A World-View Is Subjective

That a group of subjective beings have agreed that modern science is objective, doesn't make it objective.

Where is the proof that science can raise a subjective living entity to objectivity? Surely. by the aid of technology the human race has fabricated so many objects, but the ones regarding the objects are still subjective beings. The human race has not become more wise, existentially now than they were in the stone -ages. Nobody has understood why and how we exist better now than  since the industrial revolution.

Who has determined technological advancement is synonymous  with having understood reality of life? Nothing indicates that modern man is more sane, peaceful, content, satisfied, happy, and balanced than those who came before him.

Krishna offers a process by which He can be realized and made that process of knowledge available to all. Of course, He establishes some conditions. One condition is that to realize the truth about God, you cannot be envious of Him. Another condition is that one cannot approach God with an atheistic mindset. It's all thoroughly explained in the Bhagavad Gita.

If one insists on that God should be available on MY conditions, then, of course, you will never understand God. Is that God's fault? Nope. Krishna has already explained the process by which to contact Him, so it's up to oneself to take advantage of that and engage in the process. That's the truth, and anyone who is truthful will accept it.

How is it rational to believe that all things have come about by itself, without any intelligent direction?  Everything in our purview only exists because of intelligent planning. How does a Mercedes arise, a house, a garden?

Why believe that nature is the only exception to that? Where is the rationality? The construction of a single, organic cell suggests it was designed. To believe that it would arise through some mindless, chemical reactions over long time and trough millions of gradual changes - it just doesn't make rational sense. But this is the explanation that is being pushed down eve4ryone's throat in modern society.

There is no convincing  reason that should propel us to think that all religions are false and without support. Most religion have surely been subjected to distortions and falsities  over time, but the intention of all religions  are the same - to unite a people through a common adherence to a superior set of principles of life.

And the Vedas constitute those higher, superior principles and knowledge of life. It is a direct, observable fact. Also, if there is a God, like logic tells us there is, is it not reasonable to assume He would reveal Himself via the right process, and tell us what He wants with us, and why He has placed on in a world of duality? This is all being explained in the Vedic philosophy and religion.

If one wants to approach te true religion, of course one would have to employ it scientifically with an open mind free from prejudice. One must envestigate the religions and find which one gives the best explanations and answers to the problems of life and God and nature. If you are not willing to do that, one should  not expect to find the true religion.

It's funny, how those who claim to be scientifically oriented are so little scientifically oriented when it comes to religion and God. The myth has been created in modern society, that religion is myth and science is real. But it's just a dogma. No rational reason for it, at all. Famous atheists like Dawkins, don't argue against God. They argue against Christianity.  How silly is  that?... as if Christianity is the only legitimate religion in the world.

Is that a scientific approach to religion and God?

I can understand if one is an agnostic, ie. ignorant about God, but to downright deny the existence of a Supreme being is irrational and signifies a stunted intellect. There is nothing healty  or openminded by being an atheist, and the proof of that is, that at the same rate society throws out its religious  values, at the same rate  the consumer culture becomes destructive and indifferent towards nature and her inhabitants.

Besides, one should note, that whether one calls himself a Christian, Hindu, or Mohammedan, or whatever, one can still be possessed by an atheistic mentality.  It is not the designations we put on ourselves, that determines our identity. Our mindsets and actions, and the knowledge we cultivate, define who we are.

There is a Bengali saying - phalena parichiyate - something is  judged by its result.

 Jesus said, you judge a tree by its fruits. So things are not judged and understood not by their names, but by their effects and influence.

Krishna says:

I am the only enjoyer and master of all sacrifices. Therefore, those who do not recognize My true transcendental nature fall down.  (Bg. 9.24)

Only God Is Objective

It is only an absolute, almighty being that can establish reality as it is. It is not possible for a conditioned living entity to discern.  As the subjective living entities we are, the only thing we can do, is to have an opinion as  to how and why reality came about. Thus, everyone except God is subjective. Only God can be objective. That's just a fact. He is the only one who knows past, present, and future.

What's objective about a group of subjective beings agreeing that whatever is objective? Objective doesn't come about by vote. Modern science, for instance, cannot be objective because it is being conducted by subjective entities, who evaluate everything with their subjective minds. Where and how does objective enter?

Someone may object (pun intended), that I know two plus two is four. That's objective.  Everyone knows the numbers. We learn in school.

The thing is, though, that the only reason we know  two plus two is four, is because someone taught us that. And who taught us? Someone who had  been taught by someone. And he was  taught by someone. Who was  taught by someone etc. It is an irrevocable fact that that the only reason we know that two plus two equals four, is because someone has told  us so.

Imagine having  grown up with a total lack of human stimuli. No one had ever talked to you. What would you know? You would know nothing. The only reason we know anything, what  to speak of 2 plus 2 equals four, anything at all, is because we were told by someone.

So then the inevitable question is, who was the first one? Who said it the first time?

Lets examine the modern, so called scientific explanation. And this is where we again enter subjectivism.

In the theory of evolution according to Darwin, and here it is important to note that this explanation is being propagated,  for the last five decades or so, as a completely sane, rational, scientific explanation on reality. It is what is being taught in all educational institutions in the world.

So lets examine that explanation in more detail ...  first there were some chemicals. Then, by the interaction of those chemicals over LONG time, an amoeba-like creature was  formed. Then this amoeba gradually grew legs and learned to talk.

But, but, but it happened over millions and billions of years and went through millions of transitions, comes the inevitable response. It's not exactly like an amoeba growing legs. That came much later. You see, first the amoeba became a fish, then the fish became a plant . The plant became an insect. The insect became a reptile. The reptile became a bird. The bird became an animal, and the animal became human. Somehow, this bunch of chemicals managed  through millions of intermediate species, to transform itself into a human being. And then the human being learned to talk., and figure out that 2 plus 2 is 4.

So how did these first humans learn to talk? Remember, that the first human who came out of evolution was completely alone. No one to tell him anything. See, how ridiculous that explanation is? How did the first human,  who had just evolved  through millions of transformations in different species, how did this being learn to talk, when there was no one to teach him?

 But, but no one knows how it really happened, comes the response - as if that makes the idea more credible.

Ok, granted. No one knows exactly through which transformations the first human appeared, but it is being suggested that it came about by the evolution of the species, so it is still a valid and pertinent question.

But, but, but, it happened by the law of necessity, says the atheist. There was a necessity, survival of the fittest, and that's how the first human learned  to formulate himself rationally.  And who determines that necessity? Who determines what is right.

That's determined by  subjective beings.

Remember,this is what they want you to believe - originally there was only chemicals, and then these chemicals overcvast spans of time transformed into a human being. It doesn't matter how many transformations this human had to evolve through, the question still remains that how did the first human emerged out of the evolutionary transformation of the species, learn to talk? By necessity? The necessity of knowing that two plus two equals four?. Is that the first thing you would think of if you had just emerged out of the wheel of evolution?

Two plus two is four. The first human is just an animal. No precognition, no pre-collection, no memory of past experience. You start completely from scratch. You are the first human - see how ridiculous that explanation is? But that's what they want you to believe. Somehow the amoeba grew legs and learned to talk.

Note in contrast to that, the logical, coherent, and authentic explanation we are offered in the Vedic tradition. Time is eternal. The human and all other living entities have always existed. And the first human was taught by the Supreme, and that human in turn told his fellow humans. That's the only explanation that makes sense. The explanation of modern science is so silly and improbable. Still, this is what everyone is being taught as fact.

So what's objective about the idea  that everything comes from chemicals? That's right. There is nothing objective about it.

The modern explanation of creation is not only ridiculous, improbable and highly speculative, it is also subjective. Still, it is being taught in all schools as an objective, scientific  fact. It is considered rational and highly probable. See the fun?

And how can you make the whole world believe that? There is only one answer, and  that's the propaganda machine in the form of the media and  education. The media and the education  tell people what to think and believe about what happens in the world.

If you actually examine the theory of evolution intelligently, the probability of life being the way it is right now, by chance, is as good as nil. In other words, it's a silly thing to believe in.

 And this is what the propaganda machine does to the population. It makes it none-thinking and none-reflective. Most people, the vast majority of the population, only think and believe what they are being told by their superiors. They think and believe according to what they have learned from others. So you can only make the whole world believe something wrong and silly through the modern media, the propaganda machine. It's as simple as that.

I saw a video called The Age of Stupid, and it simply confirmed the Vedic version, that there is an original person to tell and define reality for us. And this has always been going one. And it happens again and again in cycles.

See, how this modern linear conception of time makes no sense? The Vedic Version  - that things have always  been going on, makes so much more sense according to the observable reality? It is a more intelligent and perceptive explanation. So why believe in something unintelligent, unless you are one of the broad. mindless masses who just go with the flow?