Discussion Topic |
|
This thread has been locked |
WBraun
climber
|
|
|
Jan 23, 2008 - 11:07pm PT
|
Straight out of the Veda; Srimad-Bhagavatam
evam prasanna-manaso
bhagavad-bhakti-yogatah
bhagavat-tattva-vijnanam
mukta-sangasya jayate
[SB 1.2.20]
So the Absolute Truth is scientific knowledge. It is not sentiment -- "I accept somebody as God by votes." That is not bhagavat-tattva-vijnanam. One must know what is the definition of God. It is not that somebody comes forward with a long beard and says, "I am God," and we rascals accept him as God. No, not like that. It is vijnanam. Vijnana means science. Without scientific knowledge, one cannot understand what is God. Bhagavat-tattva-vijnanam. And who can understand this vijnana, this scientific knowledge? Mukta-sangasya. One who is liberated from the contamination of the three modes of material nature, he can understand.
Those who are contaminated with tamo-guna, rajo-guna, they can create their own God. There are different types of "God" also. In one sense everyone is God. God means the controller. So everyone is to some extent a controller. But as I have explained several times, real controller means who is not controlled by others. That is God. If I am controlled by the material nature, daivi hy esa gunamayi mama maya duratyaya... [Bg. 7.14]. Birth, death, old age and disease, if I am controlled by these conditions of nature, then how I can become God? God is never controlled. Therefore one who can understand God must be free from the contamination of this material nature. Mukta-sangasya.
|
|
Largo
Sport climber
Venice, Ca
|
|
|
Jan 24, 2008 - 12:49pm PT
|
Ed wrote:
That is not what we do with religion, or a belief in "god." There the experience is required to be personal and subjective. While I don't understand John's "infinite quality," I believe the idea it gets at is the lack of measurability... which defines what is subjective. I don't mean this as a pejorative, rather, as relating to our ability to have thoughts beyond what is real, what is objective.
This assumes there is only two poles of experience and reality: physical and subjective. I'm not sure you can separtate theese insofar as most any subjectgive experience has a physical or biological fingerprint. You think and brain waves reflect this, as seen on a regular EEG. Anothbeer interesting thought along these lines (not myh own, BTW) is that thinking or subjectgive experience is not something the brain "does," rather it's what the brain IS.
JL
|
|
Ed Hartouni
Trad climber
Livermore, CA
|
|
|
Jan 24, 2008 - 02:57pm PT
|
John, I agree that the process that the brain engages in, roughly termed "thought," is a very important part of how we perceive reality.
I wouldn't so much define two poles, but rather propose that there is a something which exists beyond brain function (thought). In some sense, the methodology of science gets us beyond what is thought and to what is "beyond thought." There is an idealization of the physical universe that exists and we in it. But our understanding of that universe is formed by the very process of knowing it, that is, our perception and our ideas.
Science is one way of moving beyond what is happening in our heads.
That is a better description of what I am saying above. Now the way I have described it, the way science attempts to reveal the "truths" of the physical universe isn't so much different than a statement you'd expect from various humanistic disciplines handed down to us through history. It is my understanding that the empirical aspect of science differentiates it from those other ways of thinking. That is, the belief that one can trust that empirical knowledge, e.g. experimental results, can provide a connection with the actual universe.
One can raise the objection that somehow we have just reached a consensus among scientists which is as much a fiction as any other. However, but requiring rigorous and quantitative prediction, and then testing that prediction, that science distinguishes itself.
Blowing up a nuclear weapon in the desert was not the result of a bunch of scientists convincing themselves that their particular construction of reality was correct.
My ideas about "god" above actually have changed by the discussions on STForum, and right now I am aligned with your observation that thoughts are real... and that "god" is at least a thought, and therefore real because of that. But then there are a lot of thoughts that we have which are not realized beyond thought, they do not manifest themselves in the larger universe. The thought is real, even if the physical realization of the thought is not. Use and mention.
|
|
dirtineye
Trad climber
the south
|
|
|
Jan 24, 2008 - 03:23pm PT
|
So, Ed, using your newfound ideology, think up a bridge between two peaks.
Think on it really hard.
