TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Political Discussion / Debate
-- Are we ignorant about religion?
Pages (2): [1] 2 »

Are we ignorant about religion?

Although this articles focus on the US, it's quite safe to say that the situation is not much different in other countries in the world. If you click the link, there's also an interesting religion literacy quiz, whose results make me wonder: how many of those who advocate the end of religion actually know a thing or two about this issue?

quote:

The Gospel of Prothero A Boston University professor argues that Americans, though 'spiritual,' are woefully ignorant about religion. By Lisa Miller Newsweek March 12, 2007 issue - Steve Prothero is the kind of professor who makes you want to go back to college. During an hour lecture of his Boston University course "Death and Immortality," 200 students sat rapt last week as his train of thought led him from the Docetics (early Christians who believed that Jesus was all-God, not flesh), to reincarnation, to Disney World, to Hindu cremation rituals, to Plato's account of Socrates' trial (the day's assigned reading), to "Beauty and the Beast," to a hypothetical suicidal bunny, to a discussion of the merits of exile versus death for a man such as Socrates. To describe Prothero as "quick-witted" or his interests as "interdisciplinary" wouldn't quite do him justice. Prothero is a world-religions scholar with the soul of a late-night television comic. This month, HarperSanFrancisco will publish Prothero's new book "Religious Literacy," a work whose message is far more sober than its author's affect. In spite of the fact that more than 90 percent of Americans say they believe in God, only a tiny portion of them knows a thing about religion. When he began teaching college 17 years ago, Prothero writes, he discovered that few of his students could name the authors of the Christian Gospels. Fewer could name a single Hindu Scripture. Almost no one could name the first five books of the Hebrew Bible. Prothero, who went to Yale in the early 1980s and speaks of his all-night bull sessions on politics and religion with reverence, realized that to re-create that climate in his classroom, his students first had to know something. And so he made it his job to (1) figure out what they didn't know and (2) teach it to them. He began giving religious literacy quizzes to his students, and, subsequently, to everyone he knew. Almost everybody failed. His motivation is more than pedagogical. In a world where nearly every political conflict has a religious underpinning, Prothero writes that Americans are selling themselves short by remaining ignorant about basic religious history and texts, by not knowing the difference between a Sunni and a Shiite or the name of Mormonism's holy book. "Given a political environment where religion is increasingly important, it's increasingly important to know something about religion," he says. "The payoff is a more involved [political] conversation." The book proposes a solution that is at once controversial and familiar: teach religion in public schools. Prothero believes that before graduation from high school, every American should take a Bible course and a world-religions course�dispassionate humanities courses whose purpose is not to catechize or evangelize but to educate. In colleges, he argues, we have science requirements, so why not religion? When Harvard decided recently not to make religion part of its core curriculum, "it missed an opportunity," he says. The professor is not an advocate for any faith, though he's a great admirer of the faithful. He grew up on Cape Cod, Mass.; at 16, he was on the vestry of St. Peter's Episcopal Church, in Osterville, Mass. In college, he was "born again," but not for long. "The imperative of really believing your friends were wrong, and trying to convert them never made sense to me," he says. Post-college, he flirted with law school, politics and Buddhism until he found himself in graduate school at Harvard in religious history. There, he came to the crushing realization that as an American Christian he could never be a proper Buddhist, and so he returned to the mainline church. Today he defines himself as a "confused Christian." The book is repetitive in spots and, perhaps as an indication of how fast the religion conversation in America is moving, can feel outdated. "The hard-core atheist," Prothero writes, "once a stock figure in American life, has gone the way of the freak show." Well, except for Sam Harris, Richard Dawkins and Daniel Dennett, whose books on atheism have topped the best-seller lists for two years. In Prothero's utopian world, Americans would have enough religious knowledge to debate ethics positions using holy texts, to understand Biblical references in political speeches, to question their own beliefs about God�and to encourage others to question theirs. Only then will we enjoy one of the greatest privileges of the educated, which is to change our minds.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17439043/site/newsweek/

quote:

His motivation is more than pedagogical. In a world where nearly every political conflict has a religious underpinning, Prothero writes that Americans are selling themselves short by remaining ignorant about basic religious history and texts, by not knowing the difference between a Sunni and a Shiite or the name of Mormonism's holy book. "Given a political environment where religion is increasingly important, it's increasingly important to know something about religion," he says. "The payoff is a more involved [political] conversation."

The US is a very deeply religious country with fervent followers of their respective beliefs, you could easily put it up there with most of the countries which have a government based with some kind of ecclesiastical backing anywhere else in the world. Dare I say it, but they're quite extreme more so than most western cultures I've seen and been too, there's some parts of the US I'd dare not reveal certain things about myself to the average person for fear of vilification as much as I've done the same in some of the middle eastern countries, for my own safety.

What does interest me though is the fact that the US is the way it is, will be quite resilient to outside influence as opposed to say more moderate countries like Great Britain, France or Australia. They neither bend or bow to outside opinion and remain internally divided, (for better or worse) but they don't have themselves tied up in what looks like a social form of assault from two sides.
By that the moderate countries are caught in a pincer, they have their own sort of political correctness if you will and culture of acceptance- These lend themselves to being accepting of outsiders and outside views but up until a point where the minorities become a larger majority and change their social environment to suit.
That won't happen in the US.
It'll bounce and refuse to be accepted by the secular and fervently religious groups within the country, you won't be able to convert a large group of people into accepting even on a simple educational level what after many generations of religious learning has been passed onto them as being canon.

Re: Are we ignorant about religion?

quote:

Originally posted by Lira Although this articles focus on the US, it's quite safe to say that the situation is not much different in other countries in the world. If you click the link, there's also an interesting religion literacy quiz, whose results make me wonder: how many of those who advocate the end of religion actually know a thing or two about this issue? http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17439043/site/newsweek/

LOL ... you dont need to know a lot about religion considering how much ignorance, wars, murder and lies come from religion. That considering how many wars in human history have been based around religion and how many people died from religious persecution - spanish inquisition, for example. And then the same people claim G-d is on their side - common sense is not on their side. I mean, how many of these religious hypocrites actually follow the own rules, as in Christianity for 10 Commandments? Huh? Religion is what has undermined humankind from within, what tries to keep us from progress. Earth once was a center of the universe and if you disagreed, then you were in trouble. Religion wants to convert everyone to their ways, using force to lie that its Lord's will. Religion supports and funds wars to push its agenda. The story is too long, and quite frankly, science is proving more and more of their bullshit. Ever since 20th century, religion has been weakening, which has contributed to the massive developments in our technological, social and political spheres. And religion, like in Middle East, wants to push us back into Medieval Ages. Do scientists use force, threats, manipulation to teach people about their fact-based views?

Your Score is 73%

I think it was Denis Diderot who once said that man will only be free once every king is hung by the entrails of every priest.

Re: Re: Are we ignorant about religion?

quote:

Originally posted by Magnetonium LOL ... you dont need to know a lot about religion considering how much ignorance, wars, murder and lies come from religion.

Actually, you do, as most "religious wars" are not caused by religion, but by social and political interests that are hardly ever connected to the system of beliefs in question.

quote:

Originally posted by Magnetonium Earth once was a center of the universe and if you disagreed, then you were in trouble. Religion wants to convert everyone to their ways, using force to lie that its Lord's will. Religion supports and funds wars to push its agenda. The story is too long, and quite frankly, science is proving more and more of their bullshit. Ever since 20th century, religion has been weakening, which has contributed to the massive developments in our technological, social and political spheres. And religion, like in Middle East, wants to push us back into Medieval Ages. Do scientists use force, threats, manipulation to teach people about their fact-based views?

