Re: why did God create universe
skeptic.freethinker ji,
I couldn't write earlier, one reason being that my desktop computer main board broke down and the notebook hasn't come back from the repairs.
Quote: Originally Posted by Confused
There is absolutely no bravery in wielding a sword with the intent to strike another living being. Rather it is anger or fear which motivates such actions.
Confused Ji,
Longtime! If I remember correctly, you were one of the first people I interacted with when I first joined the forum two years back. You were and you still seem to be one of the few people on this forum who actually think things through.
Actually no, if I don't understand something immediately, I avoid thinking further about it. It is burdensome for me to work things out for long. Also I'm easily distracted and therefore my posts are usually not written in one sitting.
Regarding the above comment, I wasn't really thinking in terms of the justification of the actions. I was just thinking in terms of the feasibility of the actions themselves. But you bring up a great point.
And my comment was directed more at others than at you. ;-)
People confuse morally evil / unwholesome / disadvantageous states for being good / wholesome / advantageous. Attachment towards one’s religion is perceived as something positive and identification with it is encouraged. Pride, which otherwise is judged as undesirable, becomes a good thing when it is about one's own religion. While faith / confidence is based rightly on understanding the value of good states such as morality, kindness, generosity and so on, this becomes replaced by belief in a projected idea, where these good states are then referred to without any understanding. Indeed to refer to something outside of one's moment to moment experience as basis for right conduct is a case of wrong thinking motivated by ignorance, attachment, and in the case of God, wrong understanding about the way things are.
Regarding this particular matter, my intention was to draw the attention to the fact that fighting in battle with an intention to kill one’s enemy, rather than an act of bravery, is the product of strong attachment to self (and one's ideals). It is aversion in the form of fear and anger which drives a person to kill any living being. In battle, one may wield a sword or shoot an arrow, but aimed only at intimidating and never to hurt or kill. Knowing that if the enemy finds out about one's intention; one's own life is at risk, yet willing to face the consequence. *This* is bravery, which is result of understanding the value of and having confidence in, morally good action, while seeing the harm in and disadvantage of, immoral action.
If one's values are distorted then the actions which follow can't be right. If one *believes in* wrong which is mistaken for right, much wrong must follow. One misperception leads to misperception in other areas. An Islamic terrorist for example, is one who mistakes what is evil for good and then allows his thoughts to proliferate like mad.
Quote: Originally Posted by Confused
skeptic.freethinker,
Is your knowledge not based on what you heard from science which through your own reasoning have come to agree with?
Nope. People don't just 'hear' from science, think about it and come to agree with it. They don't have to...because science provides evidence.
Why do you think that I am not moved by what science tells me? It is because I know that science deals with concepts and not with reality. That you consider science as providing evidence is because you too fail to make the reality vs. concept distinction.
While the scientist is going about his daily activities including when working with his theories and trying to prove them, he is ignorant of the mental and physical phenomena that make up his moment to moment experience. He does not understand any of what goes on as extremely fleeting and impersonal phenomena, but instead takes consciousness, feelings, perception and all actions through body, speech and mind as belonging to me, as mine and as I, lasting in time. Instead of understanding reality, he takes concepts for real.
I used to compare this situation with that of a child learning to draw geometrical objects perfectly and being able to use them creatively without a need to understand their mathematical properties. In the same way, a scientist is someone who has learnt to work with concepts, although he does not understand them for what they are. How he perceives the world is basically no different from how anyone else does.
Now, I man not suggesting that concepts be dismissed. Thinking is part of who we are and concepts are means by which we function at all. The problem is taking concepts for reality and thinking that in studying them, one comes closer to the Truth. This is wrong understanding at work and encouraging in fact, of further ignorance and attachment.
This is one of the main difference between science and religion. Science provides proof, underlying assumptions and ways to disprove those assumptions.
I consider all religions except one, to be wrong when it comes to statement about the Truth. But neither does science touch upon the Truth! Both are dealing only with the conventional world, the objects of which are concepts. So yes, I would refer to science and not to religion when trying to understand and work with a particular aspect of the conventional world.
The main objective of religion however, wrong though it is about conventional reality, is to guide a person towards a moral and therefore more fruitful life. And I consider this much more important than the ability to predict the weather, produce food, inventing a computer, using the Internet, radio, telephone, the air- conditioner or even electricity and penicillin. Without any of these things, but with understanding, life becomes more meaningful. With all these things but no inclination towards morality and wisdom, life is not worth living.
Science doesn't require blind faith. Religion does.
No, it doesn't. But neither is it open to the possibility of being completely ignorant about reality / Truth. It believes its perceptions to be correct and that it is moving towards better understanding of reality. But this is not so. In fact science relies on agreed upon convention as basis for confidence in what it does, and this is no different from “belief”. And while a scientist goes about his daily task, including telling everyone else what he believes is reality, he'd do well to take some lessons from religion so that his life does not go too off track.
Science does not have all the answers yet, but we are making progress and learning something new everyday.
Nothing new is ever learnt! What happens is the creation of new concepts as a result of a particular kind of observation / study. It is akin to seeing what one likes to see. The only “new” are the realities which rise and fall away as part of one's moment to moment experience. The rest is just concepts based on other concepts experienced in the past, some of which happen to give the impression of something “new” happening.
Indeed the very idea of “looking for answers” reflects a lack of appreciation with regard to the reality “now” as the only valid object of true knowledge.
Whereas religion and religious folks just assume that they have all the answers, mostly in forms of ancient texts. They can't be farther away from the truth. This is why religion requires blind faith which many religious people wear as a badge of honor.
To rely on religion for knowledge about the conventional world is foolish.
To rely on science for knowledge and understanding with regard to the Truth is also foolish.
And once people have blind faith, these gullible folks will believe anything....even that someone without a head kept fighting forever. Or that a magical skydaddy created the universe.
Yes, when thinking in terms of concepts such as human physiology and the universe, science is what one should turn to for a more reliable knowledge. Religion should not attempt to say anything about such things.
unctuationKerning/> <w:ValidateAgainstSchemas/> <w:SaveIfXMLInvalid>false</w:SaveIfXMLInvalid> <w:IgnoreMixedContent>false</w:IgnoreMixedContent> <w:AlwaysShowPlaceholderText>false</w:AlwaysShowPlaceholderText> <w:Compatibility> <w:BreakWrappedTables/> <w:SnapToGridInCell/> <w:WrapTextWithPunct/> <w:UseAsianBreakRules/> <w
