3

We can find plenty of answers and comments suggesting that the scriptures or the statements of scriptures are not true. The basis for their answers are from the opinions of historians, archeologists, secular experts etc.,. And it is important to note that such opinions are not scientific facts.

We can keep comments aside and this question only deals with such answers only i.e., the answers containing statements, which are not established facts, and are against scriptures.

For example statements like

#1: Brahmastra is just a myth because an expert archeologist opined so.

#2: Many statements of scriptures are false since they are not happening today. etc.,

Since some of the members may support such answers, the answers get upvotes and then causes harm to our main site. Harm is because of the reason that our main site runs primarily on scriptures only.

In concise, if an answer is directly contradicting the (statements of) scriptures based on expert opinions. How to handle them?

8
  • 1
    I suggest to use "flag" feature. That way moderator will be notified for any rude comment made by a user. If this event continues, moderator team will take strict action on such users. – TheLittleNaruto May 27 '20 at 13:56
  • For comments like the ones you hv mentioned, just flag them using a customized reason mentioning how they are disrespectful to Rishis, scriptures etc, and they will be gone within no time. I do it all the time and importantly Mods don't have any doubts whatsoever regarding what to do with such comments. For answers our approach will be the same. – Rickross Jun 22 '20 at 9:37
  • @Rickross are you busy these many days, I'm seeing your activity after a long time. – hanugm Jun 22 '20 at 9:50
  • Yes thanks for noticing :) I was absent from this site for about 3 months I guess @hanugm – Rickross Jun 22 '20 at 9:51
  • Yeah, I missed you... @Rickross :D – hanugm Jun 22 '20 at 9:52
  • Haha Thanks a lot. @hanugm – Rickross Jun 22 '20 at 9:54
  • The basic reason why this is happening is they are exploiting a loophole in the FAQ which says one can quote scholars but it does not specify who are these scholars. For this reason I have asked a few Qs recently like this and this @hanugm – Rickross Sep 22 '20 at 7:20
  • @Rickross True, its so annoying. How can a scholar's opinion can be considered if its against sanathan dharma/ – hanugm Sep 22 '20 at 12:07
1

This is not a new problem, and neither is its solution.

Follow this order : Sama, Dana, Bheda, Danda

Sama - Diplomacy. Reason with the naysayers that there is no un-falsifiable claim in Vedas. If you are unable to verify the results of an yagna, the fault lies with you.
Did scientists doubt Einstein for the past 100 years about the existence of black holes, and give up on finding it saying "Einstein is an old outdated fool"? No, they persevered until it was proven recently.
If 100 years of global work is needed for some ordinary material/Prakriti knowledge like black holes, a million lifetimes is needed for knowledge of Bhagavan

Dana - Donate. Give them small wins, like fame when they donate to temples, knowledge when they listen to upanyas/pravachan etc.
The punya of these good acts will automatically change their nastik character.

Bheda - Difference. Show them that their belief in today's doctors/scientists/wikipedia is exactly the same as our belief in rishis/acharyas/shastras. That attacking faith of one is same as attacking faith of another.
Not everyone has time/energy to verify every single claim, whether they are scientific or religious, so we choose to believe those whom we trust.

Danda - Dishoom. Ban the repeat offenders like we did with SK

0
-1

We can find plenty of answers and comments suggesting that the scriptures or the statements of scriptures are not true.

You are overgeneralizing. This site has about 14,000 answers and I think there are only a dozen or so answers that fit your going against scriptures criteria.

The basis for their answers are from the opinions of historians, archaeologists, secular experts etc.

You are forgetting answers like these that cite one traditional text/commentator speaking against another text/philosophy:

https://hinduism.stackexchange.com/a/2818

enter image description here

Given the current environment on the site where people are easily offended by the use of tag, it must come as a surprise to a new user as to how the above answer received 32 upvotes. The only reason I can think of is, this was posted in the initial days of the site when the majority of users knew how to keep religion separate from science and voted based on the strength of the arguments made in answers keeping their personal beliefs aside.

And it is important to note that such opinions are not scientific facts.

Do they become scientific facts if the same thing is stated by a guru or an acharya?

E.g., speaking on kings who are supposed to have lived for 1000's of years, Swami Vivekananda said:

However, about the Puranas, I have told you that they are authoritative only in so far as they agree with the Vedas, otherwise not. In the Puranas we find many things which do not agree with the Vedas. As for instance, it is written in the Puranas that some one lived ten thousand years, another twenty thousand years, but in the Vedas we find: शतायुर्वै पुरुषः — "Man lives indeed a hundred years." Which are we to accept in this case? Certainly the Vedas.

As for weapons like Brahmāstra that can be launched out of thin air, Swami Dayananda Saraswati says:

Question — Is it true what is written in Sanskrit books about the arts of fire-arms ? Were there guns and muskets in the ancient time ?

Answer — Yes; it is. There were these fire-arms, for they are the outcome of physical science.

Q — Were they made and used by the influence of gods' incantation?

A — No; it was rules and methods, called the mantras in Sanskrit, according to which the different missiles and weapons were manufactured. These mantras are a number of words, which cannot produce any material object. If a man asserts that a mantra or charm produces fire, he should be told that it will burn the tongue and throat of the man who pronounces or mutters that mantra. He goes to kill his enemy, so to speak, but he is himself destroyed. The truth is, that the mantra is the secret as in rajmantri, which means the person who holds the secrets of a state. So a mantra is the knowledge of certain objects of the world, the application of which afterwards produces various kinds of things, industries and arts.

Seems like your main issue is not with opinions of historians and secular scholars but with anyone who argues against something stated in Hindu scriptures even if it doesn't agree with reality. In your view, Vedas, Puranas, etc. are beyond reproach, so any answer or comment that challenges them makes you uncomfortable. You are not content with downvoting and attempting to delete such answers but you also want to ban the sources cited in those answers even if they are directly answering a question. This line of thinking is against SE rules. I suggest you read these posts:

  • https://hinduism.meta.stackexchange.com/a/21

    The purpose of this site is to share information on Hinduism, not convert people to Hinduism.

    Because that's what Stack Exchange is: a tool for sharing knowledge. I expect that there'll be quite a few folks here who are practicing Hindus, but this isn't strictly required in order for someone to ask - or answer - a question here; all that's necessary is that you are honest and back up any assertions.

  • https://hinduism.meta.stackexchange.com/a/22

    I don't know enough about Hinduism to know which approach will work best, but be aware that users are expected to adopt a respectful attitude toward beliefs they disagree with. There's no room for pronouncing absolute truths.


In concise, if an answer is directly contradicting the (statements of) scriptures based on expert opinions. How to handle them?

The same way you handle opinions of Vivekananda and Dayananda, by allowing them.

4
  • 1
    "people are easily offended by the use of mythology tag" - says the person that is easily offended when his favorite atheist (Richard Dawkins), who has little knowledge/practice of religions, who then goes on to ridicule said religions, is called a fool, by users on this site. In propaganda terms, what you're doing is called "accuse your opponent of what you're guilty of" – mar Jun 17 '20 at 6:48
  • 1
    lol, you've nothing to say about rest of my answer and picked on that single line. Does it mean you agree with the rest of it?! Wow!! CoC applies to even public personalities as per this MSE post. Seems like some users & mods here are not well acquainted with SE rules. Using "mythology" doesn't break CoC, calling someone a fool however breaks it, understand the difference. – Say No To Censorship Jun 17 '20 at 17:24
  • The dictionary definition of word 'fool' is "a person who acts unwisely or imprudently". the definition of 'wise' is "having or showing experience, knowledge, and good judgment". if someone does not have knowledge about a subject, by definition, he is unwise, and if he still speaks about it, by definition, he is a fool. Why u so offended about truthful definitions? Calling something as myth, by definition, insinuating that it is likely false/imaginative, when the entire religion, this site and its users are based on them being true, does break CoC in the same way calling that fool a fool does. – mar Jun 17 '20 at 18:51
  • And yes, as I already mentioned in another one of your posts about censoring, I do support your stance that good-faith opinion, supported by references, whether it is charvaka or samkhya or any nastika darshan (all of which have already been dealt with piece by piece in Brahma Sutras 5000 years back), must must be allowed. – mar Jun 17 '20 at 18:52

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .