Back to basics

[Avinash]

Science is constantly debated and new findings are put forth all the time. This has, therefore, allowed mankind to progress. Have the ancient scriptures subjected to similar study and argument?

 

Scriptures contain many things which can neither be proved nor be disproved by doing experiments in this world.

 

Note: By proof I mean, proving to others.

 

[gimmegames]

Originally posted by gHari:

 

If you don't read the book after somehow becoming fortunate enough to receive this perfect advice, then you were never really interested in the first place, and it was all just the nonsense attention seeking and whining of a child.

 

 

I happen to think you were more than a little HARSH with that statement

 

just my $0.02

[Jagat]

Why the philosophy of religion?

 

Because this subject tries to address the kinds of questions you are asking here. Zoology, etc., answer different types of questions.

 

If you truly want to know why religion exists, why should you not make this an object of study like the others? Why should the answers be self-evident without research and study? For millennia, people have devoted themselves to theology in the way that scientists devote themselves to quantum mechanics. All that energy must have produced some results.

 

Of course, if you have already decided that science gives you the answers, then don't bother. But it is quite likely that you don't have the answers. Your original questions did not show all that much imagination and seemed to me to be either a Quixotic bit of windmill tilting, or fundamentalist baiting. I am glad to see that few were taken in. My original answer was meant for SHVU, who is altogether a far more serious atheist than you. <hr>

 

 

Birth, old age, disease and death are like the ocean tides. You may put up a dike with some relative success, but the endeavor is destined to failure.

 

In view of this, life is meaningless, unless it is invested with meaning. The source of this higher meaning is God. (This is a definition of God.) The human response to that source is religion.

 

Therefore it is said,

 

AhAra-nidrA-bhaya-maithunaM ca

samAnam etat pazubhir narANAm |

dharmo narANAm adhiko vizeSo

dharmena hInAH pazubhiH samAnAH ||

 

Simply by engaging in eating, sleeping, defending and mating, a human being does not distinguish himself from animals [no matter how elaborately he manages to construct a civilization based on a purely bodily concept of life]. The religious quest is what makes the human being special; without it a human being is just an animal.

 

[Rati]

Not only would it behoove you to take Jagat's suggestion about studying philosophy of religion, mmaranr, but getting a little better educated about science would help as well. You cite Darwin, but it is particle physicists and astronomers at the cutting edge of scientific research that are providing data about consciousness and the potential for extraterrestrial life. Had you referred to Einstein, Bohr, Boehm or Schrodinger, then it would have showed some real scientific acumen.

 

Besides, fundamentalists do not necessarily truly represent all theologians and religious philosophers. There are plenty out there that are constantly reconciling religious doctrine with scientific theories and experimental findings, just as there are plenty of scientists that are religious persons. It is just a question of the level of open mindedness on either side.

 

Creationists that think they can easily refute Darwin have little evidence to offer. Luckily they are more of the lunatic fringe than part of the mainstream of theologians.

 

The late Mircea Eliade (famous prolific and erudite scholar of history or religion) coined the term 'homo religiosus' with regard to the phenomenon mentioned by Jagat of religion being a universal experience across all cultures and historical periods.

 

 

 

[This message has been edited by Rati (edited 04-18-2002).]

[Guest guest]

evolution is easily discounted.

The so-called science of evolution,is nothing more then the listing of gaps in the fossil record,then speculating.

This is not science,science is gathering facts ,then forming a theory.

Evolutionists,start with a theory ,then try to create "facts",to proove their theory.

Any molecular biologist,worth his salt,will tell you that evolution,is impossible.

The idea that randomness,and need,somehow design intelligent,reproducing,conscious beings,is truly the height of fantasy.

The belief in evolution is based on conditioning,started in grade school,reinforced by incompetent explanations of God.

The scientific community is divided by self-preservation on one side,versus true science on the other.

The delusion of evolutionary "science" is forcibly thrust on society,through the state run schools.This supplication to idiocy is being pushed, by those whose careers would be extinguished,by true science.

The reactionary stance opposed to God-centered education is not based on science,but on emotional prejudice,and conditioned thinking.

 

[Guest guest]

Also about gravity,There is no explanation for it,nobody knows what it is.

They give it a name,but ask any phycicist,he will tell you it is a mystery,they are stumped.

The same for nuclear bonding,no clue.

The same for almost every aspect of physics,ultimately,the scientific community,is able to give names to the various aspects of nature,but are unable to explain what is causing them.

That is why they are constantly coming up with theoretical constucts,such as "Dark matter","Dark energy" etc.,to explain their deficiency of knowledge.

The "Dark" refers to an unknown,or unobservable phenomena,that is somehow making possible,the impossible,making the universe possible, and goverened by laws,that shouldn't exist,without some, as yet, unidentified force.

 

[gHari]

Harsh? Yes. But if he goes away with anything, let him take that. Perhaps when he gets serious and a little humble, he can begin real inquiry into the mysteries of the ultimate reality in a way that yields results. He can get all the tit-for-tat Darwinian 'intellectual' stuff anywhere. God, he can only get here.

 

Caitanya is the only guide for the real intellectual; the half-truths of science and the limited potency of nature will eventually be defeated by the intellect. So let him remember this book, Bhagavad-gita As It Is, and this person, Caitanya. Then his chance venture to this site will have been meaningful.

[gimmegames]

it's called tact prabhu

 

 

[gHari]

No, it's called 'fact'. There are times for tact, and there are times for fact. I've seen both come off my fingertips and tongue. It seems this was a fact moment. Most memorable, which was perhaps the only viable course here; and now followed up by good-cop-bad-cop to ease the painful path to humility and perspective.

[mmaranr]

Dear all,

 

>Of course, if you have already decided that science gives you the answers, >then don't bother.

 

 

This, in fact, settles the whole issue once and for all. In essence, what really matters is what one believes in individually. Everyone have their own beliefs and theories about how everything came to exist it their present forms. Religions and science have their own explanations. The explanations are the results of years of research (in both disciplines) by philosophers and scientists and I belief their effort must be respected. I don't think anyone has the right to impose his/her beliefs on others.

 

I appreciate the response given by many over the questions that I posted and the subsequent discussions. These questions (among many others) have been bothering me for a long time and I desperately needed some convincing answers before deciding whether to embark on the journey to truth via religious path or as a naturalist. I think I will need a few years to study the religious texts and scientific papers before deciding which way to go.

 

At the moment, I belief that the existence of a divine creator is highly improbable as a result of my own observation and reasoning. Some of these are as follows:

 

1. The occurrence of earthquakes are the result of stresses built up along the fault lines in the earth's crust. From this, I conclude that the stress build-up is caused by the solidification of the earth's crust from a molten state resulting in the formation of tectonic plates pressing against each other. This is further confirmed by the presence of molten rock beneath the crust that oozes out as lava during most volcanic eruptions. No intelligent creator would have designed an earth with fault lines that can cause earthquakes and kill thousands, including destruction of places of worship.

2. Only our planet is able to sustain life because of the suitable atmosphere and environment. The other planets are either too dry, too cold or too hot to sustain life. They all rotate in orbits that fall in the same plane, suggesting that they could have been formed from the spinning sun at the birth of the sun (this is merely my own speculation). It is difficult to imagine why God could have made all nine planets and populate only one.

3. Some of the fossils left by early life forms shows a transitional pattern. For instance, the archaeopteryx displays a distinct blend of major reptilian and avian characteristics. There are hundreds of other fossils of primitive life form that existed before humans existed and are extinct now. This is a fact. It is difficult to understand why God created early life forms and mislead humans to believe that evolution could have occurred.

4. There are millions of harmful bacteria and viruses that attack innocent people. These could not have been created by a loving God at the same time humans were created.

5. It is highly improbable that God created animals so that the only way they can survive is by inflicting pain on others (including humans).

6. It is difficult to imagine that God could have created the vast variety of living creatures, including the more than 5000 different species of ring worms, each with perfect organs, senses and the ability to reproduce, and, of course, a soul. Some of these do not serve any benefit to mankind, including the smelly bug the just dropped onto my keyboard while typing this posting or the mosquito that just bit me a short while ago.

7. Only evolution explains satisfactorily why most people of South Africa look so much different from the majority of people from France or England. It is highly improbable that the purposeful God created the different races of humans who look so much different.

 

There are many other reasons why I belief that an intelligent creator is highly improbable. These explanations may exist in the religious scriptures but I could not understand why one has to seek the 'truth' himself/herself instead of seeking the answer from a learned religious scholar. What if God, in reality, does not exist? How can one account for the existence of everything? How can complexity arise against the forces of simplification? Why do symmetry exist is living things? Science can offer answers that are much more credible than that offered by the religious texts (at least the bible, which I trust is equivalent in content and meaning to the Bhagavad-gita, since, I believe, all scriptures are the word of God). I will post some of these answers in my next message if someone is interested to read. Otherwise, I will retreat from this discussion for a while in search for the truth.

 

>Harsh? Yes. But if he goes away with anything, let him take that.

 

For all the questions that I asked and the views I have given, the harsh statement is absolutely nothing compared to the death sentence I would have been given had I posted these questions about a millennium ago.

 

>Perhaps when he gets serious and a little humble, he can begin real inquiry >into the mysteries of the ultimate reality in a way that yields results.

 

I wonder how can someone get humble just to ask simple questions like the ones I asked. If a child of six years asked why the world is spherical and not flat any school boy who has studied physics will be able to answer that. The child need not wait and grow up to seek the truth on his/her own. This is my contention.

 

 

 

[Jagat]

Dear mmaranr,

 

Though you are obviously an intelligent man, I fail to be impressed by your selection of questions. I am even less impressed now that I am convinced of your sincerity.

 

There are hundreds of millions of contradictions in the universe if we look at everything from the point of view of our own human interests and expect God to be meant for serving them. In other words, you want to know why God is not as you would have created Him! This is called "hubris."

 

You pass judgment on God's intelligence! Well, that's pretty rich. Who gave you the intelligence to judge? Where did the ability to ask these questions come from? And indeed, this is the ontological argument--the question itself implies a reason for asking it.

 

Here are some other questions:

 

The teleological argument: does this universe have a purpose? Does my life have a purpose? If it does, why does it have a purpose?

 

The argument from moral imperative: Where does morality come from? Why do we demand justice? What pushes us toward goodness and abhor evil, and yet why are we weak and succumb to evil? Why is being ethical such a challenge?

 

The causal argument is far from explained away by science: So you conclude everything came from a big bang. How much more curious that is. That all creation should have been present inside a seed waiting to unfold with all its myriad laws of physics, that we unpeel layer by layer, onion like, and never seem to find the core? Now instead of a divine artisan who shapes and carves every detail, we have an even greater creator who simply sets the vast machine into motion. Kant said, "the star-studded sky above and the moral law within" were the two arguments he found most convincing for the existence of God.

 

If you want detailed reasons for everything, well science is where you should go. Don't try to find a theological explanation for the earth's crust or the reason that Pluto exists (though God knows there may be one). But when it comes to the ultimate meaning of your existence, you may have to come face to face with the totality of all things that is God, and the subatom of consciousness that is hiding within your own tiny fragment of consciousness, which is also God.

 

Philosophy is about learning to ask the right questions.

 

Your servant,

 

Jan

[Avinash]

I will post some of these answers in my next message if someone is interested to read. Otherwise, I will retreat from this discussion for a while in search for the truth.

 

So, you have inclinations towards science. That is very good. I wish you to continue. I would like to discuss with you.

[theist]

Philosophy is about learning to ask the right questions.

 

And this becomes perfect when those questions are direct towards one of knows the true answers.

 

A true scientist keeps an open mind.Why not with a neutral but open mind ask God if He exists or not?

 

You needn't 'believe' before doing this.It's kind of like a lost person calling out to see if anyone is around who can lead him.

 

"Hey God, do You really exist"?

 

I'm serious.If you are sincere in wanting to know, an answer is quarunteed.

 

[shvu]

 

And this becomes perfect when those questions are direct towards one of knows the true answers.

 

A true scientist keeps an open mind.Why not with a neutral but open mind ask God if He exists or not?

 

You needn't 'believe' before doing this.It's kind of like a lost person calling out to see if anyone is around who can lead him.

 

"Hey God, do You really exist"?

 

I'm serious.If you are sincere in wanting to know, an answer is quarunteed.

Ok...I just asked and I got no answer. Does that mean there is no God or does that mean I was not sincere? You will naturally opt for the latter. Because the former does not suit your beliefs.

 

Anyway, in real life, God does not answer forth saying "Yeah dude, I am real", no matter how many times one asks. Hence, one has to get into theories, evidence and the whole works to find out anything, which is what the scientists do.

 

Sorry theist...this is not the way it works.

(No offense)

 

[shvu]

 

Your putting aside you conclusions sounds a little suspect to me.

I am not surprised.

 

The point is God is a loving Person who will not neglect any sincere soul in their search for truth.

Very well. If there is a God, he must assist the scientists in their quest for I am sure the scientists are sincere to discover the truth. And yet surprisingly, no scientist has so far suggested the existence of God.

Why didn't God lead the sincere seeker in this case?

 

Jagat pointed out that God is the Soul of the soul.No one is closer.No one more willing to aid the jiva.

This is part II. Part I is to first determine if there is a God. Frankly, the more I think about it, I cannot believe in a God that I have only heard from others. A God who is apparently hidden and will not show himself to people. The more I look at it, the more it appears to be a bedtime story. How does one believe in some guy who claims to be God or some other guy who claims to have seen God? What is the rationale? There is nothing ! You just believe, period. My point here is, there are many different ways of looking at this.

 

Again, no offense.

 

[theist]

shvu said:

I cannot believe in a God that I have only heard from others.

 

Yet from reading your posts on other threads you seem to accept transcendental reality as undifferentiated Brahman.

 

How did you come to that.Heard from others perhaps?Or did the Brahman reveal itself to you in some way?And if so why you and not others?

 

 

[shvu]

 

Yet from reading your posts on other threads you seem to accept transcendental reality as undifferentiated Brahman.

I don't believe in Brahman. If I believed in Brahman, who would I want to call out to check if there is a God?

 

Theist: One who believes in the people who proclaimed there is a God.

 

Atheist: One who does not believe in the people who proclaimed there is a God.

 

So, Theism and atheism are actually based on belief/disbelief in the words of people who lived before us. That is all we have...words of dead people.

 

Cheers

 

[Rati]

Speaking of dead people, I saw this psychic on the news that actually communicates with them. He has been dead on and has various readings for some celebrities which are unexplainable by rationalistic science.

 

So there is a counter argument for you, mmranmr:

If there is no God and no soul, then how is it that this person possesses such powers and gets facts correct from people beyond the grave? How do you explain the sum total of deep religious experiences by saints and mystics through the ages? Do you think they were all just hallucinating?

 

If you seek direct experience of the Deity and your own soul, then that is going to require some inner search, rather than this intellectual process you have embarked on of posing those questions and looking for answers to them in books. One of my sisters (she's Catholic and not at all interested in Vaishnavism) enrolled in a Tai Chi class for self defense and fitness reasons. What she did not expect was the encounter with the paranormal that she had as a result. When she pulled a muscle in class, the instructor healed it instantly by directing the Chi (called prana in yoga philosophy) from his hands into the afflicted leg.

 

My advice is that in addition to reading texts, you take up a discipline as well, such as mantra meditation or yoga practice. You might be surprised.

 

 

[This message has been edited by Rati (edited 04-22-2002).]

[shvu]

 

Excuse me for interrupting...

 

If there is no God and no soul, then how is it that this person possesses such powers and gets facts correct from people beyond the grave?

*Perhaps* and most likely, this person is a conman. You would be surprised at how good they are at fooling unsuspecting people. They have developed the whole thing into a fine art. The present Sai Baba, for instance. If you are of the opinion that his miracles are bogus, by the same logic you must be willing to doubt everyone who performs miracles or anything else that cannot be explained in rational terms (including enlightenment, conversing with dead people, etc).

 

How do you explain the sum total of deep religious experiences by saints and mystics through the ages? Do you think they were all just hallucinating...

With due respect, yes.

 

Everyone gave his own version of what he called as the *eternal truth* and not surprisingly, they are all different. That should be sufficient to show they found no such thing. Besides, what is the basis for determining if a 3000 year old personality was speaking the truth or not? People then were no different from the people of today. If there are conmen now, there were conmen then too. And as everyone is aware, the fact that someone became famous is not reason enough to call him genuine. And even worse, there are some people who actually thought they discovered something fantastic and decided to help mankind *find* what they found.

 

Again with due respect, the time_and circumstance answer is bunk. x never says his teaching is temporal. He always says his teaching is eternal. It is y who will come along and say x was for a time and circumstance, while mine is eternal. Jesus never said his teaching was for 1500 years only, after which an Indian would give the updated version. Nor did anyone from India say their teaching was for n years after which someone else would update people accordingly. They all maintained their teaching was eternal and they are *all* different from one another which makes it plain that they did not discover a common eternal truth.

 

Cheers

 

[Rati]

You seemed to have missed the point about they psychic. He reveals things that only the relative or loved one of the deceased could possibly know. That is what has made him famous. No conman could do that with trickery. There have been many phony psychics that rely merely on psychology coupled with good guesswork, but they have never demonstrated that type of inexplicable talent. This guy, however, looks like the real deal. To me that is exciting, as he brings to us objective proof of life after death.

 

As far as the mystical and religious experiences themselves go, I agree with you about the individual nature of them that makes them unique to each saint or mystic. However, that does not really demonstrate anything more than a different expression of the same thing by different people. If I were to ask ten different people to write about a painting by Da Vinci, I would expect to get ten totally different points of view in ten totally different accounts. That does not mean that they all were looking at ten different paintings. A counter argument to yours is that there are common threads that run through those various experiences that transcend geographical, cultural and historical boundaries. How do you explain the existence of those patterns?

 

One could say that you are just hallucinating your own existence and the world around you. You would be hard pressed to prove otherwise. Some facts are just accepted prima facie. For the overwhelming majority of people on the planet, there is no question that there is a God and that there are those with direct experience of the Deity. They just accept that fact because it makes the most sense to them. If that were not true, then there would not be so many temples, churches and mosques everywhere you look. Atheism is never going to attract much of a following, because it goes against the grain of humanity. Not only that, but it has little appeal, since it offers no hope or reason for optimism, and it provides no moral imperative of any kind. If all of society were atheistic, then why would there be any need for ethics of any kind? It may make for high record sales of heavy metal albums, but atheism is never going to have any universal appeal. For those of us that are theistic, that is only good news.

 

 

 

[This message has been edited by Rati (edited 04-22-2002).]

[Guest guest]

Go to my "proof of god" thread,there you will find a link,to actual scientific proof of god's existence.

[Rati]

The psychic I mentioned above is going to be on ABC tonight (an hour special). Watch and decide for yourself whether or not he is amazing.

[gHari]

Saint Joseph? And Mother Mary? What is this all about? Mind-reading? Paramatma? Christloka? Ghosts?

 

There is another guy who does weekly shows called Crossing Over. He always seems to dazzle them.

 

[This message has been edited by gHari (edited 04-23-2002).]

[theist]

No offense taken.But how could you as an impersonalist ask with sincerity since you already believe God is senseless and couldn't hear the question in the first place?

 

 

[shvu]

 

No offense taken.But how could you as an impersonalist ask with sincerity since you already believe God is senseless and couldn't hear the question in the first place?

In your previous post, you were suggesting the scientist should ask with an open mind and should not be biased.

 

Similarly putting aside my conclusions, wanting to see if whatever you said will work for me, I did call out sincerely. Nothing happened. I have done this before several times too and there was no answer then, either.

 

btw, I am not an *impersonalist*(not sure what you mean by that).

 

Cheers