Then step out on it.
But just in case, wear a parachute.
|
|
Ed Hartouni
Trad climber
Livermore, CA
|
|
|
Jan 24, 2008 - 04:22pm PT
|
it's not so much an ideology, dirt, but actually just thinking about the irreducible contradictions.
You could argue that if thought were just the result of an electo-chemical process that it could not do the things that we know it does... imagine the unreal, for instance... but I would say that the ideas themselves have an existence and reality beyond the thing that has them.. take mathematics, for instance. My point in bringing up Nash's own observations of his thoughts were that he could not separate what was real from what was not, in fact, he was trained (or trained himself) to do mathematics by a way of thinking which he could not distinguish between fantasy and reality.
The point is that these things took place in his head, in the way he thought.
The idea of "god" is very much real, and there have been agreements among many people on what this idea is. There is also a lot of disagreement. But what is true is that there is no way of demonstrating which of these ideas is correct, is the truth. There is no empirical way to determine that truth. It doesn't make the ideas less real, and by not insisting on physical manifestation of the idea, there is no paradox.
It is strange to me that the people who insist on a physical manifestation would also argue that it is irrelevant... so "god's" reality may be in thought alone. Why wouldn't that be good enough?
Now I haven't come to the point where I have a belief in "god." I am just grappling with a particular logical construct which I think is a bit more subtle than "god vs. science" which is a very real battle going on, whether people want to acknowledge it or not.
For myself, I always try to put myself in the other person's place and act to them as I would want me to act if I were them... it is not a hard thing to do, really. Empathy is part of our wiring.
|
|
healyje
Trad climber
Portland, Oregon
|
|
|
Jan 24, 2008 - 04:42pm PT
|
[url="http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/24/science/24cnd-genome.html?ex=1358917200&en=804a7c62cbba0dba&ei=5088&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss" target="new"]Scientists Take New Step Toward Man-Made Life[/url]
January 24, 2008
Taking a significant step toward the creation of man-made forms of life, researchers reported Thursday that they had manufactured the entire genome of a bacterium by painstakingly stitching together its chemical components. Complete Chemical Synthesis, Assembly, and Cloning of a Mycoplasma genitalium Genome. While scientists had previously synthesized the complete DNA of viruses, this is the first time it has been done for bacteria, which are much more complex. The genome is more than 10 times as long as the longest piece of DNA ever previously synthesized.
The feat is a watershed for the emerging field called synthetic biology, which involves the design of organisms to perform particular tasks, such as making biofuels. Synthetic biologists envision being able one day to design an organism on a computer, press the “print” button to have the necessary DNA made, and then put that DNA into a cell to produce a custom-made creature.
...
|
|
GOclimb
Trad climber
Boston, MA
|
|
|
Jan 24, 2008 - 05:07pm PT
|
Ed - I think you're exactly right, except for this: It is strange to me that the people who insist on a physical manifestation {of God} would also argue that it is irrelevant... so "god's" reality may be in thought alone. Why wouldn't that be good enough?
To those who believe in God, it will never be enough to be told: "it's all in your head". You might as well ask why it's not sufficient to tell me when I see a cup in front of me, that I am delusional. Because by you denying the physical reality of this God, you are doing exactly that (to those who believe).
The whole point of God is that it is real, outside of us, affecting our lives (or at least what happens after we die) - while *also* being personal.
GO
|
|
healyje
Trad climber
Portland, Oregon
|
|
|
Jan 24, 2008 - 06:11pm PT
|
What is it about god that, according to the believers of all religions, a common man or woman cannot experience a universally verifiable, physical, face-to-face converversation with a god. You know, one where someone walking by could say, "hey, I saw you were talking with god yesterday..." The fact that no religion in the history of mankind has never employed a 'common', verifiable physical manifestation of god is quite remarkable. Instead, it's always inside someone's head, or an unverifiable 'miracle', or only done in secret by someone 'priviledged'.
If any god were real and had the powers ascribed to them by an endless litany of religions, then there should really be no obstacle at all to having dinner with god, or god car pooling with me to work, or even doing lunch. And, hey, if I'm made in god's image, then I figure he must be a lot like me and, being the considerate and polite guy I am, I'd be happy to do lunch if I were god. I sorry, but I personally just will always call bullshit on the whole loonie, manipulative, and desperate fear-based concept of your gods.
|
|
WBraun
climber
|
|
|
Jan 24, 2008 - 06:25pm PT
|
Healyje
"The fact that no religion in the history of mankind has never employed a 'common', verifiable physical manifestation of god is quite remarkable."
Buddha was bona fide incarnation of God in this age of Kali and Sri Caitanya Mahaprabhu.
Now Sri Caitanya Mahaprabhu came disguised as a devotee and never really claimed he was God but he was the Supreme Absolute Truth Lord himself.
In the Vedas all the Bona fide incarnations are given for each age.
They stand the test of all time.
|
|
healyje
Trad climber
Portland, Oregon
|
|
|
Jan 24, 2008 - 06:30pm PT
|
So where do I have to go tomorrow to talk to god and what's his Earth name at the moment.
|
|
WBraun
climber
|
|
|
Jan 24, 2008 - 06:41pm PT
|
You follow the bona fide instructions of Sri Caitanya Mahaprabhu.
Just as one here in the material world goes to a bona fide school to learn for example physics.
Do you go to Chongo Chuck?
|
|
John Moosie
climber
|
|
|
Jan 24, 2008 - 07:20pm PT
|
"So where do I have to go tomorrow to talk to god and what's his Earth name at the moment."
In this age we are entering, many people are meant to embody the Being of Christ. It was what Paul meant when he said we must put on the mind of Christ.
http://www.askrealjesus.com/
On the left side of this page as you scroll down, there are a number of descriptions of types of seekers. Pick the one you think matches you best and read.
|
|
healyje
Trad climber
Portland, Oregon
|
|
|
Jan 24, 2008 - 10:45pm PT
|
You follow the bona fide instructions of Sri Caitanya Mahaprabhu.
He's been on sabbatical for 475 years? So who is god today?
|
|
bob d'antonio
Trad climber
Taos, NM
|
|
|
Jan 24, 2008 - 10:57pm PT
|
Werner wrote:Buddha was bona fide incarnation of God in this age of Kali and Sri Caitanya Mahaprabhu.
You might want to ask the Christians about.
|
|
WBraun
climber
|
|
|
Jan 24, 2008 - 11:02pm PT
|
No need to ask the Christians as Caitanya Mahaprabhu is a perfect Christian.
Healy you seem to have troubles with instructions.
100 years hard labor for you.
|
|
neebee
Social climber
calif/texas
|
|
|
Jan 24, 2008 - 11:07pm PT
|
hey there all... just stopped by to see how all this is going... wow... say, this is getting more and more complicated, huh... oh, my....
well, i am doing homework now, so i must press on to the next trail, post/thread, or homework page--our even feed the cats... god bless to all ... :)
|
|
Minerals
Social climber
The Deli
|
|
|
Feb 21, 2008 - 01:20am PT
|
Science vs. [_]
“Science wins by forfeit of no-show…”
In response to John Moosie, bc wrote:
“John,
You take a very narrow view of the word "evil". Can we ever hope to stop the "evil" of all current or new diseases? Will we ever be able to anticipate and stop natural catastrophes? "Evil" comes in many forms, not just the many manmade types. Will love stop the next earthquake or tsunami and the many "evils" that they bring? Perhaps "horror" would be a better word.
bc
ps Do you really believe we have been given dominion over the earth???”
This one has been stewing in the back of my head for over a month now. bc, I believe that you have a misconstrued view of the word “evil” with respect to disease and the natural phenomena of the Earth, as does John (or at least in my view…). No offense; I simply wish to use this as an excuse to ramble and possibly discuss.
Why are diseases “evil” if they thin out the weak in an overpopulated society/species and promote evolution? Is this not a good thing in the long run? Is this not how we have become what we have become today, as the modern human? Or would we prefer to trend towards the devolution that our modern, politically correct society seems to embrace? Why is it so sad and terrible when humans leave us prematurely as a result of their own wrong doings? Accident or human error? Has Darwin been banned from the playing field?
And, why are earthquakes, tsunamis, volcanic eruptions, etc. considered to be catastrophes, in the human sense? We refer to sudden major events in the geologic record as “catastrophic”, but should these events really be viewed as evil or horrible catastrophes? I think NOT!!! Neither gOD, nor Love has anything to do with the workings of this immense and complex sphere that we (temporarily) inhabit. And it is purely a matter of our ignorance of these beautiful workings that causes us to view them as bad or negative. You can look at it through the eyes of a soldier and say… “Know thy enemy. Kill thy enemy.” Or, you can look at it through the eyes of one who tries to understand and appreciate Earth and say, “Know, Respect, and Love thy Mother. Work with her, not against her.”
Hell, it wasn’t until college that I had a chance to study geology and the Earth (the real world) – definitely not the case for such futile studies such as the human-conceived study of “economics” and the EVILS that it has brought us (and might bring...). Maybe if humans spent a little more time and effort to actually understand the (real) world that they live in, they wouldn’t view such catastrophic events as evil because they UNDERSTAND them and have learned where to build structures and where not to build structures, so on and so on, etc., etc., or rather, how to adapt to the realities of planet Earth – to live with the Earth rather than fight it in an attempt to conquer, to attempt to emulate the perfection of nature. Do natural geologic events bring evil, or are they merely a complex, yet simple cause and effect? Has life on this planet not been exposed to REALITY for the past three billion-plus years, with the results of evolution (you) to show for it?
Can any of you “creationists” honestly give me an argument (here or in person) as to why I shouldn’t believe that the dozens of pounds of silicified mammal fossils that I have found out in the desert are not the petrologic remains of beasts and creatures that lived here tens of millions of years ago, and suffered their ultimate demise by sudden volcanic activity? Did these beasts not evolve from their predecessors of the past and are the beasts of today not an “updated version”?
As someone who feels that he knows Mother fairly well and has a Love for her that is FAR greater than that for any human being, including himself, I say to all humans… Pull your head out of yer ass and pay attention to REALITY, not yer damn imagination… and quit destroying MOTHER!!!!! Without her, you are NOTHING!!! And if you are nothing, then your gOD is NOTHING!!! Stop the Hand of Human Intervention!!!
Dominion is temporary, as is our existence!
Ed Hartouni (physicist) and Tom “elcap-pics Ansel” Evans (retired physics teacher), you science dudes KICK ASS!!!! All due respect, plus a lot more!
|
|
dfrost7
Social climber
|
|
|
Feb 21, 2008 - 01:38am PT
|
Ever read C.S. Lewis's, Mere Christianity? He answers most of these questions from both Atheist and Believer.
|
|
Minerals
Social climber
The Deli
|
|
|
Feb 21, 2008 - 03:17am PT
|
Yeah, as cute as the Hand of Human Intervention. Why can’t wolves stay wolves and humans keep to themselves? F*#k domestic animals!!! F*#k domestication!!! …And all of the cows that trample and sh#t all over the desert!!! I’d rather see people is zoos… oh wait, they’re called prisons…
|
|
OhYeah!!!
Trad climber
Sacramento, CA
|
|
|
Feb 22, 2008 - 02:25am PT
|
I know evoloution to be true and here are a few reasons why. First of all you are not exactly like your parents, right? Your descendants will never be exactly like your parents, right? Therefore, even in your family there is change over time (aka evolution). Another good example is the flu or common cold. Each year you take a different flu vaccine. Do you know why??? It is because the Virus's changes genetically over time (even recordable time) and we monitor it to prevent the flu in humans. Since I believe in evolution I wondered what humans are closely related to. I know that we have a genetic similarity to the great apes. We must have a common ancestor somewhere in the rescent past. We also evolved from fish in the more distant past and even worms and single celled organisms(deduced from evidence of the fossil record and my evidence of evolution), and since none of our ancestors has a religion then we can assume that religion was made up by humans, right? Even humans that have agreed on religions in the past have changed thier beliefs (this is evolution of thought, is it not?). Religion is unreliable and variable, science can be tested.
|
|
|
SuperTopo on the Web
|
Let us know!