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, 03:17 PM
RE: How did an old religion get it directionally right?
(25-01-2016 03:13 PM)xieulong Wrote:  
(25-01-2016 02:14 PM)Chas Wrote:  Darwin did not "make a story", he proposed an actual scientific theory - testable, falsifiable, and supported by evidence.

I would like to see a "debate" between this guy and Agnostic Shane, HAH! I wonder who can blow more hot air and who is more pretentious.

Well AS is nothing but a troll. Hopefully this will finally be recognised by the staff and he will be banned. So I do not expect this debate to happen.

NOTE: Member, Tomasia uses this site to slander other individuals. He then later proclaims it a joke, but not in public.
I will call him a liar and a dog here and now.
Banjo.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Banjo's post
25-01-2016, 05:48 PM
RE: How did an old religion get it directionally right?
(25-01-2016 03:13 PM)xieulong Wrote:  
(25-01-2016 02:14 PM)Chas Wrote:  Darwin did not "make a story", he proposed an actual scientific theory - testable, falsifiable, and supported by evidence.

I would like to see a "debate" between this guy and Agnostic Shane, HAH! I wonder who can blow more hot air and who is more pretentious.

Geez, I sure hope you are referring to SNair. Gasp

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, 06:08 PM
RE: How did an old religion get it directionally right?
(25-01-2016 05:48 PM)Chas Wrote:  
(25-01-2016 03:13 PM)xieulong Wrote:  I would like to see a "debate" between this guy and Agnostic Shane, HAH! I wonder who can blow more hot air and who is more pretentious.

Geez, I sure hope you are referring to SNair. Gasp

Yup. SNair vs. Agnostic Shane. It'll be a whirlwind of bs between 2 windbags.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
25-01-2016, 08:35 PM
RE: How did an old religion get it directionally right?
(25-01-2016 12:23 PM)SNair Wrote:  
(25-01-2016 01:26 AM)jennybee Wrote:  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.

David J. Hand's book is not about Hinduism, but it is about the statistical probability of various coincidences occurring and why they happen (even though it may seem like there must be some type of otherworldly force at play). You can definitely apply his principles to the coincidences you mentioned in Hinduism however.

If you are interested in what some people *say* are modern scientific ideas written within the pages of the Bible and other religious books, there are several interesting debates on youtube.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
25-01-2016, 08:46 PM
RE: How did an old religion get it directionally right?
(25-01-2016 02:24 PM)unfogged Wrote:  
(25-01-2016 01:33 PM)SNair Wrote:  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.

As I said in the first paragraph, they weren't stupid and they had a lot of practical experience with how everyday things worked. They tried to extrapolate from what they knew to explain things they didn't understand. That is still making up a story.

Darwin had a great deal of evidence for his conclusion that traits were passed on, with modification, even if he could not identify the specific mechanism. There is a world of difference between the extensive, careful research he did, and documented, and the creation myths of early cultures. That's especially true when you cherry-pick general concepts and ignore the details.

Quote: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.

The point is that I'm not sure I do know the intention behind the phrase. I am guessing (based on the rest of the post) that you mean something like "substantially" or "generally" right, or that they were headed in the right direction, but when you use non-standard language like that it is bound to muddy the discussion.

So if I understand you correct, you are calling it "a story" because of the lack of documented evidence/reasoning substantiating their claims. If you are looking at it as black and white as that, then I do not have much to argue as I cannot produce it.

If instead, you are willing to take into consideration the era in which these people lived and relax your stance of wanting documented evidence/thinking process behind their assertions, I feel there is a case to be made based on:

1. other materials they delivered like Kamasutra (love & lust), Natya Shastra (art & drama), Veda Ganita (math), Ayurveda, Yoga, Shastriya Sangit (music) etc. all of which show profound observation and analytical skills.

2. None of the materials I cited above have the rigorous evidence/thinking process documented as you have requested. It was probably not in their way of life. However, even without this evidence it is easy to see that postures of Yoga can only have been developed by meticulous observations and trial and errors on what works and what does not. It cannot be explained away as dumb luck. I just cited Yoga as an example because many folks may be able to relate to it.

It is unrealistic to expect the level of documentation Darwin produced as its just ~200 years ago and ~150 years after the likes of Newton. It's already the modern world by then. Coming back to the topic of their claims on the nature of the universe, I suspect it may have been a result of a rigorous thought experiment (not dumb luck) as good astronomical data would indeed have been scarce.

Someone else asked me my definition of "directionally correct" and I had answered it and I falsely assumed you would have read it. I used the phrase to say these are claims that seem to match up with modern scientific assertions, but they lack the data used to derive that conclusion. I picked this phrase from my work place where it does come up once in a while... often when we know what is the right thing to do, but lack good empirical or simulated data. In case you maybe wondering when such an occasion may be, here is one specific example: In a dynamically changing environment, it is very difficult to theoretically model or empirically test the various aspects of RF propagation by accounting for fading, multipath (reflection & refraction), shadowing, polarization loss, interference SNR degradation, antenna detunning from proximity metallic structures etc. However, despite our limited data, it is "directionally correct" that a spread spectrum frequency hopping scheme maximizes likelihood of a good signal at the receiver due to ....... Hence, I propose we use xyz communication scheme for our new product... bla bla ..
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
25-01-2016, 08:52 PM
RE: How did an old religion get it directionally right?
(25-01-2016 08:35 PM)jennybee Wrote:  
(25-01-2016 12:23 PM)SNair Wrote:  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.

David J. Hand's book is not about Hinduism, but it is about the statistical probability of various coincidences occurring and why they happen (even though it may seem like there must be some type of otherworldly force at play). You can definitely apply his principles to the coincidences you mentioned in Hinduism however.

If you are interested in what some people *say* are modern scientific ideas written within the pages of the Bible and other religious books, there are several interesting debates on youtube.

Quote:David J. Hand's book is not about Hinduism, but it is about the statistical probability of various coincidences...

You should give me at least this much intellectual credit that I can understand what the book is about ... Smile . Just kidding. Thanks.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes SNair's post
25-01-2016, 11:08 PM
RE: How did an old religion get it directionally right?
(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?

Nice to meet you, but I read the hindu creation story...

Quote:The creation says that before this time began, there was no heaven, no earth and no space between. A vast dark ocean washed upon the shores of nothingness and licked the edges of the night.

So yeah, I don't think they compare. As for the reason for choosing this empty void, from which the world is created, I honestly don't know.

Quote:A giant Cobra floated on the waters. Asleep within its endless coils lay the Lord Vishnu. He was watched over by the mighty serpent. Everything was so silent and peaceful that Vishnu slept undisturbed by dreams motion. From the depths a humming sound began to tremble, Ohm. It grew and spread, filling the emptiness and throbbing with energy.

The night had ended, Vishnu awoke. As the dawn began to break, from Vishnu's navel grew a magnificent lotus flower. In the middle of the blossom sat Vishnu's servant, Brahma. he awaited the Lord's command.

Vishnu spoke to his servant: "It's time to begin", Brahma vowed. Vishnu commanded: "Create the world". A wind swept the waters. Vishnu and the serpent vanished.

Brahma remained in the lotus flower, floating and tossing on the sea. He lifted up his arms and calmed the wind and the ocean. Then Brahma split the lotus flower into three. He stretched one part into the heavens. He made another part into the earth. with the third part of the flower he created the skies.

The earth was bare. Brahma set to work. He created grass, flowers, trees and plants of all kinds. To these he gave feeling. Next he created animals and the insects to live in the land. He made birds and many fish. To all these creatures he gave the sense of touch and smell. He gave them the power to see, hear and move. The world was soon bristling with life and the air was filled with the sound of Brahma's creation.

Member of the Cult of Reason

The atheist is a man who destroys the imaginary things which afflict the human race, and so leads men back to nature, to experience and to reason.
-Baron d'Holbach-
Bitcion:1DNeQMswMdvx4xLPP6qNE7RkeTwXGC7Bzp
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like fstratzero's post
26-01-2016, 06:26 AM
RE: How did an old religion get it directionally right?
(25-01-2016 08:46 PM)SNair Wrote:  
(25-01-2016 02:24 PM)unfogged Wrote:  As I said in the first paragraph, they weren't stupid and they had a lot of practical experience with how everyday things worked. They tried to extrapolate from what they knew to explain things they didn't understand. That is still making up a story.

Darwin had a great deal of evidence for his conclusion that traits were passed on, with modification, even if he could not identify the specific mechanism. There is a world of difference between the extensive, careful research he did, and documented, and the creation myths of early cultures. That's especially true when you cherry-pick general concepts and ignore the details.


The point is that I'm not sure I do know the intention behind the phrase. I am guessing (based on the rest of the post) that you mean something like "substantially" or "generally" right, or that they were headed in the right direction, but when you use non-standard language like that it is bound to muddy the discussion.

So if I understand you correct, you are calling it "a story" because of the lack of documented evidence/reasoning substantiating their claims. If you are looking at it as black and white as that, then I do not have much to argue as I cannot produce it.

If instead, you are willing to take into consideration the era in which these people lived and relax your stance of wanting documented evidence/thinking process behind their assertions, I feel there is a case to be made based on:

1. other materials they delivered like Kamasutra (love & lust), Natya Shastra (art & drama), Veda Ganita (math), Ayurveda, Yoga, Shastriya Sangit (music) etc. all of which show profound observation and analytical skills.

I don't doubt for a second that many had solid observational and analytical skills. I already said that they wove much of their practical knowledge into their stories. What I don't see is any evidence that they performed any sort of systematic investigation into the matter to try to determine what did or did not really happen. It looks more to me like they imagined a being powerful enough to create the world and then imagined themselves in that position and wrote what they would do.

I also still don't see that you aren't applying vague generalities from the stories to generalized concepts from modern science and ignoring anything from either side that doesn't map.

Quote:2. None of the materials I cited above have the rigorous evidence/thinking process documented as you have requested. It was probably not in their way of life.

Agreed, but that makes any conclusions about how they arrived at the stories nothing more than speculation. Speculating is fine, but you seem to be saying that you believe they got it right through something other than luck. I disagree that they got anything more than vaguely right at best and that they needed anything more than luck to do even that much.

Quote:However, even without this evidence it is easy to see that postures of Yoga can only have been developed by meticulous observations and trial and errors on what works and what does not. It cannot be explained away as dumb luck. I just cited Yoga as an example because many folks may be able to relate to it.

I have already said repeatedly that they were not stupid and that they had a great deal of practical experience which would be expected to color their stories. It seems we disagree mostly on how closely they actually got it right and how they could have done so only by chance. I don't see that they had any means to do any real investigation into the origin of the universe so speculation was all they could use. Anything they got right under those conditions would have to be no more than a guess. You could claim it was an educated guess but they had no real education in astronomy, cosmology, physics, or any related field so even their most educated guess was hardly better than a shot in the dark.

Quote:It is unrealistic to expect the level of documentation Darwin produced as its just ~200 years ago and ~150 years after the likes of Newton. It's already the modern world by then. Coming back to the topic of their claims on the nature of the universe, I suspect it may have been a result of a rigorous thought experiment (not dumb luck) as good astronomical data would indeed have been scarce.

You brought up Darwin, I didn't. I'm sure that the ancient people thought a lot about how things came to be. That certainly colored their stories. That's why they got so much wrong about things being intentionally crafted.

Why do you seem to be so offended by the idea that "dumb luck" could account for anything? It appears to account for a great deal of history just fine.

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
[+] 3 users Like unfogged's post
26-01-2016, 06:06 PM
RE: How did an old religion get it directionally right?
(25-01-2016 11:08 PM)fstratzero 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?

Nice to meet you, but I read the hindu creation story...

Quote:The creation says that before this time began, there was no heaven, no earth and no space between. A vast dark ocean washed upon the shores of nothingness and licked the edges of the night.

So yeah, I don't think they compare. As for the reason for choosing this empty void, from which the world is created, I honestly don't know.

Quote:A giant Cobra floated on the waters. Asleep within its endless coils lay the Lord Vishnu. He was watched over by the mighty serpent. Everything was so silent and peaceful that Vishnu slept undisturbed by dreams motion. From the depths a humming sound began to tremble, Ohm. It grew and spread, filling the emptiness and throbbing with energy.

The night had ended, Vishnu awoke. As the dawn began to break, from Vishnu's navel grew a magnificent lotus flower. In the middle of the blossom sat Vishnu's servant, Brahma. he awaited the Lord's command.

Vishnu spoke to his servant: "It's time to begin", Brahma vowed. Vishnu commanded: "Create the world". A wind swept the waters. Vishnu and the serpent vanished.

Brahma remained in the lotus flower, floating and tossing on the sea. He lifted up his arms and calmed the wind and the ocean. Then Brahma split the lotus flower into three. He stretched one part into the heavens. He made another part into the earth. with the third part of the flower he created the skies.

The earth was bare. Brahma set to work. He created grass, flowers, trees and plants of all kinds. To these he gave feeling. Next he created animals and the insects to live in the land. He made birds and many fish. To all these creatures he gave the sense of touch and smell. He gave them the power to see, hear and move. The world was soon bristling with life and the air was filled with the sound of Brahma's creation.

The quotes you provided make absolutely no sense and unfortunately I have never heard it before... so I cannot comment. Nevertheless, I have an action item from one of the previous replies to find actual quotations and if I end up with stuff similar to what you have shown above, I rest my case completely as it makes absolutely no sense.

In the interim, please understand that (& I have stated this in an earlier reply) that every theory is man made and hence you will see numerous contradictions across the various texts based on the era it was written and/or based on the geographical location. However, I am expecting that the texts considered to be most important should have a similar narrative... let me see what I discover.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: