Be careful of judging the Faith by currant standards
albertv
of our Central Figures by the sciences as currently
understood, even if they are easily replicated as is the
method of scientific investigation.
It is a proven fact that any material cooled to near
absolute zero constant will cause the movement of matter to
slow down and stop. That is what we knew up to last year.
". . . Pencil lead is actually graphite--a carbon mineral
that, when dragged across paper, leaves writing behind
because its atomic layers separate easily. This also means
that it is an excellent conductor of electricity. Last year,
Andre Geim of the University of Manchester in the U.K. used
adhesive tape to strip graphite down to a layer just one
atom thick; they called this superthin layer of graphite
"graphene. Experiments on graphene have revealed some
strange phenomena, as detailed in two papers in today's
Nature. The two-dimensional material remains capable of
conducting electricity thanks to the free-floating electron
in the honeycomb structure of carbon atoms. But these
electrons display some unusual properties.
Geim's team found that they do not slow down, even at very
low temperatures. In essence, the electrons act as if they
have no mass, or no "rest mass," to use the more precise
phrase from special relativity. It also means that
graphite--at least the two-dimensional variety--never stops
conducting."
http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?chanID=sa002&articleID=00033D41-7354-1372-B35483414B7F0000
How many more strange phenomena have we yet to discover?
So, the next time some well meaning soul brings the
Manifestation to task that he is being unscientific please,
remember we in our collective adolescence, really know very
little about the multi-layer of reality we call physical.
Albert
Bill Pike
wrote:
>Often on this list and others, people will judge the sayings
>of our Central Figures by the sciences as currently
>understood, even if they are easily replicated as is the
>method of scientific investigation.
Agreed. Some people feel that the "God Science" is written in stone
for all eternity. Yet science is always undergoing modification and
new processes and new "more accurate" information.
Some times a total reversal of what was previously accepted fact.
In point of fact the social teachings of religion undergo's a
revision every thousand years or so. However the Spiritual teachings
have remained constant for the last 6K years or so.
Sounds to me like a better deal than to absolutely trust a mutable
science.
<snipped>
>
>So, the next time some well meaning soul brings the
>Manifestation to task that he is being unscientific please,
>remember we in our collective adolescence, really know very
>little about the multi-layer of reality we call physical.
AMen and AWomen (equality of sexes) :^)
Pax Terra
God said BE!
and Symmetry was fractured!
sma...@jam.rr.com
> revision every thousand years or so. However the Spiritual teachings
> have remained constant for the last 6K years or so.
> Sounds to me like a better deal than to absolutely trust a mutable
> science.
Did anyone see the Doonesbury cartoon a couple of weeks ago on the
topic of 'relative science'? It shows a student becoming uncomfortable
because what he is learning in science doesn't it well with his
beliefs. But someone comes to his rescue applauding the merits of
viewing science as 'relative' which allows this young man to relieve
his anxiety by picking and choosing what accords with his 'beliefs.' It
seems to me we are getting rather dangerously close to doing that here?
Is this really what are Teachings in regards to the agreement of
science and religion call upon us to do?
The One Common Faith document which Kent referred to makes the
following statement:
"Religion is religion, as science is science. The one discerns and
articulates the values unfolding progressively through Divine
revelation; the other is the instrumentality through which the human
mind explores and is able to exert its influence ever more precisely
over the phenomenal world. The one defines goals that serve the
evolutionary process; the other assists in their attainment."
It seems to me that conflicts arise when we try and allow one to do the
job of the other. It is at that point that religion becomes
superstition and science becomes materialistic and destructive.
Religion can't tell science whether evolution is true or ether exists.
By the same token science can't tell religion that homosexuality,
drinking alcohol or building a nuclear weapon are not sinful.
warmest, Susan
sma...@jam.rr.com
There is one other thing I should add to my last post. Your subject
heading suggests you are applying the following passage to physical
science:
"Say: O leaders of religion! Weigh not the Book of God with such
standards and sciences as are current amongst you, for the Book itself
is the unerring Balance established amongst men. In this most perfect
Balance whatsoever the peoples and kindreds of the earth possess must
be weighed, while the measure of its weight should be tested according
to its own standard, did ye but know it. "
I think that is a misreading of the text. Note that it is addressed to
the 'leaders of religon' not scientists. In the Arabic version of the
Aqdas, the term is *ulama* (lit. the learned) and the word translated
as 'science' is 'ilm or knowledge. It comes from the same root as
'ulama and usually refers to religious knowledge. The term 'standards'
is *qu'ad* which literally means rules, especially grammatical rules.
You may recall that the Bab was criticized for not following the
standard rules of Arabic grammar. He pointed out that grammar was
derived from the Qur'an, not the other way around. [This is
historically correct, btw. The rules of grammar grew out of the need to
correctly read the Qur'an.] The 'standards and sciences' being
referred to in this context are the religious sciences, not the
physical ones. It in other words it is referring to things like
theology, metaphysics, morality, religious jurisprudence and yes, even
grammar. Baha'u'llah is asserting that Kitab-i Aqdas especially ought
not to be 'weighed' according to the these disciplines, but rather
those things ought to be derived from the Aqdas itself.
warmest, Susan
Douglas McAdam
I have heard many a person remark that some people are now treating our
science as if it were a new religion. But I would think that would be
a minority for I have not really experienced this myself with exception
of certain comments made on various discussion forums like this one
which I would not generalize out to mean all religionists or all
scientists.
But it makes sort of sense given the fact that so many people seem
unable today to accept traditional religion as practiced. And yet on
the other hand it seems that there is a growing anti-intellectualism
today, some which seems very harmful such as literalism. I know
several social science friends who have remarked that our society is
exhibiting the same characteristics that preceded the fascist movement
in Europe prior to WWII.
Do you think there is some logic in the idea of science and religion
both being progressive revelations?
regards,
doug
sma...@jam.rr.com
albertv wrote:
> Often on this list and others, people will judge the sayings
> of our Central Figures by the sciences as currently
> understood, even if they are easily replicated as is the
> method of scientific investigation.
Dear Albert,
I suppose that depends on what you mean by 'judge'. As Mirza Abu'l-Fadl
pointed out,
"It is clear that the prophets and Manifestations of the Cause of God
were sent to guide the nations, to imporve their characters, and to
bring the people nearer to their Source and ultimate Goal. They were
not sent as historians, astronomers, philosophers, or natural
scientists. . . . Therefore, the prophets have indulged the people in
regard to their historical notions, folk stories, and scientific
principles, and have spoken to them according to these. . . . A
rational human being will therefore have no doubt that those things
mentioned in the Holy Qu'ran, such as how the creation commensced,
the debate of the angels, the stories of Adam, of Satan, and of Noah
and the flood,a re all realities. These speak of repeated promises to
renew the world and refer to the appointed times for the expiration
(through the advent of the primarl Holy Reality and the renewal of
divine laws) of the terms allotted to the nations. But from the point
of view of science, it is impermissable for the historian to depend
on the literal meaning of these verses."
Similiarly, the Universal House of Justice wrote me the following on
Feb. 8, 1998:
"The House of Justice recognizes that, at the other extreme, there are
Baha'is who, imbued by what they conceive to be loyalty to Baha'u'llah,
cling to blind acceptance of what they understand to be a statement of
the Sacred Text. This shortcoming demonstrates an equally serious
failure to grasp the profundity of the Baha'i principle of the harmony
of faith and reason. The danger of such an attitude is that it exalts
personal understanding of some part of the Revelation over the whole,
leads to illogical and internally
inconsistent applications of the Sacred Text, and provides fuel to
those who would mistakenly characterize loyalty to the Covenant as
"fundamentalism". "
IMO if the Baha'is would fully adopt this approach we would have no
need to demand that our own scriptural version of historical events
be taken over others. Nor would we find ourselves running into
direct conflict with science as many Evangelical Christians do. We
would leave history to the historians and science to the scientists
and let Revelation do the job it was intended to do, namely provide
"Divine Remedy" to heal the ills of mankind.
warmest, Susan
kha...@sbcglobal.net
The term 'standards'
is *qu'ad* which literally means rules, especially grammatical rules.
Comment.
No, the rules are literally called " Ahkaam" not *qu'ad* that comes
from
Qa3idah wish means a fondation.
The Arabic grammaire has Qa3idah and Ahkaam.
Once the Ahkaam and the Qa3idah have been set, to
break the rules of them like the Bab did in his writings,
is like saying it is ok to go when the light is red....
Wa Salaam.
Yassir.
Mod.
you dont have to post this if it is bad.
Carl Brehmer
> MO if the Baha'is would fully adopt this approach we would have no
> need to demand that our own scriptural version of historical events
> be taken over others. Nor would we find ourselves running into
> direct conflict with science as many Evangelical Christians do. We
> would leave history to the historians and science to the scientists
> and let Revelation do the job it was intended to do, namely provide
> "Divine Remedy" to heal the ills of mankind.
Conversely, in an ideal world historians and scientists would
leave religious matters to religion. Unfortunately certain teachings
and laws of the Bahá'í Faith have been challenged in the name of
history, science and even western political science. The Bahá'í
laws concerning homosexuality, the Bahá'í teachings on the origin
of the human race, the scope of authority of the Universal House of
Justice, the infallibility of the Manifestation of God, the
trustworthiness of Abdu'l-Bahá's interpretations, certain
limitations on speech within the Bahá'í Community-these are just
some examples such challenges.
I am all for leaving history to the historians and science to the
scientists if only they would confine themselves to their respective
disciplines and not use their acquired secular knowledge to meddle in
the affairs of spiritual Communities.
Carl Brehmer
Bill Pike
<dougla...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>Hi Bill-
>
>I have heard many a person remark that some people are now treating our
>science as if it were a new religion. But I would think that would be
>a minority for I have not really experienced this myself with exception
>of certain comments made on various discussion forums like this one
>which I would not generalize out to mean all religionists or all
>scientists.
>But it makes sort of sense given the fact that so many people seem
>unable today to accept traditional religion as practiced. And yet on
>the other hand it seems that there is a growing anti-intellectualism
>today, some which seems very harmful such as literalism. I know
>several social science friends who have remarked that our society is
>exhibiting the same characteristics that preceded the fascist movement
>in Europe prior to WWII.
>
>Do you think there is some logic in the idea of science and religion
>both being progressive revelations?
>
>regards,
>doug
I would surmise so, as both evolve and change, how-be-it not at the
same rates or at the same times. My understanding is the both discuss
the universe; science from a physical aspect and religion from a
spiritual aspect. They are both describing the same object but from
differing viewpoints.
As mankind's abilities increase the amount of knowledge provided
increases as well.
Pax Terra
The scribes and the Pharisees sit on Moses' seat, so practice and
observe whatever they tell you, but not what they do; for they preach
but do not practice. Matt.23:2-3
Kent Johnson
especially Baha'is, and especially when we might be representing the Faith
of God.
There is no shortage of phenomenon in the universe that is not known, much
less understood. Philosophically speaking it is my understanding of the
Baha'i position that human understanding is a very weak approximation of
God's "pre-existent" reality, and there are more realities than just His
pre-existent reality.
But our understanding is all we have. If people don't understand and we
don't try to explain, and we don't put things into perspective in our
conceptuality we are not using our God-given gifts of comprehension.
In my opinion that would be leaving wonderful tools and great means of
aiding our fellow humanity by the wayside while we concentrate on easier
things.
> So, the next time some well meaning soul brings the Manifestation to
> task that he is being unscientific please, remember we in our
> collective adolescence, really know very little about the multi-layer
> of reality we call physical.
I am not sure I would even say God's manifestation is unscientific. God is
rather more concerned with human progress, if I can generalize His Messages
to earth. Science is part of progress, obviously, but my focus on religion
is more reason-oriented. It doesn't matter to me how graphite strips react
at near absolute zero, but it does matter that we strive to understand
scientific results that are found and move on.
Nice talking to you. --Kent
"albertv" <ajv...@cableone.net> wrote in message
news:121pgvq...@corp.supernews.com...
Bill Pike
wrote:
>Great sentiments, Albert, we must all be careful when we project ideas. But
>especially Baha'is, and especially when we might be representing the Faith
>of God.
Actually the Baha'i Faith IS representing the "Faith of God"
>There is no shortage of phenomenon in the universe that is not known, much
>less understood. Philosophically speaking it is my understanding of the
>Baha'i position that human understanding is a very weak approximation of
>God's "pre-existent" reality, and there are more realities than just His
>pre-existent reality.
I question the last line "and there are more realities than just His
pre-existent reality." Seems to me like God's pre-existent reality is
all there is of reality. Mankind is just limited and confused in what
mankind has attempted to understand and explain of it.
>But our understanding is all we have. If people don't understand and we
>don't try to explain, and we don't put things into perspective in our
>conceptuality we are not using our God-given gifts of comprehension.
>In my opinion that would be leaving wonderful tools and great means of
>aiding our fellow humanity by the wayside while we concentrate on easier
>things.
Like???
>> So, the next time some well meaning soul brings the Manifestation to
>
>> task that he is being unscientific please, remember we in our
>
>> collective adolescence, really know very little about the multi-layer
>
>> of reality we call physical.
>
>I am not sure I would even say God's manifestation is unscientific. God is
>rather more concerned with human progress, if I can generalize His Messages
>to earth.
Looks to me like God is concerned with the progress of His universe,
not just a small group of beings that He placed on a small rocky
object circling a relatively small non-descript hydrogen fusion
reactor. Every individual has a place in the plan and if they do not
fulfill that place another is found to fulfil it.
>Science is part of progress, obviously, but my focus on religion
>is more reason-oriented. It doesn't matter to me how graphite strips react
>at near absolute zero, but it does matter that we strive to understand
>scientific results that are found and move on.
It seems that you seem to feel that science is graven in stone in
letters of gold. The only thing that is constant about science is
that it is always changing. That is why 99.9% of science is theories
and the other 0.1% may not be true. What about the Phelostigon Theory
and the 4 elements of Greek Science?
Science isn't god, science is a process of attempting to understand
phenomena by a dogma of human created rules. Mostly these rules are
derived from Aristotelian and Euclidian logic and the presumption of
causality, which are only internally consistent. There are also some
interesting addenda and changes to the "Laws of Thermodynamics",
Newton's Law of Gravitational Attraction has been superceded by
Einstein Special theory of Relativity. BTW there are many
mathematical systems that are completely internally consistent and
have absolutely no relationship to observed reality what-so-ever
Check out the results of experiments involving prayer and people that
are ill.
"No matter how well you have imagined the universe, the IS has already
imagined it better." Illusions by Richard Bach
Kent Johnson
You: "Actually the Baha'i Faith IS representing the "Faith of God"
But Baha'is aren't always, and that is what I was talking about. I say we
must be careful to differentiate between the ideas we project and the Faith
of God.
> I question the last line "and there are more realities than just His
> pre-existent reality." Seems to me like God's pre-existent reality is
> all there is of reality. Mankind is just limited and confused in what
> mankind has attempted to understand and explain of it.
All humanity will ever know is God's pre-existent reality. We will never
know if there are any other realities. Baha'u'llah has told us that the
worlds of God are numberless. I am just leaving open the possibility that
the word "reality" has a wider meaning than I can conceive.
Me: "In my opinion that would be leaving wonderful tools and great means of
aiding our fellow humanity by the wayside while we concentrate on easier
things."
You: "Like???"
Eating, watching television, reading, writing, arithmatic, spelling... If
we are not trying to understand to the best of our ability and spend our
time on our daily routines we are leaving the work of God to others. Is
this a topic for further discussion?
> Looks to me like God is concerned with the progress of His universe,
> not just a small group of beings that He placed on a small rocky
> object circling a relatively small non-descript hydrogen fusion
> reactor. Every individual has a place in the plan and if they do not
> fulfill that place another is found to fulfil it.
God's message for the people of earth is all I have found so far.
> It seems that you seem to feel that science is graven in stone in
> letters of gold. The only thing that is constant about science is
> that it is always changing. That is why 99.9% of science is theories
> and the other 0.1% may not be true. What about the Phelostigon Theory
> (sic)
> and the 4 elements of Greek Science?
If science even has 1% that is more than you or I do without using the tools
science give us to check our nano percentage against reality. Where I
disagree is when you or someone else say something to the effect of
"science is only 1% true" implying that we don't even have to listen.
Science is a wonderful tool to help us understand reality better. It should
not be discounted. There is nothing better at this time, certainly not the
phlostigon theory of combustion or Empedocles' four elements or humors.
> Science isn't god, science is a process of attempting to understand
> phenomena by a dogma of human created rules. Mostly these rules are
> derived from Aristotelian and Euclidian logic and the presumption of
> causality, which are only internally consistent. There are also some
> interesting addenda and changes to the "Laws of Thermodynamics",
> Newton's Law of Gravitational Attraction has been superceded by
> Einstein Special theory of Relativity. BTW there are many
> mathematical systems that are completely internally consistent and
> have absolutely no relationship to observed reality what-so-ever
Good. Our understanding of the physical universe is evolving. Science is
the best tool we have so far to advance our understanding.
> Check out the results of experiments involving prayer and people that
> are ill.
Yes I have read about it. I am sure as we speak people are using the
scientific method to better understand the power of prayer, and we should
all pray for their success.
--Kent
albertv
>
>> Science is part of progress, obviously, but my focus on religion
>> is more reason-oriented. It doesn't matter to me how graphite strips react
>> at near absolute zero, but it does matter that we strive to understand
>> scientific results that are found and move on.
> It seems that you seem to feel that science is graven in stone in
> letters of gold. The only thing that is constant about science is
> that it is always changing. That is why 99.9% of science is theories
> and the other 0.1% may not be true.
My view of reality or the world of Creation is holistic. Those strips of
Carbon and their unusable behaviour at cooling temperature reveal a new
aspect about creation.
"And whensoever thou dost gaze upon creation all entire, and dost observe
the very atoms thereof, thou wilt note that the rays of the Sun of Truth
are shed upon all things and shining within them, and telling of that
Day-Star's splendours, Its mysteries, and the spreading of Its lights. . ."
(Abdu'l-Baha, Selections from the Writings of Abdu'l-Baha, p. 40)
To search reality we must look in all places and not restrict ourselves to
one or the other world. There is one God and thus only one creation. The
world we are born in is the laboratory and the Manifestation of God is the
Teacher.
I notice that present day science researchers use human qualities to
describe some of the mysterious aspects of physical reality which they
encounter on the subatomic levels of mater.
In centuries to come as the Cause of God transforms mankind what wonders
will the sciences uncover and how descriptive will they be.
It is wondrous, even today how blessed scientific research is in all fields
of endeavor and yet humanity has not yet stepped onto the stage of maturity
the Manifestation of God is leading them to.
Holistic is the watch word in MHO.
Albert
Bill Pike
wrote:
>To search reality we must look in all places and not restrict ourselves to
>one or the other world. There is one God and thus only one creation. The
>world we are born in is the laboratory and the Manifestation of God is the
>Teacher.
>
>I notice that present day science researchers use human qualities to
>describe some of the mysterious aspects of physical reality which they
>encounter on the subatomic levels of mater.
>
>In centuries to come as the Cause of God transforms mankind what wonders
>will the sciences uncover and how descriptive will they be.
>
>It is wondrous, even today how blessed scientific research is in all fields
>of endeavor and yet humanity has not yet stepped onto the stage of maturity
>the Manifestation of God is leading them to.
>
>Holistic is the watch word in MHO.
Exactly! It is much easier to navigate a forest if you look at all
the trees instead of examining each individually.
