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, 12:19 PM (This post was last modified: 25-01-2016 12:24 PM by SNair.)
RE: How did an old religion get it directionally right?
(25-01-2016 01:07 AM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  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 ?

The problem I have with what you stated is that it leaves no room for the ancient folks to ever be correct. Suppose the Aztecs did get something correct ... by simply stating all cultures get some things correct etc. you strip them of any credit.

I am surprised that some really experienced contributors like yourself here don't get the fact that merely saying this is what Christians or Muslims or Hindus etc. do or calling it chance and dumb luck without substantiating is doing very little to convince the person asking. If you think I am cherry picking.. please point out the specifics.

A few replies have indeed pointed out some logical (still debatable) mistakes on the premise of my original post, but sadly the majority of replies have been pointless ramblings of generic statements like "this is what theists always do etc..". Not to mention the barrage of character assassinations. You are not setting a good example for the logical thinking beings one would assume to find on this website.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
25-01-2016, 12:23 PM (This post was last modified: 25-01-2016 12:33 PM by SNair.)
RE: How did an old religion get it directionally right?
(25-01-2016 01:26 AM)jennybee Wrote:  
(25-01-2016 01:02 AM)SNair Wrote:  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.

Have you read any books that discuss the modern "scientific" findings in the Bible? I read several as a Christian and there were hundreds of *perceived* matches that these authors found between modern scientific thought and the writings in the Bible. The reason they found them: counting hits and not misses, pattern making, filtering out myth, and creating their own interpretation of passages (ones that differed significantly from the original author's intent).

I highly recommend David J. Hand's book, The Improbability Principle. Coincidences aren't as uncommon or statistically improbable as you may think. It's very possible to have the three direct hits you describe.

OK. I cannot fully understand your point of view likely because I have not read material on the modern scientific findings in the Bible. However, I am interested in the The Improbability Principle not just for this topic, but for all others events in life. I have Audible membership and this is available as an audio book.. so great. I am looking forward to it Thumbsup. If true, this is a good logical counter argument that can disprove my understanding that three direct hits is too much for mere coincidence.

To Others: This is an example of a logical discourse I was expecting from this forum. So if you cannot contribute at this level, please refrain from filling the pages.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
25-01-2016, 12:24 PM
RE: How did an old religion get it directionally right?
(25-01-2016 12:19 PM)SNair Wrote:  
(25-01-2016 01:07 AM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  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 ?

The problem I have with what you stated is that it leaves no room for the ancient folks to ever be correct. Suppose the Aztecs did get something correct ... by simply stating all cultures get some things correct etc. you strip them of any credit.

Why does dumb luck deserve credit?

Quote:I am surprised that some really experienced contributors like yourself here don't get the fact across that merely saying this is what Christians or Muslims or Hindus etc. do or calling it chance and dumb luck without substantiating is doing very little to convince the person asking. If you think I am cherry picking.. please point out the specifics.

I already pointed you in the right direction.

Quote:A few replies have indeed pointed out some logical (still debatable) mistakes on the premise of my original post, but sadly the majority of replies have been pointless ramblings of generic statements like "this is what theists always do etc..". Not to mention the barrage of character assassinations. You are not setting a good example for the logical thinking beings one would assume to find on this website.

Baseless assertions don't merit a whole lot of seriousness.

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, 12:31 PM
RE: How did an old religion get it directionally right?
(25-01-2016 12:19 PM)SNair Wrote:  The problem I have with what you stated is that it leaves no room for the ancient folks to ever be correct. Suppose the Aztecs did get something correct ... by simply stating all cultures get some things correct etc. you strip them of any credit.

They get credit if they provided the evidence they started with and the reasoning they used to arrive at the conclusion. Lacking that, there is no way to tell if they had justification for their beliefs or they were just guessing and happened to hit somewhere near the mark.

Being shown to have been correct later is not justification for believing something earlier.

Atheism: it's not just for communists any more!
America July 4 1776 - November 8 2016 RIP
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
25-01-2016, 12:38 PM
RE: How did an old religion get it directionally right?
(25-01-2016 03:50 AM)xieulong Wrote:  
(25-01-2016 01:02 AM)SNair Wrote:  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.

How did the ancients come up with these assertions? Did they do research? Did they show the evidence they gathered to arrive at these assertions?
I don't think they did. Sooooooo ya, it was just dumb luck.

Nope. Even for the discoveries they produced in other non-disputable fields like medicine, music, art. etc. also lack the evidence of a systematic and progressive thought process you are demanding. Please remember its a few thousand year old material that withstood the endless chain of war, destruction and adulteration.

SO though a very valid point and something expected from modern science, I am willing to give concession to these ancient folks for the reasons above. As I mentioned in another post, that is why I called it "Directionally Correct" in my original post... because it lacks the details.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
25-01-2016, 12:58 PM
RE: How did an old religion get it directionally right?
(25-01-2016 05:40 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  
(24-01-2016 05:50 PM)SNair Wrote:  Thanks.

That's a blanket term to discard almost any perspective other the current scientific knowledge itself. This is because only the data from current scientific knowledge can match all the data from current scientific knowledge! Any other position will have some data that match and some data that don't. Unless we explain why/how the match occurred or articulate what the mismatches are, my question still stands.


Exploring perspectives are one thing, it's what makes creative fiction great. However only those backed up with evidence should be taken for serious consideration in reality. Either you have the evidence and data to back you up or you don't; and that's not the fault of being scientifically mined or having an evidence based epistemology, it's kind of the entire point. It's not a bug of being skeptically minded, it's the core feature.


When those stories were created, we were not fundamentally different as a species than we are now. The people who created those stories had the fundamental ability to learn and understand just as we do now, they just didn't have access to the same information we do. Therefore if there really were cosmic powers in charge of everything and cared enough to let us in on how it all works, they could just explain it; and they wouldn't need to hide everything in parables, allegory, and metaphors. If people needed to be educated enough to better understand the abstract of a accurate explanation, those same cosmic beings should also be capable of doing that.


Therefore the assumption that such stories are in fact encoded with secret meanings that only happen to line up with modern scientific theories after we already put the work into it ourselves and can only see the supposed pattern in hindsight? That's requires even more unfounded assumptions than my example above, because now you also need to assume a reason for them to hide everything instead of just being truthful. I mean, really? They know how reality really works and they care enough to share that with us, but they can't represent it accurately? Not only that, but then the typically given excuse is that those ancient people were too scientifically ignorant to understand, it is somehow seen as a justifiable excuse instead of being rightly seen as the biggest plot hole ever.

A very interesting reply to read Thumbsup. I agree with everything you stated. Hence the reason why I believe there is no divine intervention to anything the Indus Valley folks created. If you read my previous reply to Reltzik, I have explicitly stated that I firmly believe everything is man made.

The mere fact that these are man made claims is what makes it most interesting for me. How & why did they make such a claim? Is it pure luck or is it a logical thought process that led them to make such conclusions or assumptions about the nature of the universe? If it possible to conduct a pure thought experiment without any tangible data.. to write down all possible theories and to then systematically debate and discard ones that have issues until a final most plausible theory is reached?

I am of the opinion such a discourse occurred that led them to such conclusions. Expecting evidence of this logical thought process (as I mention in another reply) is unrealistic given the era in which it was done and time that has passed since.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
25-01-2016, 01:03 PM (This post was last modified: 25-01-2016 01:18 PM by Bucky Ball.)
RE: How did an old religion get it directionally right?
(25-01-2016 12:19 PM)SNair Wrote:  The problem I have with what you stated is that it leaves no room for the ancient folks to ever be correct. Suppose the Aztecs did get something correct ... by simply stating all cultures get some things correct etc. you strip them of any credit.

I disagree. They got "right" what they got right, in the context of their capabilities. It is what it is. Cooking up woo explanations does neither them nor us , any favors.
No one is suggesting they don't get credit for what they actually accomplished.
Looking at what they (ancient cultures) did through the eyes of our present scientific culture is actually so common, so erroneous, and so recognized that it has a name. It's called "Presentism" : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Presentism..._analysis)
That's what you are doing in the OP. Their capabilities have nothing to do with the "gods" and were entirely to the credit of the observers, builders and engineers and writers of the time. They had no "special" anything. They worked hard. It's actually YOU that are discrediting them, by making the same sort of argument they do when thay say "it was aliens". Many ancient cultures, by trial and error, learned to build on a monumental scale. The Egyptians plotted the courses of some stars. But interpreting ancient writings, without presenting ANY evidence that they sopmehow "knew" something special, in advance, is simply delusional. If you have never read Rudolph Bultmann's "Jesus Christ and Mythology", perhaps you should, (simply for the lucid explanation of mythology). In 2016, "mythology" is a dirty word. In ancient times, mythological literature was how they conveyed what they perceived to be "truth". Twisting that (perfectly legitimate form of literature) NOW, and tryiing to slap "literal" "prophetic/prescient" interpretations is wrong, and the particular form of ignorance practiced by fundamentalists. You see what you want to see. It's no way to do ancient history. In fact the REALLY interesting thing about it is to see how concepts CHANGED over time, and were/are NOT the same.

BTW, it's nice you have rethought some of the OP assumptions.
We tend to fly off the handle here, as literally every week, we get 2 or more YouTube nuts, with their pet "crazy" they think they alone in the entire world have discovered, and come here to "reveal" it.

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
25-01-2016, 01:20 PM
RE: How did an old religion get it directionally right?
(25-01-2016 06:05 AM)TheInquisition Wrote:  
(24-01-2016 04:08 PM)SNair Wrote:  Here is one modern day scientific hypothesis of how everything could have come from nothing: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7ImvlS8PLIo. Essentially, the theory states that a disturbance in the space time fabric of some sort causes energy fluctuations and that in turn starts a cascade of events where energy is converted from one form to another (i.e. material world).

Hinduism (Sanatan Dharma), one of world’s oldest religion has had the following concepts of creation:

1. In the beginning, there was total silence (i.e. nothingness) and the universe was created (i.e. by Brahman = Universal consciousness) with the sound OHM (i.e. frequency = fluctuations in space time fabric). Theosophists like myself argue that this is in harmony with modern much more specific and detailed scientific discoveries.

2. Cyclical Universe in Hinduism: The birth and death process is endless. The universe is created and in time it will cease to exist and in its place another one is created and this cycle of birth and death is endless. Again, I argue that this is in harmony with modern scientific theory that the expanding universe with at some point start to contract and the whole Big Bang may repeat itself.

3. Multiverse: There are multiple universes in simultaneous existence. Though there are modern day scientific theories, I don’t think we can conclusively assert this to be the case. Nevertheless Hinduism (Sanatan Dharma) is firm in this point of view.

My Question: For a religion that is well over 3000 years old, from all the possible explanations and descriptions they could have developed for the creation and nature of the universe, why did they develop this one?

So how would Hindu myth NOT agree with science? Can you point to specific parts where Hindu myth is wrong?

You'll gain excellent insight into your own biases if you can honestly answer this.

Absolutely. For starters, the business of religion (religion run as a business to assume power and/or make $$) is self evident in its destructive force. I believe I do not need to elaborate on this to this audience.

Almost every if not all of the mythological stories do not agree with plausibility and violate laws of physics in nature. That is if you take them literally! These stories were often intended to convey a certain moral or truth about something as understood at the time. And for that purpose, many of the moral apply to life today as it did 3-4k years ago. Surely, some absolutely don't as society has changed. If interested I can relate an example of such stories.

When it came to non-human-moral related material, it largely left the realm of myths and stories and was scientific in nature. I have quoted several such works in one of my previous reply. Here... it is natural to expect that some of their conclusions will be disproved or improved upon as humans gain more knowledge on the subject. It is in this area where I suspect they came up with their theory on the nature of the universe and I suspect it may very well have been a pure thought experiment.

One more thing to understand that during the Vedic period, everything has a spiritual element. It was the nature of society at that time. For example, even today, you begin the study of Indian Classical music every day after a prayer to Goddess Saraswati. Just that act by no means should be used to undermine the absolute wealth of precise information contained in it.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
25-01-2016, 01:21 PM
RE: How did an old religion get it directionally right?
(25-01-2016 12:19 PM)SNair Wrote:  The problem I have with what you stated is that it leaves no room for the ancient folks to ever be correct. Suppose the Aztecs did get something correct ... by simply stating all cultures get some things correct etc. you strip them of any credit.
They aren't due any credit at all if they were just making shit up. You as the person claiming they "knew" and were "right" have to show how they could have been correct, and by that I mean show their evidence or their methodology. Until you meet that burden of proof there is no rational reason to think they actual knew or "got right" anything and weren't just making shit up which happened to be "correct" when superimposed onto you disastrously ignorant knowledge of science. Which is the case in every other instance when a theist beings forth this kind of nonsense.

