Crusade Against Spirituality

[Inedible]

It isn't about whether to believe in God or not for me, so much as that I can't quite make up my mind who or what I believe God is. The arguments about whether to believe or not don't really do much to clarify that for me because it seems like everyone starts out in agreement about the nature of God and then goes for the yes or no about God's existence. From my point of view they are rarely even talking about the same God.

[shvu]

A while since we did this...

 

 

Yes and these crusading atheists want to take all human kind down with them.

 

An atheist would have a similar opinion of a crusading theist. So it is just a matter of which side of the fence you are on. Any contempt found on one side will be matched on the other side too.

 

Atheists are of the opinion that theists are moronic; losing out on their lives by living a life of repression and denial, waiting in anticipation for something to happen after death - which is a terrible waste. The clock cannot be turned back.

 

A crusading atheist however is a kind of a paradox. Atheism - when it happens - should be a natural outcome of one's basic questions not finding satisfactory responses. Not because someone is shouting about it from a rooftop. One can argue that interest in religion should happen naturally too and not because someone is shoving it down your throat (as some religious grous do) or because you want to "fit in" to a certain group.

 

In general however, theist or atheist, everyone believes their vews are right and most people want to convert others over to their point of view.

 

Cheers

[theist]

Yes shvu that is known. Everyone thinks they are right. Except the honest agnostic. The thing is either the atheist or the theist IS right. Not both but certainly one or the other.

 

If the atheist is right there is no God, we are not eternal spirit, the body is the self etc. then existence is ultimately meaningless and so what is the big deal if someone believes in God or not. I know as someone who grew up an atheist what a real atheist is. I so much did not believe in God that I never thought about if there was a God or not nor was I bothered by those that did believe in God. You would think for an atheist it would be non-issue.

 

But if the theist is right and there is a God, a purpose to human life, life after death and ultimate bliss is in knowing God then the theist has a responsibility to try and help the Lord reclaim souls from the darkness of this world. And the atheist who crusades against the idea of God would have positioned himself diametrically opposed to the will of God and that is the position of a demon.

 

As for myself I know that I am a demon in transition, trying to upgrade my being. I also know that in reality there is no such as a demon because the soul that is playing the role of Richard Dawkins is actually part of Krsna as am I and therefore we are eternal brothers.

 

But within the cosmic battlefield of samsara I choose to stand with the army opposing the one he stands with.

 

He makes no apologies for mocking theists and considering us a sentimental believers in fairytales and I make no apology to him for calling him a demon.

 

Straight up line of demarcation with no ambiquities.

[Kulapavana]

 

Only a few hundred years ago, people had no choice in schools but to hear theistic teachings, and now students have no choice but to hear atheistic teachings.

 

The main reason atheistic teachings successfully spread in science and society in general is that for the most part theists present a very naive and simplistic approach to science and world in general. Some of the most absurd things I have ever heard in my life come from the Bible-thumpers and their creationists.

 

Even in our own preaching we present a very negative, biased and reductionistic view of science. Everybody sees that. The ratio of dogma, pure faith and sentiment in our movement far outweighs any real scientific approach to spirituality, even as we make a claim of presenting the "science of God". What to speak of other traditions? No wonder intelligent people look for alternatives. Still, very few people are real atheists nowadays.

 

It is kind of like the claims that GM gurus are "stealing" people from Iskcon. There is no stealing - people just vote with their feet.

[sanatan]

 

The main reason atheistic teachings successfully spread in science and society in general is that for the most part theists present a very naive and simplistic approach to science and world in general. Some of the most absurd things I have ever heard in my life come from the Bible-thumpers and their creationists.

 

Even in our own preaching we present a very negative, biased and reductionistic view of science. Everybody sees that. The ratio of dogma, pure faith and sentiment in our movement far outweighs any real scientific approach to spirituality, even as we make a claim of presenting the "science of God". What to speak of other traditions? No wonder intelligent people look for alternatives. Still, very few people are real atheists nowadays.

 

It is kind of like the claims that GM gurus are "stealing" people from Iskcon. There is no stealing - people just vote with their feet.

 

 

Reasonable thinking!

 

Insulting people's intelligence will get nowhere, and I do believe that many thinking folks lean to at least an agnostic stance because of the apparent absurdities presented by religious tradition, scripture, and the attitude of the practitioners of these. Or, if these thinking people have a deepfelt inclination to the spiritual, they gravitate toward Buddhism or New-Ageism and their generally more liberal-minded ways.

 

Allright, we live on the material earth-planet, with a vast universe beyond. Somehow, human beings are mentally and physically equipped to measure and evaluate, with a measureable degree of dependable and reasonable accuracy, data that was and is gathered throught the senses and devices that assist the senses. This is science.

 

But theistic religious traditions, including our own, don't even give credit for this...science is blanket-condemned as Satanic or Demoniac, take your pick, and religious fundamentalists use the products of science and engineering to advance their causes, while simultaneously proclaiming the evils of these products.

 

I've found my own way to intellectually accomodate both science and spirituality, but maybe that's why I'm a near-58-year-old nowhere man, instead of an uttama-bhakta: lack of complete childlike faith.

[theist]

<!-- BEGIN TEMPLATE: bbcode_quote --> Quote:

<table border="0" cellpadding="6" cellspacing="0" width="100%"> <tbody><tr> <td style="border: 1px solid rgb(102, 102, 102); padding-left: 3ex; padding-right: 3ex;" bgcolor="#e0e0e0"> Originally Posted by Nrsinghadev

Only a few hundred years ago, people had no choice in schools but to hear theistic teachings, and now students have no choice but to hear atheistic teachings.

</td> </tr> </tbody></table>

<!-- END TEMPLATE: bbcode_quote --> I support school choice aka the voucher system in America, where atheists could go to schools that deny or ignore God and theistist could go to theistic schools where the day begins with kirtan and each class begins with a bowed head.

 

 

The main reason atheistic teachings successfully spread in science and society in general is that for the most part theists present a very naive and simplistic approach to science and world in general. Some of the most absurd things I have ever heard in my life come from the Bible-thumpers and their creationists.

 

Even in our own preaching we present a very negative, biased and reductionistic view of science. Everybody sees that. The ratio of dogma, pure faith and sentiment in our movement far outweighs any real scientific approach to spirituality, even as we make a claim of presenting the "science of God". What to speak of other traditions? No wonder intelligent people look for alternatives. Still, very few people are real atheists nowadays.

 

It is kind of like the claims that GM gurus are "stealing" people from Iskcon. There is no stealing - people just vote with their feet.

 

True enough. Insisiting on the literality of creation stories by the different schools of old religious traditions is very detrimental IMO. From the Young Earth Creationists to those insisting there is only one sun in the universe. Insisting on these things makes the whole idea of God suspect in peoples mind.

 

The intelligent approach is the one taken by the Intelligent Design section of theists. They don't even argue for the acceptance of God but rather point to the need for an intelligence to be behind the cosmic manifestation and using modern science to prove their point. BUT THEY ALSO ARE NOT ALLOWED TO PRESENT THIS IN PUBLIC SCHOOLS BECAUSE THE ATHEIST ARGUE IT IS JUST ONE STEP FROM THEISM! Which it is of course but one must go where the evidence takes them if they are true scientists. The evidence points to God.

 

The ratio of dogma, pure faith and sentiment in our movement far outweighs any real scientific approach to spirituality, even as we make a claim of presenting the "science of God".

 

Must strongly disagree here Kulapavana. The science of god realization is not dependent on achieving accurate scientific knowledge about the nature of the universe. It is an internal science. One can be illiterate or even completely wrong in their views concerning scientific facts and still come to know God by following the scientific (verifiable through repeatable personal experiementation) method of bhakti-yoga.

 

My belief is we should be willing to concede cetain facts about the cosmos regarding Rahu etc. in order that the message of transcendence not get rejected along with the myths. Yes I said myths and I mean myths.

 

Let people believe what they want about the nature of the universe, afterall it's just a mirage anyway. Let us make our stand on the point of their being a Supreme Intelligence and Controller behind the whole show. That is where the real value lies.

[theist]

 

I've found my own way to intellectually accomodate both science and spirituality, but maybe that's why I'm a near-58-year-old nowhere man, instead of an uttama-bhakta: lack of complete childlike faith.

 

We are probably on the same page here too sanatan although you are an old man to me (i am only 55 ).

 

But is it a lack of childlike faith? The way I accomodate the two is just to throw up my hands and say "I don't know the details and I don't care but isn't the Lord amazing and wonderful in how He manages His creation." I am trying for the child's approach.

[sanatan]

 

We are probably on the same page here too sanatan although you are an old man to me (i am only 55 ).

 

But is it a lack of childlike faith? The way I accomodate the two is just to throw up my hands and say "I don't know the details and I don't care but isn't the Lord amazing and wonderful in how He manages His creation." I am trying for the child's approach.

 

Yeh, call me gramps. Figured you and I were about the same age. Not much time left when I think about it.

 

I'd say we're close to the same page here also; when I say I've found a way to intellectually accomodate spirituality and science, it means I basically throw up my hands as well, while standing firm in the conviction that science doesn't of its own nature lead to Godlessness and Damnation.

 

In my own heart, totally subjectively, I can't even imagine how any person cannot believe in the existence of a Supreme Controller, Supreme Intelligence, The Force, or whatever you want to call transcendental reality...it seems to me that advanced scientific knowledge can only lead one to that conclusion. But, flip that coin over and you have a perfect picture of the atheistic POV.

 

BTW, I also consider the concept of Intelligent Design to be the most reasonable broadbased educational approach to presenting a spiritual counterpoint to straight primordial-soup evolutionism. But the polarized fanatics won't come together, ever.

[theist]

Exactly. Knowledge brought forth by modern scientific investigation is really just another form of scripture for one who is in touch with God. And for those of us struggling to get in touch with God it is also valuable in that every new level of discovery that is made simply broadens our level of amazement at the

intelligence of our Lord.

 

I just saw a Nova program on PBS on the new discovery of what they call the epigenome, well very new to me and rather new to the genetic field in general. This epigenome controls the workings of other genes. It has also been shown to react in different ways according to the level of love and affection a mother shows to her child by touching and nuturing and how the neglect of such love shows up in the epigenome turning on and off or even up and down to certain degrees the same genes in different kids even identical twins, to produce healthy or diseased states.

 

Obviously the most subtle level would be the soul itself. Whcih is the point. For the aspiring God conscious person the Lord can show us how everything in existence even si-called material existence points to Him.

 

He is everywhere to be revealed and from every possible route of inquiry, scientific, philosophical, religious. So it only stands to reason that at some point all these approachs must merge into a common reality.

 

Different routes for different folks but One God for all.

[suchandra]

 

Exactly. Knowledge brought forth by modern scientific investigation is really just another form of scripture for one who is in touch with God. And for those of us struggling to get in touch with God it is also valuable in that every new level of discovery that is made simply broadens our level of amazement at the

intelligence of our Lord.

 

I just saw a Nova program on PBS on the new discovery of what they call the epigenome, well very new to me and rather new to the genetic field in general. This epigenome controls the workings of other genes. It has also been shown to react in different ways according to the level of love and affection a mother shows to her child by touching and nuturing and how the neglect of such love shows up in the epigenome turning on and off or even up and down to certain degrees the same genes in different kids even identical twins, to produce healthy or diseased states.

 

Obviously the most subtle level would be the soul itself. Whcih is the point. For the aspiring God conscious person the Lord can show us how everything in existence even si-called material existence points to Him.

 

He is everywhere to be revealed and from every possible route of inquiry, scientific, philosophical, religious. So it only stands to reason that at some point all these approachs must merge into a common reality.

 

Different routes for different folks but One God for all.

This is funny, they actually know that there must be a real powerful, fully perfect intelligence behind this cosmic manifestiation - what executes our biological fate? So they know that there're individual fates and that fates are individually enforced upon us. But who does it? Yes, correct, a ghost within our genes!

 

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/

[gHari]

Without studying it or doing any of the defined experiments, Dr. Dawkins says he doesn't accept quantum mechanics. That is not science. Substitute the word 'religion' for 'quantum mechanics' and his arrogance is revealed.

[mystic_seeker]

 

Just a casual search for 'atheist' on youtube and you'll find so many atheist videos and comments rallying around Dawkins and others like Christopher Hitchens. They ride the crest of an 'atheist revival' in the popular culture.

The main strategy is to invoke science as proof of materialism. If you know anything about science, you will understand that such philosophical questions are outside its scope of interest.

 

Cbrahma, is totally correct. Materialism is a philosophical view not scientific view. In addition, it is an assumption. How would someone go about proving that in "all of reality" there is not even one non-material being? Most humans have only experienced a very small part of reality. The only hope atheists have would be to demonstrate that the notion of a non-material being is contradictory (like a square-circle). Contradictory items cannot exist. However, the notion of a non-material being is not contradictory so the atheists should take the humble route and admit "they don't really know."

[mystic_seeker]

 

Without studying it or doing any of the defined experiments, Dr. Dawkins says he doesn't accept quantum mechanics. That is not science. Substitute the word 'religion' for 'quantum mechanics' and his arrogance is revealed.

 

gHari, you are correct. In fact, many scientists do not really understand the nature of science. Many of them are lab people who have never bothered to study "philosophy of science," which is the discipline that deals with the nature of science.

 

By the way could you tell me in what book/article/webpage does Dawkins say he does not accept quantum theory?

[theist]

 

This is funny, they actually know that there must be a real powerful, fully perfect intelligence behind this cosmic manifestiation - what executes our biological fate? So they know that there're individual fates and that fates are individually enforced upon us. But who does it? Yes, correct, a ghost within our genes!

 

LOL yes but they have the wrong ghost. First they proclaimed DNA sequencing was the secret to life. Now they discover there is something behind the operation of those genes and now they think they have finally REALLY found it. The intelligent among them will realize that at each new step they take another one will remain to be taken.

 

It is a very laborious form of sankya yoga in the sense that eventually peeling away one layer after another of material nature they will finally come to self/Superself, the real ghosts, the Holy Ghosts.

 

The fact is most will become distracted long before reaching that point and start going sideways in their investigations. Maya will present so many interesting little bits of the material puzzel to solve and keep them occupied and going around in circles. But some may also get the grace of Krsna. He may reveal Himself. We pray for that.

[gHari]

 

gHari, without studying it or doing any of the defined experiments

By the way could you tell me in what book/article/webpage does Dawkins say he does not accept quantum theory?

It's likely not true. I said it to make a point.

[mystic_seeker]

 

It's likely not true. I said it to make a point.

 

Listen, man, I dislike Dawkins too, but don't you think its wrong to attribute something to him that he did not say?

[shvu]

 

Listen, man, I dislike Dawkins too, but don't you think its wrong to attribute something to him that he did not say?

 

Not for GHari and his flock. They read a single page article about Prabhupada's derogratory opinion on science and concluded they know everything about science which has been developed for 1000s of years. Without knowing the first thing about science they very confidently go around mocking the "flaws" of science and its methods and are of the belief that they understand science better than scientists who have devoted their lifetimes to the study of the subject. All this from a single page article! Given this, attributing false statements to Dawkins is not something they would lose sleep over.

 

If theists truly believe God is behind everything as they usually claim, they should be gutsy enough to admit God is behind the development of science too. And it hardly makes sense to think that God would give one intelligence and curiosity and then expect him to set all that aside and faithfully follow books written 1000 years ago during a primitive and ignorant time; books that offers no evidence and fail to answer basic questions. If God does not value the intelligence he created, then that would make him inconsistent according to theists who are of the opinion that man should put faith before intellect.

 

Cheers

[gHari]

Listen, man, I dislike Dawkins too, but don't you think its wrong to attribute something to him that he did not say?

Surely you didn't believe for a moment that Dawkins opposes Quantum Theory. I assumed I wasn't dealing with idiots. His rejecting of Quantum Theory without understanding it or performing the experimental proofs would be as foolish as his alleged rejection of religion under the same circumstances.

[sevabhakta]

 

Not for GHari and his flock. They read a single page article about Prabhupada's derogratory opinion on science and concluded they know everything about science which has been developed for 1000s of years. Without knowing the first thing about science they very confidently go around mocking the "flaws" of science and its methods and are of the belief that they understand science better than scientists who have devoted their lifetimes to the study of the subject. All this from a single page article! Given this, attributing false statements to Dawkins is not something they would lose sleep over.

 

If theists truly believe God is behind everything as they usually claim, they should be gutsy enough to admit God is behind the development of science too. And it hardly makes sense to think that God would give one intelligence and curiosity and then expect him to set all that aside and faithfully follow books written 1000 years ago during a primitive and ignorant time; books that offers no evidence and fail to answer basic questions. If God does not value the intelligence he created, then that would make him inconsistent according to theists who are of the opinion that man should put faith before intellect.

 

Cheers

 

 

Exercising the intellect cannot give us faith in transcendental realities. One will never experience transcendental realities as a direct result of intellectually speculating about that reality which is transcendental to intellect.

 

So one either has faith in their identity as a false ego and active intellectual materialist, or faith in their spiritual identity and that realm.

 

By the Grace of Guru do we gain some transcendental perception of ourselves and reality which we then forever have faith in.

 

Then reality faithfully guides our intellect.

 

If there is any tendency to use the intellect to try and reduce God to its constraints, I am both happy and sorry to say that Krsna reserves the right to be himself regardless of what anyone uses their conditioned mind to "think" he is.

 

Of course God comprehends and sympathizes with the scientific mindset, it is one of the 81 material manifestations of false ego and other elements.

 

It may appear that it was the strong scientific method applied and executed by an inquiring person that revealed God to them, but actually God was revealling himself in a way took advantage of that bad habit, and eventually exhausted the useless material-based speculative scientific method. Mercy.

 

Just as there are many ways to approach and understand the Lord, Bhakti mixed with Jnana, Karma, etc., just remember those methods were based in temporary material conditioning, one use only, discard and do not recycle.

[theist]

 

Not for GHari and his flock. They read a single page article about Prabhupada's derogratory opinion on science and concluded they know everything about science which has been developed for 1000s of years.

shvu you are now doing to gHari what you accused him of doing to Dawkins. And then you include Prabhupada revealing a sore point that I know has been with you for years. And you are wrong on both counts.

 

Seeing the misuse of science and understanding it's built in limitations is not the same as being against science.

[theist]

 

If theists truly believe God is behind everything as they usually claim, they should be gutsy enough to admit God is behind the development of science too.

 

Gutsy? I am not in the least intimidated by science or scientists.

 

 

theist: Exactly. Knowledge brought forth by modern scientific investigation is really just another form of scripture for one who is in touch with God. And for those of us struggling to get in touch with God it is also valuable in that every new level of discovery that is made simply broadens our level of amazement at the

intelligence of our Lord.

[mystic_seeker]

 

Surely you didn't believe for a moment that Dawkins opposes Quantum Theory. I assumed I wasn't dealing with idiots. His rejecting of Quantum Theory without understanding it or performing the experimental proofs would be as foolish as his alleged rejection of religion under the same circumstances.

 

First, I hope you are not lumping me in with shvu; I already agreed with one of your other points earlier in this thread.

 

Second, I hope you are not suggesting I am an idiot. Quantum mechanics is a very difficult topic. Many scientists disagree about how to interpret the experiments. Among scientists the Copenhagen interpretation is popular, but other scientists disagree with that interpretation.

 

Third, if you wanted to say that a man (for example Dawkins) who has not experienced the things of the Spiritual life should not attack what he has not experienced, then say that. The way you put it gives the false impression that Dawkins rejects quantum mechanics:

 

 

Without studying it or doing any of the defined experiments, Dr. Dawkins says he doesn't accept quantum mechanics. That is not science. Substitute the word 'religion' for 'quantum mechanics' and his arrogance is revealed.

 

Debate suffers when warring parties misrepresent each other. Even though I happen to think that Dawkins is arrogant and is quite pathetic when he tries to do philosophy, I would never try to misrepresent his views. Ahimsa and Satya are yamas for a reason.

 

Anyway, I am going to give you the benefit of the doubt that you just wanted to make a point (and didn't express it well) rather than misrepresent him.

[gHari]

Yes, seeker, I regretted that comment very much afterwards (realizing you may have been inadvertently lumped into a dump), but I was unable to remove it. Krsna works in mysterious ways indeed. I was trying to write a statement that was totally ridiculous and then by substituting the word religion in it show just how silly Dawkins' rejection of Krsna is.

 

I should have used a more universally acceptable axiom like 2+2. Actually atheism is like not accepting the 2+2 of religious science. He hasn't taken the first step .... enroll in the course.

[gHari]

"The grossly materialistic demons are so completely bereft of spiritual knowledge that although at every moment they perceive the transience of the material body, all their activities center on the body. They are unable to understand that the soul within the body is the permanent and essential substance and that the body is mutable and temporary. Becoming first enamoured of then deluded by vivartaväda (the theory of evolution), they conclude that the entire cosmic body also lacks a Soul. Since the fallacious theory they apply to their own physical existence leads them to reject any research into the existence of a soul residing within the body, they fail to perceive the presence of the Supersoul within the gigantic body of the cosmic manifestation. They falsely conclude that the body is everything, that there is nothing beyond it; similarly, they think that the material creation, which is the universal body, is factually governed only by the laws of nature. Any discussion on this subject is invariably put to premature death by their insistence that nature is the be-all and end-all. The more intelligent among them carry this discussion a little further and postulate that impersonalism is the quintessence of everything. But far beyond this realm of manifest and unmanifest material nature is the transcendental and eternal state. The atheists, however, are characteristically unable to believe in its existence".

[Murali_Mohan_das]

I'm an idiot, and it was plain even to *me* what gHari's intent was.

 

When he said "Substitute the word 'religion' for 'quantum mechanics' and his arrogance is revealed", it became clear that he was pointing out the absurdity of dismissing religion without having made any honest inquiry, not claiming that Dawkins was dismissing quantum physics.

 

If you've been paying attention here (and, admittedly, not all readers of Audarya are as addicted to it as I am), it's perfectly obvious that, gHari is a person of technical inclinations who *actually get's things done*.

 

It's safe to assume that he is familiar with scientific principles and does not dismiss them trivially. Rather, it seems that he has some significant wisdom--enough to know that there are many things which are unknowable by science but are knowable by the heart of the sincere seeker.

 

 

Surely you didn't believe for a moment that Dawkins opposes Quantum Theory. I assumed I wasn't dealing with idiots. His rejecting of Quantum Theory without understanding it or performing the experimental proofs would be as foolish as his alleged rejection of religion under the same circumstances.