Atheist, Christian, and Baha'i Cosmologies

[Truthseeker]

Not in my opinion.
Assuming what an alleged Messenger has to say about science is "fundamentally true" is a dogmatic approach, not an intellectually honest approach.

Here's how Shoghi Effendi 's allegedly scientific works.
Step1 assume what the messenger says is true.
Step2 if what the messenger says is contrary to the results of human science deny the science and claim it will catch up to what the messenger said (Thats what he did in the letter to New Zealand I posted).

Here is how your allegedly scientific method goes.
Step1 Assume what the messenger says is true.
Step2 If what the messenger says is apparently contrary to the human results of scientific enquiry seek to post hoc rationalise your understanding of the text to try and force fit the science to it.

Here is the actual scientific method;


View attachment 79029
Source: Scientific method - Wikipedia

You will note that at no stage does the scientific method assume what an alleged Messenger says is correct as it is not intellectually honest in my view to assume what they say is true without continuously testing their statements against what is known to be true for the discovery of divergence.

I notice now you cut off my my message to give everyone a false impression. I even forgot what I said. That is dishonest.

 

[Trailblazer]

You missed that it is obviously not wrong to do something just because the beasts of the field do it and that therefore your argument that it is necessarily not appropriate to act as the beasts of the field is unsound.

I did not say it is wrong to do it just because the beasts of the field do it. I said it is wrong for humans to act like the beasts of the field.

It is wrong for humans to act like the beasts of the field because humans are spiritual beings made in the image of God, so humans were not created to act like the beasts of the field. God is calling us to struggle against our animal nature and to become who we truly are: not sexual beings, but spiritual beings who are in control of the physical side of our nature and who can thus find true happiness living in conformity with God’s will.

 

[danieldemol]

I did not say it is wrong to do it just because the beasts of the field do it. I said it is wrong for humans to act like the beasts of the field.

A) I never said you said, "it is wrong to do it just because the beasts of the field do it."
B)If words are to mean what they really mean there is no difference in meaning between these two sentences in my view.

 

[danieldemol]

I notice now you cut off my my message to give everyone a false impression. I even forgot what I said. That is dishonest.

You forgot what you said yet you are sure I gave anyone a false impression? And you have not even bothered to explain how what i said is false?
Sounds to me like someone is confused and throwing around ad-hominem.

 

[danieldemol]

I am not assuming. I have continuously tested over 52 years, and now I found certitude after all that testing. Have you ever heard of faith after finding certitude?

So you say, but have you truly tested this teaching of Baha'u'llah translated to English by Shoghi Effendi who is allegedly infallible with respect to the teaching of Baha'u'llah?
'For instance, consider the substance of copper. Were it to be protected in its own mine from becoming solidified, it would, within the space of seventy years, attain to the state of gold.'
Source: Bahá'í Reference Library - The Kitáb-i-Íqán, Pages 121-160

That is one the scientific method can be applied to test for divergence from the evidence in my view.

 

[Truthseeker]

You forgot what you said yet you are sure I gave anyone a false impression? And you have not even bothered to explain how what i said is false?
Sounds to me like someone is confused and throwing around ad-hominem.

I saw later what you said, and realized I had forgot what I said. Now, I'll be honest and say that at times I struggled with some science aspects of the Baha'i Faith. However, I was focused so much on what you said about it being compatible with science that I realize now I didn't say why I strived to reconcile what was said with science. For me, there is overwhelming evidence that Baha'u'llah is who He said He was, and what He said about science subjects, or what Abdu'l-Baha said about science subjects has to seen in that light. I'm to throw away all the other evidence in His favor? There have some things said about science, but not very many things, and the reason for Baha'u'llah's coming is not correct us about science, but to raise us up spiritually, to reform our character, and to create a new wonderful civilization.

Furthermore, to balance what Shoghi Effendi said, here is what Abdu'l-Baha said about science and the religion:

We may think of science as one wing and religion as the other; a bird needs two wings for flight, one alone would be useless. Any religion that contradicts science or that is opposed to it, is only ignorance -- for ignorance is the opposite of knowledge.
(Abdu'l-Baha, Paris Talks, p. 130)

That would include the Baha'i Faith. We cannot just look at one statement, we need to at all of the statements of this as a whole to get a correct picture. That is compatible with what the scientific method does.

I don't wish to point out how I think that was dishonest. You look into it yourself, and decide if in retrospect it was dishonest. What's important is that you understand if that was dishonest or not. It's not important for me to expose you as much as I can that you are dishonest. To try to expose you further would not help you at all. It would cause you to try hard to defend yourself probably because that is human nature.

 

[ppp]

I do not need to offer a defense for what I believe.

There is no "as if it applies to all of us." I have said repeatedly that Baha'i Laws only apply to Baha'is. They don't apply to anyone else..

Why do you think it matters if Baha'i laws only apply to Baha'i?

 

[Truthseeker]

So you say, but have you truly tested this teaching of Baha'u'llah translated to English by Shoghi Effendi who is allegedly infallible with respect to the teaching of Baha'u'llah?
'For instance, consider the substance of copper. Were it to be protected in its own mine from becoming solidified, it would, within the space of seventy years, attain to the state of gold.'
Source: Bahá'í Reference Library - The Kitáb-i-Íqán, Pages 121-160

That is one the scientific method can be applied to test for divergence from the evidence in my view.

That is something I struggled with, but as I alluded to in the post above, I think I have good reason to do that in the face of all the other overwhelming evidence. You can conclude what you want to about that. I did honestly consider that statement, I didn't overlook it. look at the post above. You will not with your arguments convince me to abandon Baha'u'llah based on that because I gave that a careful honest look myself.

I don't wish to try to justify that statement with you, because of my perception that it will lead to an endless argument that will not convince you of anything.

 

[Truthseeker]

Why do you think it matters if Baha'i laws only apply to Baha'i?

It means we should be only applying that standard to Baha'is, and we will leave the others alone. We shouldn't be judging people who are not Baha'is who don't follow Baha'i laws. We also don't go into the political realm and won't in the future try to impose our laws on other people because that is explicitly expressed in our Writings.

 

[ppp]

It means we should be only applying that standard to Baha'is, and we will leave the others alone. We shouldn't be judging people who are not Baha'is who don't follow Baha'i laws. We also don't go into the political realm and won't in the future try to impose our laws on other people because that is explicitly expressed in our Writings.

That statement was made from Trailblazer to an ostensibly non-Baha'i interlocutor. Why should We only apply that standard to Baha'i's matter to a non-Baha'i?

 

[Trailblazer]

Why do you think it matters if Baha'i laws only apply to Baha'i?

What do you mean by "it"? Why do I think what matters?

 

[TransmutingSoul]

Why do you think it matters if Baha'i laws only apply to Baha'i?

I personally see that subject in a slightly different way.

Personally I see a good part off the law given by Baha'u'llah is applicable to all of humanity, but can only be implemented by the choice of each individual, my thoughts are founded in this passage

".......The well-being of mankind, its peace and security, are unattainable unless and until its unity is firmly established. This unity can never be achieved so long as the counsels which the Pen of the Most High hath revealed are suffered to pass unheeded...." (“Gleanings from the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh”, p. 286)

Some of the Law one has to be a Baha'i to practice, but a great deal of the Law is eternal and the neglect of it is what brings about the decay of humanity.

Regards Tony

 

[ppp]

What do you mean by "it"? Why do I think what matters?

Allow me to clarify. Why do you think it matters to a non-Baha'i, such as your interlocutor, if Baha'i rules only apply to Baha'i?

 

[Trailblazer]

Allow me to clarify. Why do you think it matters to a non-Baha'i, such as your interlocutor, if Baha'i rules only apply to Baha'i?

I don't think that the Baha'i rules matter to a non-Baha'i.

 

[ppp]

I don't think that the Baha'i rules matter to a non-Baha'i.

Then what is the poiint of telling a non-Baha'i that Baha'i rules only apply to Baha'i?

 

[Trailblazer]

Then what is the poiint of telling a non-Baha'i that Baha'i rules only apply to Baha'i?

Good point.
Because some non-Baha'is 'act as if' we are imposing our rules on non-Baha'is.

 

[ppp]

Good point.
Because some non-Baha'is 'act as if' we are imposing our rules on non-Baha'is.

It does seem that is your ultimate goal - World Government to which your Baha'i supreme coundil functions in an official advisory capacity.

But for the record, I oppose y'all on both rational and moral grounds. Not whether or not you limit your rules toonly your people.

 

[Trailblazer]

It does seem that is your ultimate goal - World Government to which your Baha'i supreme coundil functions in an official advisory capacity.

I do not think there is going to be a World Government in which the Baha'i supreme council functions in an official advisory capacity.

But for the record, I oppose y'all on both rational and moral grounds. Not whether or not you limit your rules to only your people.

Duly noted.

 

[danieldemol]

I saw later what you said, and realized I had forgot what I said. Now, I'll be honest and say that at times I struggled with some science aspects of the Baha'i Faith. However, I was focused so much on what you said about it being compatible with science that I realize now I didn't say why I strived to reconcile what was said with science. For me, there is overwhelming evidence that Baha'u'llah is who He said He was, and what He said about science subjects, or what Abdu'l-Baha said about science subjects has to seen in that light. I'm to throw away all the other evidence in His favor?

The other "evidence" you speak of falls into the category of unreliable due to it either being mistaken evidence or fabricated evidence in my opinion.

There have some things said about science, but not very many things, and the reason for Baha'u'llah's coming is not correct us about science, but to raise us up spiritually, to reform our character, and to create a new wonderful civilization.

According to what Abdul-Baha said it is to do all three. Have you read this?;

Bahá'í Reference Library - Some Answered Questions, Pages 7-11

reference.bahai.org

This whole chapter is on the need for an educator. Here are the relevant points;

"...education is of three kinds: material, human and spiritual."
"Human education signifies civilization and progress—that is to say, government, administration, charitable works, trades, arts and handicrafts, sciences, great inventions and discoveries and elaborate institutions..."
"Now we need an educator who will be at the same time a material, human and spiritual educator, and whose authority will be effective in all conditions."
"Therefore, the Universal Educator must be at the same time a physical, human and spiritual educator; and He must possess a supernatural power"
"Now we must consider justly: did these Divine Manifestations Who have appeared possess all these qualifications or not? 3 If They had not these qualifications and these perfections, They were not real Educators"
"It has now been proved by rational arguments that the world of existence is in the utmost need of an educator, and that its education must be achieved by divine power. There is no doubt that this holy power is revelation"

So you see according to Abdul-Baha they did come to educate us in the sciences through the power of revelation.

Furthermore, to balance what Shoghi Effendi said, here is what Abdu'l-Baha said about science and the religion:

Contradictions don't balance each other out. If I say the sun gives light and the sun does not give light, this does not mean that the sun gives half light for example. When Abdul-Baha was saying "Any religion that contradicts science or that is opposed to it, is only ignorance" he was talking to people of other religions, when he spoke to Baha'is he always corrected them on matters of science by insisting on what he saw as revealed truth. Therefore it is clear that he wanted other religions to be subject to science to eradicate their superstitions, but *not* the Baha'i faith in my view.

We cannot just look at one statement, we need to at all of the statements of this as a whole to get a correct picture.

Physician heal thyself. I believe that the whole picture is that Shoghi Effendi interprets the words of Abdul-Baha. And he said, "You see our whole approach to each matter is based on the belief that God sends us divinely inspired Educators; what they tell us is fundamentally true, what science tells us today is true; tomorrow may be entirely changed to better explain a new set of facts." To try and "balance" that by focusing on a tiny portion of a quote from Abdul-Baha's numerous contradictory quotes and actions is not looking at the "whole" picture or as Shoghi Effendi says the "whole approach"

I don't wish to point out how I think that was dishonest. You look into it yourself, and decide if in retrospect it was dishonest. What's important is that you understand if that was dishonest or not. It's not important for me to expose you as much as I can that you are dishonest. To try to expose you further would not help you at all. It would cause you to try hard to defend yourself probably because that is human nature.

I understand that it was not dishonest. The way I see it you got confused, threw out an ad-hominem, and can't support the substance of your ad-hominem so are now doubling down on your ad-hominem and hand waving the need to support your claim which is a serious allegation.

 

[ppp]

I do not think there is going to be a World Government in which the Baha'i supreme council functions in an official advisory capacity.

I don't either. But Baha’u’llah and your grand council seem to think so.