• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

You can't have perfect knowledge through science

9-10ths_Penguin

9-10ths_Penguin

1/10 Subway Stalinist
Premium Member
I-Ching said:
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.
Click to expand...
A counter-example:

At Hallowe'en, some people set up haunted houses. One popular thing to do is to blindfold the participants, lead them into a room, and have them touch different "spooky" things:

- "these are eyes" (but they're actually peeled grapes)
- "these are brains" (but it's actually cold noodles)
- "these are guts" (but it's actually jell-o)

Now... how does the participant tell the difference between a situation like the one with the elephant, where he's being told the truth, and the haunted house, where he's being lied to?

Also, the problem with your elephant analogy in this context is that there isn't anyone with "full vision". The guy who claims he has it is just another blind guy. He has no special insight that the others don't... only a different perspective from theirs.
 
I-Ching

I-Ching

Aspiring to Transcendence
PolyHedral said:
How do you know the man can see? Logical conclusions are only as strong as their weakest premise.
Click to expand...
9-10ths_Penguin said:
A counter-example:

At Hallowe'en, some people set up haunted houses. One popular thing to do is to blindfold the participants, lead them into a room, and have them touch different "spooky" things:

- "these are eyes" (but they're actually peeled grapes)
- "these are brains" (but it's actually cold noodles)
- "these are guts" (but it's actually jell-o)

Now... how does the participant tell the difference between a situation like the one with the elephant, where he's being told the truth, and the haunted house, where he's being lied to?

Also, the problem with your elephant analogy in this context is that there isn't anyone with "full vision". The guy who claims he has it is just another blind guy. He has no special insight that the others don't... only a different perspective from theirs.
Click to expand...

You have to accept the existence of the original person of vision. That original person naturally wants you to have knowledge and therefore sends his representatives in form of Guru, sadhu and sastra.
 
9-10ths_Penguin

9-10ths_Penguin

1/10 Subway Stalinist
Premium Member
I-Ching said:
Yes, that is my point. You have three points so that you can verify the Truth of the knowledge given by a higher authority.
Click to expand...
Wait... so you really do think that two people are immune to being wrong? That's foolish.

I sure hope you don't do any sort of engineering review for a living: "the designer and the checker both signed off on it, so I know it MUST be right!"

I-Ching said:
God is the perfect authority and hearing from Him or his representative is well within the range of our sense.
Click to expand...
But you already said that our senses are limited and faulty. If we can't trust them, then how can we trust them to discern God?

I-Ching said:
Well perhaps you could educate me then.
Click to expand...
For starters, your descriptions of evolution show a deep ignorance of what it actually says. All that stuff about whales evolving from seals? I seriously doubt you ever studied any of it in school.
 
I-Ching

I-Ching

Aspiring to Transcendence
9-10ths_Penguin said:
Wait... so you really do think that two people are immune to being wrong? That's foolish.
Click to expand...
Someone who is recognized as a Guru or sadhu is not just an ordinary person. They must have some qualification to be recognized as such.


9-10ths_Penguin said:
But you already said that our senses are limited and faulty. If we can't trust them, then how can we trust them to discern God?
Click to expand...
Hearing from an authority is well within the limits of our senses.

9-10ths_Penguin said:
For starters, your descriptions of evolution show a deep ignorance of what it actually says. All that stuff about whales evolving from seals? I seriously doubt you ever studied any of it in school.
Click to expand...
What does that have to do with this thread? My original statement about faults of the scientific process is still valid. I am a philosopher not a scientist. Why would I waste my time with such a nonsense process.
 
9-10ths_Penguin

9-10ths_Penguin

1/10 Subway Stalinist
Premium Member
I-Ching said:
Someone who is recognized as a Guru or sadhu is not just an ordinary person. They must have some qualification to be recognized as such.
Click to expand...
And how would a person go about determining whether a person is qualified as a guru or sadhu without relying on any of the problematic things you dismissed in the OP as unreliable?

I-Ching said:
Hearing from an authority is well within the limits of our senses.
Click to expand...
Hearing period is within the limits of our senses. Discerning authority from non-authority is something where people can be (and often are) mistaken.

I-Ching said:
What does that have to do with this thread? My original statement about faults of the scientific process is still valid. I am a philosopher not a scientist. Why would I waste my time with such a nonsense process.
Click to expand...
I think it's relevant, since you're making claims about science without, apparently, really knowing what science is or how it works.

I-Ching said:
If you accept that there is a God there must real Guru's, Holy Men and Scriptures.
Click to expand...
Two thoughts:

- that's a big if.

- why would "real Guru's, Holy Men and Scriptures" necessarily follow from "there is a God"?
 
I-Ching

I-Ching

Aspiring to Transcendence
PolyHedral said:
So why doesn't he just appear in person, if he wants to say something to us?
Click to expand...
He does appear in person.

"Whenever and wherever there is a decline in religious practice, O descendant of Bharata, and a predominant rise of irreligion — at that time I descend Myself." Bhagavad-Gita 4.7

But if was here all the time then that would violate our free will. Even when he was here some atheists thought he was just a powerful mystic.
 
I-Ching

I-Ching

Aspiring to Transcendence
9-10ths_Penguin said:
And desire implies reality?

I desire to be a millionaire. Am I?

If I'm not, then why would someone's desire to serve God make him a guru or sadhu?
Click to expand...

Desire to serve God in that way is not the only qualification. You have to be surrendered to God's Will a pure via medium.
 
I-Ching

I-Ching

Aspiring to Transcendence
9-10ths_Penguin said:
Baloney.
Click to expand...
Why? It would be obviously fairly hard no to believe in God if he was personally before you. We came to this material world so that we could forget about God and try and imitate Him. He created this world to facilitate that desire. Love can't be forced.
 
9-10ths_Penguin

9-10ths_Penguin

1/10 Subway Stalinist
Premium Member
I-Ching said:
Why? It would be obviously fairly hard no to believe in God if he was personally before you.
Click to expand...
So? How would that violate free will?

"Easy choice" does not imply "no choice".

I-Ching said:
We came to this material world so that we could forget about God and try and imitate Him. He created this world to facilitate that desire.
Click to expand...
That's kinda conflicted: it would be hard - impossible, even - to simultaneously forget about something AND try to imitate it.

I-Ching said:
Love can't be forced.
Click to expand...
Merely letting a person know that the potential object of their love simply exists is not "forcing love".
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top