Ped said:

The problem with science is that it considers itself a superior school of thought, even though it possesses the same faulty characteristics as the other schools it ridicules.

---

Isn't it?

Sure, not all science is cracked up to be, nor are all beliefs.

But if we are to generalize... sooner or later the truth becomes known regarding the nature of science through proofs, and testing of theory when applicable as well as through deductive reasoning.

Please attempt to apply that to belief. One cult is as good as the next I suppose.

On another note... please prove my contrived notion of preincarnation wrong. If it's not possible to do so, we can get into the tenants found within.

Ped said:

The problem with science is that it considers itself a superior school of thought, even though it possesses the same faulty characteristics as the other schools it ridicules.

---

I think there are alot of the similarities between science and religion you mentioned. Why I prefer science is that it moves along at faster clip then most religions. Christianity for example is loath to give up outmoded notions and to incorporate new information. It often represses freedom to think and question our lives. Science is more open to growth IMO, and so serves human evolution better. Now this is only more or less true depending on the religion. 

Ped said:

The Big Bang theory is a made up story generated from the knowledge available to a certain group of people at a certain point in their history.  Creationism is a made up story generated from the knowledge available to a certain group of people at a certain point in their history.  It's the same.  In their time, the now-largely obsolete religious schools were as incremental in unravelling life's mysteries as science is today.

---

Quote:

  There is no reason to lend significance to one system or the other.  Either system is reflective of developmental processes of it's surrounding culture.

---

Quote:

The problem with science is that it considers itself a superior school of thought, even though it possesses the same faulty characteristics as the other schools it ridicules.

---

How does science, a conceptual organization of thoughts and ideas, consider itself a superior school of thought? Science is a method, not a conscious entity deriving from itself a sense of self-importance. In this same vein, it doesn't ridicule anything, either. I'm surprised that one would project onto conceptual thought processes in this way. I never knew the last step in the scientific process was "I am the omnipotent science! I am superior to other concepts! Relinquish control of yoursel to me!'


Peace.

Swami said:

If karma and reincarnation were real and the driving force behind why "stuff" happens, then nothing "good" or "bad" could happen to a first timer on this planet until he/she did acts to create karma. Because the whole "hypothesis" doesn't even make sense using it's own logic, yet another layer of B.S. must be added to attempt to fill the gaping hole/inconsistency.

This type of additional apology/explanation is ALWAYS a warning sign of a failed model.

---

Ped said:

>> Preincarnation asserts that we are affected by our actions of our future selves, and that's why we are today... think going ahead, while slipping behind.

>> please prove my contrived notion of preincarnation wrong

If we are to accept the idea of preincarnation, we'd have to simultaneously accept that every event in the universe is entirely independent of causality.

From our point of view, causality flows forward with the momentum of time.  Events of the past are the sustaining causes for the events of this present moment.  Events of this present moment serve as the causes for events in the future, and so on and so forth.  It is not difficult to see that this is so.  If we are to suppose that causality were to somehow flow backwards while time maintains it's forward momentum, and that the actions of our future selves served as causes for effects observable here in the present, we must first suppose that those future events occured independent of the causal factors occuring here in the present, because if future events are to be dependent on past causes, those past causes must not fluctuate.  Since the momentum of causality is easily observable, and since the idea of preincarnation must operate independent of actual causal law, the idea of preincarnation is wrong.

If Event A serves as the causal basis for Event B, then Event B cannot reversely affect Event A, because that destroys the causal basis for Event B, thereby destroying the basis for Event B to affect Event A in the first place.  If, as a facet of causal law, preincarnation were to come in to effect in the universe, the universe would be instantly nullified.  Since the universe it not nullified, this law is not in effect and is not true.

---

bah! You'r just using a generalized stance on time, reincarnation doesn't follow either with that line of thought.

Your just thinking in terms of science... you can't use science to prove or disprove beliefs (or so I've read...).

Your thinking that time is just one way, if one were to look at the basis and the flow of time, and look at the backwards adaptation and evolution till we achieve one instant, which indeliably promotes an evolution of order by looking backwards, it makes perfect sense.

Think outside the box, it's equally valid to look backwards as it is forwards. In terms of causality, it is still applicalbe, only we are seeing the effect prior to the cause, and hence causality still applies in a backwards sense of the word. Even in a forward sense of the word, it all depends on how far you wish to dwelve into it.

It's like watching a movie where someone jumps out of a plane to go skydiving and watching it while rewinding. Altogether the nature of the event is unchanged, the only difference is the order in which it took place.

