3000 year old debate - and still going!

[Light Travelling]

This is an passage from the Upanishads. Part of the Hindu scriptures, they are thought to be over 3000 years old.

"Ignorant of their ignorance, yet wise in there own esteem, these deluded mean proud of their vain learning go round and round, like the blind led by the blind. For beyond their eyes (hypnotised by the world of the senses) opens the way to immortality. "I am my body , when my body dies I die" they say. Living in this superstition, they fall life after life under death's sway."

Katha upanishad 2:6


Now the reason I have posted this is not to say that its contents are correct or not correct. But to show that this debate we are all involved in has been going on unchecked for over 3000 years. Many people seem to think that historically everyone was religious and now with 'modern' science atheism has come to give us a new choice. This is utter rubbish. The debate between religious and atheist is as old as religion itself. The debate between those that say "only what I sense is real" and those that say there is another spiritual world, has been raging for millenia - using exactly the same arguments we use here on this forum. There is even a sanskrit word for atheist found in ancient manuscripts! (Nastika)


Now when you consider the timescales involved here and the seeming lack of change in the argumnets used.

1. What does it tell you about the nature of the debate itself?
2. What does it tell you about the effect technology has had on the debate?

 

[Lawdog]

Interesting post. I think that nevertheless atheism was rare and almost non-existant in the ancient world, save for a few Greek philosophers.

In the east there is a revulsion for the physical, bodily, the senses. The body is seen as a shell to be thrown away, the senses as deceptive and untrustworthy.

Yet it is only via the senses that we come to learn of spiritual realities, "nihil in mente quod primum in sensu erat" -there is nothing in the mind which did not first come by way of sensory experience

WHAT DO YOU THINK ABOUT THAT PROPOSITION? IS THERE ANYTHING IN YOUR MIND THAT WAS ORIGINALLY EXPERIENCED BY YOUR SENSES???

perhaps spiritual things are not separate from the physical reality, but closely linked.

Hence the incarnation, God made flesh.

 

[antifreeze]

1) that it is essentially meaningless, as it is based on the difference within people rather than the conflict of philosophies.

2) that with the advent of the internet, rather than learned scholars, it is now a debate engaged in by whichever yahoo possessing both a modem and free time.

 

[marv]

The fear of darkness and the unknown gives us the gods. The confliction of so many gods causes us to reflect on who might be right. Technology poses a new view: why do we even need the gods?

 

[Lawdog]

1) that it is essentially meaningless, as it is based on the difference within people rather than the conflict of philosophies.

2) that with the advent of the internet, rather than learned scholars, it is now a debate engaged in by whichever yahoo possessing both a modem and free time.

Such yourself, perhaps? Since you do not add to speculation or offer insight, but instead attempt to nullify discussion. Better to discuss emptiness with your fellow nihilists and atheists.

 

[Cris]

Light,

Yes indeed I have little doubt there have been the two types of thinkers throughout the history of mankind. Those who believe what they imagine and those who only believe what they can know. Those are the two sides of the debate.

Technology has become possible through science and science is slowly moving the debate from those who imagine to those who now have no excuse but to know.

 

[Cris]

Lawdog,

Yet it is only via the senses that we come to learn of spiritual realities,

I cannot see that this is anything but an oxymoron.

-there is nothing in the mind which did not first come by way of sensory experience

WHAT DO YOU THINK ABOUT THAT PROPOSITION? IS THERE ANYTHING IN YOUR MIND THAT WAS ORIGINALLY EXPERIENCED BY YOUR SENSES???

More appropriately can you demonstrate anything in the mind that didn’t originate from the senses?

Take for example a new born child; it can hardly move, it has little to no muscle control, it has no memories, it has no knowledge of the outside world, it cannot talk, it has little to no mind. It’s neural networks at this stage are tiny, yet as it flails around, smells, tastes, touches, hears, sees, we see massive activity in the brain as neural networks form and reform depending on the feedback from the senses. It is entirely through sensory data that the mind is built, and continues to grow and change until we die.

perhaps spiritual things are not separate from the physical reality, but closely linked.

Perhaps? How about some support for this assertion?

Hence the incarnation, God made flesh.

Not sure why you made this statement.

 

[Lawdog]

Obviously, Cris, your only purpose here is to correct me or even just counter me. I suspect this because I neglected to add the word NOT in the phrase IS THERE ANYTHING IN YOUR MIND THAT WAS (NOT) ORIGINALY EXPERIENCED BY YOUR SENSES.

So I take it that by your TABULA RASA-baby example your answer is still NO, and for once you agree with me cocerning the shared experience of learning, the importance of sensory data and the formation of knowledge concerning reality?

 

[antifreeze]

"IS THERE ANYTHING IN YOUR MIND THAT WAS (NOT) ORIGINALY EXPERIENCED BY YOUR SENSES."
i would guess the answer to that is god. at least for the faithful.

 

[one_raven]

Interesting post. I think that nevertheless atheism was rare and almost non-existant in the ancient world, save for a few Greek philosophers.

And why is it you think that?
The East is full of Atheistic doctrines, perhaps more than not, and has been for a few millenia.

 

[Lawdog]

Then please inform me as to your knowledge of the oldest.

 

[Cris]

Lawdog,

We agree? Hard to believe, but I'll take it - this is good, right?. But the spiritual reference is still in dispute.

 

[Cris]

Lawdog,

Obviously, Cris, your only purpose here is to correct me or even just counter me.

Nah, I'll do it to anyone, I'm not picking on you in particular.

 

[enton]

Interesting post. I think that nevertheless atheism was rare and almost non-existant in the ancient world, save for a few Greek philosophers.

In the east there is a revulsion for the physical, bodily, the senses. The body is seen as a shell to be thrown away, the senses as deceptive and untrustworthy.

Yet it is only via the senses that we come to learn of spiritual realities, "nihil in mente quod primum in sensu erat" -there is nothing in the mind which did not first come by way of sensory experience

WHAT DO YOU THINK ABOUT THAT PROPOSITION? IS THERE ANYTHING IN YOUR MIND THAT WAS ORIGINALLY EXPERIENCED BY YOUR SENSES???

perhaps spiritual things are not separate from the physical reality, but closely linked.

Hence the incarnation, God made flesh.

But do you know that in the Bible the first atheist is the devil? (Refer John 8:44)