"The concepts such as God and Science are linguistic constructs...The moment an experience is strung into words or sentences, a problem of interpretations arise."

For example, some claim that one should believe that God exists because the Bible says so. But when asked why we should believe the Bible, they answer that we should believe it because God wrote it. Such people are begging the question, for they are already pre-assuming what they are trying to prove, namely that God exists. Here's another example: "Jane has telepathy," says Susan. "How do you know?" asks Jill. "Because she can read my mind," replies Susan. Since telepathy is, by definition, the ability to read someone's mind, all Susan has told us is that she believes that Jane can read her mind because she believes that Jane can read her mind. Her reason merely reiterates her claim in different words. Her reason provides no additional justification for her claim.

Keep debating or not-debating about the big questions. "Brights" don't care. They have their answers.

In the mean time spiritual gurus, educate yourself about Science and stop selling and spreading Pseudo-sciences like Quantum mysticism, ESP and many others to the ignorant masses in the guise of science.

"Honest religion, more familiar than its critics with the distortions and absurdities perpetuated in its name, has an active interest in encouraging a healthy skepticism for its own purposes. ... There is the possibility for religion and science to forge a real partnership against pseudo-science. Strangely, I think it would soon be engaged also in opposing pseudo-religion." ~ Carl Sagan

Ref. Post 1

"Her reason merely reiterates her claim in different words. Her reason provides no additional justification for her claim."

Saira Mohan and other rational thinkers might find this book useful:

The Demon-Haunted World: Science as a Candle in the Dark by Carl Sagan, 1996.

About the book from Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The Demon-Haunted World: Science as a Candle in the Dark is a book by Carl Sagan intended to explain the scientific method to laypersons, and to encourage people to learn critical or skeptical thinking. It explains methods to help distinguish between ideas that are considered valid science, and ideas that can be considered pseudoscience. Sagan states that when new ideas are offered for consideration, they should be tested by means of skeptical thinking, and should stand up to rigorous questioning.

Sagan said if a new idea continues in existence after an examination of the propositions, it should then be acknowledged as a supposition. Skeptical thinking essentially is a means to construct, understand, reason, and recognize valid and invalid arguments. Wherever possible, there must be independent validation of the concepts whose truth should be proved. He believed that reason and logic would succeed once the truth is known. Conclusions emerging from a premise, and the acceptability of the premise should not be discounted or accepted because of bias.

Sagan presents a set of tools for skeptical thinking which he calls the "baloney detection kit". Skeptical thinking consists both of constructing a reasoned argument and recognizing a fallacious or fraudulent one. In order to identify a fallacious argument, Sagan suggests the employment of such tools as independent confirmation of facts, quantification and the use of Occam's Razor. Sagan's "baloney detection kit" also provided tools for detecting "the most common fallacies of logic and rhetoric", such as argument from authority and statistics of small numbers.

Through these tools, the benefits of a critical mind and the self-correcting nature of science can take place. Sagan provides a skeptical analysis of several kinds of superstition, fraud, pseudoscience and religious beliefs, such as gods, witches, UFOs, ESP and faith healing.

Parmjit,
Very good post.
"The concepts such as God and Science are linguistic constructs...The moment an experience is strung into words or sentences, a problem of interpretations arise." Totally agree. Language is not adequate to describe experience. (But is there is any better neans of communication?)Moreover, it can serve as a tool for misinterpretation just as much as it does so for representation of concepts.

Nice!

everything is everything...............
it is so simple until you try to tell somone

I once read a book on Zen
I was left with no questions answered
a head full of nothing
and no one to tell

peace comes from peace

Dear Dr. Singh

You write: "...The concepts such as God and Science are linguistic constructs designed to describe semblance of human experience in a comprehensible manner. The moment an experience is strung into words or sentences, a problem of interpretations arise..."

So true.

love, Heath

As Osho told us, whatever is spoken will only be a half-truth, because language itself is a dualistic construct, but reality is not.

So, whatever I say is a half-truth at best, and perhaps I am an unwitting liar most of the time.

There are languages which are not words, and perhaps can evoke dimensions of reality that words cannot, such as images, motion picture, music, multimedia art, and also body language, inflections of speech, pitch, and so on.

The mental realm is unique to each of us in that what we constructy mentally will be an individual creation.

However, I believe there are definite biological, genetic foundations common to all humans, and beyond that humans who share a common culture and/or language, will have additional culturally-imposed paramaters on their mind-constructs.

We are unique, but also not totally different from each other.

I saw in Arsenios poetry, for example, his imagery actually evoked real-life experiences of one the posters.

Two unique minds, but enough similar constructs to produce a resonance.

Art that evokes experiences and memories in people has the potential to become very popular.

Some art, however, takes on the challenge of exploring new, unfamiliar menatl territory.

Such art may be recognized as genius not when it is first produced, but years, decades, even centuries later, when the once-unexplored has become more familiar to people.

For example, during Thelonious Monk's early career, some critics believed he was not a skilled pianist because he played his songs at very medium and slow tempos (this during the bebop era when most players were trying to push the metronome readings on the songs as high as possible), and because his melodies were very angular, chromatic, or used secondary chord tones without interventing diatonic lines.

They had not heard music conceived of like this, so they believed it was due to lack of talent.

So the mind will always compare new information to what it has known before, and try to make a judgment on the new material, to categorize and describe it in known terms.

I works a lot of the time, for most input that is similar to what has been processed before. But every now and then the totally new has to be confronted.

That may require a change in the structure of individual consciousness.

That's my half-truths on that topic for today :)

We most always build on what we have been taught by our ancestors, or we should. It gives us solid footing on which to evolve new ideas.

Recently, my beloved Kurt Vonnegut passed away and since he left so may words, I revisited him yesterday. One of the things he said, and I don't have the book in front of me was something like

"God made Mud to sit up
Mud sat up, looked around and asked,"What is the purpose?"
God asked, "Must there be a purpose?"
Mud said, "Yes"
God said "Then I leave you to think of it."
And God went away.

Love
Bonnie

Bonnie
Maybe if we stop sittin' here thinking about our purpose we can get off our butts and catch up to god.

derek

Dear Parmjit,

I enjoyed your post very much as cause one to think about what they are debating.

"The moment we say something exists, it creates a paradox. E.g., if we say that God exists then, through logical thinking, it should cease to exist one day; and if that happens, then how could God be omnipresent and ever-present? This argument flies into the face of popular definition of god."

I however do not see the logic in the statement above, so I will get wordy to try and relate to your thoughts, as I not the Dr :-) . Most believe that God exist and even Deepak says something like 90+ (can't remember the exact number) are hardwired to believe in God. But what that God is may be somewhat debatable depending on one's belief, experiences, scriptures, and the masses of a certain group.

In short, of course God exist and why would logic hint at the opposite, other than one going deeper within to understand what God is to them. Every time one goes within and sees without, how can they not know that a higher Source exist and that Source is ONE. However, that's the God of what we can perceive now with all our senses. I believe God was before all this awareness and is unchanging, even though there is creation from that Source.

The God before our perception is what I think God really is, but we may never know what that is if we cannot ever perceive what was before all this and us. This is the only way that God can exist eternally. Otherwise, people would otherwise be forced to come to the conclusion of a logical God, which cannot explain God, which is what we all do today...including me and my logic ;-) I think that why each of us must must experience God, especially within the heart to know God. And even then, there will be lots of questions as we all grow.

Well, so much for my circle!

Love, Char

Dear Parmjit,

I enjoyed your post very much as it causes one to think about what they are debating. Thanks!

"The moment we say something exists, it creates a paradox. E.g., if we say that God exists then, through logical thinking, it should cease to exist one day; and if that happens, then how could God be omnipresent and ever-present? This argument flies into the face of popular definition of god."

If you don't mind .... I will ponder up this statement.

I however do not see the logic in the statement above, so I will get wordy to try and relate to your thoughts, as I am not the Dr :-) . Most believe that God exist and even Deepak says something like 90+ (can't remember the exact number) are hardwired to believe in God. But what that God is may be somewhat debatable depending on one's belief, experiences, scriptures, and the masses of a certain group.

In short, of course God exist and why would logic hint at the opposite, other than one going deeper within oneself to understand what God is to them. Every time one goes within and sees without, how can they not know that a higher Source exist and that Source is ONE. However, that's the God of what we can perceive now with all our senses, I would think. I believe God was before all this awareness and is unchanging, even though there is creation from that Source.

The God before our perception is what I think God really is, but we may never know what that is if we cannot ever perceive what was before all this and before us. This is the only way that God can exist eternally. Otherwise, people would otherwise be forced to come to the conclusion of a logical God, which cannot explain God, which is what we all do today...including me and ;-) I think that's why each of us must experience God, especially within the heart to know God. And even then, there will be lots of questions as we all grow, such as, what is beyond.

Well, so much for my circle of thoughts! My heart says, "YES."

Love, Char

Sorry for posting twice as I was having problems and did not think the first one posted, so I proofed it and that's the second post. Oh well. And they are still not showing up here, but in the area that says I posted, but I cannot see them...ha!!!

Dear Char

Thank you for your thoughtful comment.

The logic behind "The moment we say something exists, it creates a paradox. E.g., if we say that God exists then, through logical thinking, it should cease to exist one day; and if that happens, then how could God be omnipresent and ever-present?" is that materially we can not say one thing without implying its opposite.

The moment we say God exists, then somebody can ask you to show that it exists. Can we show somebody God? Even Buddha and other great spiritual masters have shyed away from this. This is also another reason why scientists have it easy to discredit the concept of God because they argue that when we say something exits we can show you a physical evidence that it exists. However, when somebody says that God exists but can not show its physical proof it becomes indefensible from the point of logic.

Hindus has said 'What is is', because they did not want to get into a logical marshland. They said, find it out yourself whether it exists or not; let your experience guide you in this matter. God is purely personal; it is the sense of divinity and beauty that permeates everything.

May this morning bring you love and happiness, Parmjit

Dear Dr. Singh

I enjoyed reading your post. I read the Tao of Physics many years ago and cannot remember everything, (Will get it out and reread) but the one thing I remember was the saying.

He who knows does not speak
He who speaks does not know

For me it is simply awareness.

I exist because I am aware I exist.
As long as I am aware I exist, to be or not to be is not a choice, only that I can be this or that(duality). So to me existence is simply awareness. We all know that.

I hope you will post again.

Love
Bonnie

Agree with every word you have said, Parmjit!

Even Consciousness is a mental construct. No body knows the real nature of Consciousness. Almost all understand it in terms of our own human experience of it. While the real Consciousness, if we must call it that, will be as much there in a grain of sand as in us. Can then anybody guess what it must be like??

Love, Harb

PS: You may also like to read what I have written at Avtar Singh's thread in this connection.

Thanks Parmjit. Now I see what are you saying.

And may this afternoon bring you love and happiness.

Love, Char

PS: As one poster commented above, please do continue to share yourSelf with Us ;-)

Dear Saira, Heath, Syamala, Empryius, Yogi-One, AJ, Bonnie, Char & Harb

Thank you for your thoughtful comments and observations.

I will talk to you more in future.

With best wishes for your health and happiness, Parmjit