Have you ever studied sociology, history or philosophy of science at any point in your life?

Let's begin with the heliocentrist problem you posted. Just as an example, the Catholic Church had given Galileo plenty of solutions as to how he could use his theories about how the Earth was not the centre of the universe - the problem in saying these words explicitly was political, because of a war that had broken out in Europe. Galileo just happened to be insistent, having said "Eppure si muove" because he didn't want to reformulate his words. Also, when Copernicus came up with heliocentrism it was promptly rejected by astronomers, back then, because it was counter-intuitive.

Besides, from your post, you're talking about an apparently shallow knowledge of abrahamic religions... they're not the only religions out there, you know?

Re: Re: Re: Are we ignorant about religion?

quote:

Originally posted by Lira Actually, you do, as most "religious wars" are not caused by religion, but by social and political interests that are hardly ever connected to the system of beliefs in question. Have you ever studied sociology, history or philosophy of science at any point in your life? Let's begin with the heliocentrist problem you posted. Just as an example, the Catholic Church had given Galileo plenty of solutions as to how he could use his theories about how the Earth was not the centre of the universe - the problem in saying these words explicitly was political, because of a war that had broken out in Europe. Galileo just happened to be insistent, having said "Eppure si muove" because he didn't want to reformulate his words. Also, when Copernicus came up with heliocentrism it was promptly rejected by astronomers, back then, because it was counter-intuitive. Besides, from your post, you're talking about an apparently shallow knowledge of abrahamic religions... they're not the only religions out there, you know?

I wont bother arguing you much, I hate religion. I have read about Constantine, about Jesus, about how the Bible was written many years after the death of Jesus, and how we are supposed to believe that Bible is correct because its based on one person's miraculous appearance of Jesus on a trip to Damascus years after his death and how Jesus didnt allow his apostles to write things down, so things spread by a word of mouth, how Byzantine empire voted on and revised the Bible, changing it to the things it liked/disliked, etc. etc. plus all the wars around religion - most of these up to 19th century though, though today wars in Sudan, Israel, civil war in Iraq is hugely influenced by religion. I remember reading about the appalling Crusades campaigns to the Holy Land. Religion is becoming obsolete, my friend. These same religious freaks nowadays use the tools of science in their everyday lives while at the same time campaigning that science is evil, heretic, and wrong. Pfffft.

Re: Re: Are we ignorant about religion?

quote:

Originally posted by Magnetonium LOL ... you dont need to know a lot about religion considering how much ignorance, wars, murder and lies come from religion. That considering how many wars in human history have been based around religion and how many people died from religious persecution - spanish inquisition, for example. And then the same people claim G-d is on their side - common sense is not on their side. I mean, how many of these religious hypocrites actually follow the own rules, as in Christianity for 10 Commandments? Huh? Religion is what has undermined humankind from within, what tries to keep us from progress. Earth once was a center of the universe and if you disagreed, then you were in trouble. Religion wants to convert everyone to their ways, using force to lie that its Lord's will. Religion supports and funds wars to push its agenda. The story is too long, and quite frankly, science is proving more and more of their bullshit. Ever since 20th century, religion has been weakening, which has contributed to the massive developments in our technological, social and political spheres. And religion, like in Middle East, wants to push us back into Medieval Ages. Do scientists use force, threats, manipulation to teach people about their fact-based views?

That's kind of funny considering that some of the bloodiest, most brutal, and dangerous wars have been waged by secular states, not to mention much of modern technology is a direct byproduct of that. Hello? WW1 & WW2? Did you already forget those? And your lovely secular Soviet Union killed far more people during it's short existance than ever imaginable ever before. So what exactly are you blabbering about? Plus, the instituions of universities and schools came more or less directly from religious schools existing in religious cultures in the first place. Most of your pagan/secular cultures didn't have jack, with the main exception of the greeks who really didn't make a whole lot of progress, given the fairly long time period they were around for, in any of the areas of knowledge and arts. They discovered some elementary concepts and fundamental priciples, but that's about it. Most of it comes from Muslim Arab who preserved old knowledge and improved on it ten folds, while the Church was busy burning down libraries, exponentialy expanding on arts, literature, science etc, followed by the Judeo-Christian West. There wasn't even any real distinction between science and non-science before the Arab, not to mention they laid down the foundation for modern mathematics and science, including the number system we currently use, which was further developed and refined later by the West (and still is to this day ofcourse). So you're pretty damn ignorant of history and the contribution coming directly from these "awful" religious cultures/socieites you deride so much. There simply aren't any comparable parallels in known history that come even close to the leaps and bounds made by them. And stop generalizing the church and the midevil ages to every religion, it only reflects how ignorant you are and how limited your knowledge of the non-Western world is. And acknowledgeing any of this doesn't require a belief in religion or even a belief in God, as that's kind of irrelevant to the facts. I can understand your hatred for religion, even though it's based on utter ignorance and mainly the Western experience with the Church constantly screwing them over and trying to control every aspect of their lives, but letting it cloud your judgment so much as to where you can't even see most of what you have today is a direct result of it if, using the same standard of broad generalization, well that's just ignorant and childish really. I don't know, maybe you never actually bothered studying any of this, which explains your comments. I have no problem with criticism, but it should at the very least be enligtened and based on actual research instead of ridiculous conjecture based on complete nonsense. And I think I already pointed out the hypocritical element of it already so there's no need to rehash that. The ironic this is how much people like yourself have much more in common with these stupid ignorant fundamentalists and don't even realize it.

NOTE: You can attribute all of this to social evolution or whatever you want, still doesn't change the facts.

ummmm ... here are some of the greatest scientists who ever lived - tell me how religious they were:

Einstein, Leonardo Va Vinchi, Nikola Tesla, Darwin, the people who invented microchips, modern computers, television sets, etc. etc.

I am not saying that religion is 100 percent source of all evil. Sure they have some good family-building points, discipline, and some religious people have contributed to the society in general. However, for most part religion is showing why its bad now - its becoming obsolete. If it was the right tool, why would people in democratic countries are shying away from it more and more than people in dictatorships? I mean, yes, communists and world wars are not religious based, but I wasnt saying all wars are based on religion. There are many other factors that drive the problems of our world. Religion, however, offers little if any positive developments to humankind, as it was science that brought us out of the dark ages and into the today's modern world - not religion. If it was in religion's choice, we'd be learning Bible, devoting most of our lives to religion, living in more strict societies, being brainwashed ...

Mmm, while I'm not personally religious, I don't think I'd want to live in a society where religion wasn't present. Many of the religious people I know deter from doing crimes and bad things in general because of their beliefs in being punished by a supernatural authority. I think that crimes would increase in a society that was devoid of religion.

Re: Re: Are we ignorant about religion?

quote:

Originally posted by Magnetonium Ever since 20th century, religion has been weakening, which has contributed to the massive developments in our technological, social and political spheres.

That may be true in the western world, but it is not true if you look at Asia, especially countries like Japan, China and India. If you ever happen to visit India, you will see how religion is actually a way of life for these people. Religion is not separate from day to day life. Millions of people will rise up to morning prayers, perform religious acts before heading out to their work places. I cannot explain how integral a religion becomes part of your life, if you live and practice it daily. And yet the same people will work in atomic physics labs and built rockets. It is considered perfectly natural to believe in religion and develop technology. That is because of the belief that science actually reinforces the hindu religious views.

I do not believe that today's religious wars are based on ideological differences. Religion is used as a tool to implement personal agendas, which in most cases involves making money and keeping power. It is the ignorant ground fighter who is passionate about the religion and believes he's fighting in the name of God. All the higher ups are pretty much corrupt people with no scruples whatsoever. In the name of God, they will send 20 brainwashed suicide bombers to kill innocent people, when all they are doing is fomenting more trouble and playing a deadly game.

Re: Re: Re: Are we ignorant about religion?

quote:

Originally posted by Omega_M That may be true in the western world, but it is not true if you look at Asia, especially countries like Japan, China and India. If you ever happen to visit India, you will see how religion is actually a way of life for these people. Religion is not separate from day to day life. Millions of people will rise up to morning prayers, perform religious acts before heading out to their work places. I cannot explain how integral a religion becomes part of your life, if you live and practice it daily. And yet the same people will work in atomic physics labs and built rockets. It is considered perfectly natural to believe in religion and develop technology. That is because of the belief that science actually reinforces the hindu religious views. I do not believe that today's religious wars are based on ideological differences. Religion is used as a tool to implement personal agendas, which in most cases involves making money and keeping power. It is the ignorant ground fighter who is passionate about the religion and believes he's fighting in the name of God. All the higher ups are pretty much corrupt people with no scruples whatsoever. In the name of God, they will send 20 brainwashed suicide bombers to kill innocent people, when all they are doing is fomenting more trouble and playing a deadly game.

I wouldn't put Japan in that list, but as you can see there's a difference. Religion dominates poor countries, while tolerance and weakness of religion is observed in our highly advanced democratic countries, so to say.

Religion is dominant in poor and uneducated regions because people live in such misery they turn to religion to feel better, much like drinking some alcohol to forget about the problems. But in the end, the problems are not solved these ways. Its only consolidating power to the priests who abuse religion itself. People are still living miserable in those lands, religion has not given to them what sometimes it can promise. I dont like to live in fairy tales.

quote:

Originally posted by Sunsnail Mmm, while I'm not personally religious, I don't think I'd want to live in a society where religion wasn't present. Many of the religious people I know deter from doing crimes and bad things in general because of their beliefs in being punished by a supernatural authority. I think that crimes would increase in a society that was devoid of religion.

Yes, yes, I agree, as I said - there's are some good things about religion. However, when religion becomes political, oh boy, bad things can develop quickly and easily. Corruption, lies and repressions are not exclusive to communists by any means, but extend to all hierarchy levels. Power corrupts often enough.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Are we ignorant about religion?

quote:

Originally posted by Magnetonium I wouldn't put Japan in that list, but as you can see there's a difference. Religion dominates poor countries, while tolerance and weakness of religion is observed in our highly advanced democratic countries, so to say. People in the west are equally miserable, if not more. Religion is dominant in poor and uneducated regions because people live in such misery they turn to religion to feel better, much like drinking some alcohol to forget about the problems. But in the end, the problems are not solved these ways. Its only consolidating power to the priests who abuse religion itself. People are still living miserable in those lands, religion has not given to them what sometimes it can promise. I dont like to live in fairy tales.

And how exactly are people in the advanced democracies happier than the people in poor countries ? your logic seems to do away with the need for a religion. If you equate money with happiness, then people in the advanced democracies must be a happier lot. They don't feel the need for religious teachings because they must be satisfied with their conditions. The rampart use of drugs and alcohol in the west is proof enough of the fact that people here are also desperate to run away from their problems. They are equally miserable as the poor people, if not more.

The weakness of religion in modern democracies is due to the higher standard of living people enjoy in these countries. They fall into the same trap that money = happiness. Money corrupts. It corrupts you socially and morally. It creates newer problems. With the weakening of religion, there is nobody to reinforce the importance of good virtues and ethics into the people. The society becomes self-centered and selfish. That is a fact.

The democracies have been around for a short span of time. 300 years. That is nothing compared to thousands of years of prosperous past the eastern countries have had. The eastern religions have been around for thousands more years than Christianity, which is the dominant religion in the west.

It is my theory that people with a culture and religion developed for thousands more years than others, necessarily fall into a different category than people who have not. The two categories are not equal. They cannot be. The degree to which western people place importance on money is not the same to which people in the east do. I have lived in both the worlds and know this for a fact. I attribute this to the development (maturity) of thought process and acceptance of the fact that money does not solve problems. It is because of the acceptance/realization of the the true goals of mankind and the fallacies of running after money.

The eastern countries have gone through the same thought process as the western countries are going now, only much earlier. It is now the time for West to realize these facts. You cannot dismiss religions as bullshit unless you have studied them independently, formed your own opinions after reading and comprehending the scriptures yourself. It takes time, effort and a good deal of intelligence to do that.

This is what I believe about "religion".

I understand religion to be a belief system; theistic or not. With this logic, everyone has a religion, atheists included.

Well, there are certainly some phenomena that can be better examined and understood with an understanding of the grotesqueries of the predominant modern mythologies. But regarding the merit of religion, it really isn't necessary to study particular religions in detail. Even a very cursory examination would reveal enough damning errors in fact or logic, not to mention the obvious effects it has on the behavior and perhaps more importantly the methods of thinking of those "true believers," that we could quite rightly dismiss religion.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Are we ignorant about religion?

quote:

Originally posted by Omega_M And how exactly are people in the advanced democracies happier than the people in poor countries ? your logic seems to do away with the need for a religion. If you equate money with happiness, then people in the advanced democracies must be a happier lot. They don't feel the need for religious teachings because they must be satisfied with their conditions. The rampart use of drugs and alcohol in the west is proof enough of the fact that people here are also desperate to run away from their problems. They are equally miserable as the poor people, if not more. The weakness of religion in modern democracies is due to the higher standard of living people enjoy in these countries. They fall into the same trap that money = happiness. Money corrupts. It corrupts you socially and morally. It creates newer problems. With the weakening of religion, there is nobody to reinforce the importance of good virtues and ethics into the people. The society becomes self-centered and selfish. That is a fact. The democracies have been around for a short span of time. 300 years. That is nothing compared to thousands of years of prosperous past the eastern countries have had. The eastern religions have been around for thousands more years than Christianity, which is the dominant religion in the west. It is my theory that people with a culture and religion developed for thousands more years than others, necessarily fall into a different category than people who have not. The two categories are not equal. They cannot be. The degree to which western people place importance on money is not the same to which people in the east do. I have lived in both the worlds and know this for a fact. I attribute this to the development (maturity) of thought process and acceptance of the fact that money does not solve problems. It is because of the acceptance/realization of the the true goals of mankind and the fallacies of running after money. The eastern countries have gone through the same thought process as the western countries are going now, only much earlier. It is now the time for West to realize these facts. You cannot dismiss religions as bullshit unless you have studied them independently, formed your own opinions after reading and comprehending the scriptures yourself. It takes time, effort and a good deal of intelligence to do that.

Aaaaagh, I see ... you think democratic do-what-you-want western style of living is corrupt, based on money, but religion is not. You also fail to notice that money runs the show everywhere, not just the western developed coountries. How about that?
Just because we have more money here, doesnt mean we are some sort of greedy bastards.
Also, in many respects science IS a type of religion. I dont want to have this wander into lifestyles discussion. I lived through a heartbroken Russia in 1990s, I saw and experienced first hand the misery, and people actually more money-crazed, willing to kill for money to survive. On the other hand I saw people who lived on farms and on their own, able to sustain themselves so they were not money-desperate, and many of them were not religious.

I didnt spend my whole life studying religion, I spent a few weeks and I was once brainwashed Russian Orthodox child for first 8 years of my life. So I can dismiss it, because I've been there, I read it, and I understand. Just because I dont have a PH.D doesnt mean I am not allowed to dismiss something or that I am not credible enough to do that. I did study both sides,, independently, I can see the religious brainwashing in USA, Middle East. Now, without religion telling me what to do I can make my own choices, thinking and enjoy my life to the fullest without some priests telling me what to do and trying to scare me that I am going to hell. And I am a happier person as a result.

I do believe that a cursory examination of just one or two religions is not enough to generalize the religious thought process of the entire world. I am not too aware of other religious thought processes. But I am quite familiar with Hinduism. I would like you to read this speech and identify the fallacy of the speaker's though process. I do believe that it is similar to a scientific thought process which forces you to admit science is factual and not belief based. This speech is "religious" because it has been given by a hindu monk who is advocating a path towards seeking knowledge. However, the path is entirely devoid of irrational and blind belief and is based on acceptance of facts. It is based on independent observation and derivation of conclusions based on personal experiences and realizations. It is a long speech (given in early 1900s), but to me it is an interesting way of thinking about religion.

quote:

All our knowledge is based upon experience. What we call inferential knowledge, in which we go from the less to the more general, or from the general to the particular, has experience as its basis. In what are called the exact sciences, people easily find the truth, because it appeals to the particular experiences of every human being. The scientist does not tell you to believe in anything, but he has certain results which come from his own experiences, and reasoning on them when he asks us to believe in his conclusions, he appeals to some universal experience of humanity. In every exact science there is a basis which is common to all humanity, so that we can at once see the truth or the fallacy of the conclusions drawn therefrom. Now, the question is: Has religion any such basis or not? I shall have to answer the question both in the affirmative and in the negative. Religion, as it is generally taught all over the world, is said to be based upon faith and belief, and, in most cases, consists only of different sets of theories, and that is the reason why we find all religions quarrelling with one another. These theories, again, are based upon belief. One man says there is a great Being sitting above the clouds and governing the whole universe, and he asks me to believe that solely on the authority of his assertion. In the same way, I may have my own ideas, which I am asking others to believe, and if they ask a reason, I cannot give them any. This is why religion and metaphysical philosophy have a bad name nowadays. Every educated man seems to say, "Oh, these religions are only bundles of theories without any standard to judge them by, each man preaching his own pet ideas." Nevertheless, there is a basis of universal belief in religion, governing all the different theories and all the varying ideas of different sects in different countries. Going to their basis we find that they also are based upon universal experiences. In the first place, if you analyse all the various religions of the world, you will find that these are divided into two classes, those with a book and those without a book. Those with a book are the strongest, and have the largest number of followers. Those without books have mostly died out, and the few new ones have very small followings. Yet, in all of them we find one consensus of opinion, that the truths they teach are the results of the experiences of particular persons. The Christian asks you to believe in his religion, to believe in Christ and to believe in him as the incarnation of God, to believe in a God, in a soul, and in a better state of that soul. If I ask him for reason, he says he believes in them. But if you go to the fountain - head of Christianity, you will find that it is based upon experience. Christ said he saw God; the disciples said they felt God; and so forth. Similarly, in Buddhism, it is Buddha's experience. He experienced certain truths, saw them, came in contact with them, and preached them to the world. So with the Hindus. In their books the writers, who are called Rishis, or sages, declare they experienced certain truths, and these they preach. Thus it is clear that all the religions of the world have been built upon that one universal and adamantine foundation of all our knowledge -- direct experience. The teachers all saw God; they all saw their own souls, they saw their future, they saw their eternity, and what they saw they preached. Only there is this difference that by most of these religions especially in modern times, a peculiar claim is made, namely, that these experiences are impossible at the present day; they were only possible with a few men, who were the first founders of the religions that subsequently bore their names. At the present time these experiences have become obsolete, and, therefore, we have now to take religion on belief. This I entirely deny. If there has been one experience in this world in any particular branch of knowledge, it absolutely follows that that experience has been possible millions of times before, and will be repeated eternally. Uniformity is the rigorous law of nature; what once happened can happen always. The teachers of the science of Yoga, therefore, declare that religion is not only based upon the experience of ancient times, but that no man can be religious until he has the same perceptions himself. Yoga is the science which teaches us how to get these perceptions. It is not much use to talk about religion until one has felt it. Why is there so much disturbance, so much fighting and quarrelling in the name of God? There has been more bloodshed in the name of God than for any other cause, because people never went to the fountain - head; they were content only to give a mental assent to the customs of their forefathers, and wanted others to do the same. What right has a man to say he has a soul if he does not feel it, or that there is a God if he does not see Him? If there is a God we must see Him, if there is a soul we must perceive it; otherwise it is better not to believe. It is better to be an outspoken atheist than a hypocrite. The modern idea, on the one hand, with the "learned" is that religion and metaphysics and all search after a Supreme Being are futile; on the other hand, with the semi - educated, the idea seems to be that these things really have no basis; their only value consists in the fact that they furnish strong motive powers for doing good to the world. If men believe in a God, they may become good, and moral, and so make good citizens. We cannot blame them for holding such ideas, seeing that all the teaching these men get is simply to believe in an eternal rigmarole of words, without any substance behind them. They are asked to live upon words; can they do it? If they could, I should not have the least regard for human nature. Man wants truth, wants to experience truth for himself; when he has grasped it, realised it, felt it within his heart of hearts, then alone, declare the Vedas, would all doubts vanish, all darkness be scattered, and all crookedness be made straight. "Ye children of immortality, even those who live in the highest sphere, the way is found; there is a way out of all this darkness, and that is by perceiving Him who is beyond all darkness; there is no other way." The science of Raja-Yoga proposes to put before humanity a practical and scientifically worked out method of reaching this truth. In the first place, every science must have its own method of investigation. If you want to become an astronomer and sit down and cry "Astronomy! Astronomy!" it will never come to you. The same with chemistry. A certain method must be followed. You must go to a laboratory, take different substances, mix them up, compound them, experiment with them, and out of that will come a knowledge of chemistry. If you want to be an astronomer, you must go to an observatory, take a telescope, study the stars and planets, and then you will become an astronomer. Each science must have its own methods. I could preach you thousands of sermons, but they would not make you religious, until you practised the method. These are the truths of the sages of all countries, of all ages, of men pure and unselfish, who had no motive but to do good to the world. They all declare that they have found some truth higher than what the senses can bring to us, and they invite verification. They ask us to take up the method and practise honestly, and then, if we do not find this higher truth, we will have the right to say there is no truth in the claim, but before we have done that, we are not rational in denying the truth of their assertions. So we must work faithfully, using the prescribed methods, and light will come. In acquiring knowledge we make use of generalisations, and generalisation is based upon observation. We first observe facts, then generalise, and then draw conclusions or principles. The knowledge of the mind, of the internal nature of man, of thought, can never be had until we have first the power of observing the facts that are gong on within. It is comparatively easy to observe facts in the external world, for many instruments have been invented for the purpose, but in the internal world we have no instrument to help us. Yet we know we must observe in order to have a real science. Without a proper analysis, any science will be hopeless -- mere theorising. And that is why all the psychologists have been quarrelling among themselves since the beginning of time, except those few who found out the means of observation. The science of Raja-Yoga, in the first place, proposes to give us such a means of observing the internal states. The instrument is the mind itself. The power of attention, when properly guided, and directed towards the internal world, will analyse the mind, and illumine facts for us. The powers of the mind are like rays of light dissipated; when they are concentrated, they illumine. This is our only means of knowledge. Everyone is using it, both in the external and the internal world; but, for the psychologist, the same minute observation has to be directed to the internal world, which the scientific man directs to the external; and this requires a great deal of practice. From our childhood upwards we have been taught only to pay attention to things external, but never to things internal; hence most of us have nearly lost the faculty of observing the internal mechanism. To turn the mind, as it were, inside, stop it from going outside, and then to concentrate all its powers, and throw them upon the mind itself, in order that it may know its own nature, analyse itself, is very hard work. Yet that is the only way to anything which will be a scientific approach to the subject. What is the use of such knowledge? In the first place, knowledge itself is the highest reward of knowledge, and secondly, there is also utility in it. It will take away all our misery. When by analysing his own mind, man comes face to face, as it were, with something which is never destroyed, something which is, by its own nature, eternally pure and perfect, he will no more be miserable, no more unhappy. All misery comes from fear, from unsatisfied desire. Man will find that he never dies, and then he will have no more fear of death. When he knows that he is perfect, he will have no more vain desires, and both these causes being absent, there will be no more misery -- there will be perfect bliss, even while in this body. There is only one method by which to attain this knowledge, that which is called concentration. The chemist in his laboratory concentrates all the energies of his mind into one focus, and throws them upon the materials he is analysing, and so finds out their secrets. The astronomer concentrates all the energies of his mind and projects them through his telescope upon the skies; and the stars, the sun, and the moon, give up their secrets to him. The more I can concentrate my thoughts on the matter on which I am talking to you, the more light I can throw upon you. You are listening to me, and the more you concentrate your thoughts, the more clearly you will grasp what I have to say. How has all the