Korean Job Discussion Forums

[Rteacher]

"Mindmetoo" uses the very loaded pejorative term "bigot" to make propaganda against those (like me and Vedic creationists) his faith in science doesn't agree with.

He repeatedly has claimed that I fit the definition of bigot.

Here's another, more elaborate definition:

big�ot
n. One who is strongly partial to one's own group, religion, race, or politics and is intolerant of those who differ.

According to "mindmetoo", I deserve to be labeled a bigot because ...

"you paint people who don't believe in your specific faith with a very wide brush and attribute negative qualities to them."

For one thing, that doesn't even fit the definition of bigot.

(If the definition doesn't fit, you must acquit ...)

One can "paint people with a broad brush" and "attribute negative qualities to them" without being a bigot.

The key elements of the definition are strong partiality in one's own group and intolerance for those who differ.

One can attribute negative qualities to people - or ideas - without being intolerant of them.

Tolerance denotes enduring and according some degree of respect for differing opinions, beliefs, races, etc., and I certainly do that.

However, as a matter of faith, I accord the highest degree of respect to the Supreme Lord and to his pure representatives.

I think that any acts or speech that are blatantly disrespectful of God are condemnable in the sense of biting the hand that feeds you, but my attitude is basically to hate the sin and not the sinner.

Anyway, in terms of this thread I think I've been careful even about painting scientists or atheists with a broad brush - as I've repeatedly distinguished different types among them - what to speak of not tolerating them.

I think that using such a loaded term in personal attacks just to make propaganda for one's own group is more the sign of a real bigot.

I haven't been the one initiating personal attacks here, and I strongly urge that you stop using that term in reference to me.

[itaewonguy]

[itaewonguy]

[greedy_bones]

[tomato]

[mindmetoo]

[Rteacher]

"Tarring unnamed scientists" is not slanderous - and "materialist" does not equate anywhere near "bigot" in its degree of defamation.

Let it be noted that "mindmetoo" (and his lackey and fellow secular bigot, "tomato") once again resorted to using a loaded pejorative term to mischaracterize me because they apparently don't like the drift of my current line of intellectual/philosophical arguments.

Other than their using it as a diversionary ploy, labeling me a bigot is as utterly meaningless as the collapsing world view of materialist science.

In characteristic non-sectarian fashion, I'll again quote from a Muslim critique of modern science ...

Up to the present, materialist science has been based on a deterministic, causal view of the world. Although the latest theories like the quantum and chaos theories are leading to a world-view where there is no room for fragmentation and determinism, materialist scientists still insist on following the fragmented and causal approach. They have to be reductionist because they believe in causality. At the same time they do realize that their materialist world-view is collapsing. Theoretically they understand that, in order to explain one thing, they need to know its connections to all other things. This is obviously impossible because these connections extend in time and in space beyond human capacities; they are infinite and cannot be embraced by human beings who are also parts of those connections.

The materialist scientists understand that the unity of the universe points to an Absolute Creator. For the things we study do not bear meanings limited to themselves but testify to the Absoluteness of their Creator. But in order to be able to claim that their scientific studies produce knowledge, the scientists insist on denying the Absolute Creator. And, because their scientific method is based on causality which cannot accommodate the unity of the universe, they ignore that unity and compartmentalize the universe so that they can study each compartment as the product of a limited number of causes. In this way, they can pretend the universe has no Creator and its meaning is limited to what they tell us about it. They thus claim their science to be the source of knowledge.
http://www.thewaytotruth.org/godsexistenceandunity/causality.html

In response to "tomato's" defensive comment that "science assumes absolutely nothing about God", I'll just note that earlier dominant paradigms in science did assume God to be the creator. That's why I stated it seems that they now assume that God is dead - at least in regard to His creation (as far as they're concerned.)

Actually, some sectarian Christians are very keen on crediting the Judeo-Christian tradition as being the only religious foundation that could support the progressive development of modern science - since materialistic interpretations of the Bible supported the idea that nature was not really connected to God and therefore was just a thing that could be freely exploited.
http://www.geocities.com/worldview_3/scientmethod.html

Moreover, some sectarian Christians are not so keen on the prospect of what they see as a trend toward a synthesis of science and religion which would more significantly represent the worldview of "Eastern" religions.
http://www.origins.org/articles/stamper_scienceandreligion.html

Meanwhile, some ID proponents contemplate differences between "Godless" and "God-centered" approaches to science and technology ...
http://www.intelligentdesigntheory.info/god-centered-science-godless-technology.html

If that's not enough for you to chew on, here's some thinkers debating the topic "Does science make belief in God obsolete?" (and at least one scientist answered "Yes" - apparently not getting the memos from the PR department... )
http://www.templeton.org/belief/

[tomato]

[Rteacher]

Why have neither "tomato" nor "mindmetoo" addressed the philosophical points related to mechanistic evolution theory that are highlighted in this article - and can they do so without using ad hominem and/or bigoted attacks?

Up to the present, materialist science has been based on a deterministic, causal view of the world. Although the latest theories like the quantum and chaos theories are leading to a world-view where there is no room for fragmentation and determinism, materialist scientists still insist on following the fragmented and causal approach. They have to be reductionist because they believe in causality. At the same time they do realize that their materialist world-view is collapsing. Theoretically they understand that, in order to explain one thing, they need to know its connections to all other things. This is obviously impossible because these connections extend in time and in space beyond human capacities; they are infinite and cannot be embraced by human beings who are also parts of those connections.

The materialist scientists understand that the unity of the universe points to an Absolute Creator. For the things we study do not bear meanings limited to themselves but testify to the Absoluteness of their Creator. But in order to be able to claim that their scientific studies produce knowledge, the scientists insist on denying the Absolute Creator. And, because their scientific method is based on causality which cannot accommodate the unity of the universe, they ignore that unity and compartmentalize the universe so that they can study each compartment as the product of a limited number of causes. In this way, they can pretend the universe has no Creator and its meaning is limited to what they tell us about it. They thus claim their science to be the source of knowledge.
http://www.thewaytotruth.org/godsexistenceandunity/causality.html

It should be noted that while there may be different conceptions of "God" that may be debated and not subject to logic and reason, the conception of the Absolute Truth as the personal source of all energies can be understood in terms of reason and logic.

It's stated more eloquently than I can in this article ...
http://soithappens.com/2009/01/20/god/

Moreover, reason can go higher/is not limited to empiricism and naturalism. Methodological naturalism may be a useful tool, but it's not necessarily the correct tool to measure origins.

A synthesis of science and the distilled essence of religion can arguably provide a better framework for at least approaching the complete understanding of life and origins.

[Underwaterbob]

[Rteacher]

I think you ("Underwaterbob") made your post as I edited in more stuff on my last post - pertaining to evidence for "God" and the relative usefulness of methological naturalism.

Here's the "God" link again...
http://soithappens.com/2009/01/20/god/

I don't have much understanding of quantum mechanics, but I gather that it doesn't provide even a complete material perspective - what to speak of existence beyond the material world.

From the perspective of living in this world, there will always be duality of spirit and matter (while from the highest spiritual perspective there is no difference...)

The ancient Vedic understanding of space and time may be interpreted to be very sophisticated...
http://nersp.osg.ufl.edu/~ghi/vcchap.html

Prior to the Renaissance, there was more-or-less a God-centered view of the world prevalent even in science.

It was shifted from God to man and matter, and the modern worldview was born ...

...That long medieval period, with its vision so entranced by splendid images of the eternal that it could hardly spare a glance for this fleeting world, with its mind so obsessed by last things�Death, Judgment, Heaven and Hell�that it endured this life only as a hard trial and preparation, with its social body constructed of rigid hierarchies and maintained by a plodding economy�all that was finished. Like a man awakening from sleep and shaking fuzzy images of dreams from his head, Europe came alive to the senses and beheld as if for the first time the whole vast world that lay so enchantingly before it, rich with mysterious promise, beckoning with limitless possibilities...

http://soithappens.com/2009/01/06/lord-caitanya-and-the-renaissance-of-devotion-part-1/

That article (by the same author as the "God" one) elaborates that while Europe was undergoing its Renaissance, there was a spiritual Renaissance in India brought on by the appearance of Lord Chaitanya Mahaprabhu (understood by Gaudiya/Bengali Vaishnavas to be Krishna Himself appearing as his own devotee - as scrpturally predicted...)

Part two of that article continues ...

Lord Caitanya, through the renaissance of bhakti, gave to the world an unprecedented view into the inner dynamics of infinite love in the all-attractive Supreme Personality of Godhead. Just as men of the Renaissance tried to open up the world and unlock the secrets of nature, Lord Caitanya and His associates opened up the kingdom of God and unlocked the secrets of love of God...

And reflects ...

To the people of the Renaissance, the world and man seemed imbued with limitless possibility and promise. Western civilization to the present day has been following up on that vision, and it becomes more and more apparent that the world and man have not lived up to their promise. The Renaissance shift of vision from God to man and matter has cut people off from any transcendent source of meaning and value, and the resultant relativism and nihilism�the ripened fruit of the Renaissance�have released demonic energies that have devastated the earth in our time. And there is more to come...

http://soithappens.com/2009/01/13/lord-caitanya-and-the-renaissance-of-devotion-part-2/

Though things may get worse before they get better, the spreading of the sankirtana movement of Lord Chaitanya is predicted to usher in a
Golden Age of peace and harmony for the next 10,000 years, and I think that this new spiritual renaissance will eventually be reflected in the synthesis of science and spirituality.

[tomato]

[Rteacher]

I'm not interested in criticizing scientists or anyone more than necessary. I'm saying that religion, science, philosophy, and even yoga can all be viable paths for approaching/understanding the Absolute Truth, and there is no compelling reason to exalt a worldwiew limited to pure materialism just because it has the brand name "science" ...

[tomato]

[Rteacher]

Well, if I were a betting man (which unfortunately I am) I would have put my money on you exalting science above everything, with philosophy further down the list (somewhere below classical music ...)

While "mindmetoo" has recently tried to peddle the idea that I seem to have taken a turn toward atheism, you still characterize me as being a religious extremist.

I've gradually become more materialistic the last twenty years or so since I was a full-time Hare Krishna monk, but as long as I read some transcendental literature each day and do my chanting (which takes at least an hour) I manage to maintain some spiritual focus.

However, I'm not that religiously inclined. Would a religious extremist record a song like this?
http://www.singsnap.com/snap/r/b810712c0