[HinduCalendar] Fwd: Astrology is a Science

[Guest guest]

Dear Shri Deshmukhji,

Namaskar!

I wish you had given the exact references as to in which context

Einstien is supposed to have said, " It is better to believe than to

disbelieve;in so doing, you bring everything in the realm of

possibility " since I do not see the word " astrology " anywhere in

this quote!

I recall the statement of one of my friends, " It is better to believe

in God. If He exists, He will do some favour to me. If He does not

exist, I am not a loser at all " . This statement of Einstien also is

similar to the same line of thinking!

With regards,

A K Kaul

 

 

 

, vbdeshmukh <deshmukhv

wrote:

>

> Here is an interesting quote from Albert Einstein:

> " It is better to believe than to disbelieve;in so

> doing, you bring everything in the realm of

> possibility "

> Any takers ?

> Regds.

> VBD

> --- prashanthnair999 <prashanthnair999

> wrote:

>

> >

> > ,

> > " Sreenadh "

> > <sreesog@> wrote:

> >

> > Dear Udupa ji,

> > May be your definition of science and its

> > understanding is outdated.

> >

> > //However, it is hard to digest when you say that

> > science also is a

> > belief and not truth. That will depend on how you

> > define the word

> > " science " . //

> > Even the greatest scientists tike Einstein, Hokings

> > etc agree upon

> > the fact that Science is NOT truth, but only an

> > effort to understand

> > reality in a better way; only an effort to reach

> > near truth; a search

> > for truth. As I have mentioned in my previous mail

> > - Science derives

> > and improves upon THEOREMS. But the theorems exist

> > only in our mind. It

> > is our visualization of reality. No theorems are

> > truth itself. They are

> > just a method to understand or picture reality.

> > They exist only in our

> > mind. No theorem is truth - but only effort to reach

> > near truth. I will

> > explain with an example -

> > Earlier scientists believed that Light is composed

> > of particles - This

> > was not truth, but only a theorem. Later it was

> > proved that this

> > concept is not correct.

> > Some other scientists believed and suggested that

> > Light is composed of

> > waves - This was not truth, but only a theorem.

> > Later it was proved that

> > this concept is not correct.

> > The scientists suggested that light is an electro

> > magnetic radiation -

> > This was not truth, but only a theorem.

> > Elector-Magnetic radiation was

> > in itself a concept, and the new theorem on light

> > based upon it.

> > Then Einstein stated that light is composed of

> > photons - that is a

> > theorem, and cannot be considered as truth. Just

> > like Diffraction, just

> > like Interference, just like Photo electric effect

> > if a new phenomenon

> > was discovered that forces us to rethink and modify

> > the current theory,

> > then definitely it will get modified - in an effort

> > to reach more near

> > to reality; in an effort to picture reality of light

> > in a better way.

> > Thus science is a search for truth, taking the help

> > of -

> > * Facts observed by human beings (this is a

> > subjective experience) or

> > observed by machines (here the interpretation is

> > subjective)

> > * Concepts created by human beings (they exists only

> > in the mind of

> > human beings and does not have any physical

> > existence)

> > * Theorems imagined by human beings (they are based

> > on concepts and

> > has existence only in human mind)

> > Thus science is a belief system (recently becoming

> > almost a religion)

> > with its own concepts, theorems and view point. It

> > is NOT truth, but

> > instead, just like many other knowledge branches it

> > is a search for

> > truth; a methodology to approach truth.

> > Hope this helps.

> > Love and regards,

> > Sreenadh

> > ,

> > Guru ahudupa@

> > wrote:

> > >

> > > Dear Sreenadhji,

> > > I appreciate your answer. I also agree with you

> > that astrology is

> > > special branch of knowledge like medicine systems,

> > psychology etc.

> > > However, it is hard to digest when you say that

> > science also is a

> > belief

> > > and *not truth*. That will depend on how you

> > define the word

> > " science " . If

> > > you define science " as repeated experiments under

> > identical conditions

> > give

> > > repeatable results " , then science can not be

> > termed as a mere belief.

> > But in

> > > today's day to day language so many things are

> > being referred to as

> > science

> > > that one may come to a conclusion that science a

> > also only a belief.

> > My view

> > > is that science in true meaning can not be

> > compared with astrology.

> > > In fact, I think that we should not have science

> > fixation, not

> > > everything needs to be science. There are many

> > things in life which

> > are

> > > useful like art, music, which are not science.

> > > Some people say astrology is a " divine science " .

> > Do you think there is

> > > something like that? Is it " divine " ?Is it not a

> > fact that the Is it

> > logic?

> > > Or is it just postulates? Or is it intuition?

> > > Once again i thank you.

> > > Regards,

> > > Udupa

> > >

> > > On Tue, Nov 11, 2008 at 2:07 PM, Sreenadh sreesog@

> > wrote:

> > >

> > > > Dear Udupa ji,

> > > > //> From where did you get 1800 parts of

> > Zodiac?//

> > > > The zodiac is composed of 12 Signs having 30

> > degree each. Each

> > > > degree having 60 min each.

> > > > Now what is the importance of 1800?

> > > > * A sign is made up of 30 x 60 = 1800 min.

> > > > * The zodiac is made up of 1800 parts having 12

> > min each. (But I

> > never

> > > > came across a division giving importance to

> > parts having 12 min

> > each)! i.e.

> > > > 12 min. x 1800 = 21600 min = 360 degree.

> > > > I don't know what the author (Sumit Bajaj)

> > intended to say. Any way,

> > I

> > > > have three quotes, one from Sphujidhwaja hora,

> > one from Skanda Hora,

> > one

> > > > from Deva Kerala (Chandra Kala nadi) which

> > states the importance of

> > 1800

> > > > division of a SIGN (not zodiac), with the

> > meaning -

> > > > *A SIGN of 30 degree can be divided into 1800

> > parts, where again

> > each

> > > > planet posited in each different 1800 parts

> > gives different results.

> > *

> > > > Rest of the questions also belong to Sumit ji.

> > Hope that he may

> > answer.

> > > > If you ask me, my answers would be -

> > > > //is that the reason why astrology is a science?

> > //

> > > > No. It is wrong to consider astrology as a

> > science. Astrology is NOT

> > a

> > > > science, but a holistic knowledge branch, that

> > can reflect truth.

> > Just like

> > > > Ayurveda, Psychology, Homeopathy etc it is

> > another holistic path for

> > > > understanding the world around us. (Please note

> > that Scientific

> > approach

> > > > and holistic approach are two methods used by

> > human beings with

> > feeble

> > > > caliber to understand the world around them, in

> > the very limited way

> > > > possible - they are the only paths or

> > methodologies at our disposal)

> > > > //To say astrology is a science is just a

> > belief.//

> > > > Even Science is a belief, and NOT truth. Science

> > itself is only an

> > > > attempt get near to truth. So as the holistic

> > knowledge branch known

> > as

> > > > astrology. Both Science and Astrology are just

> > belief systems - bulk

> > of

> > > > theorems regarding concepts and facts. Any

> > theorem has got existence

> > only

> > > > in human mind. In this way science is also just

> > a subjective

> >

> === message truncated ===

>

>

>

> Be the first one to try the new Messenger 9 Beta! Go to

http://in.messenger./win/

>