knowledge in the world been gained but by the concentration of the powers of the mind? The world is ready to give up its secrets if we only know how to knock, how to give it the necessary blow. The strength and force of the blow come through concentration. There is no limit to the power of the human mind. The more concentrated it is, the more power is brought to bear on one point; that is the secret. It is easy to concentrate the mind on external things, the mind naturally goes outwards; but not so in the case of religion, or psychology, or metaphysics, where the subject and the object, are one. The object is internal, the mind itself is the object, and it is necessary to study the mind itself -- mind studying mind. We know that there is the power of the mind called reflection. I am talking to you. At the same time I am standing aside, as it were, a second person, and knowing and hearing what I am talking. You work and think at the same time, while a portion of your mind stands by and sees what you are thinking. The powers of the mind should be concentrated and turned back upon itself, and as the darkest places reveal their secrets before the penetrating rays of the sun, so will this concentrated mind penetrate its own innermost secrets. Thus will we come to the basis of belief, the real genuine religion. We will perceive for ourselves whether we have souls, whether life is of five minutes or of eternity, whether there is a God in the universe or none. It will all be revealed to us. This is what Raja-Yoga proposes to teach. The goal of all its teaching is how to concentrate the minds, then, how to discover the innermost recesses of our own minds, then, how to generalise their contents and form our own conclusions from them. It, therefore, never asks the question what our religion is, whether we are Deists or Atheists, whether Christians, Jews, or Buddhists. We are human beings; that is sufficient. Every human being has the right and the power to seek for religion. Every human being has the right to ask the reason, why, and to have his question answered by himself, if he only takes the trouble. So far, then, we see that in the study of this Raja-Yoga no faith or belief is necessary. Believe nothing until you find it out for yourself; that is what it teaches us. Truth requires no prop to make it stand. Do you mean to say that the facts of our awakened state require any dreams or imaginings to prove them? Certainly not. This study of Raja-Yoga takes a long time and constant practice. A part of this practice is physical, but in the main it is mental. As we proceed we shall find how intimately the mind is connected with the body. If we believe that the mind is simply a finer part of the body, and that mind acts upon the body, then it stands to reason that the body must react upon the mind. If the body is sick, the mind becomes sick also. If the body is healthy, the mind remains healthy and strong. When one is angry, the mind becomes disturbed. Similarly when the mind is disturbed, the body also becomes disturbed. With the majority of mankind the mind is greatly under the control of the body, their mind being very little developed. The vast mass of humanity is very little removed from the animals. Not only so, but in many instances, the power of control in them is little higher than that of the lower animals. We have very little command of our minds. Therefore to bring that command about, to get that control over body and mind, we must take certain physical helps. When the body is sufficiently controlled, we can attempt the manipulation of the mind. By manipulating the mind, we shall be able to bring it under our control, make it work as we like, and compel it to concentrate its powers as we desire. According to the Raja-Yogi, the external world is but the gross form of the internal, or subtle. The finer is always the cause, the grosser the effect. So the external world is the effect, the internal the cause. In the same way external forces are simply the grosser parts, of which the internal forces are the finer. The man who has discovered and learned how to manipulate the internal forces will get the whole of nature under his control. The Yogi proposes to himself no less a task than to master the whole universe, to control the whole of nature. He wants to arrive at the point where what we call "nature's laws" will have no influence over him, where he will be able to get beyond them all. He will be master of the whole of nature, internal and external. The progress and civilisation of the human race simply mean controlling this nature. Different races take to different processes of controlling nature. Just as in the same society some individuals want to control the external nature, and others the internal, so, among races, some want to control the external nature, and others the internal. Some say that by controlling internal nature we control everything. Others that by controlling external nature we control everything. Carried to the extreme both are right, because in nature there is no such division as internal or external. These are fictitious limitations that never existed. The externalists and the internalists are destined to meet at the same point, when both reach the extreme of their knowledge. Just as a physicist, when he pushes his knowledge to its limits, finds it melting away into metaphysics, so a metaphysician will find that what he calls mind and matter are but apparent distinctions, the reality being One. The end and aim of all science is to find the unity, the One out of which the manifold is being manufactured, that One existing as many. Raja - yoga proposes to start from the internal world, to study internal nature, and through that, control the whole -- both internal and external. It is a very old attempt. India has been its special stronghold, but it was also attempted by other nations. In Western countries it was regarded as mysticism and people who wanted to practise it were either burned or killed as witches and sorcerers. In India, for various reasons, it fell into the hands of persons who destroyed ninety per cent of the knowledge, and tried to make a great secret of the remainder. In modern times many so - called teachers have arisen in the West worse than those of India, because the latter knew something, while these modern exponents know nothing. Anything that is secret and mysterious in these systems of Yoga should be at once rejected. The best guide in life is strength. In religion, as in all other matters, discard everything that weakens you, have nothing to do with it. Mystery - mongering weakens the human brain. It has well - nigh destroyed Yoga -- one of the grandest of sciences. From the time it was discovered, more than four thousand years ago, Yoga was perfectly delineated, formulated, and preached in India. It is a striking fact that the more modern the commentator the greater the mistakes he makes, while the more ancient the writer the more rational he is. Most of the modern writers talk of all sorts of mystery. Thus Yoga fell into the hands of a few persons who made it a secret, instead of letting the full blaze of daylight and reason fall upon it. They did so that they might have the powers to themselves. In the first place, there is no mystery in what I teach. What little I know I will tell you. So far as I can reason it out I will do so, but as to what I do not know I will simply tell you what the books say. It is wrong to believe blindly. You must exercise your own reason and judgment; you must practise, and see whether these things happen or not. Just as you would take up any other science, exactly in the same manner you should take up this science for study. There is neither mystery nor danger in it. So far as it is true, it ought to be preached in the public streets, in broad daylight. Any attempt to mystify these things is productive of great danger. Before proceeding further, I will tell you a little of the Sankhya philosophy, upon which the whole of Raja-Yoga is based. According to the Sankhya philosophy, the genesis of perception is as follows: the affections of external objects are carried by the outer instruments to their respective brain centres or organs, the organs carry the affections to the mind, the mind to the determinative faculty, from this the Purusha (the soul) receives them, when perception results. Next he gives the order back, as it were, to the motor centres to do the needful. With the exception of the Purusha all of these are material, but the mind is much finer matter than the external instruments. That material of which the mind is composed goes also to form the subtle matter called the Tanmatras. These become gross and make the external matter. That is the psychology of the Sankhya. So that between the intellect and the grosser matter outside there is only a difference in degree. The Purusha is the only thing which is immaterial. The mind is an instrument, as it were, in the hands of the soul, through which the soul catches external objects. The mind is constantly changing and vacillating, and can, when perfected, either attach itself to several organs, to one, or to none. For instance, if I hear the clock with great attention, I will not, perhaps, see anything although my eyes may be open, showing that the mind was not attached to the seeing organ, while it was to the hearing organ. But the perfected mind can be attached to all the organs simultaneously. It has the reflexive power of looking back into its own depths. This reflexive power is what the Yogi wants to attain; by concentrating the powers of the mind, and turning them inward, he seeks to know what is happening inside. There is in this no question of mere belief; it is the analysis arrived at by certain philosophers. Modern physiologists tell us that the eyes are not the organ of vision, but that the organ is in one of the nerve centres of the brain, and so with all the senses; they also tell us that these centres are formed of the same material as the brain itself. The Sankhyas also tell us the same thing. The former is a statement on the physical side, and the latter on the psychological side; yet both are the same. Our field of research lies beyond this. The Yogi proposed to attain that fine state of perception in which he can perceive all the different mental states. There must be mental perception of all of them. One can perceive how the sensation is travelling, how the mind is receiving it, how it is going to the determinative faculty, and how this gives it to the Purusha. As each science requires certain preparations and has its own method, which must be followed before it could be understood, even so in Raja-Yoga. Certain regulations as to food are necessary; we must use that food which brings us the purest mind. If you go into a menagerie, you will find this demonstrated at once. You see the elephants, huge animals, but calm and gentle; and if you go towards the cages of the lions and tigers, you find them restless, showing how much difference has been made by food. All the forces that are working in this body have been produced out of food; we see that every day. If you begin to fast, first your body will get weak, the physical forces will suffer; then, after a few days, the mental forces will suffer also. First, memory will fail. Then comes a point, when you are not able to think, much less to pursue any course of reasoning. We have, therefore, to take care what sort of food we eat at the beginning, and when we have got strength enough, when our practice is well advanced, we need not be so careful in this respect. While the plant is growing it must be hedged round, lest it be injured; but when it becomes a tree, the hedges are taken away. It is strong enough to withstand all assaults. A Yogi must avoid the two extremes of luxury and austerity. He must not fast, nor torture his flesh. He who does so, says the Gita, cannot be a Yogi: He who fasts, he who keeps awake, he who sleeps much, he who works too much, he who does no work, none of these can be a Yogi (Gita, VI, 16).

Source

I think that religion as a form of spirituality and expanation for natural disasters has been around long before civilization. I believe that at the dawn of civilization, some people decided to alter it to create a hierarchy-based organized religion to control and manipulate people for their own benefit. And the rest is history. The religions that exist today are the ones that managed to survive the best through many ways of propaganda, coersion, force, etc. Most of main religions have blood of millions of innocent people on their hands. And thats unacceptable. Yet these organizations still claim to be their G-ds' representatives.

Did you read the speech ? Again, your entire presumption is based on the belief that it is money and power that drive the world and nothing else. It is your belief that everyone is a selfish bastard bent on making more and more money at the expense of everybody else. This is exactly what I was talking about in my previous posts. You believe that money is what brings happiness and is a way out of everybody's problems and hence everybody must be after money. True that many hold this belief, it must be said that western people are ignorant of eastern philosophies, which are different from christian and islamic philosophies.

As I have already said, if material comforts do not give happiness, and this has proved it again and again, then it is time to ask questions and inquire about methods of seeking long lasting happiness. As I have said, some religions have been around for longer time than others, and as the though processes change, the religious beliefs change. You cannot reach a generalization that your beliefs are true for every religion in the world based on the study on just the western religions.

quote:

Originally posted by Omega_M Did you read the speech ?

I read it through partially - its too wordy for me, I am studying and have a massive headache from yesterday. I have a big book about Buddhism, so I have read a few fancy papers already. I have high admiration for Buddhism. Hinduism, well their caste system and countless G-ds, well ... holy cow.

Papers like these do have good points, as I am a spiritual person and an environmentalist. I believe nature has a lot of energy, power, ability to heal everything let's say. Anyhow, I am getting back to studying for my calculus test tomorrow.

EDIT: As for material possessions, money, greed and all that - I deeply understand that. I am not a money person.

BTW, my favourite spiritual book series is called CONVERSATIONS WITH GOD by Neal Walsch. Check it out, there are like 9 books in total. The 3 main books are very good.

quote:

Originally posted by Magnetonium I read it through partially - its too wordy for me, I am studying and have a massive headache from yesterday. I have a big book about Buddhism, so I have read a few fancy papers already. I have high admiration for Buddhism. Hinduism, well their caste system and countless G-ds, well ... holy cow. Papers like these do have good points, as I am a spiritual person and an environmentalist. I believe nature has a lot of energy, power, ability to heal everything let's say. Anyhow, I am getting back to studying for my calculus test tomorrow.

I have given the source, so you can read it up in a slightly larger font than in my quote. To understand why Hinduism has countless Gods, you must understand the basic philosophy. Weird as it may sound, the modern hindu thought is pretty much monisitc (or henothistic as it has been called, but I do not believe it to be a correct interpretation.) There are explanations for all the so called Gods. And as is true with every religion, some archaic thoughts which were relevant only in a particular era have been exploited by priests in the past to forward their own purposes. So yes, blind irrational beliefs and faults are equally prevalent in this system. From time to time, monks have come forward to free the society from the clutches of the priests and they have been successful at doing that. So today's society is not under the tight grip of the priests. Atleast the intellectuals are not. And that is important.

To truly understand a foreign religion, you must discuss it with a knowledgeable person of that religion who can explain/discuss things with you and point you to right sources of information.

quote:

Originally posted by Omega_M I do believe that a cursory examination of just one or two religions is not enough to generalize the religious thought process of the entire world. I am not too aware of other religious thought processes. But I am quite familiar with Hinduism. I would like you to read this speech and identify the fallacy of the speaker's though process. I do believe that it is similar to a scientific thought process which forces you to admit science is factual and not belief based. This speech is "religious" because it has been given by a hindu monk who is advocating a path towards seeking knowledge. However, the path is entirely devoid of irrational and blind belief and is based on acceptance of facts. It is based on independent observation and derivation of conclusions based on personal experiences and realizations. It is a long speech (given in early 1900s), but to me it is an interesting way of thinking about religion.

If I recall, we've been down this road with regards to Vivekananda before...

http://www.tranceaddict.com/forums/...6&forumid=66&s=

The central fallacy of his ideas appears to me to be a false analogy. In particular, he attempts to create an analogy between the physical sciences and the mystical metaphysics which he appears to believe in. However, the analogy is false. For example:

quote:

The science of Raja-Yoga proposes to put before humanity a practical and scientifically worked out method of reaching this truth. In the first place, every science must have its own method of investigation. If you want to become an astronomer and sit down and cry "Astronomy! Astronomy!" it will never come to you. The same with chemistry. A certain method must be followed. You must go to a laboratory, take different substances, mix them up, compound them, experiment with them, and out of that will come a knowledge of chemistry. If you want to be an astronomer, you must go to an observatory, take a telescope, study the stars and planets, and then you will become an astronomer. Each science must have its own methods. I could preach you thousands of sermons, but they would not make you religious, until you practised the method. These are the truths of the sages of all countries, of all ages, of men pure and unselfish, who had no motive but to do good to the world. They all declare that they have found some truth higher than what the senses can bring to us, and they invite verification. They ask us to take up the method and practise honestly, and then, if we do not find this higher truth, we will have the right to say there is no truth in the claim, but before we have done that, we are not rational in denying the truth of their assertions. So we must work faithfully, using the prescribed methods, and light will come.

The methods used to arrive at factual information in astronomy or chemistry are far more specific than the proposed methods of finding a "higher" truth. The "purity," selflessness, or motives of individuals are not measurable in the sense that we can measure chemical compounds or astronomical phenomena. And most religious claims are not falsifiable, whereas scientific claims generally are.

As he goes on to say:

quote:

It is easy to concentrate the mind on external things, the mind naturally goes outwards; but not so in the case of religion, or psychology, or metaphysics, where the subject and the object, are one. The object is internal, the mind itself is the object, and it is necessary to study the mind itself -- mind studying mind. We know that there is the power of the mind called reflection. I am talking to you. At the same time I am standing aside, as it were, a second person, and knowing and hearing what I am talking. You work and think at the same time, while a portion of your mind stands by and sees what you are thinking. The powers of the mind should be concentrated and turned back upon itself, and as the darkest places reveal their secrets before the penetrating rays of the sun, so will this concentrated mind penetrate its own innermost secrets. Thus will we come to the basis of belief, the real genuine religion. We will perceive for ourselves whether we have souls, whether life is of five minutes or of eternity, whether there is a God in the universe or none. It will all be revealed to us.

Aside from the fact that scientific inquiry is considerably more involved and technical than "concentrating the mind" on something, the difference that he makes note of with regards to the object of inquiry also poses a difficult problem for the analogy used earlier. Since no on else can examine your mind in the sense which he is proposing, there can be only one observer to the particular information being "revealed." Considering the inherent subjectivity of such a uniquely personal self-observation, it is hardly independently verifiable what you did in fact find, if anything. And to be honest, what he is describing here sounds to me more like "imagining" than "observing."

The fallacy of endeavoring to reach truth through one's own subjective imagination with no method to measure, verify, or falsify any of the claims made is very obvious, and appears to me to be very similar to how other religious believers imagine reality in terms of their own beliefs despite not being able to measure, verify, or falsify those beliefs.

It seems to me that Vivekananda does not understand the intellectual rigor that science, and indeed all rational inquiry, demands of us. And it is show quite poignantly near the end of this speech:

quote:

Certain regulations as to food are necessary; we must use that food which brings us the purest mind. If you go into a menagerie, you will find this demonstrated at once. You see the elephants, huge animals, but calm and gentle; and if you go towards the cages of the lions and tigers, you find them restless, showing how much difference has been made by food.

Although it is not totally false that diet can have some effect upon mentality or behavior, this kind of reasoning simply does not follow in any rational sense. And although it is usually more subtle than this, the same type of irrational leaps pervade Vivekananda's ideas.

quote:

Originally posted by Arbiter The central fallacy of his ideas appears to me to be a false analogy. In particular, he attempts to create an analogy between the physical sciences and the mystical metaphysics which he appears to believe in. However, the analogy is false.

In the first place, this is a talk and not a written speech. It is a talk directed towards an American audience not familiar with the eastern philosophy. It is not an indepth philosophical treaties and therefore is not comparable to "works" in the sense of written essays. The point is to surmise the desire to subject religious thought process to an investigation based on experimentation and observation.

I do not see attempts in other religions to investigate philosophies as outlined in this speech. I would like to know if christianity advocates the use of independent inquiry to seek out the truth; and whether such thoughts are accepted by majority of christians. Here is a guy who is telling you not to believe in the words of the authority unless you have verified them yourself. He tells you not to believe in God unless you have seen him. How many religions advocate such a thought ? And how far away is it, from a scientific inquiry ?

quote:

The methods used to arrive at factual information in astronomy or chemistry are far more specific than the proposed methods of finding a "higher" truth. The "purity," selflessness, or motives of individuals are not measurable in the sense that we can measure chemical compounds or astronomical phenomena. And most religious claims are not falsifiable, whereas scientific claims generally are.

Actually, the methods are not even outlined in this speech. They are as rigorous as they intend to be. This is an introductory speech on Raja Yoga. Secondly, the object of observation stated in this method is the mind itself. Even today, it is difficult for psychologists to quantify effects of the mind. Understanding this difficulty, it is quite possible that subjective methods of observation actually work.

The analogies he has given are again, very general. The audience is not a bunch of western philosophers. This is an introduction to Hinduism. There is a lot more to it than a bunch of speeches. The speech was designed to inform viewers about the religion and generate interest into further exploration. This is not the bible of Hinduism. The Bible of Hinduism gets into detailed specifics as required.

He has himself stated that beliefs contrary to observations must be rejected. So ofcourse his claims are falsifiable.

quote:

Aside from the fact that scientific inquiry is considerably more involved and technical than "concentrating the mind" on something...

I would believe that is indeed the case. Concentration is simply the focussed direction of your intellect on the problem on hand. How is it different from any scientific inquiry ?

quote:

...the difference that he makes note of with regards to the object of inquiry also poses a difficult problem for the analogy used earlier. Since no on else can examine your mind in the sense which he is proposing, there can be only one observer to the particular information being "revealed." Considering the inherent subjectivity of such a uniquely personal self-observation, it is hardly independently verifiable what you did in fact find, if anything. And to be honest, what he is describing here sounds to me more like "imagining" than "observing."

As far as a subjective experience is concerned, we must accept that all experiences are subjective. You see something and a similar thing is seen by others. It becomes objective if 99 out of 100 people agree upon the description.

Secondly, we do have a similar problem with some of the most complex mathematical and physical theories today.Describing the theory in ordinary language essentially makes it less precise and imperfect. That is the limitation of language. An independent reviewer must be mathematically qualified to understand the theory based on the math and not on the explanations. It can be argued that it is a similar personal impression the theory will make on the reviewer. Again, it will be difficult to explain the theory to others. But all reviewers who understand the theory will probably reach an agreement.

The more complex a subject, the less it is possible to describe it in words. That is the limitation of the language. The sansrkit language in which the Hindu texts are written is one of the most precise languages ever written. There is an article by NASA on the possible use of this language for computations, because of this very quality. A statement written in sanskrit has only one possible interpretation. No ambiguity. I will give you a source if you are interested.

quote:

The fallacy of endeavoring to reach truth through one's own subjective imagination with no method to measure, verify, or falsify any of the claims made is very obvious, and appears to me to be very similar to how other religious believers imagine reality in terms of their own beliefs despite not being able to measure, verify, or falsify those beliefs.

The basic understanding is that the experiences of truth are universal in nature. All people will experience identical or related things. The experiences are independent of religious bias. Hence, I don't see any fallacy in reaching the truth through subjective imagination. If people from different religions have similar experiences, then it is reasonable to say that they are true.

The problem is that not many qualified viewers claim this to be the case. Hence there is a problem in accepting this theory. But I wouldn't discredit it simply because of the lack of such observers in the western world. There are countless people since antiquity who have claimed to have observed the truth. These people are followers of the eastern religions. They also claim that interpretations of christian philosophy indicates that the founders of this religion also had similar experience.

quote:

It seems to me that Vivekananda does not understand the intellectual rigor that science, and indeed all rational inquiry, demands of us. And it is show quite poignantly near the end of this speech

This speech is an introduction to Raja Yoga. It is one of the many paths to seek the truth. This path treats mind as an object of observation. The method involves meditation and in general observations of body. His words simply imply the need for a certain type of preparation with regards to eating food. There is no reason to discredit his observations.

quote:

Originally posted by Omega_M In the first place, this is a talk and not a written speech. It is a talk directed towards an American audience not familiar with the eastern philosophy. It is not an indepth philosophical treaties and therefore is not comparable to "works" in the sense of written essays. The point is to surmise the desire to subject religious thought process to an investigation based on experimentation and observation. I do not see attempts in other religions to investigate philosophies as outlined in this speech. I would like to know if christianity advocates the use of independent inquiry to seek out the truth; and whether such thoughts are accepted by majority of christians. Here is a guy who is telling you not to believe in the words of the authority unless you have verified them yourself. He tells you not to believe in God unless you have seen him. How many religions advocate such a thought ? And how far away is it, from a scientific inquiry ?

I don't see any inquiry at all. What I see is a facade of inquiry. Reflecting, meditating, and concentrating on one's own mind is not a method of inquiry regarding anything but perhaps oneself. Such activities will certainly never verify anything about God or metaphysics to anyone. Those who believe that they will do so on nothing but blind faith - something Vivekananda warns against on the one hand and partakes in on the other.

I have no doubt that those who spend more time deceiving themselves get much better at it. But is it not blind faith on their part that what they learn is a truth, rather than a lie? Many Christians believe that they have "felt" God. Are their beliefs then verified? Of course not.

quote:

Actually, the methods are not even outlined in this speech. They are as rigorous as they intend to be. This is an introductory speech on Raja Yoga. Secondly, the object of observation stated in this method is the mind itself. Even today, it is difficult for psychologists to quantify effects of the mind. Understanding this difficulty, it is quite possible that subjective methods of observation actually work. The analogies he has given are again, very general. The audience is not a bunch of western philosophers. This is an introduction to Hinduism. There is a lot more to it than a bunch of speeches. The speech was designed to inform viewers about the religion and generate interest into further exploration. This is not the bible of Hinduism. The Bible of Hinduism gets into detailed specifics as required.

I appreciate the limited scope of what you have provided here but I see no evidence of anything substantial here that would merit further inquiry into the subject, or to differentiate it from other forms of mysticism in any fundamental way.

quote:

He has himself stated that beliefs contrary to observations must be rejected. So ofcourse his claims are falsifiable.

Not really. If he claims that he has come upon some truth through meditation, it can't be independently verified or falsified that he did or did not, since we have no way to read his mind or examine the precise mechanism by which this "truth" was arrived at, much less whether or not it is true.

quote:

I would believe that is indeed the case. Concentration is simply the focussed direction of your intellect on the problem on hand. How is it different from any scientific inquiry ?

Scientific inquiry involves collecting measurable data through observations made in the real, objective, world, and performing experiments to prove or disprove hypotheses with regards to the phenomena therein.

This sort of mystical "inquiry" which consists merely of hypothesizing and imagining is inherently incapable of proving or disproving anything, since there is no point of independent reference by which to determine if the "result" is true or false.

quote:

The basic understanding is that the experiences of truth are universal in nature. All people will experience identical or related things. The experiences are independent of religious bias. Hence, I don't see any fallacy in reaching the truth through subjective imagination. If people from different religions have similar experiences, then it is reasonable to say that they are true.

I'm not really sure what you mean by "experiences of truth." "Truth" is not something you experience, it is simply a property of a statement or claim that is, objectively, true. If everyone on the same night had the same dream, it wouldn't mean that those events actually took place in the real, physical world. Likewise, no matter how many people "experience" what might be interpreted as some sort of revelation of truth, it does not mean that what they percieve through this means as the "truth" is indeed true.

Furthermore, I don't agree that religious bias is the only bias which may cause certain similarities in the experiences of people from different backgrounds. Renegade posted a link to this (excellent) lecture a few weeks ago which illustrates such a bias in a different context:

http://www.sscnet.ucla.edu/anthro/b...us_concepts.htm

Here, we observe that concepts which violate and activate particular aspects of one's intuitive ontological expectations are especially likely to be recalled and transmitted, and therefore to survive as memes within a culture and be incorporated into a religion. Whatever the cause of this bias which seems to apply to most everyone may be, it does not mean that those concepts which are more likely to survive are more plausible, much less true.

Similarly, it is highly plausible that people may be biased towards having certain experiences given a specific set of circumstances, or towards interpreting those experiences in a particular way. This does not mean that what they experience is authentic, or that what they come to believe as a result of these experiences is any sort of "truth."

quote:

There are countless people since antiquity who have claimed to have observed the truth. These people are followers of the eastern religions. They also claim that interpretations of christian philosophy indicates that the founders of this religion also had similar experience.

Indeed, but in each of these cases, they cannot provide any independently verifiable evidence that what they have "observed" is, in fact, the truth. If the founders of Christianity did indeed have similar experiences, it only suggests that these religions do in fact share a common and inherently fallacious thought process, as is my argument here.

quote:

Originally posted by Lira how many of those who advocate the end of religion actually know a thing or two about this issue?

I don't think it's the anti-religious advocates who deserve castigation for their religious ignorance here, but the religious advocates themselves.

From a different source:

quote:

The condition Prothero describes in Religious Literacy is unquestionably one manifestation of a more general decline in the public's cultural and civic knowledge. According to polls conducted by the National Constitution Center, only one third of Americans can name even one of the rights guaranteed by the First Amendment. Is it any more startling that only one third can identify the preacher of the Sermon on the Mount? A 2005 survey by the Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life found that nearly two-thirds of Americans endorse the simultaneous teaching of creationism and evolution in public schools. How can citizens know what creationism means, or make an informed decision about whether it belongs in classrooms, if fewer than half can identify Genesis? No doubt the same proportion of Americans think that Thomas Edison said, "Let there be light." Approximately 75 percent of adults, according to polls cited by Prothero, mistakenly believe the Bible teaches that "God helps those who help themselves." More than 10 percent think that Noah's wife was Joan of Arc. Only half can name even one of the four Gospels, and -- a finding that will surprise many -- evangelical Christians are only slightly more knowledgeable than their non-evangelical counterparts.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dy...7030102073.html

The problem here is that the most virulently vocal advocates for Christianity are also terribly ignorant of its literature and theology. I'd be surprised if those who want the ten commandments posted in schools (and who argue that they are the basis of all Western law and morality) could name half of them. I'd be surpised if the majority of evangelicals have read through the gospels even once. Yet, despite their ignorance about even the most fundamental tennets of their religion, they will happily proselytise to the rest of us about our need to abide by these very same tennets! An atheist (or any other non-Christian) being ignorant about Christianity is one thing, but Christians being ignorant about Christianity is quite another. I don't even find it comical, I find it downright dangerous.

quote:

Originally posted by Krypton This is what I believe about "religion". I understand religion to be a belief system; theistic or not. With this logic, everyone has a religion, atheists included.

"Atheism is a religion in the same way that not collecting stamps is a hobby." - some internet dude.

quote:

Originally posted by Omega_M The basic understanding is that the experiences of truth are universal in nature. All people will experience identical or related things. The experiences are independent of religious bias. Hence, I don't see any fallacy in reaching the truth through subjective imagination. If people from different religions have similar experiences, then it is reasonable to say that they are true.

If a "true" belief is defined as one congruent with observable reality, then subjective imagination will likely not lead to "true" beliefs at all, excepting tautologies and sheer coincidence. Truth isn't democratic: it can't be reached via a show of hands. That people believe similar things says nothing about the truth value of these beliefs, only that anthropic neurology dictates that people are intractably inclined to view the world in similar ways. God is a property of the mind, not of the universe.

The veracity of religious claims will always remain bound to their congruity with empirical reality. If religious claims are not validated by empirical experience, then they are clearly not grounded at all in the "real" world. Given your specious arguments here from the subjectivity of human experience, however, this is apparently one point on which we are in complete agreement.

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.