How did an old religion get it directionally right?
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
25-01-2016, 12:37 AM
RE: How did an old religion get it directionally right?
(25-01-2016 12:21 AM)morondog Wrote:  
(25-01-2016 12:10 AM)SNair Wrote:  Where did I claim they were wiser than modern scientists? Shocking

Facepalm So what's the point of paying attention to them if they're not? Your little game of retro-fitting myth to whatever your dream of the latest science is is *old* and pointless. Ahhh, hang on a sec, you're one of those "Vedic mathematicians invented everything and Hindu civilisation is the most glorious" people, aren't you? Greek civ > Hindu civ Tongue

I agree with you there that there is no point of paying attention to them now. However, in that line of thinking, we don't really need historians at all. My question is, how did they get it directionally correct. As answers so far I have got:

1. Luck.
2. Science has not yet concluded multiverse and everything came from nothing
3. Name calling and pompous assumptions of who I am and my intentions.

I am willing to pursue #1 & #2 above. I will not reply to #3. Though part of your reply falls into #3 I am only replying to your post now, because you made a valid observation as to the pointlessness of paying attention to ancient science as its already superseded. However, that was not my intention or original question.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
25-01-2016, 12:40 AM
RE: How did an old religion get it directionally right?
(25-01-2016 12:37 AM)SNair Wrote:  
(25-01-2016 12:21 AM)morondog Wrote:  Facepalm So what's the point of paying attention to them if they're not? Your little game of retro-fitting myth to whatever your dream of the latest science is is *old* and pointless. Ahhh, hang on a sec, you're one of those "Vedic mathematicians invented everything and Hindu civilisation is the most glorious" people, aren't you? Greek civ > Hindu civ Tongue

I agree with you there that there is no point of paying attention to them now. However, in that line of thinking, we don't really need historians at all. My question is, how did they get it directionally correct. As answers so far I have got:

1. Luck.
2. Science has not yet concluded multiverse and everything came from nothing
3. Name calling and pompous assumptions of who I am and my intentions.

I am willing to pursue #1 & #2 above. I will not reply to #3. Though part of your reply falls into #3 I am only replying to your post now, because you made a valid observation as to the pointlessness of paying attention to ancient science as its already superseded. However, that was not my intention or original question.

What, exactly, does "directionally correct" even mean? Consider

You haven't made a very good argument that they got anything correct.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Chas's post
25-01-2016, 12:42 AM
RE: How did an old religion get it directionally right?
(25-01-2016 12:37 AM)SNair Wrote:  
(25-01-2016 12:21 AM)morondog Wrote:  Facepalm So what's the point of paying attention to them if they're not? Your little game of retro-fitting myth to whatever your dream of the latest science is is *old* and pointless. Ahhh, hang on a sec, you're one of those "Vedic mathematicians invented everything and Hindu civilisation is the most glorious" people, aren't you? Greek civ > Hindu civ Tongue

I agree with you there that there is no point of paying attention to them now. However, in that line of thinking, we don't really need historians at all. My question is, how did they get it directionally correct. As answers so far I have got:

1. Luck.
2. Science has not yet concluded multiverse and everything came from nothing
3. Name calling and pompous assumptions of who I am and my intentions.

I am willing to pursue #1 & #2 above. I will not reply to #3. Though part of your reply falls into #3 I am only replying to your post now, because you made a valid observation as to the pointlessness of paying attention to ancient science as its already superseded. However, that was not my intention or original question.

4. You forcing a correlation between your understanding of a translation of ancient myth to coincide with your understanding of current cosmological theory.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Chas's post
25-01-2016, 12:50 AM
RE: How did an old religion get it directionally right?
(25-01-2016 12:40 AM)Chas Wrote:  
(25-01-2016 12:37 AM)SNair Wrote:  I agree with you there that there is no point of paying attention to them now. However, in that line of thinking, we don't really need historians at all. My question is, how did they get it directionally correct. As answers so far I have got:

1. Luck.
2. Science has not yet concluded multiverse and everything came from nothing
3. Name calling and pompous assumptions of who I am and my intentions.

I am willing to pursue #1 & #2 above. I will not reply to #3. Though part of your reply falls into #3 I am only replying to your post now, because you made a valid observation as to the pointlessness of paying attention to ancient science as its already superseded. However, that was not my intention or original question.

What, exactly, does "directionally correct" even mean? Consider

You haven't made a very good argument that they got anything correct.

Good question regarding "directionally correct". What I intended was that their claims seem to match up with scientific assertions, but they lack any details/specifics. This is after all a 3-5k year old civilization, so one must take that into account when asking for specifics.

I did write down three assertions they make in my original post: Universe from silence, cyclical universe and multiverse. If science does not state the three, then I rest my case. If science does say the same, then my question as to how they got it directionally correct remains. Why did you say I did not make arguments on what they got correct?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
25-01-2016, 12:53 AM (This post was last modified: 25-01-2016 01:01 AM by jennybee.)
RE: How did an old religion get it directionally right?
(25-01-2016 12:04 AM)SNair Wrote:  
(24-01-2016 09:44 PM)jennybee Wrote:  You could also do this same thing with virtually any religion. There are several books I read as a Christian written by "scientists" and woo peddlers like Ray Comfort (check out his book Scientific Facts in The Bible-- if you want a good laugh) who claim that the OT and NT have scientific facts written within their pages.

If you break down enough pieces of (any) religion, you may find shreds of things that could line up with science. For example, yes, there is a cyclical universe in Hinduism *but* the death and destruction of the earth will come about by the Hindu god, Shiva (also known as the Destroyer). In order to line pieces up with science (or sort of line pieces up with science), you'll have to wring out the woo as is done here by simply saying "cyclical universe" and leave out the part that a Hindu god is going to be the one who is going to destroy things.

I do understand where you are coming from, but I feel one mistake you are doing is using a very broad religion-is-bullshit brush to paint everything and anything that has a religious connotation. Anyway, I am replying to correct your concept of Shiva per Hinduism not to preach religion, but to just describe to you the actual theosophy involved.

In sanatan dharma, there is only one God called the Brahaman and described as the ultimate reality of the universe. Since we humans can only perceive through our senses, this concept of an omnipotent entity need to be abstracted to a form our senses can perceive. Hence the concept of Vigrah, meaning "description of the one". It can be any vigrah (description) you like as the sole purpose is to invoke in you the reverence of this omnipotent entity. Thus the countless forms of idols (visual description), names (auditory description) and procedural descriptions in sanatan dharma. You could take a piece of scrap metal and make that your vigrah. All that matters is that it invokes the feeling of spirituality in you when you look at it. Shiva is nothing but one such description. Followers of this description are called "Shaivism". The three large groups at the time in Indus Valley were Shaivism, Vaishnavism (Vishnu) and Smartism (Bhrama) and they decided they wanted to carve out a specific role for their favorite vigrah (description of god) and Bhrama was made the creator, Vishnu the sustainer and Shiva the destroyer.

The theory of a cyclical universe in sanatan dharma is not based on an actual god called Shiva coming and destroying it and another god called Brahama creating a new one. These are just names given by their respective believers as I described above.

My point wasn't that religion is bullshit. My point was that many cultures have various religious belief systems that are supported by or explained through myth. That's not a broad brush statement, it's a fact. With so many elaborate belief systems from various cultures, there are bound to be some that line up with modern scientific thinking in some way. This is simply due to the sheer numbers of beliefs and religion's elaborate nature.

Many cultures have elaborate myths, various religious practices, various gods and goddesses, various holy books, various ways of thinking. Given that, it's not beyond the realm of possibility that there could be some overlap or some *perceived* overlap with modern scientific thinking.

You could technically find this type of overlap in any religion. There are people who feel this way about the Bible or the Koran and are quick to find passages to support how their ancient holy book has modern scientific aspects to it.

In order to do this and line it up with modern science, you do need to take out the mythical aspects. If you do that and decide what religious parts you will overlap with science and what parts you will filter out, it's not that difficult to come up with perceived comparisons or parallels.

Anyway, that was my point Wink
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
25-01-2016, 12:56 AM
RE: How did an old religion get it directionally right?
(25-01-2016 12:42 AM)Chas Wrote:  
(25-01-2016 12:37 AM)SNair Wrote:  I agree with you there that there is no point of paying attention to them now. However, in that line of thinking, we don't really need historians at all. My question is, how did they get it directionally correct. As answers so far I have got:

1. Luck.
2. Science has not yet concluded multiverse and everything came from nothing
3. Name calling and pompous assumptions of who I am and my intentions.

I am willing to pursue #1 & #2 above. I will not reply to #3. Though part of your reply falls into #3 I am only replying to your post now, because you made a valid observation as to the pointlessness of paying attention to ancient science as its already superseded. However, that was not my intention or original question.

4. You forcing a correlation between your understanding of a translation of ancient myth to coincide with your understanding of current cosmological theory.

Good point.. but I think #4 can easily be defeated by showing how and/or where the correlation fails. I cannot force something that is not true. Right now, I am stating claims that seem to match up with science. Simply stating that I am forcing a correlation without discussing how I am forcing it makes it hard for me to accept.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
25-01-2016, 12:58 AM
RE: How did an old religion get it directionally right?
(25-01-2016 12:50 AM)SNair Wrote:  
(25-01-2016 12:40 AM)Chas Wrote:  What, exactly, does "directionally correct" even mean? Consider

You haven't made a very good argument that they got anything correct.

