosque/Gurdwara. Their answer is to compromise more -- become "more" modern.
Meanwhile, the groups that don't compromise - that recognise that compromise turns off the youth as being wishy-washy and non-comitted -- are growing.
Now
As you promised, please show me where I made false claims about Sikhi.
Akiva
Last edited by a moderator:
This is the line of demarcation and it is date-stamped at 18:04 hours DST US when the tone of discussion has to change in this thread. I am receiving complaints from other members that they cannot follow the conversation and they have a point. A dividing line needs to be set. This is it.
Any open challenge for someone to clarify a stand I will leave alone.
Any open expressions of frustration with another's comments I will also let stand.
Resorting to sarcasm will be deleted, along with other forms of negativity that are part of our TOS.
Digressing rather than staying on topic - I have already made this point - will be deleted.
If you believe it is important to bring a related topic into discussion please explain how it is related to the thread.
Deletions may indeed follow.
Any open challenge for someone to clarify a stand I will leave alone.
Any open expressions of frustration with another's comments I will also let stand.
Resorting to sarcasm will be deleted, along with other forms of negativity that are part of our TOS.
Digressing rather than staying on topic - I have already made this point - will be deleted.
If you believe it is important to bring a related topic into discussion please explain how it is related to the thread.
Deletions may indeed follow.
Akiva ji,
Guru Fateh.
Let's start anew to create this conversation from the very beginning. This wonderful thread was started by fsf ji is regarding Science and Sikhi and let's stick to that subject. Let's not try to deviate from it. Even Harvir pitched in with his queries about the subject as others did. I am sure you have read the whole thread, if not, I urge you to do so. One does not assume things about others with one's preconceived biases, it shows one's own lack of reason for some reason.
Now let's go over how this thing about "Age of Reason" started. Mind you, let's not lose our focus on the thread which is Science and Religion (Sikhi).
This is what your response to Spnadmin ji's question was:
You connected the "Age of Reason" with Sikhi because as mentioned before, this thread is about Sikhi and I am sure you are aware of that which is implied by you that Sikhi is part of the same what Thomas Payne was talking about, where in reality Thomas Payne talks about Christianity and also about Judaism, the latter not in a positive manner.
As the thread has nothing to do with Christianity, the obvious conclusion through deductive reasoning is that you are attaching/attacking Sikhi with false claims in this way. I will not presume as you have and give you the benefit of the doubt that you know the meaning of deductive reasoning.
Based on the deductive reasoning, you were falsely claiming that Guru Nanak, with his reasoning did the bad thing. For that reason I asked you the questions. In order to be more clear that you were talking strictly about Christianity, you should have mentioned that explicitly, which you failed to do. Once again, this thread is about Science and Sikhi.
Now let's get back your response to me.
Akiva ji,
I never get offended by someone's preconceived bias about others. I am not offended by anyone's ignorance either. I like to give the benefit of the doubt by asking questions in case I do not know which I did ask relating to this particular thread and its subject. You wrongly assumed with your own personal bias that I do not know anything about the "Age Of Reason". It is not my loss in any way,shape or form.
Quoting Wiki is parroting in a very shallow manner because as mentioned before it is one of the worst references to pull one's knowledge from because it can be edited by anyone, anytime. So, I do not give any credit to your reference as I have mentioned before in another post of mine.
Define secular for me please. Who do you define as secular? Once again, please do not forget we are talking about Sikhi here in this thread.
Which is natural but I fail to see the point you are trying to make and how does it relate to the subject being discussed in this thread?
Let me take your words for it, then it becomes your duty and responsibility to explain that you were changing the subject from Sikhi to Christianity when you mentioned "Age Of Reason" and also should have given the time period -circa- to differentiate the both by also clarifying that you were not talking about Sikhi for some odd reason, the very discussion of the thread.
There is a big difference between the religions which are based on deities and subjective truths and Sikhi. Belief system in a religious connotation is void of objective reality, whereas Sikhi is not. Please feel free to ask questions in order to learn the difference.
Well, then the onus and the responsibility is on you not to mix apples with oranges and stick to the subject being discussed in the thread.
They can only be true in a subjective ways, hence opinions which have nothing to do with the objective reality.
I beg to differ with you. Specifics are not only important but are essential to further this conversation and please point out the movements in Sikhi- the subject of this thread with concrete examples. You can start a different thread/s about the other religions and we shall discuss the specifics there.
Who IS they? What do you understand about Sikhi? In what way is it trying to modernise itself? Please be specific with concrete examples, otherwise it becomes mere rhetoric full of babble.
Once again, let's stick to the subject of this thread.
Please give concrete example regarding the subject of this thread about your claims.
Let me mention this again. Your false claims about Sikhi were when you lumped Sikhi with the "Age Of Reason" without differentiating the two for the reasons only known to yourself and that premise is totally false as challenged by my questions to you.
My last point is that I am a bit surprised by this altered post of yours. When I read it for the first time, you had flaunted your preconceived bias regarding me not having studied in the West, hence having no inkling about the "Age Of Reason", which was a false assumption on your part laced with ignorance.
And secondly, in the end of the post you challenged me that when I read the books by some authors, one of which I remember was Huxley as I just glanced through the thread before getting busy in something else, then you would discuss with me.
If both of your comments were deleted by Spnadmin ji, then I have nothing to add because it was a very wise decision by the Admin and I commend her for doing so.
In case you deleted them, firstly, it is a cop out, and secondly it shows your sheer arrogance laced with ignorance in a very pompous manner. I want to assure you that I never get offended by it because it shows more about you than about anyone else. It shows your bias against people who challenge your intellect.
Next time, please ask questions in order to find out if people have read the books you are mentioning rather than having some preconceived bias.
This is not the way to start a conversation as you so much desired initially but a confrontation and being a bully. And I am not interested in either.
Regards
Tejwant Singh
Guru Fateh.
Let's start anew to create this conversation from the very beginning. This wonderful thread was started by fsf ji is regarding Science and Sikhi and let's stick to that subject. Let's not try to deviate from it. Even Harvir pitched in with his queries about the subject as others did. I am sure you have read the whole thread, if not, I urge you to do so. One does not assume things about others with one's preconceived biases, it shows one's own lack of reason for some reason.
Now let's go over how this thing about "Age of Reason" started. Mind you, let's not lose our focus on the thread which is Science and Religion (Sikhi).
This is what your response to Spnadmin ji's question was:
You connected the "Age of Reason" with Sikhi because as mentioned before, this thread is about Sikhi and I am sure you are aware of that which is implied by you that Sikhi is part of the same what Thomas Payne was talking about, where in reality Thomas Payne talks about Christianity and also about Judaism, the latter not in a positive manner.
As the thread has nothing to do with Christianity, the obvious conclusion through deductive reasoning is that you are attaching/attacking Sikhi with false claims in this way. I will not presume as you have and give you the benefit of the doubt that you know the meaning of deductive reasoning.
Based on the deductive reasoning, you were falsely claiming that Guru Nanak, with his reasoning did the bad thing. For that reason I asked you the questions. In order to be more clear that you were talking strictly about Christianity, you should have mentioned that explicitly, which you failed to do. Once again, this thread is about Science and Sikhi.
Now let's get back your response to me.
Akiva ji,
I never get offended by someone's preconceived bias about others. I am not offended by anyone's ignorance either. I like to give the benefit of the doubt by asking questions in case I do not know which I did ask relating to this particular thread and its subject. You wrongly assumed with your own personal bias that I do not know anything about the "Age Of Reason". It is not my loss in any way,shape or form.
Quoting Wiki is parroting in a very shallow manner because as mentioned before it is one of the worst references to pull one's knowledge from because it can be edited by anyone, anytime. So, I do not give any credit to your reference as I have mentioned before in another post of mine.
Define secular for me please. Who do you define as secular? Once again, please do not forget we are talking about Sikhi here in this thread.
Which is natural but I fail to see the point you are trying to make and how does it relate to the subject being discussed in this thread?
Let me take your words for it, then it becomes your duty and responsibility to explain that you were changing the subject from Sikhi to Christianity when you mentioned "Age Of Reason" and also should have given the time period -circa- to differentiate the both by also clarifying that you were not talking about Sikhi for some odd reason, the very discussion of the thread.
There is a big difference between the religions which are based on deities and subjective truths and Sikhi. Belief system in a religious connotation is void of objective reality, whereas Sikhi is not. Please feel free to ask questions in order to learn the difference.
Well, then the onus and the responsibility is on you not to mix apples with oranges and stick to the subject being discussed in the thread.
They can only be true in a subjective ways, hence opinions which have nothing to do with the objective reality.
I beg to differ with you. Specifics are not only important but are essential to further this conversation and please point out the movements in Sikhi- the subject of this thread with concrete examples. You can start a different thread/s about the other religions and we shall discuss the specifics there.
Who IS they? What do you understand about Sikhi? In what way is it trying to modernise itself? Please be specific with concrete examples, otherwise it becomes mere rhetoric full of babble.
Once again, let's stick to the subject of this thread.
Please give concrete example regarding the subject of this thread about your claims.
Let me mention this again. Your false claims about Sikhi were when you lumped Sikhi with the "Age Of Reason" without differentiating the two for the reasons only known to yourself and that premise is totally false as challenged by my questions to you.
My last point is that I am a bit surprised by this altered post of yours. When I read it for the first time, you had flaunted your preconceived bias regarding me not having studied in the West, hence having no inkling about the "Age Of Reason", which was a false assumption on your part laced with ignorance.
And secondly, in the end of the post you challenged me that when I read the books by some authors, one of which I remember was Huxley as I just glanced through the thread before getting busy in something else, then you would discuss with me.
If both of your comments were deleted by Spnadmin ji, then I have nothing to add because it was a very wise decision by the Admin and I commend her for doing so.
In case you deleted them, firstly, it is a cop out, and secondly it shows your sheer arrogance laced with ignorance in a very pompous manner. I want to assure you that I never get offended by it because it shows more about you than about anyone else. It shows your bias against people who challenge your intellect.
Next time, please ask questions in order to find out if people have read the books you are mentioning rather than having some preconceived bias.
This is not the way to start a conversation as you so much desired initially but a confrontation and being a bully. And I am not interested in either.
Regards
Tejwant Singh
Last edited:
Akiva ji,
Guru Fateh.
I will take your words for it but if you check the posts, all of them are related to Sikhi but so much the better because by claiming that you have shown the mistakes you have made.
If this thread is about religion not about Sikhi as you claim, then why didn't you clarify your mentioning "Age of the Reason" from the Christian point of view rather that implying that into Sikhi as you did?
Please clarify what you are talking and learn by teaching others that you may think the subject they do not know anything about.
I have no idea how many people here know about the " Age of Reason" . Your preconceived bias showed that I did not because I am not from the west as you are, hence you conclude that you know a lot more than I do. And the same goes for my lack of reading habits and not knowing the authors the ones you have read about according to your prejudgment.
This is sheer bigotry to put it mildly especially coming from a person who wants to be god loving,
This is the attitude you come to the Sikhi forum with while claiming that you want to have a conversation.
It is a shame indeed!
And lastly, please respond to my questions in the previous post with concrete examples.
Regards
Tejwant Singh
Last edited:
Tejwant Ji
1) I assumed you were familiar with the Age of Reason. I also make no assumptions as to how much you know. I certainly don't think I know more than you.
2) very little of the thread has to do with Sikhi --
3) lastly -- dialog is only possible when mutual respect is shown. Since that is lacking I'm respectfully refusing to continue this dialog with you.
Akiva
1) I assumed you were familiar with the Age of Reason. I also make no assumptions as to how much you know. I certainly don't think I know more than you.
2) very little of the thread has to do with Sikhi --
3) lastly -- dialog is only possible when mutual respect is shown. Since that is lacking I'm respectfully refusing to continue this dialog with you.
Akiva
With Science, some things i can experiment with and find out for myself (my own experienced proof through scientific experiments) ... but most things i rely on others (scientists) to find out for me ... but it's their experience...not mine....therefore it's a religion to the scientist...not for me
Religion (sikhi) for me gives me insight into what existed before creation, exists now, and forever will exist past creation... then tells me to go and experience it all, discipher it all, and go beyond it all myself, in this life - no one else required
📌 For all latest updates, follow the Official Sikh Philosophy Network Whatsapp Channel:
