You can't have perfect knowledge through science

[Amill]

And you know this how?

From his limited and imperfect senses.

 

[Revoltingest]

We can inquire from the Higher power to establish that we have understood correctly. But the limits of our senses can not be overcome.

How do you know that your communication with the Higher Power isn't a a delusion?
Moreover, why do so many humans who communicate with him (her? it?) disagree about everything?
Could it just be a wicked practical joke upon the denizens of his miserable little ant farm called Earth?
My money is on the delusion theory.

 

[Koldo]

The scientific method is based on a flawed axiom that we can know the reality through our senses. Unfortunately all human beings are subject to four defects:
1) Our senses are limited and imperfect
2) We make mistakes
3) We are in illusion
4) We cheat.

Due these defects we can not know the Truth through this method. In order to have perfect knowledge you must hear from higher authority. Just like if you want to know your father you have to ask your mother. You can't go to every man and test them.

How do you know this higher authority is a higher authority?
If we consider (1) and (3), how can we even possibly know that this higher authority really exists?
If we consider (2) and (4), how can we trust in any representative of any higher authority?

Answer these three questions.

I am still waiting for those answers.

 

[idav]

But the limits of our senses can not be overcome.

Wrong. We are well aware of the limit of our senses but it doesn't make existence less real. If we lived in a universe of darkness it wouldn't make hearing or feeling any less real. And we do overcome our senses as we use machines to observe and measure the universe in many ways that are invisible to the naked eye and even frequencies that don't register to human ears.

 

[Father Heathen]

I think an intelligent person would be skeptical of your holiness and I doubt your "scripture" could compete with the Vedas

An intelligent person would be skeptical of ALL "holiness" and "scripture". Claims need to be substantiated by evidence and logic in order to be trusted by the rational mind.

 

[Otherright]

The scientific method is based on a flawed axiom that we can know the reality through our senses. Unfortunately all human beings are subject to four defects:
1) Our senses are limited and imperfect
2) We make mistakes
3) We are in illusion
4) We cheat.

Due these defects we can not know the Truth through this method. In order to have perfect knowledge you must hear from higher authority. Just like if you want to know your father you have to ask your mother. You can't go to every man and test them.

Well I would go wit the first two points and skip the later. Our sense are limited, our observations are obviously wrong, and we do make mistakes. Otherwise when a scientific axiom is devised, it would require no further revision.

 

[gnomon]

The scientific method is based on a flawed axiom that we can know the reality through our senses.

As opposed to the axiom of knowing reality by making things up or the axiom of reality is whatever I say it is.

I think I'll stick with science.

 

[Madhuri]

Well, if you're going to do that, I might as well quote my friend's little sister on the subject. She says, "Science makes no metaphysical claims about what is real or is reality". Nevertheless, you claim science does indeed make metaphysical claims about what is real or is reality. So, why do you think that's the case? What evidence do you have for your bizarre claim?

I would like to comment here from my own perspective. 'Science' may not make claims, but scientific findings are brought to the average person through scientists- people who interpret their findings. These people make many claims about reality, calling some things facts.
It is not that I necessarily disagree with the interpretations and conclusions made by people based on scientific findings, but I can understand why an individual might say that science makes such claims.

 

[I-Ching]

Let me give an analogy to further illustrate my point:
There are six blind men trying to understand what is an elephant. Each man is feeling a different part of the animal and saying that an elephant is like this or like that. Due to their limited senses their perceptions are obvious inaccurate.

A man with full vision sees the elephant and tells the blind men what an elephant is and then they know.

So the six blind men are like scientists trying to understand reality through their limited senses and obviously making mistakes. This the ascending process of knowledge.

A far easier way for the blind men to learn is to ask a man who can see. This the descending process and this only way that we can have perfect knowledge.

 

[I-Ching]

An intelligent person would be skeptical of ALL "holiness" and "scripture". Claims need to be substantiated by evidence and logic in order to be trusted by the rational mind.

There is a rational basis to accept the existence of God. If you accept this then you can accept scriptures and holy men.

 

[I-Ching]

As opposed to the axiom of knowing reality by making things up or the axiom of reality is whatever I say it is.

I think I'll stick with science.

No. The alternate axiom is that God exists and therefore can give us knowledge of what is reality.

 

[I-Ching]

But aren't you judging that perfect source based on your senses?

To hear from a higher authority is well within the limits of our senses.

 

[I-Ching]

But your "three point check system" violates the priniciples you laid out in the OP. Or is it your position that one person can cheat or be mistaken, but two people can't?

Yes, that is my point. You have three points so that you can verify the Truth of the knowledge given by a higher authority.

How could you ever deduce this? What way do you have to figure this out that isn't subject to the problems that you gave?

God is the perfect authority and hearing from Him or his representative is well within the range of our sense.

At this point, I'd say that it's more that your understanding of science is inherently flawed. You've shown a number of false ideas about how science works and what it says.

Well perhaps you could educate me then.

 

[I-Ching]

How do you know this higher authority is a higher authority?
If we consider (1) and (3), how can we even possibly know that this higher authority really exists?
If we consider (2) and (4), how can we trust in any representative of any higher authority?

Answer these three questions.

1)The three point check system guru, sadhu(holy man), sastra scripture
2)By following the process prescribed in the scripture you can experience for yourself.
3) same as 1

 

[Madhuri]

A far easier way for the blind men to learn is to ask a man who can see. This the descending process and this only way that we can have perfect knowledge.

Yes, but I think the point is that we cannot necessarily trust that the master we learn from is qualified. If it were easy, there would not be so many frauds and so many people who follow frauds. And the reason that we get sucked in by liars is because of our human senses and ignorance.

So it is a very tricky business, this finding of truth. We can only do our best using our heart and intelligence. I personally think that even if we come to wrong conclusions or follow the wrong people at some time, the Lord will somehow bring us closer because we are seekers. I think that there is a passage in the BG where Krishna promises this. But I cannot recall the wording and thus cannot find it online.

 

[I-Ching]

Yes, but I think the point is that we cannot necessarily trust that the master we learn from is qualified. If it were easy, there would not be so many frauds and so many people who follow frauds. And the reason that we get sucked in by liars is because of our human senses and ignorance.

So it is a very tricky business, this finding of truth. We can only do our best using our heart and intelligence. I personally think that even if we come to wrong conclusions or follow the wrong people at some time, the Lord will somehow bring us closer because we are seekers. I think that there is a passage in the BG where Krishna promises this. But I cannot recall the wording and thus cannot find it online.

If we don't want to get cheated then we have to equip ourselves with knowledge from sastra, so that we know what is a Guru.

Personally I have chosen to communicate with my Guru through the I-Ching.

True Guru's are rare in this age and it is very difficult to get personal Guidance from them.

 

[Madhuri]

If we don't want to get cheated then we have to equip ourselves with knowledge from sastra, so that we know what is a Guru.

Personally I have chosen to communicate with my Guru through the I-Ching.

True Guru's are rare in this age and it is very difficult to get personal Guidance from them.

Yes, exactly. And one consequence of this lack of wise persons is that we are sometimes left with the burden of interpreting scripture correctly. Often times people misinterpret, hence why there are so many differing views. I guess, in my opinion, God is the guru of all gurus, and situated within our hearts. I believe he guides us where we want to go and it is he who inspires us with understanding.

The I-ching is interesting. I had not heard of it previously.

 

[Father Heathen]

There is a rational basis to accept the existence of God.

Which is?

If you accept this then you can accept scriptures and holy men.

Even if there is/was a god, that wouldn't necessarily make anything mankind has said about him true. Anyone can declare themselves a "holy man" and anyone can write or speak whatever words they wish and claim they came from god. All of the religions make conflicting and contradictory claims, and they obviously can't all be true, so then what would you use to separate fact from fiction when it comes to god?

 

[I-Ching]

Yes, exactly. And one consequence of this lack of wise persons is that we are sometimes left with the burden of interpreting scripture correctly. Often times people misinterpret, hence why there are so many differing views. I guess, in my opinion, God is the guru of all gurus, and situated within our hearts. I believe he guides us where we want to go and it is he who inspires us with understanding.

The I-ching is interesting. I had not heard of it previously.

I find using the I-Ching is helping me to fine-tune my intuition. Until we are quite advanced our intuition can be quite unreliable.

The I-Ching is a form divination similar to tarot. It's quite ancient and must be of Vedic origins in my opinion. I used it in conjunction with Ayurveda to cure myself of a chronic illness that i suffered with for 8 years.

According the I-Ching the Guru that I am communicating with is Vallabhacharya, although each person has their own Guide.

 

[Father Heathen]

No. The alternate axiom is that God exists and therefore can give us knowledge of what is reality.

If there is a god then he gave us the gift of reason, and it would be through that which we gain knowledge and understanding of reality. The scientific method is the application of reason. To denounce science would be to toss god's gift of reason right back in his face.