To learn chemistry or physics, we accept the authority of the teacher on that subject. This teacher has accepted the authority of his teacher, who in turn has accepted the authority of his teacher. This is the process of acquiring knowledge. We use experimentation, observation, logic, reason and intelligence to verify the knowledge thus gained. However, that happens 'after' we have acquired necessary qualification to verify that knowledge. To see the truth of Einstein's theory of relativity, one must study physics in school, then college, then do his PhD. and then maybe a super-specialization in the particular discipline of physics. Only then can he understand the theory. Not before. Till such time, he is just speculating, based on his intelligence. Similarly, religion is the spiritual science of self-realization. It comes from the infallible Supreme Lord and in proper bonafide disciplic succession, from teachers who have realized the 'truth' of scriptures.
Your premise is based on logical fallacies:
1.
Appeal to faith.
(E.g., if you have no faith, you cannot learn) If the arguer relies on faith as the bases of his argument, then you can gain little from further discussion. Faith, by definition, relies on a belief that does not rest on logic or evidence. Faith often produces intransigence.
Appeal to faith is explained pretty well above, here's just an extension: You're basically saying, in order to understand the true meaning of the scriptures, you need to accept the authority of the teachers without evidence. In this practice, the disciple accepts unsubstantiated statements (pratijña) as jñana (knowledge). Pratijña ≠ jñana. Accepting pratijña as jñana is avidyā. Unsubstantiated statements believed through faith alone cannot be considered knowledge.
2.
Half truths.
A statement that omits some of the facts necessary for an accurate description.
The half truth in your argument is regarding the analogy where you pretty much say that to understand science, you need to have faith in science teachers. To a very small extent, this is true. But this is a terrible analogy to use when comparing it to religious faith.
There are no revelations in science that we are ignorant of, where we supposedly need faith in the scriptures and in the Gurus to properly understand. In your analogy, you fail to mention that science is based on the scientific method, an empirical method that, for 400 years, has worked in establishing theories and refining them. Almost everything that we know today in science about the natural universe, comes from the use of this scientific method. Moreover, the theories established from the scientific method are not only tested by the scientist(s) who developed the theory, but by other neutral and often
skeptical scientists as well. Only after vigorous testing and application to the real world is a hypothesis accepted as a theory and is used in teaching. Scientists perpetually analyze existing theories and discard those that are proven to be wrong or insufficient instead of clinging on to them by faith. On the other hand, there is religion where the disciples accept unsubstantiated and unproven statements of their Gurus as knowledge based on faith
alone. (The Guru's authority is based
only by their faith in texts (śruti/smṛti) and their previous Gurus whom they believe unconditionally.) This renders it so that the only ones capable of testing the teachings of the Guru are the disciples who have complete faith in the teachings. This is similar to allowing a jury of people with unsubstantiated and unconditional beliefs in a man's innocence/guilt, that were conceived prior to the court case, determine the verdict.
It is perfectly logical, verifiable, scientific...
Matters of faith are not verifiable through scientific means ergo they are not scientific. If they were, scientists would be able to verify the answers provided by faith as true or false. However, that is is not the case. Matters of faith are unverifiable scientifically.
One cannot claim that something is correct or incorrect, without bias, when they already have faith that whatever being investigated is true.
Asides, if you see my previous posts in this thread, I have mentioned why the scriptures expanded by great sages are infallible.
Here is one:
http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/3051886-post12.html
In that post, you postulate that the scriptures are infallible based on what it says in the scripture. That is circular reasoning, another logical fallacy. Here is what I mean:
...................................................................................................
Purānas were authored by Srilā Vyāsedeva about 5,000 years ago, as in Kali-yuga (present iron age), humans have a short span of life, poor memory and low intelligence. Thus, Srīlā Vyāsadeva, who is an accepted 'literary incarnation' of Supreme Lord - Kṛṣṇa, wrote the Vedic knowledge (Śrutī
into Purānas (Smrītī
. Srīlā Vyāsadeva is an incarnation of Supreme Lord, this is mentioned in the Bhāgavata Purāna. You can learn more here: Srila Vyasadeva
You believe that Vyāsadeva is an incarnation of Kṛṣṇa because the Bhāgavata Purāṇa says so.
Vedic knowledge is infallible because it comes down through the perfect disciplic succession of spiritual masters, beginning with the Lord Himself. Since He spoke the first word of Vedic knowledge, the source of this knowledge is transcendental. The words spoken by the Lord are called apauruṣeya, which indicates that they are not delivered by any mundane person.
This is confirmed in the following way:
bhrama, pramada, vipralipsa, karanapatava
isvarera vakye nahi dosha ei saba
"The material defects of mistakes, illusions, cheating and sensory inefficiency do not exist in the words of the Supreme Personality of Godhead". [C.C. Adi 7.107]
You believe that the scriptures came from the Lord and that the Lord is devoid of the negative qualities because it says so in the scriptures. You have not proven that the scriptures are infallible. Your argument is essentially: the scriptures are infallible because the scriptures say so. That is circular logic which is illogical and does not prove anything.
..........................................................................
I agree. Both your discipline and my discipline are valid.
Yup. Both our disciplines are valid with regards to our own viewpoints. Your discipline is not valid to me, and my disciple is probably not valid to you. The important thing is to live and let live. I only debate for the sake of learning. I have no aversion to you practicing with faith.
However, I differ slightly on one point. Please check out my previous posts, including the one whose link is given above. In the light of that, that I do blind faith, is an 'assumption' you are making. It is not 'fact'.
I'm not necessarily saying I know that you practice blind faith. I'm saying that I cannot practice the way in which you propose to practice, because to me, that path seems to be composed of having blind faith.
One should follow a channel - a bonafide discipline to realize the goal of that discipline. It has been walked by previous āchāryās (gurus), who have realized the truth and have taught the same in disciplic succession to others. This is not blind faith. It is knowledge - vīdyā.
Again, you're using faith to assume that the previous gurus have realized the truth. Based on what can we believe that? You're believing in unsubstantiated statements for the sake of faith. To me that is blind faith. Accepting unsubstantiated statements (pratijña) as jñana based on faith alone is not vidyā in my eyes, it is avidyā. But I don't know what vidyā means to you..
I'm of the view that if other human beings were supposedly able to become "enlightened", then I have all the tools I need to become enlightened as well. Jñana is the dispeller of ignorance, and in my view, the best way to gain knowledge is through science, meditation, constantly asking questions, and reading scriptures with prajña (i.e. not believing everything written in scriptures based on faith, but looking for inspiration and ideas of those who are claimed to have been enlightened and by testing whatever is claimed for ex. neti, neti). My path is certainly not perfect, but I think it is better than unconditionally believing in the unsubstantiated claims of other people, who I'm not even sure are enlightened.
I'm not saying we should not have Gurus. For many people, it is a good thing to have Gurus -- even I'm considering the possibility of getting a Guru, in the future. Many Gurus even advice their disciples to analyze what is being imparted instead of blindly accepting the teachings. The thing I'm taking issue with what you've proposed is not the acceptance of Gurus or the reverence of Gurus but the act of having complete faith in Gurus and unconditionally believing every explanation they give to be true for the sake of faith, without prajña and bhāvanā in the picture.
Finally, I don't do what I do to seek enlightenment, but to learn about the universe for the sake of learning because I enjoy it. And as I learn, my practices change reflecting what I have learnt. If whatever enlightenment
is occurs along the way then great! If it doesn't, then I'll have lead a good life, full of virtues, and learnt a whole lot of things, and hopefully made the lives of others better. After that, whatever happens, happens.