The Nirmukta Freethought Community

http://www.youtube.com/watch_popup?v=PqI...dium#t=574
After watching this, I summarized it below and tried to map it with other arguments.

Creation_dennet_vivekananada_craig_gibran citations

Daniel Dennett an Atheist philosopher--

Quote: Agrees universe has a cause, but the cause is itself. Gives an analogy of Bootstrapping trick... universe created itself.

Bill Craig[ could not determine his stand, but it seems his job is to refute atheists ] refutes Dennett...

Quote:Dennett’s view is nonsense-> he is not saying universe is self cause, he is saying universe brought itself to existence, this is impossible because In order to create itself it has to exist, Dennett’s view is a self contradiction,

Craig feels a cause of the universe must be a transcendent cause beyond universe, this cause must itself be uncaused because we see that there cannot be infinite regress of causes..... it is therefore the first uncaused cause.
Once the cause is given, its effect must be given, cause of the universe never began to exist since it is timeless, why is not the universe begin less as well..
Cause can exist eternally but finite time ago freedom of the will..Creating universe is a free act of will. His creating of universe must something spontaneous. Cause can exist eternally but finite time ago freely will to create a new effect and bring the universe to effect....

Craig quotes: Al-Ghazali

Quote:Argues in the existence of begininglesless uncause, timeless, space less,changeless immaterial enormous and powerful creator of universe.

In all these 3 arguments [both agnostic and atheist and theist] we invariably see the shift from rational to metaphysical and back o rational and again back to "?" at this point of time i just recollected a beautiful [for me] theory which i feel bridges the gap in the above arguments which Vivekananda [[i]not much liked in this forum] interprets like this[/i]

Projection and not creation

Quote:Our Sanskrit word for creation, properly translated, should be projection and not creation. For the word creation in the English language has unhappily got that fearful, that most crude idea of something coming out of nothing, creation out of nonentity, non-existence becoming existence, which, of course, I would not insult you by asking you to believe. Our word, therefore, is projection [Here it sounds Daniel Dennett]. The whole of this nature exists....
Time, space, and causation are all within this nature [Here he sounds Craig, but does no where attributes it to a supreme being as Craig intends to]. To say, therefore, that it had a beginning is utter nonsense ... [further explains the metaphysical explanation as given by Hindu scriptures and it need to be understood that he subscribes to it ...]

If we strip the words personal creator/GOD or Supreme Being which is used by Vivekananda in this explanation [because he was quoting and explaining Rig Vedic verse when he said this and give a new interpretation to the world about projection] it seems it has got some meaning it....

Gibran Says:-

Quote:"Beauty is eternity gazing at itself in a mirror."

If for a moment like a orthodox Hindu i try to get a special meaning out of this sentence, does it resound "Daniel Dennett" when he said "universe has a cause, but the cause is itself"


PS
I thank Nirmukta which introduced me to Modern atheists and philosophers [ i was lost in the world of 19th century Modern Indian authors and in the world of Socrates , Gandhi, Gibran, kuvempu, shivaram karanth etc... although rational in their own terms but in the field of philosophy, sociology, social problems etc… not exactly Laws of science as discussed here, necessarily those authors helps in raising the intellect level of people capable discussing at a forum like Nirmukta…]

I am not sure why this is posted under the 'Spot the logical fallacy'. However here is quick followup.

- William Lane Craig, a well-known apologist, bases his arguments for the existence of a Creator mainly on the so-called Kalam Cosmological Argument, which has been examined and exposed in this detailed video. Therefore, the stance of Craig loses any credibility whatsoever to be treated on par with the more scientifically grounded stance of Dennett, and it goes without saying that attempts to 'reconcile' the two are quite simply absurd.

- The Puranic view of 'creation' is more like an act of a creator becoming the world in part, rather than making one outside of himself. In other words, the creator is both the stuff of the world and its shaper. Admittedly, this is different from the Genesis myth but not exactly closer to Science because it nevertheless points to a conscious agency in the emergence of the world. The difference between the Genesis myth and the Puranic 'projection' myth is in the otherworldliness and the immanence of the creator, but both feature creationism. Therefore, the Puranic creation narratives are far from being reconcilable with contemporary cosmological views of the origin of the universe and the established evolutionary narrative for the diversity of life.

- Stripping away notions of God and the Supreme is not exactly the way Vivekananda would have intended his work to be read, nor is it the way it is treated most often in the circles that it is popular. To see Vivekananda not as an Oriental revivalist and spokesperson as was his historical role, but instead attributing to him a pre-emptive reconciliation of future philosophical debates, is a post hoc narrative committing presentism.

- Gibran's stirring poetry lends itself to a world of interpretations. As for the quote, "Beauty is eternity gazing at itself in the mirror.", can literary critics every agree on whether the poet means (i) It is the recognition of the best within ourselves, outside of ourselves that we call beauty (ii) It is what withstands time and retains its character that is genuinely beautiful (iii) Beauty must be valued for its own sake and not in any other light or out of any other concerns (iv) The lure of beauty can draw into itself ages of attention....and so on. However to suggest that such a line proclaims some fundamental truth about the Universe being 'conscious of its own existence' would amount to biocentrism.