Pax Terra
Just as a man or a woman has known what is truth, so he or she should
practice that truth with zeal, and should teach it those persons who
should practice it so, as it is!
--Zoroastrianism, Avesta, Yasna 35.6
mavaddat
is the product of our social sphere and history, then it seems like it
would be better to withhold judging the Word of God by the standard of
our common sense. If common sense is the product of our society, then
it is exactly as good ol' Albert said: "Common sense is the collection
of prejudices acquired by age eighteen."
Furthermore, rationality is known to not be a perfect means to all
knowledge. Mathematically, we have proven that even a perfectly
rational mind could never arrive at a formulation of every true
statement. Such an undertaking would inevitably lead to inner
contradictions, and an attempt to clear up the contradictions would
create other contradictions, ad infinitum.
So the question becomes, If we can't trust our common sense (intuition)
and rationality for a perfect perception of truth, then how can we
propose to judge the Writings as false based on that rationality and
common sense?
However, a symmetrical problem I have come to realize is, first of all,
that the same question could be asked about how we could propose to
judge that the Writings are true. Secondly, our common sense (e.g.,
ethical intuitions) and rationality are the best tools that we have.
Just as religion should not contradict the best available science, it
should not contradict the best rationality that our minds can produce,
as individuals.
Take for example, if Bahá'u'lláh had said a bunch of illogical and
inconsistent things and then told you, "Hey, don't judge my words by
your standards of rationality!" You would probably would think twice
about being a Bahá'í.
The early Bahá'ís were, by-and-large, not like this; they were often
quite irrational (or arational, if you like) people, and they acted
mainly on how well the Báb's and Bahá'u'lláh's words agreed with or
increased their understanding of the Qur'án and Islámic traditions.
Of course, if that is to be our standard of truth, then truth becomes a
very subjective thing, and it seems to me that we must admit the truth
of every cult and creed "for the people who follow them".
Post-modernism and an outright rejection of objective truth is the
proper conclusion to this line of reasoning.
In the final analysis, it seems to me that we do judge the word of God
by the standards and sciences that are common to us in this day. And
more importantly, if we are to avoid dogma, then we must judge the Word
of God by this standard. It may not be perfect (it's not!), but it's
the best tool we have.
This is my philosophy. I cannot satisfy myself with a lingering
cognitive dissonance. I will avoid contradiction and irrationality to
the extent possible, even though in the end it be ultimately
impossible. I cannot resign myself to accept outright contradiction, as
in, for example, the contradiction between the idea that humans did not
come from animals and the substantiated account given by modern biology
that all life has a common ancestor.
Kent Johnson
You: "...if our "common sense" is the product of our social sphere and
history, then ..."
In my mind that is a big "if". I wonder where you got that notion.
It seems to me there is a real, true, logical and authentic reality that is
independent of our ability to understand it. I am speaking philosophically,
of course, but in religious terms I call this the "pre-existent" reality as
it pre-exists humanity.
To say that our common sense or logic is a product of our upbringing denies
pre-existent reality, or at least denies our ability to discover that
reality.
I believe we must have faith in our logic and trust scientific method. I
believe that is the way to discover the truth. We should use scientific
method even in our religious faith. That logic, reason, and the sciences
are God-given principles to convince humanity of His truth.
I remember reading some quotes about the re-creation of reality with each
new Manifestation of God on earth. I remember something about the Bab
saying that science and reason was not of paramount importance with the
revelation of the Qur'an when eloquence was more important. But with His
revelation that has changed. Hopefully someone can find that quote for me.
On the whole, therefore, I agree with you:
You:> I cannot satisfy myself with a lingering
> cognitive dissonance. I will avoid contradiction and irrationality to
> the extent possible, even though in the end it be ultimately
> impossible. I cannot resign myself to accept outright contradiction
But I am not sure if you have arrived at the conclusion from the logical
negation of reason to realize that we would then be left with the
unreasonable. But I would like to disagree with you if you are saying there
is a reason we should not "... judge the word of God by the standards and
sciences that are common to us in this day" in this context. If this is a
reference to the Writings I think we need to examine what the Writings say
to you about this.
I believe the Writings are clear that the Revelation is true, real,
reasonable, and laid plain for all who have eyes to see and ears to hear.
Warmly -- Kent
"mavaddat" <mavadda...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1144230447.9...@e56g2000cwe.googlegroups.com...
albertv
> I have been wondering about this for some time: if our "common sense"
> is the product of our social sphere and history, then it seems like it
> would be better to withhold judging the Word of God by the standard of
> our common sense. If common sense is the product of our society, then
> it is exactly as good ol' Albert said: "Common sense is the collection
> of prejudices acquired by age eighteen."
>
> Furthermore, rationality is known to not be a perfect means to all
> knowledge. Mathematically, we have proven that even a perfectly
> rational mind could never arrive at a formulation of every true
> statement. Such an undertaking would inevitably lead to inner
> contradictions, and an attempt to clear up the contradictions would
> create other contradictions, ad infinitum.
> So the question becomes, If we can't trust our common sense (intuition)
> and rationality for a perfect perception of truth, then how can we
> propose to judge the Writings as false based on that rationality and
> common sense?
Just speaking from a "material" point of view, you are right.
"One of the strangest things witnessed is that the materialists of today
are proud of their natural instincts and bondage. They state that nothing
is entitled to belief and acceptance except that which is sensible or
tangible. By their own statements they are captives of nature, unconscious
of the spiritual world, uninformed of the divine Kingdom and unaware of
heavenly bestowals"
(Abdu'l-Baha, Baha'i World Faith - Abdu'l-Baha Section, p. 235)
>
> However, a symmetrical problem I have come to realize is, first of all,
> that the same question could be asked about how we could propose to
> judge that the Writings are true. Secondly, our common sense (e.g.,
> ethical intuitions) and rationality are the best tools that we have.
ONLY to one ". . .unconscious of the spiritual world, uninformed of the
divine Kingdom and unaware of heavenly bestowals"
> Just as religion should not contradict the best available science, it
> should not contradict the best rationality that our minds can produce,
> as individuals.
"The best rational that individuals produce", is a method. Garbage in.
garbage out. To one who has believe in divinity, the method of rational
thought has profound meaning.
> This is my philosophy. I cannot satisfy myself with a lingering
> cognitive dissonance.
This would not appease me, however, I'm glad it satisfies you.
Albert
Douglas McAdam
On Apr 5, 2006, at 12:03 PM, mavaddat wrote:
> In the final analysis, it seems to me that we do judge the word of God
> by the standards and sciences that are common to us in this day. And
> more importantly, if we are to avoid dogma, then we must judge the Word
> of God by this standard. It may not be perfect (it's not!), but it's
> the best tool we have.
Dear friend-
In our Baha'i Writings it states that true science and true religion
are fundamentally in harmony. Have we reached a state of spirituality
where we can claim to have either at this time? I do not believe so
for both are organic processes limited and sometime hindered or
deterred by our lack of spiritual transformation.
I think the best we can do is live the life, meaning to me that we take
the Teachings out of the realm of belief into the realm of true faith
which is conscious knowledge and righteous deeds.
Therefor I don't make judgments, I simply strive to apply what I'm
learning to my own life by also serving God and humanity as our
Writings call for.
Our sciences will undergo great modifications and improvements as the
masses become Baha'is.
To me current standards does not necessarily mean current sciences.
Many people have ideas and interpretations which appear to fit them
logically but that does not mean they have the reality based standard
by which to evaluate the Writings.
regards,
doug
mavaddat
should rely solely on the senses or believe only in what is tangible. I
was merely proposing that a rational is the best way that we can ever
come to say that we know anything objectively. How exactly, if not by
rationality, would you propose that we become conscious of the
spiritual world? How do we become informed of the Divine Kingdom?
mavaddat
remain beyond all human conception. How, then, can we propose to judge
anything by such a standard?
Kent Johnson
You: "Have we reached a state of spirituality where we can claim to have
either (true science or true religion) at this time?"
How does our spirituality dictate whether our science is true?
I can sort of see how you might claim that the general human state of
spirituality in a given culture might affect that culture's religious truth.
But
when you say "true religion" I believe you mean an idealized religion. An
earthly religion will never be "true" religion in the way you seem to
be using those two words.
Maybe you think "true science" is idealized as well. When I talk about
science I am talking about the disciplines of biology, physics, chemistry,
mathematics.... Obviously there will always be more to know. We will never
know everything. So in that way there will never be "true science" just
like there will never be "true religion", if that is your meaning.
You: "I do not believe so for (because) both (science and religion?) are
organic processes limited and sometime hindered or deterred by our lack of
spiritual transformation."
In this sentence you have switched true science and true religion to be
imperfect human science and religion, and attribute the imperfectness of
science and religion to human "lack of spiritual transformation".
I believe neither human science nor human religion will ever be perfect.
Furthermore I don't think the perfection of science and/or religion is
dependent upon human spirituality. Regardless the progress of human
"spiritual transformation" or any other advance, this physical world will
always be imperfect, contingent, flawed, tangential, dependent and relative.
I have several ideas why this is so and I would love to talk with
you sometime.
And what is "the reality based standard by which to evaluate the Writings."?
Nice talking to you again,
--Kent
"Douglas McAdam" <dougla...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:a428b5a4b70ce531...@sbcglobal.net...
mavaddat
to have understood my reply as suggesting that our rationality was an
ineffective tool for discovering truth. On the contrary, it is the only
tool that I know of that can be relied upon for discovering objective
truths. I would have to disagree with the notion that we can ever know
reality as it is in itself, however, as the closest we can get to
knowing anything about reality is an examination of our perceptions of
reality.
Sincerely,
Mavaddat
albertv
If I understand properly what you are saying in the briefest of fashions
would the Master not provide an answer.
"The differences among the religions of the world are due to the varying
types of minds. So long as the powers of the mind are various, it is
certain that men's judgements and opinions will differ one from another.