Good question regarding "directionally correct". What I intended was that their claims seem to match up with scientific assertions, but they lack any details/specifics. This is after all a 3-5k year old civilization, so one must take that into account when asking for specifics.

I did write down three assertions they make in my original post: Universe from silence, cyclical universe and multiverse. If science does not state the three, then I rest my case. If science does say the same, then my question as to how they got it directionally correct remains. Why did you say I did not make arguments on what they got correct?

Science does not say all three, so time to give it a rest.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
25-01-2016, 01:02 AM
RE: How did an old religion get it directionally right?
(25-01-2016 12:53 AM)jennybee Wrote:  
(25-01-2016 12:04 AM)SNair Wrote:  I do understand where you are coming from, but I feel one mistake you are doing is using a very broad religion-is-bullshit brush to paint everything and anything that has a religious connotation. Anyway, I am replying to correct your concept of Shiva per Hinduism not to preach religion, but to just describe to you the actual theosophy involved.

In sanatan dharma, there is only one God called the Brahaman and described as the ultimate reality of the universe. Since we humans can only perceive through our senses, this concept of an omnipotent entity need to be abstracted to a form our senses can perceive. Hence the concept of Vigrah, meaning "description of the one". It can be any vigrah (description) you like as the sole purpose is to invoke in you the reverence of this omnipotent entity. Thus the countless forms of idols (visual description), names (auditory description) and procedural descriptions in sanatan dharma. You could take a piece of scrap metal and make that your vigrah. All that matters is that it invokes the feeling of spirituality in you when you look at it. Shiva is nothing but one such description. Followers of this description are called "Shaivism". The three large groups at the time in Indus Valley were Shaivism, Vaishnavism (Vishnu) and Smartism (Bhrama) and they decided they wanted to carve out a specific role for their favorite vigrah (description of god) and Bhrama was made the creator, Vishnu the sustainer and Shiva the destroyer.

The theory of a cyclical universe in sanatan dharma is not based on an actual god called Shiva coming and destroying it and another god called Brahama creating a new one. These are just names given by their respective believers as I described above.

My point wasn't that religion is bullshit. My point was that many cultures have various religious belief systems that are supported by or explained through myth. That's not a broad brush statement, it's a fact. With so many elaborate belief systems from various cultures, there are bound to be some that line up with modern scientific thinking in some way. This is simply due to the sheer numbers of beliefs and religion's elaborate nature.

Many cultures have elaborate myths, various religious practices, various gods and goddesses, various holy books, various ways of thinking. Given that, it's not beyond the realm of possibility that there could be some overlap or some *perceived* overlap with modern scientific thinking. You could technically find this type of overlap in any religion. There are people who feel this way about the Bible or the Koran and are quick to find passages to support how their ancient holy book has modern scientific aspects to it. In order to do this and line it up with modern science, you do need to take out the mythical aspects.

Anyway, that was my point Wink

Thanks for clarifying. I too would have dismissed it if it were just 1 claim on a topic that matched. Here we have three assertions on one topic that seem to match up. Again, I am totally open to the fact that it may be just coincidence, but then it would be one very good coincidence to get three aspects directionally correct.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
25-01-2016, 01:06 AM
RE: How did an old religion get it directionally right?
(25-01-2016 12:56 AM)SNair Wrote:  
(25-01-2016 12:42 AM)Chas Wrote:  4. You forcing a correlation between your understanding of a translation of ancient myth to coincide with your understanding of current cosmological theory.

Good point.. but I think #4 can easily be defeated by showing how and/or where the correlation fails. I cannot force something that is not true.

Except that is exactly what you are doing. You are cherry-picking bits of myth and bits of science.

Quote:Right now, I am stating claims that seem to match up with science. Simply stating that I am forcing a correlation without discussing how I am forcing it makes it hard for me to accept.

You are comparing some parts of a myth to some hypotheses of science.
This is precisely what Christian apologists do.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Chas's post
25-01-2016, 01:07 AM (This post was last modified: 25-01-2016 06:26 AM by Bucky Ball.)
RE: How did an old religion get it directionally right?
The correlation can easily be somewhat similar, and it still proves nothing. One can find all sorts of similar sounding themes in any culture. People are doing it all the time with the Aztecs etc etc etc. They had some general ideas about origins just like all cultures do. They were no more or no less correct than all other pre-scienctific cultures.

Dang. My woo detector just exploded.
How am I gonna come to TTA with THAT broken, considering the LONG line of
woo-meisters that come here ?

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein God has a plan for us. Please stop screwing it up with your prayers.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: