New posts

Welcome to all New Sikh Philosophy Network Forums!

Explore Sikh Sikhi Sikhism...
Sign up Log in

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Archived_member14" data-source="post: 129576" data-attributes="member: 586">Narayanjot ji,---------<img src="" class="smilie smilie--sprite smilie--sprite1" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)" loading="lazy" data-shortname=":)" /> You must be having the impression more or less that I’m well read / educated in philosophy or something! I’ve never before heard about ‘universe of discourse’ and just looked up the dictionary and from that only got a vague idea as to the meaning but absolutely no idea regarding the implications. When I at one time was interested in philosophy, one of the things that put me off from pursuing the subject was because the concepts were becoming too complex for my slow mind. Yes, I do have some learning difficulties, particularly when it comes to language. Don’t be fooled by my writings here, I spend hours to write a post and English is the only language I can communicate in writing.  I don’t have the capacity to learn another language for this purpose.In school I’d fail badly in Hindi and just manage to pass in English. Indeed the learning difficulty goes deeper, reflected in the fact that I’d sometimes come up with my own roundabout way to solve a mathematical problem since I can’t remember some of the equations. I’d do well in biology because I was good at drawing diagrams and learnt from them. Physics was my favourite subject, and I’d learn this from always going to the basics and apply the knowledge to things observed. But all this didn’t work well enough when in college, which is one reason why I ended up dropping out. So you’ll understand it when I say that my head spun on reading what you wrote above. I’ve learnt to ignore such kinds of expressions, but you wrote expecting a response from me...... <img src="" class="smilie smilie--sprite smilie--sprite1" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)" loading="lazy" data-shortname=":)" />I’m going to guess what it is that you are asking, but mainly I’ll just elaborate on what I wrote in my last post. You are asking whether the theory of natural selection held by the scientist can coexist with a belief in a formless creator God...? I think it depends on the understanding. If formless is understood in relation to form as in something that can be perceived through the senses and therefore itself is something that cannot, but then the reference is not to the knowing faculty which is consciousness, this is one situation. The other is that consciousness being in fact the main reality, since without this nothing is known. And since the most important attribute of God is this knowing faculty, after all he did consciously create what he did and one of his creations is man who is then expected not only to “know” him, but also to develop qualities such as kindness and morality all of which are mental realties. The meaning of formless here would then be based on the understanding of what consciousness is and not seen simply as something standing opposite to form, which I think is an incorrect distinction to make in this case. This is another situation. The theory of evolution and natural selection on the other hand is grounded on a scientific materialistic outlook and engenders further adherence to the same. We are smarter than cows because we are more evolved. We kill in order to survive. The worst aspect of all this is in the identification as “we” as part of an evolved group. But that aside, already one can see very opposing views here. With reference to moral values, religion encourages kindness, compassion, sense restraint etc. Evolution on the other hand must justify killing all done with the aim to satisfy one’s passions, by animals down the chain if man is to be seen as a worthy end product. Religion would have it that killing is wrong, period, but evolution will at best end up talking about the undesirability of killing only because there is no need for it. With reference to the quality of mind, the cause for the difference between man and beast according to some religions is not evolution, but due to the particular karma good and bad, arisen just before the dying consciousness of the previous life. And this is such that a very intelligent man could die and be reborn a bird and a monkey dies and is reborn a dim-witted man. And both could then die and be reborn in hell which is a realm no one following the scientific line of enquiry could believe in. The reason I got involved in this thread is because I wanted to steer people inclined to religion away from the influence of science. I’ve noted some corrupting effects including attempts by believers to describe God in a way which would satisfy the scientist. Of course I don’t really care to tackle this, but when morality and other good and wholesome qualities too begin to be seen more or less as means to an end, here I try to do something about.I proliferated much further and started writing more, but I think I should just stop here. ;-)Thanks for allowing me to express myself.Sukinder</blockquote>

Verification