BTW I do believe it's wrong, hence why I contrived the B.S. notion of preincarnation... but one could make it seem as sensible as any other belief if one were to take the time to refine it, and explain why dynamic change happens backwards through time, independant of fluctuating variables, as one could omit such variables, and provide some "mystic" explanation as why they aren't part of the determinant of said event (In terms of dynamic future events affecting the past which you're percieving as static and already written in terms of causality, but that is only applicable if you're reasonable... ). Either way, the point of the example wasn't how valid it was, the point is that any belief can be made to justify anything befalling it in terms of it's effects.

Causality would be but a minor road block in way of preincarnations potential to revolutionize how we act on the basis of our future selves. It's easy enough to suggest in terms of beliefs why it isn't valid to look at it in terms causality because one can't really apply scientific method to a belief, as a belief holds itself above and beyond proof. One must have faith in their future selves, and hope that in the future they did good, as they're paying for it now (prekarma anyhow). Can one live a good life in the future in hopes of changing the past as a result of having knowledge of prekarma? No, one cannot do that with reincarnation either, it's not an ironclad fact...

~shit happens, doesn't mean that we all need to be assholes and the like, but we needn't stick to a belief that is unsubstantiated beyond what is suggested, as I've seen no real result of it beyond what people suggest, and link events to actions, that are for the most part just a consequence of life...

Can you prove that reincarnation and karma exist, and operate as is suggested beyond linking good actions, with a reward (fortuanate event) in absolute terms... or is it that we must assume that a fortuante event happened as a result of a good action?

Ped said:

Those differences are merely reflective of the differences in cultural perspective from then and now.

---

Quote:

Science is practiced by a community.  It's this community which is, generally speaking, arrogantly self-assured and self-important, just like practioners of popularized religion were in their time.

---

First off, denoting the difference between a community that practices something and the thing that is practiced itself is an important distinction to be made. Science as a concept and a practice cannot be contaminated by such arrogrance and self-assuredness and -importance, it is the failing of those who utilize science.

I personally do not feel that I can stand on ground upon which I can make claims concerning the general attitudes of the community who uses science. I am not privleged to the thoughts of these people. I would also like to note that almost every single person, if not everyone, uses science in their own thinking. It is almost as if it is a natural aspect of our thought processes.

Quote:

Both science and popular institutionalized religion are used to accomplish the same primary (but of course not exclusive) end:  the comfort and warmth of a population which finds the indefinability of it's own identity and purpose absolutely unbearable.  In their time, either side has proven itself equally effective at accomplishing this single objective, and for this reason (and many others) there is no real distinction. 

---

I cast doubt upon this. The reason is that, while perhaps some utilize both science and institutionalized religion to accomplish these ends you describe, and even if that is the reason they were established in the first place, both can be used by people of different mindsets, looking to accomplish different ends. Perhaps science might be used in order to find knowledge that can be applied in an invention, instead of seeking a stable understanding out of fear. etc. etc. etc.

My point is to acknowledge the actual differences within these concepts and what they encompass themselves. *shrugs*


Peace.

Ped said:

Of course that's true.  Do you think so low of me as to believe I need this lecture?  Are you trying to discredit me by suggesting that I can't tell the difference between a community and a practiced engaged in by that community?  You and I both know that this is just semantics, Fireworks.  You know what I meant.

---

It isn't just semantics, it is the difference between a tool and that which uses the tool. I don't think so low of you to believe that you need this "lecture"; however, I do know that it is an important distinction that needs to be made. You described characteristics and imposed them onto science, when these characteristics cannot be laid upon science at all, by the very nature of what science is. The attitude of a carpenter is not the attitude of the hammer itself.

Quote:

Please provide a good reason to suppose that science's discoveries are any more reflective of reality itself than those discoveries of ancient schools of thought.  During the pinnacle of those old religious systems, the bank information compiled by them was universally accepted as truth.  For someone to doubt the creation story was unthinkable.  It was true because the majority believed it be true.

---

These discoveries of science are reflective of reality itself because these discoveries have been applied. They have demonstrated themselves to be true through application. Regardless of whether or not a majority believes in the concepts of thermodynamics, regardless of whether or not these concepts are merely a reflection of the cultural perspective that "created" (observed, of course, would be the correct term ) them, the fact remains that these concepts of thermodynamics exist in reality, that they are at work in reality, and that this has been tested by using and applying these concepts. I don't understand how this can be denied and downplayed.

Quote:

Science is the same.  What we presently understand as true is such only because the prevailing majority believes it to be so.  When much time passes we will learn new things that undermine our present knowledge entirely, and we will look back upon science and scientific method and think "what a bunch of barbarians."  It is already happening.  There is a huge rift forming between modern physicists and classical physicists, because modern physicists have happened upon new ideas that completely undermine what has been "known" about physics and how things exist for hundreds of years.

---

You make it seem as if our understanding has no basis, or rather that our understanding has no meaning because it is in a state of change. There is a rift between classical physicists and modern physicists because these modern physicists have developed more insight into the nature of reality, because they have taken more variables into account, because they have taken the previous knowledge and put it into new perspective. This doesn't negate any meaning. While I understand what you are saying, it seems as if you are dismissing the substance and meaning of these systems because of the nature of how these systems develop, and this has been what I've been focusing upon from the beginning of this thread. Has science portrayed a more accurate representation of the nature of this reality than previous systems that did not have access to more experience and knowledge? Indeed it has. Of course we shouldn't look down on previous systems, as that would be an ignorant thing to do. But that doesn't mean that this current system or any system doesn't have any validity. blah blah blah, etc. etc. etc....

Ped said:

>> Can you prove that reincarnation and karma exist, and operate as is suggested beyond linking good actions, with a reward (fortuanate event) in absolute terms... or is it that we must assume that a fortuante event happened as a result of a good action?

While it can't be proven except through direct experience, there are very many logical bases for reincarnation and karma.

That is what differentiates reincarnation from preincarnation in terms of this poor attitude you have toward any kind of belief. It would be absolutely senseless to believe in preincarnation, because so much evidence to the contrary is readily available. Reincarnation is not like this. There is absolutely no evidence which can be used to disprove reincarnation or karma, and in fact there is a great amount of logical evidence to sustain either idea.

---

Quote:

Please provide a good reason to suppose that science's discoveries are any more reflective of reality itself than those discoveries of ancient schools of thought. During the pinnacle of those old religious systems, the bank information compiled by them was universally accepted as truth. For someone to doubt the creation story was unthinkable. It was true because the majority believed it be true.

Science is the same. What we presently understand as true is such only because the prevailing majority believes it to be so. When much time passes we will learn new things that undermine our present knowledge entirely, and we will look back upon science and scientific method and think "what a bunch of barbarians." It is already happening. There is a huge rift forming between modern physicists and classical physicists, because modern physicists have happened upon new ideas that completely undermine what has been "known" about physics and how things exist for hundreds of years.

The knowledge accumulated through science is reflective of our culture only. There is nothing about science which was found "out there". The knowledge accumulated by religious schools is also reflective of their prevailing culture only. There was nothing about those beliefs which could be found "out there". And that is why what is "known" rapidly becomes myth, regardless of who discovered knowledge through which method. It happened then and it will happen now, so long as we persist in the belief that there is an objective quality to any kind of knowledge. The Story of Genesis is a creation myth. The Big Bang theory is a creation myth. The next big idea will be another creation myth.

---

Ped said:

While it can't be proven except through direct experience, there are very many logical bases for reincarnation and karma...... Reincarnation is not like this.  There is absolutely no evidence which can be used to disprove reincarnation or karma, and in fact there is a great amount of logical evidence to sustain either idea.

---

Please share with us this logical evidence of either or both ideas.


Peace.

Ped said:

>> What evidence do you have to disprove the big-bang theory that you hold to be fallacious? Theirs a great body of evidence used to sustain and support such, but i suppose if we don't look to some form of grand cosmic mysticism, and a super organism of conscious thought that it isn't inspired enough to catch your attention.

1) A great body of evidence used to sustain and support what? That all things came from out of nowhere and without cause? Okay, so scientists did a whole lot of number crunching and head scratching and traced events back through time all the way back to... what? A great, all-encompasing causeless mystery that is completely invisible and unapproachable. Isn't this just another form of grand cosmic mysticism?

There is a great body of evidence to describe the way the cosmos have taken shape in terms of their physicality, the way life forms have progessed from states of great simplicity to enormous complexity in response to changes in their surroundings, and so on and so forth. All of this I accept as solidly reliable interpretations of a conventional reality, but there is no ultimate truth to be found here, as science professes. It's not science or it's methods that I am challening. It is science's unfounded sense of pride and self-certainty.


>> Why not share your theories as to the creation of the universe,

>> Please share with us this logical evidence of either or both ideas. [Karma and reincarnation]

2) For something to be created, it requires a beginning. If there is no distinction between the moment something appeared and the previous moment in which it did not appear, then there cannot be a beginning to that object and therefore that object cannot be created. Taking existence as our object, existence was not created because it did not begin. We know this because all things exist in absolute dependence upon their own prior existence. Since things do indeed exist, their existence is beginningless and endless, empty, and formless, except in relationship to objects which are self-aware and which have conceived of themselves as being self-existent. Objects only begin, behave, interact with other objects, age, break down, and finally altogether cease when these discriminations can be made relative to other phenomenon. Furthermore, the mechanisms by which objects undergo these changes can only be described relative to other phenomenon, which are seen as seperate but are not in fact so. When we remove those discriminations, we understand existence, and we understand that it's nature is without beginning or end.

For a living being to be created, it requires a beginning. Since we are not seperate from existence, we share it's same essential nature, and following the same logic describing the nature of existence we can conclude that living beings did not begin and do not end and thus are continuously reborn as the concious faculty of organisms which possess a nervous system adequate to sustain gross, subtle, and very subtle levels of awareness.

The mind is not seperate from existence, and therefore shares the same essential nature as existence. Following the same logic describing the nature of existence, we can conclude that the mind engaged in no original action, and that it will not undergo a final experience, because the existence of the mind is predicated upon it's previous moment of existence. Since the mind is of the same essential nature as existence, it is subject to the same principles sustaining existence, that actions of mind serve as causes which necessarily follow with effects of the mind, or experience. Since the function and capacity of the mind is to know, to impute, and to perceive, we can further conclude that the knowledge, imputations, and perceptions of the mind are in fact effects identical to their cause, which is action, or a unified term describing both actions and their effects: "karma".

If living beings and the mind did not share the same essential nature as existence, they would not exist, for all things exist as part of that from which nothing can be removed. For something to exist outside of or in discordance with the sustaining principles of that from which nothing can be removed is for it not to exist at all.

---

1) Indeed it is, but it has more relevance as it can be deduced as to it's beginings, and it attempts to come to some logical conclusion... reincarnation and karma don't with the exception of being good with the typical dose of fear instilled if one doesn't indulge the belief and/or follow the mandates set forth as they'll be a lesser form in the next life (which hasn't been proven), as well as suffering as a result of such in this one.

It's really great in terms of principles, but... the big-bang-theory has a little more credence then karma as well as reincarnation... last I saw their weren't huge government agencies working on ontology to further mankind. However, their are many agencies that have utilized th4e big bang theory and helped to stabilize it in terms of evidence... do a googl searche, it's out their and numerous, do a search on the Doppler effect, hope it will lead you to a more logical conclusion as to the big bang theory... it doesn't assert any deleterious effects by not believing it, so you don't have to if you don't wanna.

2)  I like it... Nothing cannot simply exist, their has to be something that created it, and further in turn a paradoxial event occurs in which in terms of human understanding their always had to be a precursor for this to arise... such that it always existed in terms of what we comprehend.

It's like someone giving you proof that god created the universe... and god existed throughout time... the creator can't create themselves, they just had to be, a god, of a god, of a god, of a ..... 

Beyond that, you've merely been giving postulates as to the creation of the universe in terms of ideas... but is their anything greater to back it up then words? I dunno that whole bit on karma didn't feel to good on the stomach...

The mind is not seperate from existance really doesn't imply much... it's like saying you can't drive an SUV with an empty tank of gas... it's well known. The nature of existance... can you expand on that for me? Last I checked, their is no unified form and/or nature to existance other then the fact of existing, where I see no logical paradigm which further promotes the idea that the mind shall not enter a final experience. Your implying karma in the loosest sense of the word, in terms of causality, not in terms of what karma implies in way of it's associated action and either a negative and/or positive action as a result thereof. I agree with you in terms of cause and a resulting affect in sequence therof, I don't think many will disagree with you, it's the nature of the universe...

However, as per actual Karma in respects to the functioning of the universe, I've failed to see it taking place in one instance beyond coincidence... if it isn't absolute, and if at times it isn't applicable, and/or it can't be replicated and predicted... I won't choose to believe in it. I'm merely asking for one solid example, or some method that you can provide that will convince us all that Karma, is indeed effecting us at this very moment or an experiment that we can perform to see Karma in action; beyond just suggesting it as an end result and tying positive/negative actions to un/fortuitious consequences.

http://www.ncf.carleton.ca/freenet/rootd...ths/karma2.html

"In Buddhist teaching, the law of karma, says only this: `for every event that occurs, there will follow another event whose existence was caused by the first, and this second event will be pleasant or unpleasant according as its cause was skillful or unskillful.' A skillful event is one that is not accompanied by craving, resistance or delusions; an unskillful event is one that is accompanied by any one of those things. (Events are not skillful in themselves, but are so called only in virtue of the mental events that occur with them.)"

Ped said:

The problem here is that we are supposing that science is different or "better" than religion because science is pursuing truths that are exist objectively.  It's this idea, that truth occurs on the outside, that is the core dogmatic principle of science.  It's from this starting point that hypothesis are formed and then investigated.  It does not matter whether or not the hypothesis is confirmed or disproven, because when the scientific ritual is complete, either outcome is taken as affirmation of the notion that science is a jewel which possesses the capacity to reveal objective truths. 

---

Quote:

And it's with this same idea of principle objectivity that science -- ahem, pardon me -- the scientific community....

---

Quote:

Yes, exactly.  It has no inherent meaning and no intrinsic value.  That the scientific community has supposed itself and it's methods to possess value, and, as a necessary result of that feeling of value, a sense of superiority, is it's very downfall.  It is the same downfall that has afflicted every other failed or failing school of thought in history, as it obscures their discoveries and creates a distance between what is observed and what actually is.  As it is said, the map becomes the territory.

---

I agree with you. I was never referring to any inherent meaning, in fact, I see no meaning at all as being inherent. I was simply speaking up for the relative meaning that we have created... It might not have universal value, but it has our own value, in its own right, and it has proven useful to us. I see some requirement, at this point in time, of keeping a balance between both perspectives...

I also think it is important to realize abstractions for what they are, to make sure that the map is merely the map. I am still curious as to whether it is science itself or the misuse of science that you have concerns with....

Quote:

For something to be created, it requires a beginning.  If there is no distinction between the moment something appeared and the previous moment in which it did not appear, then there cannot be a beginning to that object and therefore that object cannot be created.  Taking existence as our object, existence was not created because it did not begin.  We know this because all things exist in absolute dependence upon their own prior existence.  Since things do indeed exist, their existence is beginningless and endless, empty, and formless, except in relationship to objects which are self-aware and which have conceived of themselves as being self-existent.  Objects only begin, behave, interact with other objects, age, break down, and finally altogether cease when these discriminations can be made relative to other phenomenon.  Furthermore, the mechanisms by which objects undergo these changes can only be described relative to other phenomenon, which are seen as seperate but are not in fact so.  When we remove those discriminations, we understand existence, and we understand that it's nature is without beginning or end.

For a living being to be created, it requires a beginning.  Since we are not seperate from existence, we share it's same essential nature, and following the same logic describing the nature of existence we can conclude that living beings did not begin and do not end and thus are continuously reborn as the concious faculty of organisms which possess a nervous system adequate to  sustain gross, subtle, and very subtle levels of awareness.

The mind is not seperate from existence, and therefore shares the same essential nature as existence.  Following the same logic describing the nature of existence, we can conclude that the mind engaged in no original action, and that it will not undergo a final experience, because the existence of the mind is predicated upon it's previous moment of existence.  Since the mind is of the same essential nature as existence, it is subject to the same principles sustaining existence, that actions of mind serve as causes which necessarily follow with effects of the mind, or experience.  Since the function and capacity of the mind is to know, to impute, and to perceive, we can further conclude that the knowledge, imputations, and perceptions of the mind are in fact effects identical to their cause, which is action, or a unified term describing both actions and their effects: "karma".

If living beings and the mind did not share the same essential nature as existence, they would not exist, for all things exist as part of that from which nothing can be removed.  For something to exist outside of or in discordance with the sustaining principles of that from which nothing can be removed is for it not to exist at all.

---

You've made my day, man.


Peace.

Lingabhakt said:

... In a nut shell, karma is cause & affect.
Now for reincarnation. I will say this: reincarnation isn't real insofar as life & death are not real. They are perceptions of different states, or vibrations of consciousness. According to John Hagelin, consciousness is none other than the Unified Field. He has many great lectures on youtube about what this is. In essence, though, it is everything. To Hindus this is called Brahman. Many Westerners misunderstand this to be simply be one of many gods, but this is wrong on many levels. For one, the Vedas (the source scriptures of Hinduism, AKA Sanatana Dharma) teach Advaita (Monism). There are some Hindus that are polytheists, but their beliefs are based on the Puranas (mythic stories). Now, Advaita & Quantum Physics both teach that there is no actual difference between one thing & another; both are one & the very idea of duality is illusionary. This illusion is generated by the mind for some unknown reason (depending on whom you ask). TBC...

---

Repertoire89 said:

Zombie thread

---

By god.... It's starting...