If, however, one single, universal perceptive power be introduced --
a power encompassing all the rest -- those differing opinions will merge,
and a spiritual harmony and oneness will become apparent. For example,
when the Christ was made manifest, the minds of the various contemporary
peoples, their views, their emotional attitudes, whether they were Romans,
Greeks, Syrians, Israelites, or others, were at variance with one another.
But once His universal power was brought to bear, it gradually succeeded,
after the lapse of three hundred years, in gathering together all those
divergent minds under the protection, and within the governance, of one
central Point, all sharing the same spiritual emotions in their hearts."
(SWA p. 63)
Regards,
Albert
Kent Johnson
> It seems to me that "the reality based standard" is and will always
> remain beyond all human conception. How, then, can we propose to judge
> anything by such a standard?
By using our God-given reason to figure out as best we can meaning in His
reality.
--Kent
Douglas McAdam
Dear friend-
I do not have access to the relative quotes at the moment but there is
one that I recall which says the perfections are endless, that truth is
relative. So I don't know why you say what you say since we all know
that our perceptions are limited and constantly improving from
experience, discovery and revelation.
We can never know the absolute reality of anything but at least we can
strive and understand more and more as we experience things via uses of
our physical senses, intellectual powers and our faith and intuition.
The Prophets of God unveil or reveal reality to us but we perceive it
by the limited means of our knowing powers and thus our understandings
are constantly developing, or at least should be if we are using them
properly for the right purposes. However the Prophet also points out
that all we can know is the effects or qualities of things, not their
essences.
regards,
doug
albertv
We as Bahá’ís have no "Standard" other than this and I venture to say
anyone who has in not, is not a Bahá’í.
"O thou who hast fixed thy gaze upon the Dawning-Place of the Cause of God!
Know thou for a certainty that the Will of God is not limited by the
standards of the people, and God doth not tread in their ways.
Rather is it incumbent upon everyone to firmly adhere to God's straight Path.
Were He to pronounce the right to be the left or the south to be the north,
He speaketh the truth and there is no doubt of it.
Verily He is to be praised in His acts and to be obeyed in His behests.
He hath no associate in His judgement nor any helper in His sovereignty.
He doeth whatsoever He willeth and ordaineth whatsoever He pleaseth.
Know thou moreover that all else besides Him have been created through the
potency of a word from His presence, while of themselves they have no
motion nor stillness, except at His bidding and by His leave.”
(Bahá’u’lláh, Tablets of Bahá’u’lláh, p. 109)
Regards,
Albert
Douglas McAdam
On Apr 7, 2006, at 3:07 PM, mavaddat wrote:
> It seems to me that "the reality based standard" is and will always
> remain beyond all human conception. How, then, can we propose to judge
> anything by such a standard?
> Thank you for your reply Albert. Though I didn't actually say that we
Dear friend-
My mentor spent 35 years indexing the Writings, mostly of the Baha'i
Scriptures, Bible, some from the Qu'ran. She accumulated over 300,000
quotes and cross referenced them to the Three Conditions of Existence,
as well as the various Categories and Classifications of Existence
named in the Writings and the Sub-classifications or Phases of Reality
she discovered in the process. In other words she produced a sort of
beginner phase of any science, the phase of identifying and
classifying, describing defining, etc. the phenomena under study.
Strange thing is that the Phases of Reality grouped themselves by our
three natures, i.e. Animal or Physical Nature, Human Nature and Divine
Nature. They are as follows---
Purpose and Powers---perceived by our power of Faith and Intuition.
Life Pattern,--- a series of Acts strung together in TIME, each with a
Begin and End, or Cause and Effect, or Motive and Result to be seen by
our intellectual powers in the Fourth Dimension of TIME
Immediate Acts, Qualities or Attributes and the Names of things ----to
be seen in the Three Dimensions of Physical Space by our physical
senses.
Our physical senses are the "eyes of the body" so to speak.
The Intellectual power is the "eyes of the mind", so to speak.
The Powers of Faith and Intuition are the "eyes of the heart"
Each nature therefor has an augmentative and unique degree of the
Knowing Power given us by God. Each also has a degree of the Loving
Power too.
So we have a holistic model of reality and we also have identified the
powers of perception enabling us to perceive and react accordingly.
Therefor there is no mystery as to what constitutes reality and we can
see that it also fits the definition of reality which summarily states
that reality has both a material and immaterial or spiritual aspect.
All of this is gained from the Revelations from God. So there is no
excuse any more of not knowing reality or how to deal with it. Reality
has been revealed and so is the Behavior Pattern necessary for us to
face and deal intelligently with it. The Behavior Pattern of each
nature has also been identified.
This is part of what I present in my rehabilitation classes to
criminals and addicts.
One of the ways we teach this is to use the analogy and story about the
wee child seeing for the first time a Toaster.
The child asks -
What is it----and the father says. "It is a Toaster" and thus has Named
it.
What is is made of--the father has the child touch the metal, plastic
etc. and explains how it is wide, tall and long, i.e. the three
dimensions of physical space.
What does it do--again the father will put in a piece of bread and the
child will see it heat and light up and finally the toast will pop up
and thus the Immediate Acts are demonstrated.
He does this several times and the child sees several Acts in
succession each with a Begin and End and thus a Behavior Pattern is
perceived.
What is it for, the child asks--the father explains it is for making
toast for the family and thus has explain the Purpose of the Toaster.
How does it work ---the father explains electricity and how it has both
heat and light and can demonstrate both to the child.
Now if you are lucky the lesson will stop here but many children are
very bright and will ask how the electricity comes from the wall plug,
where does the line come from, how is the millions of watts stepped
down to the level of an appliance and the father must then answer by
explaining the Power Source, the Transformer and types of Appliances or
Lights and how each is used for a specific purpose.
This all can be related to the Three Natures by analogy, by saying our
physical senses are like a 40w bulb and only gives us enough light to
read, and if we turn up the power and have 75w we can see more of a
room and with 100w we get a real good look at all things in the room.
Our three natures shed more light on reality as we turn up the power.
Besides demonstrating the Three Natures, three degrees of Knowing and
Loving powers (KandLpowers or KandLicity) we also are conceptualizing
the Power Source (God) the Transformer (Manifestation) and Applicance
(Creation).
There is more to all this but time and email space is prohibitive.
The point is we DØ know what reality is for it has been divinely
revealed and proven by our knowing capacity. And we DO know how to
react successfully to reality for that too have been revealed by God
through His Manifestations.
As Baha'u'llah has stated---
The first duty prescribed by God for His servants is the recognition of
Him Who is the Dayspring of His Revelation and the Fountain of His
laws, Who
representeth the Godhead in both the Kingdom of His Cause and the world
of
creation. Whoso achieveth this duty hath attained unto all good; and
whoso
is deprived thereof hath gone astray, though he be the author of every
righteous deed. It behoveth everyone who reacheth this most sublime
station, this summit of transcendent glory, to observe every ordinance
of
Him Who is the Desire of the world. These twin duties are inseparable.
Neither is acceptable without the other. Thus hath it been decreed by
Him
Who is the Source of Divine inspiration.
(Baha'u'llah: The Kitab-i-Aqdas, page 19)
Reality in totality has been unveiled to us in this day.
Here is a small excerpt from a talk given years ago by Dr. Daniel C.
Jordan which was based on what has been discovered from the Baha'i
Revelation----
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Throughout history, human beings have felt compelled to accept what has
been intuitively self-evident about themselves, namely that the
phenomenon of life includes far more than a mere collection of chemical
compounds. The “far more” part of life has been and is variously
referred to as the soul or spirit, etc. Such acceptance gave rise to
religion, philosophy, and the arts. Science, however, having adopted a
more limited assumption about the nature of reality of man, has, for
this reason, made its major achievement in understanding the lower
ontological levels of being that are primarily dominated by the
physical laws of physics and chemistry. It is for this reason that we
have achieved such incredible technological advancements, but have not
made too much progress in moral and social development.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
God bless,
doug
albertv
> Thank you for your reply Albert. Though I didn't actually say that we
> should rely solely on the senses or believe only in what is tangible. I
> was merely proposing that a rational is the best way that we can ever
> come to say that we know anything objectively.
One can be scientific 'materialist' in total denial of the spirit.
How exactly, if not by
> rationality, would you propose that we become conscious of the
> spiritual world? How do we become informed of the Divine Kingdom?
>
“Spiritual progress is through the breaths of the Holy Spirit and is the
awakening of the conscious soul of man to perceive the reality of
divinity.” (BWF 226)
"The fourth degree of spirit is the heavenly spirit; it is *the spirit of
faith* and the bounty of God; [Bounty is a gift undeserved] it comes from
the breath of the Holy Spirit, and by the divine power it becomes the cause
of eternal life. It is the power which makes the earthly man heavenly, and
the imperfect man perfect. It makes the impure to be pure, the silent
eloquent; it purifies and sanctifies those made captive by carnal desires;
it makes the ignorant wise." (SAW 142-143)
albert
Kent Johnson
>I find it interesting that you seem
> to have understood my reply as suggesting that our rationality was an
> ineffective tool for discovering truth.
What I understood you to say was that there was some reason you thought we
should not use "our rationality" as a "tool for discovering truth".
I know of no such reason, and that was the gist of my reply.
--Kent
"mavaddat" <mavadda...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1144376227....@g10g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
Bill Pike
I have been following the dialog with interest. However here is
another view of the question. Reality is no more and no less than
your understanding of your perceptions and the inferences you can draw
from them. Everyone has their own "reality"
Therefore everyone's "reality" is different, to varying degrees, from
everyone else's. Admittedly there are parallels but everyone has
their own perception of what "the true reality" is. I would contend
that none is any better than another except to the individual
involved.
Just a thought.
Kent Johnson
You keep asserting what is, in my mind, and error: that we should not
trust reason. When I replied to you that I do not believe "common sense is
the product of our society" you replied that I had misunderstood you.
You variously ask what it means "...if man does not possess such a
faculty..."...rationality is known to not be a perfect means to all
knowledge..." and "How exactly, if not by rationality, would you propose
that we become conscious of the spiritual world?"
My answer each time is that we should trust our rational faculty. There is
no reason I know of to deny our ability discern truth. Your questions are,
in my opinion, answered. "if man does not possess...?" He does.
"Rationality is known to not be perfect?" Nothing is perfect in this world.
We work with the tools we have. "How ... we become conscious..." through
effort and will, doing what we believe, through independent investigation,
is most likely to help accomplish the most good. How do we judge by a
standard that is beyond human conception? Using all the tools we trust.
Thanks for reading. --Kent
"mavaddat" <mavadda...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1144376556.2...@i39g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
mavaddat
the best we can do is speak of how we perceive reality, not how reality
actually is. Mathematically, linguistically, and epistemically, we can
never approach an understanding of "reality" as it is inself. It is
entirely meaningless to speak of a "the reality based standard," since
we can never know such a standard.
mavaddat
>should not use "our rationality" as a "tool for discovering truth".
On the contrary! I think that our rationality is the ONLY means that we
have for discovering truth (at least, the only one that I know of). To
say that our rationality is limited is to not kid myself about the
extent of our rationality.
albertv
>
>> There is no shortage of phenomenon in the universe that is not known, much
>> less understood. Philosophically speaking it is my understanding of the
>> Baha'i position that human understanding is a very weak approximation of
>> God's "pre-existent" reality, and there are more realities than just His
>> pre-existent reality.
> I question the last line "and there are more realities than just His
> pre-existent reality." Seems to me like God's pre-existent reality is
> all there is of reality. Mankind is just limited and confused in what
> mankind has attempted to understand and explain of it.
>
". . . .Difference of condition is an obstacle to knowledge; the inferior
degree cannot comprehend the superior degree. How then can the phenomenal
reality comprehend the Pre-existent Reality?
He 'Abdu'l-Baha lays the 'marker' at the term "condition" of the observer.
". . .Also the difference of condition in the world of beings is an
obstacle to comprehension. For example: this mineral belongs to the mineral
kingdom; however far it may rise, it can never comprehend the power of
growth. The plants, the trees, whatever progress they may make, cannot
conceive of the power of sight or the powers of the other senses; and the
animal cannot imagine the condition of man, that is to say, his spiritual
powers. Difference of condition is an obstacle to knowledge; the inferior
degree cannot comprehend the superior degree. How then can the phenomenal
reality comprehend the Pre-existent Reality? Knowing God, therefore, means
the comprehension and the knowledge of His attributes, and not of His
Reality. This knowledge of the attributes is also proportioned to the
capacity and power of man; it is not absolute. Philosophy consists in
comprehending the reality of things as they exist, according to the
capacity and the power of man. For the phenomenal reality can comprehend
the Pre-existent attributes only to the extent of the human capacity. . . "
(BWF,Abdu'l-Baha Section, p. 322)
Here the limiting factor is the conditions of the soul of the observer.
Understanding is limited to one who's soul is not well polished, so in this
respect as in the scientific field the capacity of the one doing the
investigation is paramount to discovery and understanding.
" . . .The most important thing is to polish the mirrors of hearts in order
that they may become illumined and receptive of the divine light. One heart
may possess the capacity of the polished mirror; another be covered and
obscured by the dust and dross of this world. Although the same Sun is
shining upon both, in the mirror which is polished, pure and sanctified you
may behold the Sun in all its fullness, glory and power revealing its
majesty and effulgence, but in the mirror which is rusted and obscured
there is no capacity for reflection although so far as the Sun itself is
concerned it is shining thereon and is neither lessened nor deprived.
Therefore our duty lies in seeking to polish the mirrors of our hearts in
order that we shall become reflectors of that light and recipients of the
divine bounties which may be fully revealed through them. . . "
(BWF, Abdu'l-Baha Section, p. 217)
Regards,
Albert
Kent Johnson
To brush up on my college logic, the issue here seems to be a negative and a
negative leads to a positive. It is kind of like saying "if wishes were
horses beggars would ride" or "if you do that I will eat my hat".
If logic is based upon humanity then what would we have to say to make the
statement true? Beggars would ride? I'll eat my hat?
You: > if our "common sense"
>is the product of our social sphere and history, then it seems like it
>would be better to withhold judging the Word of God by the standard of
>our common sense.
If common sense is not from God then we should not judge the Word with
common sense.
In logical terms that is an untrue statement leading to an untrue statement,
so it is true.
To state the same logic in a positive fashion, a true statement therefore a
true conclusion: "Common sense is from God, so we should therefore
positively judge the Word of God with common sense."
You: >If common sense is the product of our society, then
>it is exactly as good ol' Albert said: "Common sense is the collection
>of prejudices acquired by age eighteen."<
Or to state it as a positive: "If common sense is God-given, then common
sense is not prejudice."
Maybe you were looking for proof that common sense was from God. That would
be a wonderful topic for conversation if you would like to talk about that.
I would start by pointing out that the universe must be ruled by something,
however dimly we can discern that something. If we accept that starting
point, it will not take long to validate logic as intrinsic to reality.
Thanks for reading, --Kent
"mavaddat" <mavadda...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1144745133.7...@g10g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
Douglas McAdam
Dear friend-
First you say the above and then you offered this below--
> What I understood you to say was that there was some reason you
> thought we
> should not use "our rationality" as a "tool for discovering truth".
On the contrary! I think that our rationality is the ONLY means that we
have for discovering truth (at least, the only one that I know of). To
say that our rationality is limited is to not kid myself about the
extent of our rationality.
How can we discover truth if we can never have a reality based standard
by which to
determine what truth is?
I believe there IS a reality that is defined for us in our Revelation
and I also believe that our perceptions of it are limited by our human
faculties of senses, intellect and faith and maybe that is why we need
the principle of consultation to promote and sustain unity of thought
and action. But nevertheless I believe there IS definitely an overall
reality.
regards,
doug
Douglas McAdam
Maybe the following essay on reality might be of interest.
The following explanation given by 'Abdu'l-Bahá, in Promulgation of
Universal Peace, is especially helpful:
DIVINITY AND REALITY ARE ONE
Material virtues have attained great development but ideal virtues have
been left far behind. If you should ask a thousand persons, "What
proofs have you regarding the essence of God?" "How do you explain
inspiration and revelation?" "What are the evidences of conscious
intelligence beyond the material universe?" "Can you suggest a plan and
method for the betterment of human moralities?" "Can you clearly define
and differentiate the world of nature and the world of divinity?") -
you would receive very little real knowledge and enlightenment upon
these questions. This is due to the fact that development of the ideal
virtues has been neglected. People speak of divinity but the ideas and
beliefs they have of divinity are in reality superstition. Divinity is
the effulgence of the Sun of Reality, the manifestation of spiritual
virtues and ideal powers. The intellectual proofs of divinity are
based upon observation and evidence which constitute decisive argument,
logically proving the reality of divinity, the effulgence of mercy, the
certainty of inspiration and immortality of the spirit. This is in
reality the science of divinity. Divinity is not what is set forth in
dogmas and sermons of the church. Ordinarily when the word divinity is
mentioned it is associated in the minds of the hearers with certain
formulae and doctrines whereas it essentially means the wisdom and
knowledge of God, the effulgence of the Sun of Truth, the revelation of
reality and divine philosophy.
Philosophy is of two kinds; natural and divine. Natural philosophy
seeks knowledge of physical verities and explains material phenomena
whereas divine philosophy deals with ideal verities and phenomena of
the spirit. The field and scope of natural philosophy have been greatly
enlarged and its accomplishments are most praiseworthy, for it has
served humanity; but according to the evidence of present world
conditions, divine philosophy which has for its object the sublimation
of human nature, spiritual advancement, heavenly guidance for the
development of the human race. attainment to the breaths of the Holy
Spirit and knowledge of the verities of God, has been outdistanced and
neglected. Now is the time for us to make an effort and enable it to
advance space with the philosophy of material investigation so that
awakening of the ideal virtues may progress equally with the unfoldment
of the natural powers In the same proportion that the body of man is
developing, the spirit of man must be strengthened, and just as his
outer perceptions have been quickened, his inner intellectual powers
must be sensitized so that he need not rely wholly upon tradition and
human precedent. In divine questions we must not depend entirely upon
the heritage of tradition and former human experience; nay, rather, we
must exercise reason, analyze and logically examine the facts presented
so that confidence will be inspired and faith attained. Then and then
only the reality of things will be revealed to us.
Kent Johnson
You: "... if our "common sense" is the product of our social sphere and
history, "
Me: Our common sense is all we have, and it is not the product of our
social sphere and history. I believe the contrary is true. Our social
sphere and history are a product of our common sense.
If our common sense is not a God-given to ensure that humanity will progress
toward His Divine Will, then what are you talking about?
Your words say: If rationality is relative only to humanity then it is
nonsense.
Was there something else?
--Kent
albertv
> Hi mavaddat, nice to hear from you.
>
> You: "...if our "common sense" is the product of our social sphere and
> history, then ..."
>
> In my mind that is a big "if". I wonder where you got that notion.
>
>
> Warmly -- Kent
>
[Common sense is] a form of evidence that is based on conventional wisdom,
tradition, or someone’s personal philosophy or perspective. It is hard to
judge the validity and reliability of common sense because little
supporting evidence is involved. Most people judge the validity and
reliability of 'common sense' by the person citing 'common sends' as the
basis for a decision. However, common sense can be a very biased approach
to decision making and means nothing more than “what is common to me makes
sense.
www2.uta.edu/ssw/trainasfa/glossary.htm
Albert
Kent Johnson
Bill Pike wrote: "Seems to me like God's pre-existent reality is all there
is of reality."
The way I understand the term pre-existent reality is pre-existent reality
is the set of the potential knowledge of humanity. We will never know all
of pre-existent reality, but that is all that we *might* ever know.
I believe that beyond pre-existent reality is that which is entirely unknown
and not possible to know. It is the set of all of the unknown in the
universe. We could probably name an example of that kind of impossible
knowledge, like the square root of negative one, or what day of the week was
the Big Bang, oh I could have fun with this one.
Beyond that there is still aspects and attributes to reality that are not
related to human knowledge at all. For example I say pre-existent knowledge
is the set of potential human knowledge, what is the set of potential animal
knowledge? Is that the same set? Obviously animals do not use words and
concepts to define their knowledge, so their potential knowledge is very
different. And then there would be the set of knowledge from beings on
other worlds, both physical and spiritual worlds. It becomes pointless to
speculate very quickly.
Thanks for reading. --Kent
"albertv" <ajv...@cableone.net> wrote in message
news:123nqop...@corp.supernews.com...
albertv
>
> Me: Our common sense is all we have, and it is not the product of our
> social sphere and history. I believe the contrary is true. Our social
> sphere and history are a product of our common sense.
>
> If our common sense is not a God-given to ensure that humanity will progress
> toward His Divine Will, then what are you talking about?
Albert's responds,
"Intellect and the faculty of comprehension are God's gifts whereby man is
distinguished from other animals."
(C of C vol II, p. 247)
The extent of God's gifts to us are dependent upon our purity in response
to the Message. My 'center' is the Baha'i Writings, prayer, living the life
and those whom I perceive to be 'lover' of the Blessed Beauty, relative to
my present progress.
The following quotation of Baha'u'llah to me signifies the goal of our
ultimate objective.
"O thou who hast soared to the realm of guidance and ascended to the
kingdom of virtue! Shouldst thou desire to apprehend these celestial
allusions, to witness the mysteries of divine knowledge, and to become
acquainted with His all-encompassing Word, then it behoveth thine eminence
to inquire into these and other questions pertaining to thine origin and
ultimate goal from those whom God hath made to be the Wellspring of His
knowledge, the Heaven of His wisdom, and the Ark of His mysteries."
"For were it not for those effulgent Lights that shine above the horizon of
His Essence, the people would know not their left hand from their right,
how much less could they scale the heights of the inner realities or probe
the depths of their subtleties! We beseech God therefore to immerse us in
these surging seas, to grace us with the presence of these life-bearing
breezes, and to cause us to abide in these divine and lofty precincts."
"Perchance we may divest ourselves of all that we have taken from each
other and strip ourselves of such borrowed garments as we have stolen from
our fellow men, that He may attire us instead with the robe of His mercy
and the raiment of His guidance, and admit us into the city of knowledge."
(Baha'u'llah, Gems of Divine Mysteries, p. 15)
This part is my conception of "common sense",
". . .Perchance we may divest ourselves of all that we have taken from each
other and strip ourselves of such borrowed garments as we have stolen from
our fellow men, . . ."
Regards,
Albert
>
> --Kent
>
Kent Johnson
>[Common sense is] a form of evidence that is based on conventional wisdom,
>tradition, or someone’s personal philosophy or perspective.<
Perhaps we should distinguish between pure mathematical logic from common
sense. I was assuming that this conversation concerned "common sense" as
the common (like us, for example) person's rationality. But we need to be
careful to note that it used to be common sense that black people were
inferior to white people, women were inferior to men, the sun passed over
the flat earth each day, and all manner of rationalizations we find
ridiculous today.
Not sure how this nod to the frailty of human knowledge concerns this
discussion. Do you have some ideas about that?
--Kent
"albertv" <ajv...@cableone.net> wrote in message
news:123nr3f...@corp.supernews.com...
albertv
>
> How can we discover truth if we can never have a reality based standard
> by which to
> determine what truth is?
>
>
> regards,
> doug
>
". . ., shall blind imitations of ancestral forms and theological
interpretations continue to guide and control the religious life and
spiritual development of humanity today?"
. . . [could be called common sense][AV] . . .
"Shall man gifted with the power of reason unthinkingly follow and adhere
to dogma, creeds and hereditary beliefs which will not bear the analysis of
reason in this century of effulgent reality? Unquestionably this will not
satisfy men of science, for when they find premise or conclusion contrary
to present standards of proof and without real foundation, they reject that
which has been formerly accepted as standard . . ."
. . . .[accepted as common sense][AV]. . .
'. . . and correct and move forward from new foundations."
(BWF- Abdu'l-Baha Section, p. 225)
Thus all standards are relative and not absolute. HOWEVER, a 'Standard' is
a requirement.
Regards,
Albert
Kent Johnson
I was confused by Mavvadat's original message. He seemed to be saying that
there was a reason we should not use our common sense, as though it was in
the Writings somewhere. You are pointing out that it is in the Writings
that we should not use "common" sense, but instead our independent
rationality, to investigate for ourselves, and not use the rationality of
others. Perhaps that is what Mavvadat meant originally.
When I asked if there was something more I was meaning that I didn't
understand why this thread was devoting so much space to the obvious: we
should use our God-given sense.
Thanks, --Kent
"albertv" <ajv...@cableone.net> wrote in message
news:123qg3q...@corp.supernews.com...
albertv
Kent Johnson wrote:
> Hi Albert, really good to hear from you again. I thought I'd lost you.
>
>> [Common sense is] a form of evidence that is based on conventional wisdom,
>> tradition, or someone’s personal philosophy or perspective.<
>
> Perhaps we should distinguish between pure mathematical logic from common
> sense. I was assuming that this conversation concerned "common sense" as
> the common (like us, for example) person's rationality.
But we need to be
> careful to note that it used to be common sense that black people were
> inferior to white people, women were inferior to men, the sun passed over
> the flat earth each day, and all manner of rationalizations we find
> ridiculous today.
Yet, today the general "common sense" in the society I live in does not
include "Progressive Revelation" which absence from the common view in the
future be just as ridiculous as what you said above. "Common sense" is not
a reliable standard in this day as societies by enlarge are disintegrating.
"Common sense" is the lowest denominator of a societal point of view. You
or I, or both of us may discover a particular reality through experiment
(scientifically) of which the wider community of our peer is ignorant. As
we present our findings it would be unhelpful for someone to discount our
conclusion by saying that it does not make "common sense".
This by the way was how this thread started. The generality of the
Scientific community had come to believe that "all" matter slowed as it
approached 'absolute zero'. They found that some electrons in graphite had
none of the signs of slowing down. This to me was significant in that it
pointed out that however far we may think we have advanced in our
scientific endeavors, there are realities out there which are radically
different from our present and adolescent view of reality, as the
Manifestation has told us about.
It is of interest to note that the behavior of the electron in graphite was
not predicted (discovered) by the use of "pure mathematical logic",
although mathematical logic maybe used to incorporate the new phenomenon
into the picture we presently hold in common.
Regards.
Albert
Kent Johnson
'Standard' is
a requirement."
It seems to me that you are saying we should use our "common sense" as in
use the logic and reasoning we find in the Writings as our standard when the
Writings themselves say the opposite.
When you say "Thus..." it seems to me you are using the Writings you just
quoted as a proof. That something is written in the Writings does not, to
me, constitute a proof. A proof must be evident, reasonable, logical,
comprehensible in and of itself, independent of the Writings.
I say the Writings are not a proof. The Writings are a source of
inspiration, a resource to help bring us to our independent realizations
that we need to progress spiritually and perform God's work.
I believe it is a very different thing to refer to the Writings as if they
will direct us toward a comprehension of an issue, than it is to refer to
the Writings as an authority to answer a question (except in administrative
issues).
Just wondering what you think about that.
--Kent
"albertv" <ajv...@cableone.net> wrote in message
news:123qgtu...@corp.supernews.com...
mavaddat
intuition" when I wrote "common sense". What I meant was basically that
a person must use their own understanding to arrive at the truth, since
(although it be limited and flawed) that is the only means that a
person has for understanding the truth. This is not to say that a
person should not develop their understanding, just that they should
only use their understanding and not someone else's.
Sincerely,
Mavaddat
mavaddat
Immanuel Kant used it) as opposed to "the collection of social biases"
one has accumulated. I'm sorry for the confusion. I do not believe,
however, that the "pure intuition" is necessarily infallible, however,
I think it is the only way to arrive at "snythetic" a priori (prior to
observation) knowledge.
Sincerely,
Mavaddat
albertv
Kent Johnson wrote:
> Albert wrote: "Thus all standards are relative and not absolute. HOWEVER, a
> 'Standard' is
> a requirement."
>
> It seems to me that you are saying we should use our "common sense" as in
> use the logic and reasoning we find in the Writings as our standard when the
> Writings themselves say the opposite.
Please, be "SPECIFIC", Kent.
>
> When you say "Thus..." it seems to me you are using the Writings you just
> quoted as a proof.
Which writting, specificly, Kent?
That something is written in the Writings does not, to
> me, constitute a proof. A proof must be evident, reasonable, logical,
> comprehensible in and of itself, independent of the Writings.
That is were your understanding breaks down Kent.
>
> I say the Writings are not a proof.
Too, bad.
The Writings are a source of
> inspiration, a resource to help bring us to our independent realizations
> that we need to progress spiritually and perform God's work.
Without reason, which you do not see in the writings?
>
> I believe it is a very different thing to refer to the Writings as if they
> will direct us toward a comprehension of an issue,than it is to refer to
> the Writings as an authority to answer a question (except in administrative
> issues).
That is were we differ and thus we will not about this again. It would be a
wast of time.
>
> Just wondering what you think about that.
You got the answer than. Would there be anything else?
mavaddat
conforms to. I do not, however believe that humans can ever know
anything about that reality. In fact, there is no way to discover truth
in the sense that (it seems to me) you would like. Truth, as it is in
itself will always remain beyond all human conception. This is
demonstrated by Kant in his Critic of Pure Reason, and proven by Kurt
Godel in his incompleteness theorems. It is interesting that
philosophers like the late Dr. William Hatcher (whom I greatly respect
and whose wisdom I followed) try to transcend this limitation by an
appeal to religion. However, these limitations are not separate from
religion, but include it!
Sincerely,
Mavaddat
mavaddat
the eating the hat business. In fact, I'm quite sure you didn't
understand the intention of my original post. You still seem to think
that I believe that common sense and rationality are poor standards of
truth. Otherwise, why would you be so interested in the first half of
my original post, and not the second half where I argue that
rationality, albiet limited, is the best means we have to ariving at a
sound knowledge of the truth?
Mav
Kent Johnson
You: "I'm quite sure you didn't understand the intention of my original
post."
I am okay with that if you are.
You: >You still seem to think
> that I believe that common sense and rationality are poor standards of
> truth.
I thought you were saying that there was something wrong with using our
common sense and rationality to discern truth. To me that is given. We
have to use our rational nature, that's all we have that we can trust.
Nice talking to you. --Kent
"mavaddat" <mavadda...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1144954130.6...@z34g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
Kent Johnson
> Please, be "SPECIFIC", Kent.
I am trying, Albert.
Me: >> When you say "Thus..." it seems to me you are using the Writings you
just
>> quoted as a proof.
>
You" > Which writting, specificly, Kent?
The Baha'i Writings, I take them as a whole and when I refer to them I
capitalize the first letter: Writings.
Me: > That something is written in the Writings does not, to
>> me, constitute a proof. A proof must be evident, reasonable, logical,
>> comprehensible in and of itself, independent of the Writings.
>
You: > That is were your understanding breaks down Kent.
Where?
You: > Without reason, which you do not see in the writings?<
I see plenty of reason in the Writings. What I don't do is say that "It is
in the Writings so it must be true". If it is true that is self-evident.
The Writings are inspirational and lead all who read them to an ocean of
knowledge. But it does not work the other way. Something is not true just
because you find it in the Writings. That is my point. It is true because
it is reasonable, not vice versa.
> That is were we differ and thus we will not about this again. It would be
a
> wast of time.<
I thought this was just the place to talk about such things.
--Kent
"albertv" <ajv...@cableone.net> wrote in message
news:123t58r...@corp.supernews.com...
mavaddat
am, in essence, suggesting that natural philosophy is the only means
whereby man can arrive at (a glimpse of) truth and divine philosophy is
the surest means to dogmata and pure fancy. My conclusion is based on
the realization that man is bounded by what he can experience, and any
speculation beyond that is an extension of the understanding into a
place where it has no footing and is thereby wont to conjecture to no
end and without a rational basis. I don't mean to offend, this is
simply the conclusion that I have come to in the recent days and in my
observation of those who will follow a "divine" philosophy.
Sincerely,
Mavaddat
albertv
". . .Mathematical developments in the past two hundred years, however,
have challenged Kant's theory of mathematical knowledge in fundamental
respects. . . "
Want to follow the whole he criticism,
http://www.integralscience.org/sacredscience/SS_kant.html
Regards,
Albert
albertv
Kent Johnson wrote:
>
> You: > Without reason, which you do not see in the writings?<
>
> I see plenty of reason in the Writings. What I don't do is say that "It is
> in the Writings so it must be true". If it is true that is self-evident.
> The Writings are inspirational and lead all who read them to an ocean of
> knowledge. But it does not work the other way. Something is not true just
> because you find it in the Writings. That is my point. It is true because
> it is reasonable, not vice versa.
>
> > That is were we differ and thus we will not about this again. It would be
> a
>> wast of time.<
>
> I thought this was just the place to talk about such things.
>
> --Kent
>
I like to talk with Baha'is with whom I can find connections in the
writings, sorry Kent we are unable to connect in this manner. I'm sure
you'll find those who like to talk in you're style.
Regards,
Albert
albertv
You mean like E. Kant
Albert
Kent Johnson
> I like to talk with Baha'is with whom I can find connections in the
> writings, sorry Kent we are unable to connect in this manner. I'm sure
> you'll find those who like to talk in you're style.
I don't know that I have a style, but I do have an issue. And you and I
have touched upon that issue.
It seems to me many Baha'is search the Writings for passages to prove a
point of logic or reason or philosophy. I think that comes dangerously
close to blind faith, which is prohibited by the Baha'i Faith.
I am not talking about points of administration or the belief system of the
Baha'i Faith. Obviously we need the Writings to guide us on administrative
procedure and to clarify what it is we believe. For example, if we quote
the Writings to show that Baha'is believe that reality has always existed
that is correct. That is what Baha'is believe.
But when we use the Writings, for example, to prove that reality has always
existed that is putting the cart before the horse. Baha'is believe that
reality has always existed because it is true, it fits into our belief
system, it is how we look at the world, not because someone said so, even if
that Someone is Baha'u'llah. To believe it because someone said so is blind
faith.
We refer to the Writings to find inspiration and clarification on
administrative, philosophical and religious issues. But we are supposed to
investigate the truth independently. We do not suspend that investigation
when we join the Baha'i Faith.
Thanks for reading. And I hope you and I can talk about this some more in
the future. --Kent
"albertv" <ajv...@cableone.net> wrote in message
news:123u8b1...@corp.supernews.com...
Douglas McAdam
Are you saying that the Manifestations of God are capable of revealing
untruths?
I do not understand what you mean by saying the Writings are not truth
they are only inspirational.
To me they are pure truth and inspirational but we must believe and
then put them to test to validate them in practice.
regards,
doug
mavaddat
>Reality is no more and no less than
>your understanding of your perceptions and the inferences you can draw
>from them. Everyone has their own "reality"
>Therefore everyone's "reality" is different, to varying degrees, from
>everyone else's.
Precisely, Bill. This is the reason why I am suggesting that a "Reality
based standard" is impossible to acheive (and know that we have
acheived it).
Sincerely,
Mavaddat
mavaddat
>But when we use the Writings, for example, to prove that reality has always
>existed that is putting the cart before the horse. Baha'is believe that
>reality has always existed because it is true, it fits into our belief
>system, it is how we look at the world, not because someone said so, even if
>that Someone is Baha'u'llah. To believe it because someone said so is blind
>faith.
Kent, you have written precisely the point I was and am trying to make:
If we assume the conclusion that we are supposed to set out to
investigate (merely because Bahá'u'lláh said it, for example), we are
committing a fallacy (namely, the fallacy of "affirming the
consequent"). For example, If reality (the universe?) has always
existed, then Bahá'u'lláh was correct (not the other way around!).
>We do not suspend that investigation
>when we join the Baha'i Faith.
Unfortunately, it is quite easy to suspend investigation when a person
joins a religion. They think that the religion gives them all the
answers, so there is no reason to work through the process of thinking
about whether those answers are actually correct. They merely have
"faith". But, as I have written elsewhere, faith gives a man no
knowledge, but what he knows is a great source of his faith.
mavaddat
While I believe there exists a reality apart from our perception of it,
the idea that we can use our rationality to reach an understanding of
the "reality based standard" or anything about reality as it is in
itself (apart from our perception) is what I am suggesting is
impossible. Although our rationality is limited, I still think it is
the only useful means whereby we can investigate the truth.
I hope that clarifies matters.
Sincerely,
Mavaddat
mavaddat
his name to "Immanuel," so it's actually I. Kant.
Mav
Kent Johnson
> Are you saying that the Manifestations of God are capable of revealing
> untruths?
Oh no, not at all. I hate to speculate why you think I would be saying
that. I do not want to assume too much about what you believe.
> I do not understand what you mean by saying the Writings are not truth
> they are only inspirational.
The ideas revealed by God in the Writings represent the Truth of God as
revealed to humanity through His Manifestation on earth. The Truth of God
exists absolutely. But humanity's understanding of that Truth is imperfect.
The Manifestation is the intermediary, and the Manifestation left the
Writings as a token of grace unto the righteous...
The Manifestation of God is the intermediary that revealed, in several ways,
the Truth to imperfect humanity. One of those ways survives as the
Writings.
The Writings are not the truth, but they represent the Truth as well as it
is possible to represent the Truth of God to imperfect humanity. But the
Writings are not the only thing that represents God's Truth to humanity, and
we can talk about that another time if you will be so kind.
If humanity misunderstands or misinterprets or in any way distorts God's
Truth as represented by the Manifestation it is humanity's fault, not God's.
So it is up to us, who understand (imperfectly) to guard and treasure and
strive to comprehend the Writings. We must be careful not to believe we
know the Truth, because all we have are our own truths: our treasure, our
knowledge, our wisdom.
The only way we can know what the Writings represent is to independently
investigate and comprehend for ourselves the Truth as our own truths. A
quote from the Writings may be clear and it may inspire and it may clearly
elucidate a point for you, but mean something completely different to
someone else. The Truth, however, is a third thing.
So my point is, no matter how clearly the Writings say something to you the
Truth is something different. What we have is our knowledge, not the Truth.
We have the Writings, not the Truth. What we understand is our own truth,
not the Writings. We can quote the Writings, share them, shout them from
the rooftops, but our understanding is ours alone.
The way I put it most of the time is that something is true because it is
reasonable, not vice versa. If it were true first before we put it to
reason there would be no need to try to understand. We would blindly accept
what someone else said, not investigating independently as we are commanded
to do by God. We would never comprehend.
Hope this helps you understand me better.
--Kent
"Douglas McAdam" <dougla...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:d933675f4ab2560e...@sbcglobal.net...
mavaddat
>You keep asserting what is, in my mind, and error: that we should not
>trust reason.
Well in a way I think that we should not trust reason, but I have
reasons for this mistrust! That may sound contradictory, but there are
actually proofs that human reason is bounded or ultimately inconsistent
(cf. Kurt Godel's incompleteness theorems).
On the other hand, despite this limitation, I believe that rationality
is the only thing we can trust to give us a glimpse of the truth.
I hope that clarifies.
Sincerely,
Mavaddat
mavaddat
corresponding to our experience of space was premature, however this
criticism is wholly irrelevant to the idea of "pure intuition" and to
Kant's system as a whole (since it did not rely on the possibility of
geometry necessarily corresponding to our experience of space for its
validity).
Thank you for the article though, it was fascinating. I had been
looking for something like that for a while.
Sincerely,
Mavaddat
Douglas McAdam
Many years ago I had asked similar questions to my mentor and teacher
and this is an excerpt from her letter to me --
Senses perceives only 3 dimensions of physical
space
Rational Powers : perceives ony 4 dimensions that we know are
fallible because-
Reasoning is only accurate when based on absolutely
true assumptions.
Imagination sees the unreal as readily as the real
Memory is very limited in scope (tradition)
Inspiration or intuition is often indistinguishable
from imagination
Faith enables a person to believe in untruth as
well as truth. It is only
dependable in the light of Divine
Revelation, and what it sees then is
still only in terms of its own human
concepts.
"We beg them not to depend upon their intellect,
their comprehension and learning, nor to contend with the Revealer of
celestial and infinite knowledge" (Kitab-i-Iqan 248).
"The human spirit, unless assisted by the spirit of faith, does not
become acquainted with the divine secrets and the heavenly
realities.” BWF p.317
“ A purely intellectual approach may so cloud the heartthat the rays of
the Sun of Truth are unable to shine within it. What the believer
needs, is to open his heart to the influences of the Revelation of
Bahá’u’lláh, to commune with His spirit, rejoice in His Name and seek
especially the companionship of His true lovers. Without the infusion
of the spirit of faith in his life, without turning his heart in
humbleness to Bahá’u’lláh, he cannot deepenhimself in the Cause,
because the knowledge of God is first reflected within the heart of
man, and then his intellect will grasp it.” The Revelation of
Bahá’u’lláh, by Adib Taherzadeh Vol. III, pp.325-6)
( yy ) The power and the comprehension of the human spirit… perceive
and act in two different modes. One way is through instruments and
organs…. The other… is without instruments and organs.
(`Abdu'l-Baha: Some Answered Questions, Page: 227)
( zz ) The soul has two main faculties. (a) As outer circumstances are
communicated to the soul by the eyes, ears, and brain of a man, so does
the soul communicate its desires and purposes through the brain to the
hands and tongue of the physical body, thereby expressing itself…. (b)
The second faculty of the soul expresses itself… and functions without
the help of the material bodily senses… This proves… the superiority of
the soul of man over his body, the superiority of spirit over matter.
(`Abdu'l-Baha: Paris Talks*, Page: 86)
regards,
doug
Kent Johnson
My memory of Gödel's theorems is a proof that what is true is always more
than what can be proven. I remember a clever trick, that of adding to the
proof something to the effect "if this proof is true, this statement is
false". So either the proof itself fails, or the truth is outside of the
proof, unverifiable by the proof alone.
In my mind, so long as we know our limitations and are inclined to work
around those limitations, there are no limitations.
Thanks for reading. --Kent
"mavaddat" <mavadda...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1145052354....@z34g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
mavaddat
>around those limitations, there are no limitations.
I don't understand how merely acknowledging our limitations allows us
to transcend them, if that is what you are suggesting. It is like
suggesting to a body builder that if he only *realizes* that he cannot
lift 2 tonnes, he will be able to do it. On the face of it, such a
suggestion seems somewhat ludicrous. However, the limitation to
knowledge implied by Godel's theorems (and those of Willard Van Orman
Quine) is even more considerable since it is not just a hypothetical
limitation (which could be transcended if only we could...), but a
logical limitation.
>My memory of Gödel's theorems is a proof that what is true is always more
>than what can be proven.
Actually, there are two sides to Gödel's theorems: first, a complete
axiomatic system using even mathematically precise language (where
every statement is logically derived from basic axioms) will
necessarily contain contradictions; second, which the corollary to the
first, any axiomatic system which is consistent will be incomplete. The
upshot is that either our language will inevitibly lead us to
contradictions or else it must be limited.
Kent Johnson
> I don't understand how merely acknowledging our limitations allows us
> to transcend them<
I was talking in the context of Gödel's theorems. In my mind it is not a
limitation to realize, for example, that there is more truth than what I can
prove, or that irrational and imaginary numbers exist, or that there is more
in the universe than we can know. It is part of truth to realize that, and
that is no reasonable limitation. There is a reasonable limitation on what
is possible and we cannot do the impossible, and suggesting that we should
be able to do the impossible is not a rational suggestion.
> It is like
> suggesting to a body builder that if he only *realizes* that he cannot
> lift 2 tonnes, he will be able to do it. On the face of it, such a
> suggestion seems somewhat ludicrous.
Obviously any body builder will realize that he/she will not be able to lift
several times more than the most anyone has ever lifted in history. Such a
body builder as the one you suggest is an unreasonable person. A reasonable
body builder will not attempt something so far beyond human capability and
instead will be happy to attempt building up his/her body rather than
attempting to best an hydraulic lift truck.
>However, the limitation to
> knowledge implied by Godel's theorems (and those of Willard Van Orman
> Quine) is even more considerable since it is not just a hypothetical
> limitation (which could be transcended if only we could...), but a
> logical limitation.
We are logically limited from computing the square root of negative one, but
that is no reasonable limitation either. The knowledge of what is possible
and impossible empowers us, it does not defeat us. We are logically limited
from paving the roads with human heads and I am not the least bit tempted to
surpass that limitation either.
If this is the kind of limitation you are talking about we have a very deep
disagreement. I don't believe acknowledging a reasonable limit in what we
can know is a problem. I understood you to be talking about the fact that
we will never understand God's Truth, which in my mind is no limitation
because there is enough truth for us to know without His. Neither are
Gödel's theorems, imaginary numbers, or any of the limitations on reason
that I can think of.
I was not aware of Gödel's work on logical contradictions, and I could not
find it googling. Could you please direct me where I can find more about
that? It does not seem reasonable to me the way you described it here.
Thanks, and nice talking to you. --Kent
"mavaddat" <mavadda...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1145329750....@i40g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
======================================= MODERATOR'S COMMENT:
Responses should address the Baha'i Faith
Kent Johnson
> Many years ago I had asked similar questions to my mentor and teacher ...
What sort of question were you asked?
>From the quotes you supplied it seems as though you might be defending an
idea about faith.
> Faith enables a person to believe in untruth as well as truth. It is only
> dependable in the light of Divine Revelation, and what it sees then is
> still only in terms of its own human concepts.
I think we need to talk about what faith is in your mind. Encarta says this
about faith: "belief in, devotion to, or trust in somebody or something,
especially without logical proof"
I don't think faith can survive long without proof, however. If we don't
get something from our faith then what do we keep it for? But I think we
can have faith that the sun will come up tomorrow, that our families will
support and love us through good times and bad, and that our religion is
true. If our faith lead us consistently to "untruth" I believe we would
lose faith. Therefore I think faith should be investigated. We need to
know if our faith is true.
> "We beg them not to depend upon their intellect,
> their comprehension and learning, nor to contend with the Revealer of
> celestial and infinite knowledge" (Kitab-i-Iqan 248).
This quote is in the context of the time of the Mustaghath and Baha'u'llah
is begging the people of the Bayan not to depend upon their intellect,
comprehension and learning, but instead to be enlightened, to "soar in the
realm of the spirit and abide therein, will discern the Truth, and recognize
with the eye of insight dissembling falsehood."
(Baha'u'llah, The Kitab-i-Iqan, p. 248)
So I read Him to say that we should not rely on what we have been taught,
but rather independently seek insight into truth and falsehood. What do you
think it says?
> "The human spirit, unless assisted by the spirit of faith, does not become
> acquainted with the divine secrets and the heavenly realities.” BWF p.317
To continue your quote: "It is like a mirror which, although clear,
polished, and brilliant, is still in need of light. Until a ray of the sun
reflects upon it, it cannot discover the heavenly secrets. (Abdu'l-Baha,
Baha'i World Faith - Abdu'l-Baha Section, p. 317)
That one is very clear, and I do not see any way this quote says that faith
should be without logical proof.
In fact, I don't even know if you are saying faith should be without logical
proof. I am just guessing. And since you might not even read what I write
at all I will just stop here.
Let me know if you want me to continue sometime.
--Kent
"Douglas McAdam" <dougla...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:abb665f23de2e990...@sbcglobal.net...
======================================= MODERATOR'S COMMENT:
Please folks, watch the length of your trailers--mod
sma...@jam.rr.com
> I don't think faith can survive long without proof, however. If we don't
> get something from our faith then what do we keep it for?
Dear Kent,
As Pascal once said, "The heart has reasons which reason knows not of."
There are other kinds of proofs than the logical kind.
warmest, Susan
Kent Johnson
> There are other kinds of proofs than the logical kind.
Yep, and the confirmations of faith are everywhere. Glad to see you're
reading.
--Kent
<sma...@jam.rr.com> wrote in message
news:1145528935.1...@g10g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
mavaddat
I also appreciate the idea that we can have "reasons" beyond what is
rational. In my observation, however, the "proofs" that extend beyond
rationality inevitibly rely on something like aesthetic appeal, which
cannot be evaluated (weighed) against any other dogmata for validity.
How, then, can we call judgements extracted from aesthetic appeal
"knowledge"? Furthermore, how can we distinguish "reasons of the heart"
from mere fancy and self-deception?
I'm not saying that religion is necessarily self-deception, but how can
we be sure that we are not believing something just because we want to
believe it (and not necessarily because there are good reasons to
believe it)?
Sincerely,
Mavaddat