Evolution is wack;God is the only way that makes sense! - Part 2

[Quantum Quack]

This sort of cunundrum is sometimes known as Advaita Vedanta monism.
Of course, those monists see no cunundrum ... yet they can't explain whence the illusion of separate identity.

very astute....

They can if one knows how to read them...and not many are capable of understanding them at that depth...

just my take ok....


I haven't really looked at it Advaita Verdante in depth but I believe that they are quite profound on just this subject.

The illusion of separate identity as you so aptly put it, is just that, an illusion. This illusion is created by "Brahma manifesting in the physical form" as your "material body" and thus restricted and limited by that which conditions and controls that body of a material and societal kind. The living body generates the existential ego that "Brahma" or "I" has to somehow learn to transcend and achieve universality to be realised as Brahma in the flesh with out the mortal conditioning placed upon a corporal body.
Every personna is therefore an extension of Brahmas quest to be realised as immmortally, eternally material.
I believe the journey is exemplified in the traditional committment to what is called the Brahmacharya

It is only by learning about your true nature as a self "I" that you learn to transcend the limitations of your individual reflection and gain a more complete multiplistic [collective] reflection. When you can see youself in the entire universe your name will become the label Brahma.

This is how cult leaders can become so influencial as believers see them selves reflected in the leaders body. Thus the leader monopolises the focus of self worship of his followers. [they worship him more than they worship them selves and extreme case will even worship the leader as if he IS themsleves - aka God]

By externalising worship to another being you are forever seeking yourself in that other being... By seeking only self with in, you remain independant and free of emmeshing [attachment] with others. Hence the problems with tradtional religions where the object of worship is external thus disempowering yourself and granting power to some other entity instead.

for those who don't know the image of Brahma here is an exellent painting:

 

[wynn]

They can if one knows how to read them...and not many are capable of understanding them at that depth...

Oh well. I like still the joke about the two monist yogis, as I think it makes a very salient point.

 

[Quantum Quack]

I heard a joke about two impersonalist (monist) yogis once -

Tectonic plates shift. After millions of years, they collide. Thus, two monist yogis, who were meditating for thousands of years each on his own tectonic plate, are now face to face with eachother. Angered by the existence of an other, they start fighting, pulling on their lice- and flea-ridden hair and beards, scratching eachother with millenial nails, they yell at eachother "I am the only monist!"

and well a... are they both right?.....yep... and that's the reason why we have so much conflict in the world.... [chuckle] "The eternal war of the Monists" aka God complex

 

[Quantum Quack]

Oh well. I like still the joke about the two monist yogis, as I think it makes a very salient point.

how is it you know of the Adviata Verdante? If you don't mind me asking....

 

[Aqueous Id]

Science has no answer to "why" other than an infinitely recursive one.

As I said before, if you turn to science to discover why A=C, it will tell you: because A=B and B=C. It's as finite as you need it to be.

If someone, as a good empiricist, explained all the processes involved in some certain events, we still wouldn't know "why".

That depends on what you mean by "all" and "why" any really has nothing to do with understanding that life evolved which requires very little (if any) contemplation.

The radical empiricist is basically saying there is no "why" for humans beyond biological process, which is pretty denigrating to humanity.

What can be more denigrating than denying the nose on your face, falling for myths and behaving superstitiously, when all that's needed is to roll up your shirtsleeves and study, and advance yourself? I think most people think it's pretty denigrating to live in the Middle Ages with the treasure trove of free information available today to the lingering curse of the Byzantine flu.

There are human events that have no rational explanation which do exist. Why is a Rothko painting deeply moving, while someone's red living room wall is in need of a picture to hang on it? I could come up with five reasons all with different rationale, all valid, none of them scientific,

Since that would have little or nothing to do with whether life evolved (except perhaps Rothko is announcing the fallacy of denialism) then ... ? There wouldn't be much point in analyzing a painting in the way you seem to want to do it.

and five more that could claim scientific rationale,

There's not much too much variation in rationale about the idea that the brain evolved, as did animal behavior. The things you are describing such as attraction to colors and shapes, could just as well encompass a study of the bower bird. The question of how humans acquired animal traits is pretty obvious.

but in the end, my statement that it moves me is MORE valid than a scientists equation that says there should be less brown in that painting, because the art of painting is ABOUT people, not molecules and light frequencies.

Last time I checked, aesthetics had nothing to do with science. Being moved is maybe a good topic of psychology, but still very remote to the topic of evolution.

Religion TRIES to make connections that are meaningful to humans beyond the demonstrations and definitions of "what" is happening.

Or, more simply put, religions AVOIDS truth, reality, evidence, fact, history and science. Which is pretty much the opposite of how you cast it.

 

[Balerion]

quoting someone elses contra to this line of arguement...
"Say we have a large forest that is called God.... you are walking in this forest and all you see is a tree. Is the tree evidence of the forest called God?
God is the entire forrest and not just the trees. Untill you look at the whole you will only see your own egoistic reflection , merely a reduction placed upon the whole."

This doesn't help at all. In order for this to make any sense, I have to assume that the statement is true. But as I said, without some evidence to suggest that God exists, there's no logical path that leads me to accept that the forest is God.

 

[Quantum Quack]

This doesn't help at all. In order for this to make any sense, I have to assume that the statement is true. But as I said, without some evidence to suggest that God exists, there's no logical path that leads me to accept that the forest is God.

then assume it is false instead and see if it makes sense...
There is no need to assume anything...treat it as abstraction, mere notions to play with as pure metaphor... no need to believe anything...
the forest is your whole self, the tree is only the part you know of as yourself...
the more you know about your self the more you know about your whole self.
It is premised on the notion of self worship, self service, self devotion, the internal equivalent of what people normally do externally by worshiping an external God. [ one that is outside the universe and not inside the universe - you]

You worship yourself, you seek only self interest..so ask yourself , what exactly are you worshipping when you worship yourself?
What is self?

 

[Balerion]

then assume it is false instead and see if it makes sense...
There is no need to assume anything...treat it as abstraction, mere notions to play with as pure metaphor... no need to believe anything...

Nonsense. As I just said, the only way this works is if you assume God exists. It does not make a logical case for God, it simply assumes God is real. Hence, "Say we have a large forest that is called God."

Do you need to embarrass yourself for three pages on this subject like you always do, or can you actually stop for a second and think about it? I mean, aren't you tired of apologizing?

the forest is your whole self, the tree is only the part you know of as yourself...
the more you know about your self the more you know about your whole self.
It is premised on the notion of self worship, self service, self devotion, the internal equivalent of what people normally do externally by worshiping an external God. [ one that is outside the universe and not inside the universe - you]

You worship yourself, you seek only self interest..so ask yourself , what exactly are you worshipping when you worship yourself?
What is self?

Pseudo-philosophical gibberish based on a poor understanding of the source material. QQ, you are once again punching above your weight.

 

[Jan Ardena]

Gorlitz,

Ok, to the points you raised. I would like to say that I can fully respect that people have the right to believe in anything they want, I certainly wouldn't wish for this to be changed either. Now that said I still have concerns about how many people come to certain beliefs. I reject your assertion that it is only the minority that come to believing through indoctrination, the reason why I reject this is as I explained previously. At the time many claim to have come to 'believing' is a time at which I do not feel they are capable of fully understanding the idea of belief in a supreme being or the full implications that accompany such a momentous decision.

What do you base your ''feeling'' on?

I doubt people make the decision ''to believe in God'', anymore than they would make the decision to fall in love.
I think it is more accurate to say that people make decsions to join a religion, or become religious. But I don't necessarily equate
religion with theism.

Right lets get back to the idea of belief, I really don't understand what it is that gives cause to reject things like evolution.

I don't know anyone that rejects ''evolution''. People reject darwinian evolution.

How can seemingly intelligent people reject centuries of scientific progress just because they believe in a deity.

Who rejects science because they believe in a diety?
How is it even possible to actually reject science?,
Do you think it was atheists who were responsible for science?

Also this idea of belief is very hard to understand from the perspective that different believers seem to belive different things.

''Belief'' pertains to the individual, not the collective, as it is based on the individual's experiences. You cannot ''believe'' something that you don't believe, and you cannot
make someone'' believe'' as their experiences are unique to them.

There seems no sort uniformity to it, I mean how can someone learn what it is if everyone you ask gives you a different answer?

Good question.

If you were to ask people ''what does it mean to be in love with someone?'', I'm sure the answers would differ in the same way, simply because their experiences are different.
Yet there is a kind of ''uniformity'' to it, an understanding that can be realised by someone who knows you, based on their interaction (experiences) with you.

Experience breeds first class knowledge, while explaining those experiences are second-hand.

But the point is people who arn't believers are constantly being expected to accept that because people have this belief it's perfectly reasonable of them to then reject perfectly reasonable things that have been born out time and again through observation and repetition. The only other group in society that behave this way are lunatics.

Why should people accept something purely because it sounds reasonable?

Children arn't taught prayers to their parents clothes, they arn't taken to listen to such sermons.

Children don't need to be indoctrinated to believe in God, they are naturally inclined to accept the supernatural.
One needs to be indoctrinated to become atheist.

The whole idea that you can compare children not wanting to dress like their parents with children adopting their parents religious beliefs is to me frankly pretty ridiculous, sorry.

