Why Science doesn't believe in Soul





If you were to tell a scientist, ”The flower is beautiful,” he will immediately sit down and start pulling  a part the flower, dissecting it, analyzing it. He has no idea that in the very tearing of it in to pieces,  the beauty of the flower disappears. The flower looked beautiful in its wholeness, but when divided  in to parts, it lost its beauty. Of course, in doing the analysis the scientist can find out the chemical  elements contained in the flower; he may show the substance, the minerals the flower is made of.  He may place them in different bottles and label them accordingly. But he won’t be able to say,  ”Here is a bottle which contains the beauty once present in the flower,” because the beauty will have  disappeared already. By making an assault on the flower, you will only come upon its body, not the soul.

This is the reason why science doesn't believe in the soul – how can it? Even after making so much  effort, not even a glimpse of the soul becomes available to science – it never can... not because  there is no soul, but because the scientist has chosen a wrong method. The method he uses is not  the way to discover the soul. The very means applied to its discovery is the means good for finding  the trivial. That which is of great value cannot be attained through aggression. 

1 comment:

balwinder said...

You r right dear, the soul or it's existence can be perceived by the heart whereas science believes in what can only be seen by human eyes.