(25-01-2016 12:19 PM)SNair Wrote:  I am surprised that some really experienced contributors like yourself here don't get the fact that merely saying this is what Christians or Muslims or Hindus etc. do or calling it chance and dumb luck without substantiating is doing very little to convince the person asking. If you think I am cherry picking.. please point out the specifics.
First off you're not asking you're asserting. You made a claim without any kind of evidence at all, wrapped it in your personal ignorance of science, and presented it as if it was factually accurate. It's YOUR job to convince US your claim is true, not the other way around.
Secondly you ARE cheery picking, in fact it's a textbook example. You have provided us with a small sample of things which in your opinion they got "right", which I'll remind you is only kinda correct when applied to your faulty understanding of science, while categorically ignoring all the claims about reality that they did NOT get right.

(25-01-2016 12:19 PM)SNair Wrote:  A few replies have indeed pointed out some logical (still debatable) mistakes on the premise of my original post,
No they are not debatable. That space time is an emergent property of the universe and thus can not exist before it to be tinkered with is NOT up for debate. That no "universal consciousness" has ever been shown to exist or to even make sense is NOT debatable.

Your entire argument rests on a foundation that is it's self just a fundamental lack of scientific knowledge. Your claims are in fact just simply FALSE, and there is no debating that. As such your assertions can be entirely dismissed out of hand.


(25-01-2016 12:19 PM)SNair Wrote:  but sadly the majority of replies have been pointless ramblings of generic statements like "this is what theists always do etc..".
Firstly it's not pointless as pointing out you are one of a long line of scientifically illiterate people trying to claim your pet nonsense is scientifically accurate helps to illustrate to the people reading that you are in fact just a dime a dozen woo peddler.
Secondly arguments devoid of logic, reason, evidence, and even basic cogent sense and based completely on an individuals scientific illiteracy are not deserving of any kind of unique or special treatment.

(25-01-2016 12:19 PM)SNair Wrote:  Not to mention the barrage of character assassinations.
I have yet to read one criticism of you and your pet nonsense that was not factually accurate. Drinking Beverage

(25-01-2016 12:19 PM)SNair Wrote:  You are not setting a good example for the logical thinking beings one would assume to find on this website.
Well considering every single person here was able to find the holes in your pet bullshit I'd say we are doing pretty good old son. While I'm sure you will find it pointless I will nevertheless point out that that's a toothless criticism that every theist makes at one point or another here after his pet bullshit has been exposed for the nonsense it is.

When valour preys on reason, it eats the sword it fights with.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes WhiskeyDebates's post
25-01-2016, 01:33 PM
RE: How did an old religion get it directionally right?
(25-01-2016 07:09 AM)unfogged Wrote:  
(25-01-2016 01:02 AM)SNair Wrote:  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.

Ancient people were not stupid, just ignorant. They had vivid imagination and vast experience with everyday life including the cyclical nature of the seasons and the movements of the sun, moon, and stars. They saw things being born and dying. They were curious and had a lot of time to kill sitting around the campfires so they made up stories to tell and wove these concepts into their tales.

The things you are matching up are extremely broad statements. The universe either came into existence or always existed; it is either a one-time thing or a cyclical thing; it is either unique or one of many; etc. I do not understand why it seems so amazing to you that some of the ancient stories seem to be mappable to current scientific thought in some very general ways. As others have noted, the details show that they didn't know, they were just making up a story.

By the way "directionally correct" is a meaningless phrase.

Your last para has a valid point. If so, its still observation and inference drawing as opposed to "just making up a story". Charles Darwin did not know about genes or how traits may be passed along, yet he made a story based on observation. That's what you do in absence of data and if you it right, it needs to commended.

There is no meaningless phrase. The meaning to any word or phrase is that the author or reader associate to it. Isn't that how language is created? So long as you understand the intention behind the phrase, its all I am after.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: