Christian Evidence

[mooeypoo]

Sure but understand, agnostic is not a shade of theism. Regarding theism you are theist or you're not. Agnostic simply means you believe the truth is unknowable and has nothing to do with your belief that there are god(s) or not. It is not a position between theist and not-theist.

 

I agree.

 

But it might be a position between theist and atheist, at least the way this definition holds today.

 

Theists claim there's a god (or many).

Atheists claim there's no god.

Agnostics claim there's no way of knowing either.

 

"Nontheist" does not equal "Atheist". Maybe it should, but it doesn't.

[PeterJ]

You asked me why do I reject the view of Schroedinger and its because of this above reason. I was not really aware of his view of the world nor I had read his works before, I opposed his view straight away because one doesn't need to read the entire work of a man, one can easily figure out his worldview from the few little words or claims that he makes and this above link proves what I had earlier said about Schroedinger, he rejected traditional religious models. A mistake which all scholars in the field make and only write gibberish in their books. They start with unity and say this is unity, that is unity and after reading the whole book you'll realize that the knowledge you gained from it is absolutely zero. Go get a book from a true philosopher.

By that I suppose you mean a philsopher of whom immortal approves. That will limit the field somewhat.

 

This is what I find ridiculous about these scholars and scientists, they very well know something is terribly wrong and they argue for years and years writing piles of books on them defending the view of ancient goat herders and yet refuse to accept their simple view of the world just because they are naive and their view is hard enough to convince a mind which was developed rationally and logically. Shouting "this cannot be possible, this is nonsense" and yet they just accept only those truth of those ancient goat herders which suits their rational way of thinking and call it wisdom. This is what I find ridiculous about and when I find you quoting from these scientists turned philosophers, I am really afraid that you're misrepresenting the truth of those ancient school of philosophical thought.

Yes. well, I suppose it's a bit much to expect a simple carpenter to have any wisdom to offer, and perhaps goatherders have the same limitations. Or perhaps not. Do you really think that people just read the books and accept what is said. Ridiculous.

 

If Schroedinger thinks that the people of Upanishads have got it right about the reality of the world then it inevitably leads to the following conclusions according to their view of the world as given in the Upanishads. Remember I am just presenting a model here and I am not presenting it as a fact.

 

1. The world is made up of just five elements i.e earth, water, air, space and fire.

 

2. The things described by physics don't really exist in the actual external physical world. There are no particles, no waves. These are all mere ideological abstractions, no greater reality should be attributed to them. If this is true then oxygen, nitrogen, hydrogen and all the elements in the

periodic table do not exist in the external physical world, they don't have a place for this in their model which indirectly implies they exist only in our minds.

 

3. There is no duality here. Mind and matter are all made up of a same kind of deity dust. So only deity dust exists. They don't have to worry about how a non-physical thing interacts with a physical thing. No, there is nothing non-physical or physical, everything is made up of deity dust.

 

4. They have a pantheon of gods and humans acquired the knowledge of Upanishads from Gods, they didn't discovered it out of the blue, the Gods gave them that knowledge. So saying that they don't exist is very ridiculous, if you deny the existence of Gods then don't defend the claims made by Upanishads because I find it ridiculous when you quote about schroedinger and Upanishads and call yourself an atheist. Don't misrepresent those schools of philosophical thought.

 

Their view completely reduces the reality of science to a sub case which emerges only when one observes the world through the sense organs which means the reality given by science only exist in our minds and physical things don't exist in the external physical world. This is the reason why I assert that the world described by science and the world described by religion are two completely different worlds and I find it obvious that the world of phenomena cannot be identical to the world of noumena. This means that "Brain" doesn't actually exist in the external physical world, it exists only in the simulation of our minds. Only Mind and those five elements are real.

I see you have not understood the doctrine. Again, I would recommend Professor Radhakrishnan's book for clear view.

 

This is their model of the world and these are its conclusions.

It's a garbled version of them, yes. As stated, however, this view is daft.

 

I find it ridiculous when scholars only accept the final conclusion or a part of the truth about Upanishads and ramble about the "unity" of the universe which cannot be understood through logic or thought and reject the naive irrational truths made by the same school of philosophical thought.

Does anyone do this? I hope not. Mind you, it would depend on what you mean by 'irrational'. Perhaps you mean that it uses a non-ordinary logical structure, which would be true, or that some things cannot be known by logic, which would also be true. Doesn't mean we should switch off out brains when thinking about these things.

 

They are either misinformed or ignorant or desperately trying to fit such a model of the world with a model given by modern science which I find it very ridiculous and incorrect about what they are trying to do. You have to either believe in the unity of the universe and disbelieve that oxygen, nitrogen, atoms, quarks, photons exist in the external physical world or reject the unity of the universe and accept that physical things do exist in the external physical world.

Well yes. If these are distinct phenomena then obviously they are not unified. I await the proof. I find it astonishing, your pnchenat for sidismissing all scholars and seekers who disagree with you as ignorant fools. Wher I come from this is called arrogance, a neceesary pre-requisite for dogmatism.

 

The problem with scientists is that they cannot accept that the things described by science don't exist in the external physical world and hence they reject the traditional religious models and only accept the unity of the universe and Schroedinger did knew about this but he lacked revelations and hence he couldn't appreciate the truth of those traditional models.

Oh, he lacked revelations did he? I didn't know that. Perhaps you could provide the evidence. No? Well there's a surprise. It makes me laugh like a drain that you want to substitute your muddled view for which you have provided no argument or evidence for that of a truly great thinker. What sort of reaction do you expect to this sort of approach?

 

It is demonstrable in metaphysics that the universe is a unity. Now, that does not mean it is one, it just means that this is the best explanation for metaphysical problems. Thus when I claim that Schroedinger is right I do it with some argument and evidence behind me. If all I had were personal experiences than I would not waste everybody's time by arguing for them here.

 

Why on earth should anybody take what you say seriously when on a thread asking for evidence for your view you insist that there isn't any, or none that can be pointed to?

 

Evidence evidence evidence.

 

There's enough waffle.

 

I agree.

 

But it might be a position between theist and atheist, at least the way this definition holds today.

 

Theists claim there's a god (or many).

Atheists claim there's no god.

Agnostics claim there's no way of knowing either.

 

"Nontheist" does not equal "Atheist". Maybe it should, but it doesn't.

I think there are also agnostics who just admit they don't know the answer. After all, it would be a giant leap in the dark to believe that we cannot know either way, almost a big a leap as the atheist or theist have to take.

Edited February 23, 2012 by PeterJ

[John Cuthber]

I have not been following this thread carefully, Can I just check how it's getting on?

So far, 7 pages and no agreed definitions of "Christian" "evidence" and Christian evidence" yet.

Should I come back in a decade or two or would it be more practical to lock it now?

[rigney]

I have not been following this thread carefully, Can I just check how it's getting on?

So far, 7 pages and no agreed definitions of "Christian" "evidence" and Christian evidence" yet.

Should I come back in a decade or two or would it be more practical to lock it now?

 

Knock yourself out, since you have the upper hand. Just trying to reaffirm my position that I'm neither religious or an athiest and simply don't know the answer to the question, but don't want to be hemmed into a position where I must make a definite yea or nay. Damn, but you guys can be a tough crowd!

[John Cuthber]

Congratulations! You are an agnostic.

I'm an atheist and I guess the pope is a theist.

I'm willing to bet that we will all stay that way whatever anyone posts here.

So, can we stop now?

[rigney]

Congratulations! You are an agnostic.

I'm an atheist and I guess the pope is a theist.

I'm willing to bet that we will all stay that way whatever anyone posts here.

So, can we stop now?

Absolutely! It's unfair to beat a dead horse, regardless of whose silks he was wearing when he fell.

[Klaynos]

I have not been following this thread carefully, Can I just check how it's getting on?

So far, 7 pages and no agreed definitions of "Christian" "evidence" and Christian evidence" yet.

Should I come back in a decade or two or would it be more practical to lock it now?

 

The debates been going for a couple of millennia, I'm not sure a couple of decades will be enough. Sorry.

[rigney]

rigney, you can say whatever you want about your own believe, and call it whatever makes you comfortable.

 

Your explanations, though, don't quite fit "I don't know", though.

 

Case in point:

 

 

That's not agnosticism, that's fallacy of incredulity. You might not know a mechanism, but you know for close-to-a-fact that it exists, not just by personal belief and philosophy, but with repetitive observational evidence.

 

That's not being agnostic at gravity. That's just not understanding how it works (which is perfectly fine, because we have evidence it exists, unlike deities) and as an extension, how science works.

 

Your continued comparison is also a bit contradictory

 

 

One of the reasons that I've been arguing that you hold the right to call yourself whatever you want in terms of belief is because belief is personal.

 

Science isn't.

 

You insist on making these comparisons, as if science requires the same sort of belief -- but it doesn't not because of the conclusions but because of the methodology.

 

Here's the crux of the difference between belief and science:

Science is aspiring for the objective and uses empiricism to reach it. Evidence are scrutinized on purpose. Ideas are only being accepted after they have been brutally criticized.

 

Belief is exactly the other way arond.

It's personal, it is "taboo" to criticize, it doesn't require evidence, and scrutiny is rejected.

 

The difference is methodology, rigney, not conclusion.

 

 

 

That said, there's another problem with your "I don't know" assertion: You seem you actually DO know, or at least have an idea. From your text, you seem to only "not know" about the final conclusion, but you START with the assumption that there likely ARE deities (or is one), and then say "but I don't know".

 

That's not "just" agnosticism. That, as doG pointed out, is Theism. It can be Agnostic Theism, that's just fine, but you do have theistic flavour to your text here. You are not starting on a completely neutral footing and deciding you don't know.

 

You start with an assumption there probably is a god and end with not knowing.

 

 

Agnosticism exists. You don't quite seem to hold that particular stance, though, according to how you phrase your posts and your counter claims to others.

 

~mooey

I apoligise Mooey if it appears that way. And meaning no disrespect, but if you could qualify an axiom as to what gravity is, other than some mathematical equations, I would happily concede defeat and declare atheism my choice of conviction. Heck! even I know that what we call gravity-works. But how? Where is the proof that it isn't just the subset of another force? If I find that answer, I will either have, or will not have a God. 'till then, and with all due respect; I simply don't know. Edited February 23, 2012 by rigney

[Tres Juicy]

Damn, but you guys can be a tough crowd!

 

What was your first clue?

[mooeypoo]

I apoligise Mooey if it appears that way. And meaning no disrespect, but if you could qualify an axiom as to what gravity is, other than some mathematical equations, I would happily concede defeat and declare atheism my choice of conviction. Heck! even I know that what we call gravity-works. But how? Where is the proof that it isn't just the subset of another force? If I find that answer, I will either have, or will not have a God. 'till then, and with all due respect; I simply don't know.

 

Rigney, we may not know what gravity *is* but we know a lot about the fact it exists and what its effects are. We know so much about what its effects are, in fact, that we can PREDICT stuff with equations.

 

Accurately.

 

Very very accurately.

 

 

 

 

You cannot say that abotu *any* deity. That's the difference.

 

When "god"'s actions and existence could be predicted accurately, consistently and empirically the same way gravity can, we can start quibbling over whether or not we know the "inner" works or "outer works" or the meaning of everything.

 

 

There's evidence for gravity. You can't be agnostic about it.

There's no evidence of god. You can be agnostic about it, but be honest if you are.

 

Also, rigney, I spent a bit trying to make a few points you raised. This is the only one you answer?

 

~mooey

[doG]

Side note to mod: Is this side discussion on atheism off topic? Should it be cut out to another thread?

 

I agree.

 

But it might be a position between theist and atheist, at least the way this definition holds today.

 

Theists claim there's a god (or many).

Atheists claim there's no god.

Agnostics claim there's no way of knowing either.

 

"Nontheist" does not equal "Atheist". Maybe it should, but it doesn't.

Actually nontheist does mean atheist, a negative atheist but atheist none the less:

 

Negative and positive atheism: Positive atheism is a term popularly used to describe the form of atheism that asserts there is no deity. Negative atheism refers to any other type of non-theism, wherein a person does not believe in the existence of any deity, but without asserting there to be none. A negative atheist refers "to a person who simply has no belief in a deity because there are currently no rational grounds that support [its] existence."

 

"A diagram showing the relationship between the definitions of weak/strong and implicit/explicit atheism. Explicit strong/positive atheists (in purple on the right) assert that "at least one deity exists" is a false statement. Explicit weak/negative atheists (in blue on the right) reject or eschew belief that any deities exist without actually asserting that "at least one deity exists" is a false statement. Implicit weak/negative atheists (in blue on the left) would include people (such as young children and some agnostics) who do not believe in a deity, but have not explicitly rejected such belief."

 

Atheism ranges from those that claim there is no god, a small subset of the group, to those that simply lack belief. Those that simply lack belief are usually open to the possibility that there may be a god but have no reason to believe in one without further evidence. There is no position between theist and atheist. One has a belief that there is at least one deity or they are atheist. Yes, agnostics claim there is no way of knowing but knowing and believing are two different things. Agnosticism is about the belief that you could ever know the truth or not, not about the belief in existence.

Edited February 24, 2012 by doG

[mooeypoo]

But if your belief is that you can't know, how can you be EITHER one?

 

 

If you 'don't know', then you are neither a theist or an atheist. Either one of those mean you "know" an answer = a "yes" or a "no" to the existence of god(s).

 

No?

[doG]

But if your belief is that you can't know, how can you be EITHER one?

 

 

If you 'don't know', then you are neither a theist or an atheist. Either one of those mean you "know" an answer = a "yes" or a "no" to the existence of god(s).

 

No?

Belief has nothing to do with knowing. I don't know if there is a god or not but I do know that I have no belief that one exists. My lack of 'belief' makes me atheist, a weak atheist in particular because I do not make the claim there is no god. It does not mean that I 'believe' there is no god but if I did I would still be atheist, just a strong, or positive, atheist as opposed to a weak one. Additionally I 'believe' the truth about the existence of a deity is unknowable so I am also agnostic.

 

What's unfortunate is that the term agnostic never meant one believed or disbelieved in deities, only that one believed the truth about the existence of deities, or lack thereof, was ultimately unknowable to man. Over time people that lack belief in god without believing there wasn't one started looking for something to call themselves besides 'atheist' and started using the term agnostic as a label for a place in the middle.

 

The truth is that theist and not-theist, i.e. atheist, is really a binary position that is either on or off, there is no in between. It is easy to see this when you examine the requirement to be theist and you learn that one MUST believe, not know but believe, in at least one deity to be theist. Everyone else is not theist and that's all a-theist really means.

Edited February 24, 2012 by doG

[Moontanman]

An interesting video on the existence of god and why he always remains beyond our reach....

 

[immortal]

By that I suppose you mean a philsopher of whom immortal approves. That will limit the field somewhat.

 

 

Yes. well, I suppose it's a bit much to expect a simple carpenter to have any wisdom to offer, and perhaps goatherders have the same limitations. Or perhaps not. Do you really think that people just read the books and accept what is said. Ridiculous.

 

 

I see you have not understood the doctrine. Again, I would recommend Professor Radhakrishnan's book for clear view.

 

 

It's a garbled version of them, yes. As stated, however, this view is daft.

 

 

Does anyone do this? I hope not. Mind you, it would depend on what you mean by 'irrational'. Perhaps you mean that it uses a non-ordinary logical structure, which would be true, or that some things cannot be known by logic, which would also be true. Doesn't mean we should switch off out brains when thinking about these things.

 

 

Well yes. If these are distinct phenomena then obviously they are not unified. I await the proof. I find it astonishing, your pnchenat for sidismissing all scholars and seekers who disagree with you as ignorant fools. Wher I come from this is called arrogance, a neceesary pre-requisite for dogmatism.

 

 

Oh, he lacked revelations did he? I didn't know that. Perhaps you could provide the evidence. No? Well there's a surprise. It makes me laugh like a drain that you want to substitute your muddled view for which you have provided no argument or evidence for that of a truly great thinker. What sort of reaction do you expect to this sort of approach?

 

It is demonstrable in metaphysics that the universe is a unity. Now, that does not mean it is one, it just means that this is the best explanation for metaphysical problems. Thus when I claim that Schroedinger is right I do it with some argument and evidence behind me. If all I had were personal experiences than I would not waste everybody's time by arguing for them here.

 

Why on earth should anybody take what you say seriously when on a thread asking for evidence for your view you insist that there isn't any, or none that can be pointed to?

 

Evidence evidence evidence.

 

There's enough waffle.

 

 

 

Thank god you addressed my post atlast. I don't see any reasonable rebuttal being made but all you've made is an appeal to authority.

 

Well, let me get you to this straight, I have studied only one upanishad and it is the Isha Upanishad, it is one of the most significant upanishads, a short upanishad with just 18 sutras and more importantly Isha Upanishad is Yajnavalkya's upanishad which you quote his words quite often and in reality upanishads have no authors.

 

http://www.aurobindo.ru/workings/sa/04/0010_e.htm

 

This link above shows why everything is not as simple as you seem to think.

 

Synthesis of knowledge, synthesis of dharma, reconciliation and harmony of the opposites form the very soul of this Upanishad. In Western philosophy there is a law called the law of contradiction, according to which opposites mutually exclude each other. Two opposite propositions cannot hold good at the same time, they cannot integrate; two opposite qualities cannot be simultaneously true at the same place and in the same instrument. According to this law, opposites cannot be reconciled or harmonised. If the Divine is one, then however omnipotent He might be, He cannot be many. The infinite cannot be finite. It is impossible for the formless to assume form; if it assumes form, then it abrogates its formlessness. The formula that the Brahman is at the same time with and without attributes, which is exactly what the Upanishad also says about God who is nirguna, with and without attributes, is not admitted by this logic. If formlessness, oneness, infinity of the Brahman are true, then attributes, forms, multiplicity and finiteness of the Brahman are false; brahma satyam jaganmithya, “the Brahman is the sole reality, the world is an illusion” — such a totally ruinous deduction is the final outcome of that philosophic dictum. The Seer-Rishi of the Upanishad at each step tramples on that law and in each sloka announces its invalidity; he finds in the secret heart of the opposites the place for the reconciliation and harmony of their contradiction. The oneness of the universe in motion and the immobile Purusha, enjoyment of all by renunciation of all, eternal liberation by full action, perpetual stability of the Brahman in movement, unbound and inconceivable motion in the eternal immobility, the oneness of the Brahman without attributes and the Lord of the universe with attributes, the inadequacy of Knowledge alone or of Ignorance alone for attaining Immortality, Immortality obtained by simultaneous worship of Knowledge and Ignorance, the supreme liberation and realisation gained not by the constant cycle of birth, not by the dissolution of birth but by simultaneous accomplishment of Birth and Non-Birth, — these are the sublime principles loudly proclaimed by the Upanishad.

 

As you can see the Isha Upanishad of yajnavalkya rejects the law of contradiction and harmonizes the extreme views not by logic but through revelation, with his knowledge of God.

 

You cannot accept this because you think everything should go by logic but the upanishad of yajnavalkya says the opposite, to him the Personal God and the absolute unity is as fundamental as it is real. For you this is a contradiction but for a man who knows god he doesn't see any contradiction and he accepts both the personal God as well as the absolute unity.

 

You accepted the view of those untrue scholars who don't have real revelations not because its true, its mainly because their view support your metaphysical theory, because they quote from great scientists, because they speak about modern science, which is to say that you were misinformed by those scholars.

 

hiranmayena patrena satyasyapihitam mukham

tat tvam pushannya apavrino satya-dharmaya drishtaye (Isopanishad, Verse 15 from the scripture)

 

"The face of Truth is concealed by a golden vessel. Do thou, O Sun, open it so as to be seen by me who am by nature truthful (or, am the performer of rightful duties)."

XV

The face of Truth is hidden by a golden disk. O Pushan (Effulgent Being)! Uncover (Thy face) that I, the worshipper of Truth, may behold Thee.

XVI

O Pushan! O Sun, sole traveller of the heavens, controller of all, son of Prajapati, withdraw Thy rays and gather up Thy burning effulgence. Now through Thy Grace I behold Thy blessed and glorious form. The Purusha (Effulgent Being) who dwells within Thee, I am He. Here the sun, who is the giver of all light, is used as the symbol of the Infinite, giver of all wisdom. The seeker after Truth prays to the Effulgent One to control His dazzling rays, that his eyes, no longer blinded by them, may behold the Truth. Having perceived It, he proclaims: “Now I see that that Effulgent Being and I are one and the same, and my delusion is destroyed.” By the light of Truth he is able to discriminate between the real and the unreal, and the knowledge thus gained convinces him that he is one with the Supreme; that there is no difference between himself and the Supreme Truth; or as Christ said, “I and my Father are one.”

 

Pushan is one of the name of the Sun God and you can verify it by looking it up. The seer yajnavalkya of this Upanishad is clearly praying to a personal God and pleading him to reduce the intensity of his effulgent light rays so that he can see him and attain the knowledge that God and He are one.

 

You think Gods are just misrepresentations which don't really exist and your view is so incorrect. The Vedas and Upanishads is purely a theistic doctrine and God lies at the heart of their fundamental reality.

 

When christian mystics say that "I and my Father are one" it really means that the Father exists independent of the mind of the seer and the mind itself comes from the Father, he is the basis of the objective world made up of five elements and it is through the knowledge of Father that one realizes that He and God are one.

 

You don't accept that Gods exist independent of the mind of the observer which is also an incorrect view. So don't try to bring christianity in line with Upanishads and schroedinger, Christianity stands on its own.

 

XII (verse 12 Isha Upanishad)

They fall into blind darkness who worship the Unmanifested and they fall into greater darkness who worship the manifested.

 

XIII (verse 13 Isha Upanishad)

By the worship of the Unmanifested one end is attained; by the worship of the manifested, another. Thus we have heard from the wise men who taught us this.

XIV

 

He who knows at the same time both the Unmanifested (the cause of manifestation) and the destructible or manifested, he crosses over death through knowledge of the destructible and attains immortality through knowledge of the First Cause (Unmanifested). This particular Upanishad deals chiefly with the Invisible Cause and the visible manifestation, and the whole trend of its teaching is to show that they are one and the same, one being the outcome of the other hence no perfect knowledge is possible without simultaneous comprehension of both. The wise men declare that he who worships in a one–sided way, whether the visible or the invisible, does not reach the highest goal. Only he who has a co–ordinated understanding of both the visible and the invisible, of matter and spirit, of activity and that which is behind activity, conquers Nature and thus overcomes death. By work, by making the mind steady and by following the prescribed rules given in the Scriptures, a man gains wisdom. By the light of that wisdom he is able to perceive the Invisible Cause in all visible forms. Therefore the wise man sees Him in every manifested form. They who have a true conception of God are never separated from Him. They exist in Him and He in them.

 

You think that only knowledge of the absolute unity is possible but that's not entirely true, the knowledge of the external physical world of God made up of just five elements earth, water, air, fire and space is possible too and only those wise men who have knowledge of God can have a reconciliation between the external physical world of god, the world of absolute unity and the world of physical sciences.

 

isa vasyamidam sarvam yat kiñca jagatyam jagat

 

The word Isa means Ishvara or the Sun God, vasya means covering or like occupying a house, sarvam means everything, jagatyam jagat means all things which are mobile and immobile.

 

It means the the whole world, everything is made of and occupied by the god of the gods, the Isa or Pushan or Purusha and he controls the world with his pantheon of Gods. I am not talking of the world described by the natural sciences, I am talking of the external physical world made up of anthropomorphic gods.

 

Google it to know more about the Interpretation of Isha Upanishad

 

As for appeal to authority is concerned my post speaks for itself and there are whole lot of secret knowledge held by orthodox Brahmins who are not willing to share their knowledge with the outside world. We have to get knowledge from people who think that everyone deserves to know this knowledge.

[rigney]

Rigney, we may not know what gravity *is* but we know a lot about the fact it exists and what its effects are. We know so much about what its effects are, in fact, that we can PREDICT stuff with equations.

 

Accurately.

 

Very very accurately.

 

 

 

 

You cannot say that abotu *any* deity. That's the difference.

 

When "god"'s actions and existence could be predicted accurately, consistently and empirically the same way gravity can, we can start quibbling over whether or not we know the "inner" works or "outer works" or the meaning of everything.

 

 

There's evidence for gravity. You can't be agnostic about it.

There's no evidence of god. You can be agnostic about it, but be honest if you are.

 

Also, rigney, I spent a bit trying to make a few points you raised. This is the only one you answer?

 

~mooey

Yes, it wasn't very bright of me to offer a well established scientific fact as a parallel to religious beliefs. Regardless of what the unknowns of gravity eventually turn out to be, it does work unerringly and never kills anyone or anything other than by accident or stupidy. You can't possibly say the same for religions. And while I'm no Theist or Atheist, I hope the riddle of this vast universe can be solved so it can be put to rest.

[mooeypoo]

Yes, it wasn't very bright of me to offer a well established scientific fact as a parallel to religious beliefs. Regardless of what the unknowns of gravity eventually turn out to be, it does work unerringly and never kills anyone or anything other than by accident or stupidy. You can't possibly say the same for religions. And while I'm no Theist or Atheist, I hope the riddle of this vast universe can be solved so it can be put to rest.

 

Let me ask you this; in your "I don't know" statement, do you lean towards the existence of god(s) or the lack thereof?

 

From your own text you sound like you're assuming some existence of some powerful deity even if you don't see yourself in any of the religions.

 

In other words, what you claim in this thread doesn't seem to quite fit your expressed views, so I'm.. confused.

[immortal]

By that I suppose you mean a philsopher of whom immortal approves. That will limit the field somewhat.

 

The words of a philosopher is enough to know whether he has any true knowledge or not, one doesn't require an approval from a layman like immortal, the soon you learn this the better it is for you.

 

Yes. well, I suppose it's a bit much to expect a simple carpenter to have any wisdom to offer, and perhaps goatherders have the same limitations. Or perhaps not. Do you really think that people just read the books and accept what is said. Ridiculous.

 

Everyone can know god, one doesn't have to be a great philosopher, mathematician or a scientist because everyone is made in the image of God, we're all gods. It means revelation is what is required to know truth not logic or metaphysics.

 

I see you have not understood the doctrine. Again, I would recommend Professor Radhakrishnan's book for clear view.

 

There is no point in reading 101 upanishads if you don't have any revelations about them, a person who has revelations and really understood a single upanishad will have more knowledge compared to a person who has read 101 upanishads. The point is one must look for real and true knowledge.

 

It's a garbled version of them, yes. As stated, however, this view is daft.

 

Yes, I may be a fool and silly to think that the world is made up of just five elements and that they're anthropomprphic gods in a 21'st century world, yes you don't have any trouble in the plotline of matrix if the external physical world was run by artificial intelligence agents or by extraterrestrial beings but no one sees the possibility of anthropomorphic gods existing in the external physical world and they have no clue as to what the external physical world looks like.

 

The point is its not how logical a view is, its about does nature favours that view, that's more important, don't tell nature how it should be.

 

 

Does anyone do this? I hope not. Mind you, it would depend on what you mean by 'irrational'. Perhaps you mean that it uses a non-ordinary logical structure, which would be true, or that some things cannot be known by logic, which would also be true. Doesn't mean we should switch off out brains when thinking about these things.

 

Yes if they reject the traditional religious models by thinking that those goat herders were naive people then they'll laugh at us and its not the other way around and their view of the world has to be taken seriously.

 

Well yes. If these are distinct phenomena then obviously they are not unified. I await the proof. I find it astonishing, your pnchenat for sidismissing all scholars and seekers who disagree with you as ignorant fools. Wher I come from this is called arrogance, a neceesary pre-requisite for dogmatism.

 

They're making a fool of themselves if they reject the traditional religious models even when they're aware of it but if they're not aware of it then they are just misinformed. I criticize scholars who mix modern science and the absolute unity, its no way they're connected to each other by any imagination, the view of absolute unity requires a completely different world view.

 

Oh, he lacked revelations did he? I didn't know that. Perhaps you could provide the evidence. No? Well there's a surprise. It makes me laugh like a drain that you want to substitute your muddled view for which you have provided no argument or evidence for that of a truly great thinker. What sort of reaction do you expect to this sort of approach?

 

If you want to adhere yourself to schroedinger and don't want to overcome your misconceptions then its fine by me but don't expect people to just accept his views without criticizing his views in the first place, I have given my criticisms to his views.

 

It is demonstrable in metaphysics that the universe is a unity. Now, that does not mean it is one, it just means that this is the best explanation for metaphysical problems. Thus when I claim that Schroedinger is right I do it with some argument and evidence behind me. If all I had were personal experiences than I would not waste everybody's time by arguing for them here.

 

That's what I criticize the doctrine of Upanishads is mainly a theistic doctrine and it says the doctrine of Buddhism is false and you seem to put all of them in line with your metaphysical theory blurring the essential distinctions necessary to understand those doctrines which is very much incorrect.

 

All religions of the world stands on its own, you can put them on the same line by eliminating gods.

 

Why on earth should anybody take what you say seriously when on a thread asking for evidence for your view you insist that there isn't any, or none that can be pointed to?

 

Evidence evidence evidence.

 

There's enough waffle.

 

The same is for you why should I not criticize your view of Christianity, what evidence do you have for your view, just because some great scientists hold your view doesn't make it right. Not all christian mystics agree with your view which eliminates the Father of Christ from a fundamental reality.

[rigney]

Let me ask you this; in your "I don't know" statement, do you lean towards the existence of god(s) or the lack thereof?

 

From your own text you sound like you're assuming some existence of some powerful deity even if you don't see yourself in any of the religions.

 

In other words, what you claim in this thread doesn't seem to quite fit your expressed views, so I'm.. confused.

To be absolutely proof positive in reasoning isn't a rational way of doing business. I love the market, but never buy on a whim. Science itself is a mystery to me since I understand so little of the innuendo used to explain it, so I'm always asking questions. And to say that God exists without absolute proof, takes a lot of faith and hutzpah. To say he doesn't, takes even more of both. Is there a God?

Does such a supreme entity exist? Does anyone know for sure, pro or con? I sure as hell don't!

Edited February 24, 2012 by rigney

[PeterJ]

As for appeal to authority is concerned my post speaks for itself and there are whole lot of secret knowledge held by orthodox Brahmins who are not willing to share their knowledge with the outside world. We have to get knowledge from people who think that everyone deserves to know this knowledge.

There would be no secret knowledge according to the view I'm defending. There would be just the knowledge we have and the knowledge we do not. 'The Unknown is not the Unknowable' would be the orthodox Upanishadic view. As a view of our ability as human beings to acquire true and certain knowledge concerning the nature of the cosmos, the nature of Nature, as it were, it is an astonishingly optimistic view. It would be impossible to keep this knowledge secret. This is the whole doctrine right there, that the knowledge is there if we look for it, or stumble on it. It would not even be necessary to read or write, as we see from the earliest written texts that recorded the earlier oral traditions.

 

For the view you object to, the knowledge would not be secret, just incommunicable. Many of the Brahman's objected to the later view of the vedas, and the advaita view is seen as a heresy in some quarters. The view you attack is not mine. If you believe that there is secret knowledge then how can you speak with authority about what it is?

 

The doctrine of mysticism, the view to which you so strongly object, states on every page that we do not 'get knowledge from people'. People may help or hinder our search for it, but as Zen master Honghzi, one of the patriarchs of Zen, puts it, 'We cannot borrow knowledge'. Not the sort of knowledge we're talking about here.

 

This sort of knowledge , as you rightly say, would depend on what we might call 'revelations'. That is, we would gain knowledge by empirical enquiry. We might call the results revelations, and even physicists do this sometimes for their experiments, but this would suggest that we must wait around for a bolt from the blue to know anything. These goatherders and carpenters and atomic physicists we've been discussing here propose that we do not have to wait around for revelations but can regularly practice having them. This is basically the whole message, that if you want to know the truth then you can. Nobody else can do it for you.

 

It is true that very often knowledge was kept secret within certain traditions and sects, since at certain times and places in history it would have been very dangerous to let the knowledge out, leading to persecution and even death for the members, and perhaps sometimes for a teacher it might be a matter of taking one thing at a time, but no knowledge would be innacessible to anyone. Indeed, some schools say that in the end omniscience is unavoidable, that we inevitably end up where we began.

 

I don't object to you arguing for your view, immortal, everybody's entitiled to do that, but, rather, to your knowledge claims. You claim to know a lot, and yet do not even seem to know that the builders of the great civilisations of the Indus valley were more than goatherders. It doesn't add up. Since I'm here, I feel I should demonstrate that not all proponents of religion share your view. It pains me when on a science forum someone claims religion has no implications for physics, that it must be approached through revelations, that there is a secret knowledge of the Brahmins and so on, since all this is bound to make the whole thing seem utterly implausible.

 

Do you not see that a claim to secret knowledge is a claim to ignorance? Or is it your own secret knowledge of which you speak?

 

The same is for you why should I not criticize your view of Christianity, what evidence do you have for your view, just because some great scientists hold your view doesn't make it right. Not all christian mystics agree with your view which eliminates the Father of Christ from a fundamental reality.

 

Oh yes. Very good question.

 

If you look at your posts from the perspective of a sceptical scientist, then they reduce to your interpretations of a certain small group of scriptures and your personal revelations. This does not mean they can dismiss your view, but it makes it uninteresting, untestable, professionally irrelevant, scientifically useless. On a religion forum I would not be arguing with you but asking you about your practice and your revelations. Here this would be completely innapropriate and annoy just about everybody.

 

My approach is the opposite of this. I do not expect anybody here to take the slightest notice of claims to knowledge, mine or anyone else's, and can explain and defend my view without having to mention the word religion, simply in terms of metaphysics and physics, logic and mathematics. This does not mean my view is correct, but it means that at a stretch it can be called scientific, as well as religious. This makes it fair for me to promote it here, since I am providing a target that can be hit from within the sciences.

 

I should not have used the word waffle. What you say is not waffle. Of course not. I was pointing out that it is waffle in the context of this forum, which is not very important in the long run.

 

Please don't think my view would eliminate the Father of Christ. This is not the case. It is just that we have very different ideas about the meaning of these words. My feeling is that you interpret the view I propose as being inimicable with your beliefs, but that this is mostly due to a misinterpretation of that view (and that of Schroedinger et al). A different interpretation would see most differences as either quite minor, or on issues about which neither of us can speak with any confidence.

Edited February 24, 2012 by PeterJ

[immortal]

There would be no secret knowledge according to the view I'm defending. There would be just the knowledge we have and the knowledge we do not. 'The Unknown is not the Unknowable' would be the orthodox Upanishadic view. As a view of our ability as human beings to acquire true and certain knowledge concerning the nature of the cosmos, the nature of Nature, as it were, it is an astonishingly optimistic view. It would be impossible to keep this knowledge secret. This is the whole doctrine right there, that the knowledge is there if we look for it, or stumble on it. It would not even be necessary to read or write, as we see from the earliest written texts that recorded the earlier oral traditions.

 

Yes the people of Upanishads were gnostic theists and if you think book knowledge is real knowledge then you're going to real darkness. I am talking of practical knowledge which can only be attained from a master. Just by reading something you'll not understand or get anything, one need to have revelations, that's how religion works. There are a whole lot of rituals and practices which can only be performed after you get some rights by performing a ritual.

 

For the view you object to, the knowledge would not be secret, just incommunicable. Many of the Brahman's objected to the later view of the vedas, and the advaita view is seen as a heresy in some quarters. The view you attack is not mine. If you believe that there is secret knowledge then how can you speak with authority about what it is?

 

Like I said there are Brahmins who think that even other people are deserved to know this knowledge and they write them in the form of books but that kind of knowledge is not enough, they cannot give practical knowledge through books, one has to learn them personally from a master and that would make most of the practical knowledge inaccessible to other fellow men.

 

The doctrine of mysticism, the view to which you so strongly object, states on every page that we do not 'get knowledge from people'. People may help or hinder our search for it, but as Zen master Honghzi, one of the patriarchs of Zen, puts it, 'We cannot borrow knowledge'. Not the sort of knowledge we're talking about here.

 

I am in favor of mysticism, I don't object the doctrine of mysticism, what I'm objecting is your incorrect views of mysticism. You cannot attain the knowledge of absolute unity without a master. One is very clear about this.

 

This sort of knowledge , as you rightly say, would depend on what we might call 'revelations'. That is, we would gain knowledge by empirical enquiry. We might call the results revelations, and even physicists do this sometimes for their experiments, but this would suggest that we must wait around for a bolt from the blue to know anything. These goatherders and carpenters and atomic physicists we've been discussing here propose that we do not have to wait around for revelations but can regularly practice having them. This is basically the whole message, that if you want to know the truth then you can. Nobody else can do it for you.

 

What will you practice if you don't have real practical knowledge which works all the time, such a knowledge can only come from a master.

 

It is true that very often knowledge was kept secret within certain traditions and sects, since at certain times and places in history it would have been very dangerous to let the knowledge out, leading to persecution and even death for the members, and perhaps sometimes for a teacher it might be a matter of taking one thing at a time, but no knowledge would be innacessible to anyone. Indeed, some schools say that in the end omniscience is unavoidable, that we inevitably end up where we began.

 

If you lack the practical knowledge to attain revelations then you have been denied access to that knowledge.

 

I don't object to you arguing for your view, immortal, everybody's entitiled to do that, but, rather, to your knowledge claims. You claim to know a lot, and yet do not even seem to know that the builders of the great civilisations of the Indus valley were more than goatherders. It doesn't add up.

 

The term ancient goat herders is common term which is being used in this forum saying that those people were in the dark ages. I used the term because normally I send the message to other people from my posts to you. I know if they're right they had more wisdom and knowledge than other civilizations. That's what I was intending to say from my posts that they weren't in a dark age.

 

Since I'm here, I feel I should demonstrate that not all proponents of religion share your view. It pains me when on a science forum someone claims religion has no implications for physics, that it must be approached through revelations, that there is a secret knowledge of the Brahmins and so on, since all this is bound to make the whole thing seem utterly implausible.

 

Yes since I'm here, I have already demonstrated why your views are incorrect and there are serious objections to your view from the seers of the upanishads themselves.

 

Do you not see that a claim to secret knowledge is a claim to ignorance? Or is it your own secret knowledge of which you speak?

 

No, we can know what those rituals and practices are and how they are performed by reading books, we have access to that knowledge but we don't have access to practical knowledge and not everyone have access to that kind of practical knowledge. Either we have lost them or people are not sharing that knowledge to the outside world.

 

Oh yes. Very good question.

 

If you look at your posts from the perspective of a sceptical scientist, then they reduce to your interpretations of a certain small group of scriptures and your personal revelations. This does not mean they can dismiss your view, but it makes it uninteresting, untestable, professionally irrelevant, scientifically useless. On a religion forum I would not be arguing with you but asking you about your practice and your revelations. Here this would be completely innapropriate and annoy just about everybody.

 

I should not have used the word waffle. What you say is not waffle. Of course not. I was pointing out that it is waffle in the context of this forum, which is not very important in the long run.

 

 

Let me tell you this, atheism is not scientific and neither is metaphysics, we normally dump unfalsiable theories in metaphysics and call them unscientific, science can neither prove nor disprove the existence of Gods, there are no God hypothesis in science so that we can have a set of predictions and test the existence of God to determine he exists or not.

 

That's not how religion works, I don't have any desire to make religion scientific, it doesn't have to be scientific.

 

1. I seriously object those who merge modern science with mysticism, there is nothing in modern science which connects with mysticism, irrespective of gods or absolute unity exists or not, it has no implications for scientific models. Quantum Entanglement has nothing do with mysticism, mystics don't talk in terms of particles, particles has no place in mysticism.

 

2. Occam's razor clearly eliminates the requirement for the existence of God and the same can be used to eliminate the requirement for the existence of unity too, it doesn't make it anymore scientific, science doesn't require any absolute unity in its models.

 

Occam's razor himself was a theist and he himself has said that religion works based on faith and revelations. Everyone accepts his criteria for the scientific method but no one accepts his criteria for theology.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occam%27s_razor#God_as_beside_the_razor

 

William of Ockham himself was a theist. He believed in God, and thus in some validity of scripture; he writes that “nothing ought to be posited without a reason given, unless it is self-evident (literally, known through itself) or known by experience or proved by the authority of Sacred Scripture.”[40] In Ockham's view, an explanation which does not harmonize with reason, experience or the aforementioned sources cannot be considered valid. However, unlike many theologians of his time, Ockham did not believe God could be logically proven with arguments. In fact, he thought that science actually seemed to eliminate God according to the Razor's criteria. To Ockham, science was a matter of discovery, but theology was a matter of revelation and faith (e.g. some sort of Non-overlapping magisteria).[41] He explains: “only faith gives us access to theological truths. The ways of God are not open to reason, for God has freely chosen to create a world and establish a way of salvation within it apart from any necessary laws that human logic or rationality can uncover.”

 

Religion works by faith and revelation. Your view of absolute unity is not self evident and we have left with reasoning, revelation in the form of experience and the sacred scriptures.

 

You only go by reason or through logic and I use revelation and the sacred scripture to harmonize reason itself by harmonizing the opposites and making the law of contradiction has invalid.

 

If you argue by reason alone then obviously you'll find that my views are incompatible with reason. But I'm arguing from revelation and the sacred scripture and see no contradiction in stating that the personal god as well as the absolute unity is as fundamental as it is real. My view harmonizes reason, experience and also the sacred scripture. Don't tell God has to what logic he has to go by. Just because you cannot harmonize the fact that both personal God as well as absolute unity exists

with your constrained human logic doesn't mean those views which comes from revelation and sacred scriptures are invalid and illogical and say that gods don't exist. Yes, its illogical to a human mind but not to a mind which has had profound revelations and even such a reasoning has equal footing as yours.

 

Saying that one shouldn't post revelations and the scripture in a religious forum is an ignorance shown by people who don't know how religion works. The authority of the scripture as well as revelations from true scholars and philosophers should be considered. I am not saying those revelations are mine, if it was mine then I would have demonstrated some real knowledge and I would prove the existence of gods proving gnostic theism and disproving atheism and agnosticism, we didn't had to discuss anything further.

 

Atheism, agnosticism are all beliefs and even gnostic theism is a belief and one should be allowed to criticize other person's beliefs and you can criticize mine, I like people criticizing my views because it pushes me to attain real knowledge, I take it positively but you cannot say to me not to post from revelation and the sacred scripture. In religion revelation and sacred scripture has an higher authority than logic or science. I don't have to reduce my views and make it compatible with modern science, if my views are right, modern science itself will emerge has a sub case in the theological hypothesis of a personal God.

 

I don't have any reason to take the views of atheists and agnostics seriously just as you think that no one has to take my views seriously. Just because you talk logic and science and quote great scientist doesn't make you right. We all are intellectually dishonest and you're showing double standards saying that "I can promote my views because my views are scientific". Atheism is not scientific neither is metaphysics. All our beliefs have equal footing and it stands on its own and anyone can criticize others personal beliefs,if not you're displaying dogmatism here.

 

 

My approach is the opposite of this. I do not expect anybody here to take the slightest notice of claims to knowledge, mine or anyone else's, and can explain and defend my view without having to mention the word religion, simply in terms of metaphysics and physics, logic and mathematics. This does not mean my view is correct, but it means that at a stretch it can be called scientific, as well as religious. This makes it fair for me to promote it here, since I am providing a target that can be hit from within the sciences.

 

That's what I said just because you talk of modern science and quote from great scientists and meta-physicians doesn't mean we have to take you seriously in a religious forum either, you're claims are as unscientific as mine and That's the reason I criticized your views and should be allowed to do so.

 

Synthesis of knowledge, synthesis of dharma, reconciliation and harmony of the opposites form the very soul of this Upanishad. In Western philosophy there is a law called the law of contradiction, according to which opposites mutually exclude each other. Two opposite propositions cannot hold good at the same time, they cannot integrate; two opposite qualities cannot be simultaneously true at the same place and in the same instrument. According to this law, opposites cannot be reconciled or harmonised. If the Divine is one, then however omnipotent He might be, He cannot be many. The infinite cannot be finite. It is impossible for the formless to assume form; if it assumes form, then it abrogates its formlessness. The formula that the Brahman is at the same time with and without attributes, which is exactly what the Upanishad also says about God who is nirguna, with and without attributes, is not admitted by this logic. If formlessness, oneness, infinity of the Brahman are true, then attributes, forms, multiplicity and finiteness of the Brahman are false; brahma satyam jaganmithya, “the Brahman is the sole reality, the world is an illusion” — such a totally ruinous deduction is the final outcome of that philosophic dictum. The Seer-Rishi of the Upanishad at each step tramples on that law and in each sloka announces its invalidity; he finds in the secret heart of the opposites the place for the reconciliation and harmony of their contradiction.

 

You didn't addressed this excerpt. Yajnavalkya clearly demonstrates that the law of contradiction is invalid and he harmonizes the opposites not by logic but through revelation. Logic has not won revelation has won. If it is not your view then don't claim that "upanishads support my metaphysical theory". Clearly it doesn't. If I was not here you would have claimed that upanishads support your view when it clearly does not, now that I have shown you that your views are incorrect you're retracting from your views and saying that its not my view. If its not your view then please don't blur the distinctions of different religions and claim that upanishads support your view when it really doesn't support but ciriticize your views completely. You're moving the goal posts.

 

 

Please don't think my view would eliminate the Father of Christ. This is not the case. It is just that we have very different ideas about the meaning of these words. My feeling is that you interpret the view I propose as being inimicable with your beliefs, but that this is mostly due to a misinterpretation of that view (and that of Schroedinger et al). A different interpretation would see most differences as either quite minor, or on issues about which neither of us can speak with any confidence.

 

Sure, your view does eliminate the father of christ and its a major issue. Christian mystics would indeed criticize the views of the roman catholic church who see the Father has someone as a sky dictator wearing a crown and say that the "Father and I are one" . You think that Father of christ exist only in our minds but that's not true, the father of christ exist independant of the mind of the observer seperate from the mind, he has objective existence, you cannot blur the distinctions present in the mystical traditions of upanishads and chrisitianity and put them on the same line.

[PeterJ]

Okay, immortal. I tried.

[iNow]

Certainly nobody should expect unjustified assertions to be accepted on SFN, but you should also know better than to think that blatant flaming belongs on SFN. We've been over this many times.

 

Enjoy your week's vacation.

"Here’s a central issue of contention: FAITH. No one word personifies the absolute worst and most wicked properties of religion better than that. Faith is mind-rot. It’s the poison that destroys critical thinking, undermines evidence, and leads people into lives dedicated to absurdity. It’s a parasite regarded as a virtue. I speak as a representative of the scientific faction of atheism: it’s one thing we simply cannot compromise on. Faith is wrong."

~PZ Myers

[mooeypoo]

"Here's a central issue of contention: FAITH. No one word personifies the absolute worst and most wicked properties of religion better than that. Faith is mind-rot. It's the poison that destroys critical thinking, undermines evidence, and leads people into lives dedicated to absurdity. It's a parasite regarded as a virtue. I speak as a representative of the scientific faction of atheism: it's one thing we simply cannot compromise on. Faith is wrong."

~PZ Myers

 

I am not sure I understand what this quote tries to accomplish. Are you answering Capn's comment about the rules of this forum (which you already know) by quoting your reasoning to flaming? Because your reasoning is immaterial when it breaks the rules of this forum.

 

Besides, the above quote states that "faith is wrong". Not that you should flame everyone. You *can* state the opinion that a faith-based claim (or faith itself) is wrong without being a complete asshole about it.

 

Trust me, it can be done. Actually, you used to be able to do that, once upon a time.

You can disagree with our rules, but if and when you blatantly disobey them, there will be consequences. Don't like it? Post on Pharyngula. This attitude of yours as if you alone can make up your own rules, as if you alone decide what's "proper" *everywhere* regardless of what the others thing is really getting annoying.

 

You don't even notice that you're doing exactly the same thing you're fighting against: You're pushing your own beliefs on us and then ridicule us when we answer back. Enough already, seriously. Does it not bother you that everyone who disagree with you are automatically treated as stupid? Does it not raise red flags in your mind?

 

The sad truth is that I tend to agree quite a lot with the content of what you're saying. And yet, I'm so turned off by your attitude, I just can't read anything you write anymore, whether you have a point or not. If you don't see that as being against your own purpose, then maybe you should just stick to posting on Pharyngula and RDF forums; you can preach to the choir and flame anyone you want there and no one will ban you. It will be much less effort than trying to get us to change the purpose and rules of this forum.

 

~mooey

[JustinW]

iNow,

 

"Here’s a central issue of contention: FAITH. No one word personifies the absolute worst and most wicked properties of religion better than that. Faith is mind-rot. It’s the poison that destroys critical thinking, undermines evidence, and leads people into lives dedicated to absurdity. It’s a parasite regarded as a virtue. I speak as a representative of the scientific faction of atheism: it’s one thing we simply cannot compromise on. Faith is wrong."

You make it sound like there is no fulfillment to be had by faith. There is something to be said about a persons general attitude towards life and death with someone who possesses a certain amount of faith in the here-after. Is it so hard to believe that people can recieve a level of hope that may inspire good will towards others provided by that faith? Sure a lot of folks would say false hope, but that doesn't change the fact that hope still remains. There has been alot of good come out of people's "dedication to absurdity". A question I've wanted to ask is, do people who don't possess any kind of faith or belief in the supernatural still have moments of awe and inspiration as great as those who do possess faith? It seems without some sort of hope or faith for something greater, that there would be some kind of void in a persons life. That is the way it seems to me anyway. Is logic really a substantial substitute for such fulfillment in life? And if so, why?