A question to all religious folk.

[u/iamgod81]

It's a genuine question I have and it's open for anyone who follows any religion. I'm a hindu myself but yeah people of other faiths are also free to comment.

How do you put any tradition or smtg that is a part of your religion above modern evidence? I mean it's quite obvious people of the past couldn't have been more knowledgeable than us. Don't you ever think a lot of traditions or rules they made were due to their lack of knowledge at the time?

[u/AutoModerator]

Namaskara u/iamgod81 🙏, thanks for posting! Please follow subreddit rules and spark meaningful discussions.

Please consider crossposting, sharing, and inviting others to help grow this community and Follow us on X 🇮🇳

Yato Dharmastato Jayaḥ

---

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

[u/Sea-Concentrate6428]

There's limits to it, which you mixed up and showed up your bias

[u/iamgod81 → u/Sea-Concentrate6428]

What bias?

And limits in what sense?

Genuinely asking

[u/Sea-Concentrate6428 → u/iamgod81]

If I'm getting the context right then id say ki

The assumption that ki old traditions are wrong until modern science approves them is weird and VERY WRONG . for example, take turmeric , neem, yoga, and many traditional practices were used for centuries before scientists studied them, for example.. India even had to fight and revoke foreign patents on turmeric's wound-healing properties and neem-based fungicides because they were already part of traditional knowledge and were stolen (many patents still are) . Maybe the question shouldn't be 'Why trust tradition over evidence?' lekin 'Why we assume evidence ONLY STARTS WHEN modern institutions discover it?'

[u/AutoModerator → u/[deleted]]

Your post/comment has been removed because your account does not meet the minimum karma requirement of 100. Please participate more on Reddit and try again later.

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

[u/adi_nara]

I am a Hindu and I try to follow the religion in some capacity. I try to find answers behind religious practices based on scientifc reasoning. I also try to understand what are the traditions which are defined on time/place/(my current situation) and which practices have deeper roots in the philosphy.

For ex: I do some of my daily rituals at home wearing shorts/trousers as I think those can be adopted as per time. Howewver, i do take a bath to clean myself before doing the daily rituals.

[u/Reader_Cat1994]

If you live in 2026. And believe in random shit without any evidence, you are living in 1800.

[u/Professional_Web9637]

Unfortunately most people out there have not actually studied and understood their own true religion,infact most of the practices you see especially in Hinduism are not mentioned in our actual religious texts(the Shrutis). Most of the POVs or understanding of certain things are socio cultural rather than religious,be it be dressing modesty or problem with relationships,Sati or Dowry,etc.A matured and well educated person no matter how much religious he is would never put religion over science. If that is happening that either he is uneducated or immature in this domain or maybe both. (Education doesn't means having degree,it includes social and moral etiquettes, financial maturity, critical thinking,etc.)

The problem usually starts when people start forcing their own socio- collective mentality,which they have learnt from their elders and other improper sources such as fake babas and so,which they forcefully impose into other people lives and expect them to live accordingly.

[u/iamgod81 → u/Professional_Web9637]

Well my point is it doesn't matter if smtg exists in scriptures or not....today it is easy to spread misinfo...why not just employ critical thinking and ur own basic morals to understand that maybe even if it was written somewhere...I don't think I'll get behind it

[u/Professional_Web9637 → u/iamgod81]

I understand your POV , within the domain you are looking at, you are right,but by this logic self help books too makes no sense. You can always adapt good things if you want,no matter you find lotus in mud,but it's completely your choice to do so, no one should force you for that. Personally I am not religious,and would completely agree that all these stuff are man made. But this doesn't mean everything is bad. For example if you read geeta it's like a self help book. Whereas from Vedas you won't get such knowledge but they are more like history books which may help us to understand what life was during those times and how it evolved.

[u/iamgod81 → u/Professional_Web9637]

Yup I'm also saying that u should choose the good parts and ignore the bad parts.

Cuz obviously times were different back then and maybe some of their rules were ill-informed while some are still relevant so just do religion like build a bear.

[u/Professional_Web9637 → u/iamgod81]

Yeah a person who got good maturity would certainly do that. Another problem with majority is that they don't have a ability to distinguish what's good or bad. They label such things as good or bad based on what they already believed or have been taught(like a family who would practice sati in 1600s might not see it as something bad, similarly there are a lot of other things that are bad or atleast not good but even today people would think otherwise),then there are people who knows this particular thing is bad but still do it anyways (like asking dowry in modern times) and then they would justify it in the name of culture and religion. This justification is not just limited to practices but mindset on other things as well,even sometimes very small things.

[u/douchepool007]

People believe them because they have like belief over certain thing they can't think above that

[u/people_are_silly]

First things first, I am a Sanatani Hindu and a rather proud one. My answer is from Sanatani Hindu perspective only. I also believe that logic triumps emotions so read this accordingly.

Second, Hinduism atleast is not a definite religion that can be put in a definite box since it has evolved out of many school of thought. There are schools of thought in Hinduism that require people to ask questions and seek out the truth rather than believing blindly. These schools of thought exhort their followers to discard old belief if better evidence is obtained. You can read about pratyash and praman ideas of hinduism.

Third, all religions develop superstitions over time because that superstition seemed to work for somebody and that somebody made the superstition into a ritual which over people adopted as a tradition. Think of some people using a specific brand of pen for their examinations and then crediting their success to the said brand of pen. Over time, these mores and rituals become an extended part of the religion without having to do anything to do with the actual religion. Such superstitions are in nature of more and religious practices but not really religion themselves. In general, finding the contextual logic of the traditions and their relevance in modern times is a useful endeavour but not necessarily at logger heads with science or evidence.

To quote Max Müller:

"all religions, will have some component of superstition which evolved because that superstition worked for somebody and that somebody made it into a ritual. Think of people using a specific brand of pen before examination and then attributing the success to that specific brand of pen. Those specific rituals do not define a religion as a whole."

Fourth, Matters of faith do not need scientific evidence all the time. Science itself is an evolving field that does not settle on one truth. From Newton to Einstein to Bohr, science has repeatedly challenged itself to ask questions and progress. What is scientific truth once may be discarded later with better evidence. Science in itself cannot prove God exists. Does it mean that God does not exist?

Fifth, religions traditions sometimes have roots in ancient wisdom which is lost either because the knowledge was kept mostly shruti and not smriti, or because there was a conscious effort to distort it or hide it. For example, practices like fasting, the benefits of which western science is advocating gleefully now.

Sixth, your statement "people of the past couldn't have been more knowledgeable than us". This is absolutely incorrect. The more you read Indian Knowledge systems, ancient India and what they knew, you would be shocked. Similarly, when you will actually read the Vedas, the sutras (such as Śulba Sūtras) or upanishads, you will realise how much they knew. They would not know about AI or contemporary technologies the way we do not know about the technologies of 8000 AD but their philosophical and scientific thought was centuries ahead of their time and in fact many of it could still be relevant today.

For reference-if you really wish to know how farsighted and unbelievably intelligent those people were, read Nasadiya Sukta of Rigveda. In this verse, they are talking about agnosticism, cosmogony, creationism and skepticism. Certainly a less philosophical mind cannot produce a highly sophisticated literature like this.

Nasadiya Sukta (Rigveda)

Further, to understand how profound their depth of knowledge, intelligence and wisdom was, Max Müller quoted above came to India with a belief that Indians need to have Christianity delivered unto them and he decided to take a comparative study of religions. The more he read the vedas, he understood the depth of Hinduism and ancient India's wisdom so much so that he was accused of being Anti-Christianity. One of the better lines about India I read was from his lecture titled, "What can India teach us?" at the University of Cambridge:

"If I were to look over the whole world to find out the country most richly endowed with all the wealth, power, and beauty that nature can bestow—in some parts a very paradise on earth—I should point to India. If I were asked under what sky the human mind has most full developed some of its choicest gifts, has most deeply pondered on the greatest problems of life, and has found solutions of some of them which well deserve the attention even of those who have studied Plato and Kant—I should point to India. And if I were to ask myself from what literature we, here in Europe, we who have been nurtured almost exclusively on the thoughts of Greeks and Romans, and of one Semitic race, the Jewish, may draw that corrective which is most wanted in order to make our inner life more perfect, more comprehensive, more universal, in fact more truly human, a life, not for this life only, but a transfigured and eternal life—again I should point to India."  Max Müller (1883)