A brief reflection on Atheism, God, Pluralism and Monism.

[Adhvagat]

The materialistic atheism based on strictly dualistic scientific concepts has less support each day since science itself observes the more subtle and "fluid" aspects of reality. However, the spiritualistic atheism (as exposed in Samkhya, for example) is a new stepping stone for those still stuck in such archaic and primitive concepts of reality.

The next step would be the discussion of the image of God as a personality. While paradoxalists also see persoanlity as a characteristic of the Supreme, strict monists see personal reality (and even plural reality) as limiting, however it strikes me as counter-intuitive that we utilize plurality and personification for the realization of the Supreme if It doesn't present those characteristics in its original nature.

What do you think?

Om

[Water]

The materialistic atheism based on strictly dualistic scientific concepts has less support each day since science itself observes the more subtle and "fluid" aspects of reality. However, the spiritualistic atheism (as exposed in Samkhya, for example) is a new stepping stone for those still stuck in such archaic and primitive concepts of reality.

The next step would be the discussion of the image of God as a personality. While paradoxalists also see persoanlity as a characteristic of the Supreme, strict monists see personal reality (and even plural reality) as limiting, however it strikes me as counter-intuitive that we utilize plurality and personification for the realization of the Supreme if It doesn't present those characteristics in its original nature.

What do you think?

Om

I find myself stuck on some of the terminology above.

"Materialistic atheism based on dualistic scientific concepts" - I don't know what this means. What is an example of a dualistic scientific concept?

[Adhvagat]

Starting with the mindset that created envinronmental problems: Man and Nature are separate. Vedic hymns states clearly that elements emanate from Prakrit and Prakrit is God.

Therefore, if something as close and substantial to our life as nature is separate from us, Man and God are also separate.

[Water]

I don't find that scientific. I find that philosophical.

[Adhvagat]

Perhaps, but my point is how low level gross atheism is usually based on scientificism (if there's such a term), more like a purely rational movement in direct response to the church non-rational faith only system.

However, if science itself is tending to a more fluid understanding of reality, in the envinronmental scenario with the Gaia Theory (for example) or with the theories from quantum physics, those types of atheists will need to either completely abandon their disbelief based on sole science and rationality or move on to something else, and that will lead them closer to Samkhya (in my suspicions).

But that's only one part of my line of thought, personally, it's the second part that instigates me more.

[Onkara]

Namasté
The issue seems to be creationism, for some people, as some religions teach that there is a difference between Creator and His creation. The concept of a separate Creator (God) is refuted each time science demonstrates that creation is inherent in-itself e.g. through genetics, molecules and complex biological systems. The more scientist probe the brain and find no material soul the less likely the scriptures appear to be true.

However from the pantheist perspective, for example, science works in favour of the concept. If Creator and creation are inseparable then science is actually working to demonstrate that the creation does in fact contain "traces" of the Creator e.g. genetics, molecules and the like. There is evidence that there is something more than just our mundane life, we might even say there is "material intelligence" in and around us (e.g. genes and brain cells).

All of this remains academic and you and I are left having to invest in one or another (Creationism or Panthesim, to use two terms very broadly).

There is a practicality in scripture and religion which is easily overlooked if we continue to feel the answer lies in academics or science. We may quite literally be waiting life times before the Creator is proved or negated by a another man's digital microscope or chemical laboratory.

Why wait in hope that the scientist's answer will come in this life? Turn the search inward for that which was there at our birth is present now and some say will be present after material change - death. Those who have gone before us claim self-investigation provides an answer for those willing to look. Maybe we need not wait for others to tell us and perhaps we can know for ourselves

[Sādhaka]

Namaste,
It's an interesting discussion. And I think Onkara summed it up pretty nicely. Such a concept is never incompatible with science either.

OM

[wundermonk]

What do you think?
Om

I think the atheism vs theism debate is nothing more than intellectually sophisticated sounding verbal gymnastics employed by both sides which basically boils down to shifting the burden of proof onto the other. The atheistic side asks for evidence of God and holds that questions related to who created the world is a wrong question to ask. The theistic side says what more evidence do you want, the whole WORLD is the evidence!!!

It is worthwhile for the theist to debate an atheist if he has forgotten what are the various type of logical fallacies out there.

It is worthwhile for the atheist to debate a theist if he wants a quick refresher on different scriptures from around the world.

[Water]

I think the atheism vs theism debate is nothing more than intellectually sophisticated sounding verbal gymnastics employed by both sides which basically boils down to shifting the burden of proof onto the other. The atheistic side asks for evidence of God and holds that questions related to who created the world is a wrong question to ask. The theistic side says what more evidence do you want, the whole WORLD is the evidence!!!

It is worthwhile for the theist to debate an atheist if he has forgotten what are the various type of logical fallacies out there.

It is worthwhile for the atheist to debate a theist if he wants a quick refresher on different scriptures from around the world.

That reminds me of a somewhat tacky joke ("God" is religion neutral)...
So a scientist clones a human using an embryo and says, "God! Look what I've done! I've created a person!"
So God says, "Oh, great! You're using the wrong tools and started with the wrong material, though......" and hands the scientist dust.

Theists, especially when related to Hinduism, don't always quote scriptures. I've read quite a few that have actually quoted science to confirm religious ideas.

It's also important to remember that atheism is not agnosticism and vice versa.

Here's an interesting read on the age-old-stigma of "Science vs Religion" not being what most people expect.....

"[Scientists] worry how their peers would react to learning about their religious views."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...052801856.html

Oh! And I found another resource in my bookmarks that I thought I had lost -
http://nationalacademies.org/evoluti...dReligion.html

If you click through the sections of "Science and Religion" on the left hand navigation, there's a ton of interesting stuff. The idea behind the book was to provide a small reconciliation to supplement scientific studies and help the lay-person realize there is no battle between science and religion....

[Adhvagat]

I'll just make a brief commentary to express my sentiments regarding modern science and its application in the world:

Scientific and technological advances have had profound effects on human life. In the 19th century, most families could expect to lose one or more children to disease. Today, in the United States and other developed countries, the death of a child from disease is uncommon. Every day we rely on technologies made possible through the application of scientific knowledge and processes.

Diseases that came from adharmic living and unbalances created by science itself (pollution, deforestation, etc)?

Create the problem and sell the solution! Asurically genious!

The computers and cell phones which we use, the cars and airplanes in which we travel, the medicines that we take, and many of the foods that we eat were developed in part through insights obtained from scientific research.

The computers that we use and pollute the world with the chemicals needed for its production.

The cellphones that we use and don't even have the slightest idea if it gives cancer or not and how it affects people.

The medicines we take to counter one single thing but causes dozens of other effects, they can even kill you.

The many foods we eat that causes cancer, full of dyes, irradiated for longer storage.

Yeah, science is all about quality of life.

Science has boosted living standards, has enabled humans to travel into Earth’s orbit and to the moon, and has given us new ways of thinking about ourselves and the universe.

Travel to the moon for what? Fill the orbit with space trash? Bomb the moon?

I'm sorry, but science ends up being a big fat joke that only benefits the asuric corporations.

Ayurveda alone disproves the whole false premise in which this article starts.

PS: I'm pretty sure that when the shastras state that one of the greatest evils of Kali-yuga is the "accumulation of wealth" they are directly referring to CORPORATIONS.

PS²: I get carried away whenever it is mentioned "how great science is for us", it's just not true, but the sad fact is a tabula rasa solution would never work, but we do have the knowledge to start using it dharmically now.

PS³: Sorry if I sounded a little too agressive towards you, Water.