Being a Christian I find it hard not to enjoy listening to John Polkinghorne's studies, thoughts, and conclusions. He comes off as a very well educated man with a good balance in his specific studies in physics, but also in religion, history, and science. He has some interesting insight into the historical egotistic mindset of scientific sub-groups after a very important discovery, such as the physicists after Newton's discoveries. I think that before we start claiming that religion should be extinct, we should be smart and rational and wait things out a little bit. Too many times we think we know everything and we make huge decisions on the small amount of information that we actually have. There is too much information which points us towards the importance of both science and religion, and John Polkinghorne has been able to see the importance of both and he clings to both. They are both very important things in his life, two of the most important. He has studied many years and has seen incredible order and balance in our universe. The example of the 10 marksmen standing there waiting to fire and upon the order you find you are not dead. The improbable and nearly impossible possibility of it happening calls for an explanation.
Moreover, the idea of quantum physics allows us to begin to open up our minds to understand that there IS more to this universe than our eyes and logic allow us to understand. The testing and understanding of quantum physics needs a different rationality and logic, therefore our rationality and logic is illogical in the quantum world. If it is illogical there, where else, and what else do we not have any idea. We should not be so quick to discard things like religion and God until we can disprove that which leads us to believe it to be true. We must keep ourselves open to the possibility if we are not believers in God, even if that means we put almost all our believe in the fact that there isn't. Keeping a possibility open allows us to never restrict the possibilities of our results.
Sunday, April 13, 2008
Faqir Chand - Inner Visions
Faqir Chand has an interesting approach to where the inner visions, dreams, and deep sleep modes of consciousness come from, that is that they are from within our own minds and they are unreal. I have thought much about his comments to try to better understand what it is he is saying exactly. He also says that "whosoever remembers God in whatever form, in that very form he has helped his devotee". I wonder how it is that in one of these visions the future can be predicted in detail. There have been many such visions and dreams which have revealed truths to others to encourage them, help them, or even save them from a fatal mistake, as was the case with Faqir Chand's vision from his guru. I must hear more on his take on this subject, but from what I have gotten from this video and the other information we have read and seen about him it doesn't answer some of the evidence that calls for explanations. I wonder why a former pastor of mine could have a dream that two members of the church (of around 5000 people) were going to have twins, and they did. Or why Faqir Chand received a vision from about the future which saved his life and many others.
When I compare these events with his statement about remembering God in whatever form, it leads me to think he is saying that God helps us his devotees through whatever form the vision or dream comes to us. If I am not mistaken he is saying that he, Faqir Chand, didn't appear to them, but rather God spoke to his devotees through a vision of Faqir Chand. If that is the case, if I have understood him correctly, Faqir Chand is a very wise and humble man. He could have used these visions for his personal well-being materially or otherwise, but instead he sought to find the truth in these visions and the truth led him to a better well-being.
When I compare these events with his statement about remembering God in whatever form, it leads me to think he is saying that God helps us his devotees through whatever form the vision or dream comes to us. If I am not mistaken he is saying that he, Faqir Chand, didn't appear to them, but rather God spoke to his devotees through a vision of Faqir Chand. If that is the case, if I have understood him correctly, Faqir Chand is a very wise and humble man. He could have used these visions for his personal well-being materially or otherwise, but instead he sought to find the truth in these visions and the truth led him to a better well-being.
Wednesday, April 9, 2008
Religion and Morality
Susan Kneeman made the statement that religion doesn't need ethics and ethics doesn't need religion. This statement is false. Religion is a set of beliefs, including the supernatural, but also about how we are to live, or our social conduct. The definition of ethics is a "set of principles of right conduct" (Houghton Mifflin dictionary). This is at the foundation of religion, mostly due to a god saying what it correct to do and not to do. In whatever way it is told, the fact of the matter is that religion is built upon a belief, and coming from that belief is a set of principles of right conduct, or ethics.