No it's not, especially from a childs pov.
It shows that ultimately they take what they want from their parents, not that they automatically follow.

Ok now we come to filtering, I'm not going to argue with you over this point because to be honest I have not come across the term before.

It's my own terminology which I think describes your attitude in this, and most probably other discussions you may have with theists, or religionists.
The point is that you have already reached a conclusion, so anything that contradicts that conclusion is rejected unless it can be used to bolster your position.

I doubt that you are actually interested in learning anything about theism, or real religion despite claiming to be (as yet).

However whilst not arguing over whether I was in engaging in this or not I would like to point out that it is perfectly possible to accept the validity of some of the things a person has said without necessarily accepting everything as correct.

Okay, regarding theism, have you accepted anything I have put forward?

I can only imagine the spectacles comment was meant to be metaphorical, but as for actual words actual words for what?

Yes it was.
It seems that you view the world from the perspective of a (modern/new) atheist.

Yes the references I gave were christian, however the confusion came in that you thought I was trying to imply I'd given examples of other religious practices, when clearly I made no such assertion.

you remarked...


I just wonder at times is it because it's easy that people choose to believe in God, I mean you have these religions and churches that have been around for hundreds of years, this whole mythology, bibles stories, creation myth's etc....

Programming? What programming?

The programing that prevents you from going any further than your current worldview.

I don't see any logical reason for the rejection of Darwinian Evolution.

Then why do people reject it?
And please don't come with ''because they believe in a diety'' unless you can elaborate on it with more detail.

Sorry didn't understand a word of the last paragraph.

Are you seriously telling me you didn't understand a word of this?

The first thing to understand is that ''religion'' and ''theism'' are as different as mechanics, and car entusiasts.
Religion pertains to how we live our lives. If we believe in God, then we live accordingly, and vice versa.
Theism means one believes in God, period. That doesn't have to include being part of a ''religious institute''.
Science is a way to understand the world we live in. It cannot go beyond the boundaries of materialism, lest it becomes not science.
The individual person is a material being, but also a spiritual being, and can learn from both factions, providing (both factions) are being true to their genre.

But your final comment I wholeheartedly agree with even if our methodology is somewhat different.

Our ''methodologies'' are unique to us, it might be good to bear that in mind.

This life is very short, and everyone is entitled to live it, and interpret their experiences, because they unique.
You are very close to violating that, by stating that people who do not think like you, are somehow less than you, because you
you are right, and they are wrong, or misinformed. This is no different to the religious, and atheist (communism) institutions that put this mentality into
practice, which had terrible consequences.

Live and let live.

jan.

 

[GeoffP]

And how shall we live and let live, when religious groups insist on introducing farce into the discussion about public education in evolution?

 

[Jan Ardena]

And how shall we live and let live, when religious groups insist on introducing farce into the discussion about public education in evolution?

Again, nobody rejects evolution, but they reject darwinian evolution

I suggest you distinguish between the two, for clarity, as I don't want to keep reiiterating. Thank in advance.

jan.

 

[Balerion]

I don't know anyone that rejects ''evolution''. People reject darwinian evolution.

No, idiots reject Darwinian evolution. Only people who either don't know the science (you) or people who believe the science is wrong because it contradicts the bible (idiots) reject Darwinian evolution.

You reject science all the time by pretending there's some difference between evolution as a concept and Darwinian evolution. Evolution is evolution. It works, and your attempts to differentiate don't.

 

[Balerion]

The first thing to understand is that ''religion'' and ''theism'' are as different as mechanics, and car entusiasts.[sic]

Not at all. Car mechanics do not have to be car enthusiasts, whereas religious folks must be theists. Theism is not a separate entity from religion, but a broader sense of it. Especially in this context, "theist" is simply a better, more concise way of saying "religious person."

Religion pertains to how we live our lives. If we believe in God, then we live accordingly, and vice versa.
Theism means one believes in God, period. That doesn't have to include being part of a ''religious institute''.

Technically, no, but in practice...

Science is a way to understand the world we live in. It cannot go beyond the boundaries of materialism, lest it becomes not science.

Obviously. But that doesn't mean it wouldn't be able to sniff out a god's presence via its impact on the material universe, so to say it says nothing of god is silly.

The individual person is a material being, but also a spiritual being, and can learn from both factions, providing (both factions) are being true to their genre.

Nonsense. I'm not going to just assume that I'm also a spiritual being. Give me evidence of such a thing, then we can talk.

 

[spidergoat]

Again, nobody rejects evolution, but they reject darwinian evolution

I suggest you distinguish between the two, for clarity, as I don't want to keep reiiterating. Thank in advance.

jan.

