Edwina, list,
IUPUI's technical person told me that Sadhu Sanga is not currently
subscribed to peirce-l, at least not by its email address
[email protected] or something like it. I have checked
and seen that new messages have appeared at Sadhu Sanga that have not
appeared at peirce-l. Maybe somebody subscribed then unsubscribed Sadhu
Sanga to peirce-l.
Your guess that something in the comments from Sadhu Sanga was
activating the spam filters appears to have worked, since your message
got through when you re-sent it after removing much of the comments from
Sadhu Sanga. I noticed that somebody's signature often used there
contains image links etc., something there must bother the spam filters.
Best, Ben
On 2/2/2016 10:09 AM, Edwina Taborsky wrote:
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 <mailto:[email protected]>
*To:* Søren Brier <mailto:[email protected]> ; [email protected]
<mailto:[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 <mailto:[email protected]>
*To:* [email protected]
<mailto:[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
-----------------------------
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 .