Can ethics exist without religion? That would definitely be possible, but I doubt it. We cannot deny the impact that religion had on ethics. We could even argue the origin in ethics coming from religion and not evolution, or both if we consider religion as part of the evolutionary process. I think that it is possible to have ethics "without religion", but it would then be a religion on its own, would it not. The god being the ones who decide what is correct and what is not correct moral conduct. The definition of religion includes a "set of beliefs, values, and practices"(Houghton Mifflin dictionary). If I decide what are my beliefs, values, and practices, I am my spiritual adviser and the god of my religion, my-anity or me-ism (coined phrase of mine). Therefore, though we cannot yet say for certain that ethics can exists without religion, everything mentioned here leads me to believe that it is not plausible.
Can ethics exist without religion? That would definitely be possible, but I doubt it. We cannot deny the impact that religion had on ethics. We could even argue the origin in ethics coming from religion and not evolution, or both if we consider religion as part of the evolutionary process. I think that it is possible to have ethics "without religion", but it would then be a religion on its own, would it not. The god being the ones who decide what is correct and what is not correct moral conduct. The definition of religion includes a "set of beliefs, values, and practices"(Houghton Mifflin dictionary). If I decide what are my beliefs, values, and practices, I am my spiritual adviser and the god of my religion, my-anity or me-ism (coined phrase of mine). Therefore, though we cannot yet say for certain that ethics can exists without religion, everything mentioned here leads me to believe that it is not plausible.
Morality from Science
Morality cannot come from science. Science is about how the world is. Susan Kneeman made the point that morality is as apart from science as art or music or sports. It does not make one better than the other, the are separate from each other. Her use of Kant to explain how even he didn't tackle this subject straight on, but rather used a parable. We all know parable can be interpreted in many ways. I also liked her point about how we need the use of heroes to show how and why morality is good and correct. They are not facts in themselves, but rather experiences which lead us to understand what is true and moral. There is no science to it.
But she also made mention that there is a type of experience and process to come to understand that some things are not the best. Her point being that it is from the understanding that there is a better way of doing something leads people to moral breakthroughs does not seem to solid. She herself used the torture example as one that there are people who can always take one case as an example to show how it does work, therefore it should be applied. Even though there may be hundreds that go against it.
These heroes that we see as our examples of what we should do because it is morally correct, seem to be those few who lead us into a future in the moral zeitgeist. Their insight and conviction to what they believe is right opens the eyes and minds of the public to see what is moral and it leads us to have that consciousness within us to do what is right in the future. Like Ms. Banaji said about our human minds, we cannot deny the impact that things have on our mind, and sometimes our mind and our mouth are not in agreement. When we come to realize what is the better thing to do, because we have heard about it being done and we could intrinsically know it to be true, that impression stays on our mind and in time, maybe generations, the moral standard that was stamped in our minds comes to be the moral norm. This is on a smaller scale, but a population is made up of individuals, and so the process unfolds.
But she also made mention that there is a type of experience and process to come to understand that some things are not the best. Her point being that it is from the understanding that there is a better way of doing something leads people to moral breakthroughs does not seem to solid. She herself used the torture example as one that there are people who can always take one case as an example to show how it does work, therefore it should be applied. Even though there may be hundreds that go against it.
These heroes that we see as our examples of what we should do because it is morally correct, seem to be those few who lead us into a future in the moral zeitgeist. Their insight and conviction to what they believe is right opens the eyes and minds of the public to see what is moral and it leads us to have that consciousness within us to do what is right in the future. Like Ms. Banaji said about our human minds, we cannot deny the impact that things have on our mind, and sometimes our mind and our mouth are not in agreement. When we come to realize what is the better thing to do, because we have heard about it being done and we could intrinsically know it to be true, that impression stays on our mind and in time, maybe generations, the moral standard that was stamped in our minds comes to be the moral norm. This is on a smaller scale, but a population is made up of individuals, and so the process unfolds.
The Survival of Religion
Loyal Rue (I don't know how to spell his name) made some important points to the survival of religion, and it almost sounded like an evolution of religion. I would not argue that point to much. But I would suggest that it is more than a change in a story to adapt to the naturalistic and evolutionary cosmology, but rather a better understanding of the very story and belief in which we partake. I will explain my case a a believer.
In Christianity there are many scholars studying the ancient texts in their original languages and many trying to interpret them into our language, our case English. Sometimes there are many things lost in a translation, as was noted in the acknowledgments by the translator of Nietzsche's Antichrist. Some people translate very literally and some very loosely, therefore in one translation we lose the turns of phrases and cultural settings to what is being said behind the text, and in other translations we lose the literal meanings in the text. When we learn things about nature for example, sometimes that allows us to better understand what something meant in the scripture. For example, in the story of Lot and his family leaving Sodom and Gomorrah Lot's wife is said to have turned to stone upon turning around to see the cities being destroyed by the wrath of God. But many scholars have taken this as a metaphorical saying to explain her inability to take her eyes off of the power and awe in what was being down. We cannot ever know for sure. But what if one day archaeologists uncover a pillar of salt in the form of a woman in the same region that Sodom and Gomorrah were, we would then know that this was a literal saying and we would better understand our text.
Now there are some people who are very literal in all things and would say that it says this so it is this, literally, no budging. But then a fact will come out that will prove they are wrong. They would then have to reject reason and logic and the fact that is presented, or they would have to change their story to adapt to what has been found. I find that when religions are not will to be open to the very meaning to some of the open-ended texts they have, their religion will either not exist very long or they will be inconsistent in the beliefs and doctrines. This has happened in the Catholic church a lot because they take the word of the pope as the word of God himself, whatever he says is divine. This does not allow them to recognize the many errors and contradictions in their sayings that people like Martin Luther pointed out to them. And when they do change it is a huge deal around the whole world. No one can say exactly what a certain historical text says when there it is layered in metaphors and stories. There are times that things are clear and there is no need for thinking to much about them, but I am not referring to such cases here.
In Christianity there are many scholars studying the ancient texts in their original languages and many trying to interpret them into our language, our case English. Sometimes there are many things lost in a translation, as was noted in the acknowledgments by the translator of Nietzsche's Antichrist. Some people translate very literally and some very loosely, therefore in one translation we lose the turns of phrases and cultural settings to what is being said behind the text, and in other translations we lose the literal meanings in the text. When we learn things about nature for example, sometimes that allows us to better understand what something meant in the scripture. For example, in the story of Lot and his family leaving Sodom and Gomorrah Lot's wife is said to have turned to stone upon turning around to see the cities being destroyed by the wrath of God. But many scholars have taken this as a metaphorical saying to explain her inability to take her eyes off of the power and awe in what was being down. We cannot ever know for sure. But what if one day archaeologists uncover a pillar of salt in the form of a woman in the same region that Sodom and Gomorrah were, we would then know that this was a literal saying and we would better understand our text.
Now there are some people who are very literal in all things and would say that it says this so it is this, literally, no budging. But then a fact will come out that will prove they are wrong. They would then have to reject reason and logic and the fact that is presented, or they would have to change their story to adapt to what has been found. I find that when religions are not will to be open to the very meaning to some of the open-ended texts they have, their religion will either not exist very long or they will be inconsistent in the beliefs and doctrines. This has happened in the Catholic church a lot because they take the word of the pope as the word of God himself, whatever he says is divine. This does not allow them to recognize the many errors and contradictions in their sayings that people like Martin Luther pointed out to them. And when they do change it is a huge deal around the whole world. No one can say exactly what a certain historical text says when there it is layered in metaphors and stories. There are times that things are clear and there is no need for thinking to much about them, but I am not referring to such cases here.
Dawkins Moral Zeitgeist
The Moral Zeitgeist is an idea that has been well formed. With quite a few examples from moral leaders of their time like Abraham Lincoln and Thomas Henry Huxley, Dawkins lays out how throughout time morals seem to be evolving and improving. This moral zeitgeist shows us how people like Hitler seem so evil to us because they lived in our century, even though people like Genghis Khan did far worse things than Hitler. The difference was that our morality has grown since the time of Genghis Khan and we now see things differently than the world did in his time. Hitler had moved on in the moral zeitgeist and the was more expected from him morally.
My question is can we really apply the moral zeitgeist to the whole world evenly. Dawkins made the point that a good historian doesn't judge the contents of a paper in the past on moral values of today. But what do we do in places where the country has not advanced the same level as say Europe or North America. There are places in the world where there is not education of this century, where people seem are still raised in an old cultural setting. Here in Peru in parts of the mountains and the jungle the people have a totally different way of looking at things, ways that we in the states would say is further back on the moral zeitgeist. These people would have to be judged in their own cultural setting and according to the moral zeitgeist of the time in history of their culture. Would they not? If morals are a work in progress, how can we expect a people who are further back on this timeline to live according to our standards? It is like expecting a man who has never seen a computer to have the skills to work one. It is an irrational thing to ask. Likewise, how can we expect someone who has never heard of the concept that a woman is equal to a man to act on those principles. It is irrational. More so, to ask him when everything and everybody around him tells him otherwise.
My question is can we really apply the moral zeitgeist to the whole world evenly. Dawkins made the point that a good historian doesn't judge the contents of a paper in the past on moral values of today. But what do we do in places where the country has not advanced the same level as say Europe or North America. There are places in the world where there is not education of this century, where people seem are still raised in an old cultural setting. Here in Peru in parts of the mountains and the jungle the people have a totally different way of looking at things, ways that we in the states would say is further back on the moral zeitgeist. These people would have to be judged in their own cultural setting and according to the moral zeitgeist of the time in history of their culture. Would they not? If morals are a work in progress, how can we expect a people who are further back on this timeline to live according to our standards? It is like expecting a man who has never seen a computer to have the skills to work one. It is an irrational thing to ask. Likewise, how can we expect someone who has never heard of the concept that a woman is equal to a man to act on those principles. It is irrational. More so, to ask him when everything and everybody around him tells him otherwise.
Tuesday, April 8, 2008
Dawkin's Child Abuse
Richard Dawkins is a brilliant man and his contributions to the Evolution Theory have been very thorough and thought out. With that being said, I think that he should stick to doing what he is best at doing, speaking about the things he has thought out in advance. His comment about child abuse by calling them Christian, Muslim, or whatever religion to which a family pertains were rational on one hand, but not on the other. If a child is brought up under a faith he/she is being taught what is believed by that family, he practices the religions rituals, he believes the religion's story, etc. If he looks like a dog, barks like a dog, and acts like a dog, he's probably a dog. There could be a point when the child grows and decides if it is what they want or no.
When someone is born in the England, they are English. They are raised English, taught English, they learn to have English pride. These are the circumstances in which the person was born. When they grow up they can decide to take on another citizenship and leave their English citizenship. It is their choice, but they will still be raises that way and they will be considered English as well. Is it wrong to say that a child is English because he was born on one piece of land and not another? On one side of a man made line and not on the other side? Why if he didn't choose to be born there? Well, because those are the circumstances he was born into and that is the way he was raised.
For the billions of Christians it isn't wrong for a child to be called a Christian because Christianity is the truth for them. For all the Muslims it is okay for a child to be raised Muslim because the Muslim beliefs are true to them. To an atheist, it is perfectly fine for someone to raise a child atheist because it is the truth to them. For each one it is okay if it is in agreement with their own beliefs, and rightly so. I think it is more okay, if i can say that, that a Christian or Muslim do it than an atheist, for the examples given. For these religious people they are not dealing with just someones choice, they are dealing with their eternity and the religious person does it for their love for the child and the good of the child. If that child chooses otherwise when they are older, they have chosen on their own and the parent can no longer do anything about it.
When someone is born in the England, they are English. They are raised English, taught English, they learn to have English pride. These are the circumstances in which the person was born. When they grow up they can decide to take on another citizenship and leave their English citizenship. It is their choice, but they will still be raises that way and they will be considered English as well. Is it wrong to say that a child is English because he was born on one piece of land and not another? On one side of a man made line and not on the other side? Why if he didn't choose to be born there? Well, because those are the circumstances he was born into and that is the way he was raised.
For the billions of Christians it isn't wrong for a child to be called a Christian because Christianity is the truth for them. For all the Muslims it is okay for a child to be raised Muslim because the Muslim beliefs are true to them. To an atheist, it is perfectly fine for someone to raise a child atheist because it is the truth to them. For each one it is okay if it is in agreement with their own beliefs, and rightly so. I think it is more okay, if i can say that, that a Christian or Muslim do it than an atheist, for the examples given. For these religious people they are not dealing with just someones choice, they are dealing with their eternity and the religious person does it for their love for the child and the good of the child. If that child chooses otherwise when they are older, they have chosen on their own and the parent can no longer do anything about it.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
