You've got it backwards, the stars should actually appear much younger due to gravitational time dilation.
Social Sustainability and Religious Tolerance
- Thread starter lightgigantic
- Start date
You've got it backwards, the stars should actually appear much younger due to gravitational time dilation.
spidergoat
His exact words were that "almost all hindus take it for granted that jesus, mohammed, moses, buddha, these are somehow all divine figures, that god is somehow present in all these persons."
I can quote numerous scriptural quotes to establish that this is a true statement for hindus - all he is doing is establishing the grounds for how the origins of hinduism sets the grounds for appreciating the singular aspect of god that permeates the plurality of religion
Is it your response to his suggestion that america seems to work under the impression that the problems of the world can be solved if other parts of the world were more like america?
The issue of our origins (ie speculating are we created by god or blind forces of nature) does not remove th e issue of equality outside of the metaphysical
He did mention in the first 10 seconds that it was a hindu perspective on the nature of plurality of religion in the world (BTW this interfaith dialogue had buddhists also in the assembly - its not uncommon for buddhists to be innvolved)
His exact words were that "almost all hindus take it for granted that jesus, mohammed, moses, buddha, these are somehow all divine figures, that god is somehow present in all these persons."
I can quote numerous scriptural quotes to establish that this is a true statement for hindus - all he is doing is establishing the grounds for how the origins of hinduism sets the grounds for appreciating the singular aspect of god that permeates the plurality of religion
Not sure where this fits in???
Is it your response to his suggestion that america seems to work under the impression that the problems of the world can be solved if other parts of the world were more like america?
The opposite of divine is profane - are you saying buddhism,or other eastern philosophies of transcendence/religion are profane?
His issue is that classical empiricism did not come up with this notion for equality, since there is no classsical empirical test you can give that indicates we are all equal (materially, in terms of power, intelligence, health, finances - anything - we are all different - so if we are all different why do we deserve equal political representation? In other word s equality as expounded in the declaration of independence is a metaphysical claim)
The issue of our origins (ie speculating are we created by god or blind forces of nature) does not remove th e issue of equality outside of the metaphysical
Obviously interfaith dialogue innvolves the assumption that god exists - sure you can argue that god is unreasonable, irrational etc etc (as many atheists in the religion thread have done) but it is obvious that such statements only win support from atheists - in other words the problems of religious plurality are not solved by atheists passing value judgements - onthe contrary they tend to entrench religiousity further, and in the case of militant metaphysical relativism, a similarly militant response from the theistic community tends to issue
Last edited:
The speaker talks of accepting some sort of epistemology to realize higher truths
, since these truths are not able to be scrutinized by unaided human reason (because god got higher s.a.t. scores than us)
ie it relies on revelation - and that revelation is reasonable - especially when it impacts on other human beings - he gives the eg that if god revealed to me that i should slaughter all men women and children who don't join my church/synagouge/mosque/mandir is not reasonable, since a claim to revelation is a claim to the nature of information about god - in other words there is the epistemological principle that revelation should be consistent with a moral and ethical representation of god as the supreme moral agent - this is why he quotes socrates "Are deeds considered moral because the god s love them, or is it because some deeds actually are good of themselves, that the gods love them?"
In other words if someone tries to pass of some morally reprehensible act on the grounds of revelation ("god told me to do it"), that revelation can be assessed according to reason (its not dependant on blind faith, or its alternative often expressed on this site, blind doubt)
So in conclusion, god may ultimately be beyond the ken of men to estimate, but the means that reveals god (ie revelation) is not.
I see, you're right.
Sg said:
The speaker seems to be saying that the notion of equality between people as a moral virtue comes from the Vedic notion that all is one. However, Indian society is synonymous with inequality as represented by the caste system. Women are also not considered equal, as they must follow their men into death.Lg said:
The notion of equality as a political movement started in Europe, when the people demanded representation in return for their military service. This was only after hundreds of years of oppression by an elite ruling class.
It's more profound a difference than that, the creative force in the universe is not an active agent, but a passive property inherent in everything.
My position is that classical empiricism DID realize, due to DNA and the study of anthropology, that the peoples of the world are all the same species, and that we are more alike than we are different.
Religion tends to lead to acceptance of whatever cultural situation exists now, since if it were unjust, God would have changed it. Judaism supposes that there was a "chosen people". That the Godless aren't as worthy of life, since in many cases in the Bible, God commanded entire communities to be slaughtered since they wouldn't follow His will.
Sure, because atheism isn't a faith.
Spider goat
”
“
This is not such a strange concept, since most sane people recognize the distinction between a car mechanic and a heart surgeon by karma and guna as opposed to janma.
The idea is that we are all equal on a metaphysical level, since to say that we are all equal materially is absurd (car mechanics and heart surgeons are different)
BTW sati rites were voluntary (reflected the preference of the wife to die in the absence of her husband), and usually only performed by the upper classes - its all quite foreign to contemporary thought where its considered a miraculous act if two people can stay formally married without killing each other.
It was only when women were forced to sati against their desires for nefarious means (which started to become prominent around the same era that the caste system become more rigidly situated in designations of birth instead of quality) that it took a turn towards the outlawable.
But statements like these do not address issue raised by religious plurality - at the very least atheists are not invited to interfaith dialougues (although its not unusual for buddhists)
”
“
the caste system ( occupation by birth) is a corruption of varna (occupation by quality) and asrama (situation to applied spirituality by quality) - the evidence is that there is no scriptural quote that determines varna/asrama by janma (birth) but numerous by guna (quality) and karma (activity).
This is not such a strange concept, since most sane people recognize the distinction between a car mechanic and a heart surgeon by karma and guna as opposed to janma.
The idea is that we are all equal on a metaphysical level, since to say that we are all equal materially is absurd (car mechanics and heart surgeons are different)
BTW sati rites were voluntary (reflected the preference of the wife to die in the absence of her husband), and usually only performed by the upper classes - its all quite foreign to contemporary thought where its considered a miraculous act if two people can stay formally married without killing each other.
It was only when women were forced to sati against their desires for nefarious means (which started to become prominent around the same era that the caste system become more rigidly situated in designations of birth instead of quality) that it took a turn towards the outlawable.
This is not equality - this is a transaction for service rendered to get representation (obviosuly the person who does the representing is different from the 10 000 army reserves he is representing)
I don't want to divert this thread by analyzing the statements of buddhist creation theories, but it sounds divine to me (ie omnipresent yet undetectable by casual observation)
DNA indicates not only a designation of species but also the variety within that species - some people are short and some people are tall - on the contrary DNA indicates that we are all individual and separate.
Actually religion exerts an influence on a society - just compare russia and america in the 80's
the speaker addresses issue like this in the lecture - such things are obviously irrational proclamations of revelation because it contradicts basic information about god
whatever.
But statements like these do not address issue raised by religious plurality - at the very least atheists are not invited to interfaith dialougues (although its not unusual for buddhists)
Last edited: