I don't know if this post will get through; my server notified me that it was spam. So, I'm removing much of the comments from sadhu sanga...Again, this post didn't come from the Peirce-L site nor from Soren. It came from the Sadhu Sanga site - and I don't think the Peirce-L site should be an appendage of that site.
Edwina ----- Original Message ----- From: Edwina Taborsky To: Søren Brier ; [email protected] Sent: Tuesday, February 02, 2016 10:02 AM Subject: Re: [PEIRCE-L] SV: SV: SV: SV: SV: [Sadhu Sanga] Paper Refuting Darwinism Published in Journal 'Communicative & Integrative Biology' Soren - I think it's useless to argue with a fundamentalist who is isolated from reality. The statements he makes are ungrounded and totally detached from the real world and thus, are outside of rational or logical debate: , eg, he writes: 1) " There is no evidence for macroevolution presupposition and thus we do not accept it. We accept subjective evolution of consciousness and not objective evolution of bodies." There is evidence for macroevolution - but evidence for the 'subjective evolution of consciousness'? No, there is no evidence for this. But - Dr. Shanta asserts that his faith-based conclusion is valid. 2) Democracy is not based upon a scientific foundation and applying such a system is extremely harmful (as we are witnessing at various parts of the world) for a society, where unwise individuals form the majority. Will you accept, if illiterate people (or individuals from commerce/arts/’political science’ background) are given the power to judging by a majority voting system ‘who is the best scientist?’ The above statement by Dr. Shanta is illogical and irrational. Democracy has nothing to do with science but is a method of making decisions based on an assumption of equality of individuals. We see in the above that Dr. Shanta does not accept such equality - defining people as 'unwise', as 'illiterate'....and suggesting that there is some special, non-distributed knowledge base required in order to make decisions about 'how we want to live'. That is, he obviously supports elitist authoritarianism - but - what is his evidence for the truth value of this elite class who will make societal decisions for the rest of us? 3) And, he writes: "Modern science cannot get any credibility until it overcomes the endless trial and error methodology, where continually one opinion is replaced by another. The supremacy of Absolute is not dependent on our acceptance and rejection. Our false ego cannot change the fact that we are inherently dependent beings and Supreme Absolute is the master of everyone." The above is yet another example of an illogical belief. That is the strength of science - that it admits fallibility, leaves its knowledge base open to further data and experimentation and further rational analysis - rather than pure blind faith. And of course - this 'Supreme Absolute' is pure blind faith - an opinion held by Tenacity and Authority. 4) He writes: "In this material world there are always different wars are going on. The army men of one country are fighting against the army men of another enemy country. These fights cannot be stopped artificially because in a material conception of life people are living a self centered life (which also include the extended self: country, cast, colour and creed). Moreover, artificially we cannot practice nonviolence, Is he actually supporting violence? 5) Finally - this post doesn't seem to have come from the Peirce-L site. That is, when I hit 'reply' - it was trying to send it to the Sadhu Sanga site - rather than to Soren or Peirce-L. I don't think that the Peirce-L site should become an appendage of the Sadhu-Sanga site. Edwina ----- Original Message ----- From: Søren Brier To: [email protected] Sent: Tuesday, February 02, 2016 8:11 AM Subject: [PEIRCE-L] SV: SV: SV: SV: SV: [Sadhu Sanga] Paper Refuting Darwinism Published in Journal 'Communicative & Integrative Biology' Dear Bhakti Niskama Shanta All your answers conform what I wrote. You repeatedly tell me that our difference of view depends on my lack of knowledge of the Vedic system instead of asking me what my opinion of certain aspect of it is; indicating that our difference of opinion is only based on the lack of knowledge on my part ! That is not respectful, though I do admit to being very lacking in knowledge, as all we human being are - and possessing knowledge from the Natural, social and human sciences as well as several spiritual and religious traditions and philosophy my awareness of what I do not know is paradoxically growing. Last year I had an Islamic student in philosophy of science who launched precise the same arguments as you have presented here of his religion be based on a scientific and logical foundation. Most Christians at least realize that their religion is based on faith. I think what you present as knowledge is faith. Your conviction is knowledge for you. But opposed to the rest of us, you are not here for discussion but to preach the truth. As you states science is not the ultimate truth. No, science is a method for imperfect human being to improve on our imperfect knowledge together through intersubjective rational exchange . To go beyond that imperfect but ever expanding scientific knowledge demands faith. Here we have the problem that your fait is not my faith. How will you convince us of other faiths or the agnostics or even atheists (there is no God and I am his prophet) that the Vedic faith knowledge is better than the faith knowledge of any other religion in the world? How will you solve the problem for us to choose the better theory/religion in a rational way, which is a central problem in all philosophy of science. What you call Vedic science is something qualitatively different from our ordinary sciences. All you arguments are very nice in an ideal world, but how do they work in the real world of imperfection? At least the Advaita Vedanta of Shankara and in more modern time of Vivekananda and latest Maharishi Mahesh Yogi could claim to be something so universal that it would support most of the big world religions and communicate with science – like Chopra also does -, but I do not see that to be possible for Bhakti Vedanta as it is just one faith based religion worshipping a person god among a thousand others. Political the idea of the perfect divine ruler is beautiful, but in practice it does not happen, we are left with imperfection in the world we have to live in. There is a lot to criticize about democracy, but elitism in reality is just as bad. Presently it is the rich people that seems to rule the world and explore it for their own good. There is much to say against that too. Of the mentioned systems I do think democracy is the least bad. I do thing that Indian Democracy’s attempts to break with much of the old traditional caste culture as well as the burning of widows is good. The absolute is supreme, but our knowledge of it is not. All we have is manmade books and techniques, which are all imperfect interpretations. As I have said before, even if the Vedas are perfect in their written form, there are so many different interpretations and if you look at the translations of the Gita into English they are all different and often on crucial points. I know the advice of learning Sanskrit, like out priest learn Old Greek and Latin to read originals. But experience shows that it does not stop the discussion of different interpretations. Who is going to make an objective judgment of other peoples different levels of consciousness? You? So what will you do with your perfect knowledge in the real and imperfect world in the Kali Yuga? Sincerely Søren Brier Fra: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] På vegne af Dr. Bhakti Niskama Shanta Sendt: 1. februar 2016 21:39 Til: [email protected] Emne: Re: SV: SV: SV: SV: [Sadhu Sanga] Paper Refuting Darwinism Published in Journal 'Communicative & Integrative Biology' Dear Prof. Søren Brier Thank you for your reply. You have told “Thus is it fair to conclude that you do not believe evolution is real and you do not believe in democracy and in modern science, but you believe in a divine ruler and that the world is situated in a personal God.” Do you want to say that modern science is based upon a mere belief system and not on evidence? There is no evidence for macroevolution presupposition and thus we do not accept it. We accept subjective evolution of consciousness and not objective evolution of bodies. Democracy is not based upon a scientific foundation and applying such a system is extremely harmful (as we are witnessing at various parts of the world) for a society, where unwise individuals form the majority. Will you accept, if illiterate people (or individuals from commerce/arts/’political science’ background) are given the power to judging by a majority voting system ‘who is the best scientist?’, ‘who will be the head for different scientific departments/organizations?’, ‘which paper is good for publication in scientific journals?’ and so on? Modern science cannot get any credibility until it overcomes the endless trial and error methodology, where continually one opinion is replaced by another. The supremacy of Absolute is not dependent on our acceptance and rejection. Our false ego cannot change the fact that we are inherently dependent beings and Supreme Absolute is the master of everyone. ‘Life comes from Life – biogenesis’ establishes that God is the Supreme Being (Supreme Personality) and from Him all other beings get theirs beings. You have also told “Furthermore you’re a convinced that your interpretation of the Vedas is the truth and shows the way to enlightenment?” The Vedic system is not based upon personal interpretations and mental concoctions. In Vedic system the transcendental knowledge descends in a top-down process (avaroha-panthā) through a bonafide parampara system (unbroken chain of disciplic succession). You have further stated “If that is so, then I cannot see that your view differ from any other religious fundamentalist. They all believe in a personal God and they are all skeptical about the value of science and do not believe in evolution. The only difference is which holy book they think contains the truth; but they have no method of how to find out which book contains the truth.” You have no idea about Vedic system and that is why you are giving all such wrong conclusions. Vedic literature explains that the same Supreme Absolute can reveal Himself in different forms to different individuals based upon the consciousness of individuals. As verse 4.11 of Śrīmad Bhagavad-gīta confirms: “ye yathā māṁ prapadyante tāṁs tathaiva bhajāmy aham mama vartmānuvartante manuṣyāḥ pārtha sarvaśaḥ – Howsoever people surrender to Me, I accordingly reward them. Being the ultimate goal of all paths, I am the objective to be attained by all. O Partha, all men follow My various paths.” You have mentioned “All our experience tells us that this will end up in a clash of religions and cultures.” Even within Vedic system there are varieties of practitioners and Vedic literature justifies the varieties of practices according to the development of different individuals. If we can understand the gradation of consciousness then we can appreciate the multiplicity of different religious practices. The conflict arises only when on the name of science, without any scientific evidence, we want to dogmatically teach the masses the concept of ‘material origin of life – abiogenesis’ and ‘objective evolution of bodies’. Finally you concluded “Even in Bhagavad Gita it ends up with an enormous war in a fight against the demon kings, which the good kings could not win themselves so Krishna had to intervene through his instruction to Arjuna the mightiest warrior at the time. Does that mean your hope for solving our crisis is divine intervention?” In this material world there are always different wars are going on.
----------------------------- PEIRCE-L subscribers: Click on "Reply List" or "Reply All" to REPLY ON PEIRCE-L to this message. PEIRCE-L posts should go to [email protected] . To UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message not to PEIRCE-L but to [email protected] with the line "UNSubscribe PEIRCE-L" in the BODY of the message. More at http://www.cspeirce.com/peirce-l/peirce-l.htm .