Balerion is correct. The only reason religionists separate it is because they are uncomfortable with the full implications of the theory.

 

[Gorlitz]

I'm sorry people but I just cannot in any way shape or form get my head around the idea that you can compare a child being indoctrinated to religion with the fact they may not wish to dress in the same style of clothes as their parents.

Is that just me being thick, does that actually make sense and I'm missing something?

 

[Sarkus]

I understand where I may have confused the issue I think. Try this rewrite of some one else contra offered, and see if it is clearer.

I'll give it a go...

"Say we have a large multiplistic Ego that is called God.... you are walking with in this multiplistic ego and all you see is a single ego. Is the single ego evidence of the multiplistic ego called God?
God is the entire multiplicity and not just the individual ego. Untill you look at the whole you will only see your own egoistic reflection , which is, due to your conditioning, merely a reduction placed upon the whole."

So you have an a priori assumption of a multiplistic ego... any way of verifying that the assumption is both correct and necessary?
Further, how is it possible to look at the whole while being just a single?

It is not really that important what you call it...except that it may be a multiplistic personna..often referred to as God.
Possibly my response to "wynn" post #261 may help even more..

"May be"?
God remains a possibility, as long as it is not logically impossible, although what can be learnt by labelling something as "God" as opposed to what it is, that I also question.

 

[GeoffP]

No, idiots reject Darwinian evolution. Only people who either don't know the science (you) or people who believe the science is wrong because it contradicts the bible (idiots) reject Darwinian evolution.

You reject science all the time by pretending there's some difference between evolution as a concept and Darwinian evolution. Evolution is evolution. It works, and your attempts to differentiate don't.

Exactly.

 

[Quantum Quack]

Nonsense. As I just said, the only way this works is if you assume God exists. It does not make a logical case for God, it simply assumes God is real. Hence, "Say we have a large forest that is called God."

Do you need to embarrass yourself for three pages on this subject like you always do, or can you actually stop for a second and think about it? I mean, aren't you tired of apologizing?



Pseudo-philosophical gibberish based on a poor understanding of the source material. QQ, you are once again punching above your weight.

Unfortunately you and most others are totally fixated on the label "God". It is like the label God is stuck like a craw in your head...


why is that do you think?

I personally do not use the label God I use the label "universe" instead...

Just that the universe is a hell of lot more to it than what is currently considered possible by science.
If you wish to be hung up on your own reflected limitations don't cry foul about those who aren't.

 

[Quantum Quack]

So you have an a priori assumption of a multiplistic ego... any way of verifying that the assumption is both correct and necessary?

human behaviour as demonstrated by sociopaths and psycho paths. Also as demonstrated by those who seek and maintain real and sustainable power of influence.
By simple marketing strategies that are effective because they capitalise on knowing their market etc etc...
By knowing yourself allows you to know others...beyond your own, as demonstrably in "Balerions" case, self imposed limitations.
Psychology 101.
How many examples do you need to demonstrate that the more you know about your self the more you know about the universe around you...?
To realise that there is considerably more to the human being than mere "neurons water and carbon"
A multiplistic ego is only a term used in the attempt to convey meaning to those who are unfamiliar with the concept of a universal ego or super ego...

The human race for example has a collective "ego" demonstrated in all those apocolyptic moves, those video games, those Olympic games and so on..
Is there evidence of a human collectve ego? I think so ...plenty.

Is the human collective ego multiplistic? Is it made up of individual personnas?

What do you think?

even sciforums has a "collective multiplistic ego"
It takes very little logical extending to suggest that the universe as a whole has similar.

and
to downplay the sheer wonder of our own existance is to inflate by ego contriviance our own sense of esteem in the face of it.
So of course science seeks to diminish humanity and the universe to the level of their own competancy...because it makes their self esteem feel much better when they do.

Human race Inferiority complex big time.

 

[Aqueous Id]

Unfortunately you and most others are totally fixated on the label "God". It is like the label God is stuck like a craw in your head...

Think about how many billion people in the world conceive of a God in the general sense it is being used here. It's quite a universal concept, and at least as old as Plato's account of the trial of Socrates, that is, about two generations older than Alexander the Great. The fixation you see is nothing more than staying on topic.

I personally do not use the label God I use the label "universe" instead...

Look again at the thread title.

Just that the universe is a hell of lot more to it than what is currently considered possible by science.
If you wish to be hung up on your own reflected limitations don't cry foul about those who aren't.

By far the only limitation, as it pertains to this thread, is the denial of best evidence, in preference to personal interpretation of ancient myth and superstition.

In raising this you remind me of the prisoner in chains in Platos' Cave Analogy.

[video=youtube;d2afuTvUzBQ]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d2afuTvUzBQ&feature=player_embedded[/video]