An important point to note is why is the cause of Universe important to these people? For WLC, his entire worldview hinges on it. If the cause of the Universe turns out to be something that is different from what he believes, his entire worldview crumbles. His version of Christianity becomes false.

For Dan Dennett, if his reasoning turns out to be wrong, he would probably say "Well, that's interesting" and update his beliefs without much mental anguish. His worldview allows for that.

Now coming to Vivekananda, his worldview requires the Universe to be eternal because of the idea of Karma. All Hindu philosophies based on the Vedas posit that karma is real. That is probably because of the false belief in a just world (A part of this article explores the just world theory). Human actions have consequences in this life or the next. For such long reaching consequences to exist an eternal soul is required (to avoid infinite regress) and as a consequence, an eternal existing Universe. Another consequence is that for this to be true, humans should have existed from the beginning, because without humans karma makes no sense.

So if the Universe is not eternally existing, Vivekananda's worldview crumbles. Of course it still will crumble given evolution and other discoveries by science, but Vivekananda comes from a different time when Christian missionaries were busy painting caricatures of Indians as dumb idiots and his views are understandable. But I find it hard to condone such views today.

(18-09-2011 02:20 PM)arvindiyer Wrote:  I am not sure why this is posted under the 'Spot the logical fallacy'. However here is quick followup.

- William Lane Craig, a well-known apologist, bases his arguments for the existence of a Creator mainly on the so-called Kalam Cosmological Argument, which has been examined and exposed in this detailed video. Therefore, the stance of Craig loses any credibility whatsoever to be treated on par with the more scientifically grounded stance of Dennett, and it goes without saying that attempts to 'reconcile' the two are quite simply absurd.

- The Puranic view of 'creation' is more like an act of a creator becoming the world in part, rather than making one outside of himself. In other words, the creator is both the stuff of the world and its shaper. Admittedly, this is different from the Genesis myth but not exactly closer to Science because it nevertheless points to a conscious agency in the emergence of the world. The difference between the Genesis myth and the Puranic 'projection' myth is in the otherworldliness and the immanence of the creator, but both feature creationism. Therefore, the Puranic creation narratives are far from being reconcilable with contemporary cosmological views of the origin of the universe and the established evolutionary narrative for the diversity of life.

- Stripping away notions of God and the Supreme is not exactly the way Vivekananda would have intended his work to be read, nor is it the way it is treated most often in the circles that it is popular. To see Vivekananda not as an Oriental revivalist and spokesperson as was his historical role, but instead attributing to him a pre-emptive reconciliation of future philosophical debates, is a post hoc narrative committing presentism.

- Gibran's stirring poetry lends itself to a world of interpretations. As for the quote, "Beauty is eternity gazing at itself in the mirror.", can literary critics every agree on whether the poet means (i) It is the recognition of the best within ourselves, outside of ourselves that we call beauty (ii) It is what withstands time and retains its character that is genuinely beautiful (iii) Beauty must be valued for its own sake and not in any other light or out of any other concerns (iv) The lure of beauty can draw into itself ages of attention....and so on. However to suggest that such a line proclaims some fundamental truth about the Universe being 'conscious of its own existence' would amount to biocentrism.

a) Beauty is eternity gazing at itself in the mirror:-
:- Lets Think over the term "Eternity" carefully again, if something withstands time, so how long, who will test it in future, we do not know future, hence it means its again temporal in nature.
:- Knowing Gibran its highly impossible to Equate Beauty and Lure/value in the same line.

b) Biocentrism:-
This is completely uncalled classification , it just has added a term to lexicon
, Alexis carrel has already proven it in his book. He in fact wants inventory to be created out of every person's knowledge irrespective of his domain including Mysticism. Dennett succumbs when it comes to Morality.
Every discussion itself is centric to human intelligence/rationalism and is emitted from human mind.

Diff classifications of Science is able to dictate terms and explain individual phenomena, but it is unable to to explain Human as a whole. Unless multi classifications are converged and targeted as said by Carrel, unless we cross the Border of self, we cannot decipher the outer truth.
This is where Mysticism differs when it declares with an authority that there is nothing beyond self.
Just like Einsteins theory of relativity we have to give space for this declaration too. Because this should be the guiding factor for science to question "Why there is no outer truth , why is the self limiting factor".

Below excerpt by Alexis Carrel seems to indicate Science of nature and hence science of man
can only be triumphant when all science meets...

Quote:"The science of man makes use of all other sciences. This is one of the reasons for its slow progress and its difficulty. For example, in order to study the influence of a psychological factor on a sensitive individual, the methods of medicine, physiology, physics, and chemistry have to be employed [ p 53, The Man Unknown ]"

Presentism is must and essential because its a way to filter out the uncalled beliefs of yesteryear.
Its just like As some scientist said " I am standing on the shoulder of newton".........it helped me to look ahead. Its often easy to mistake a man who is giving historical , philosophical and rational justifications at the same time. He explains history to account something, then he gives justification.
If there is a gap in accounting and justification, we have made a fool out of such a person.
So reading works of a man like vivekananda completely only can help us to arrive at a proper conclusion. Nodobut there is an English saying " A country without History has no future". if we extend 'country' to both East and West then it has profound sense. A sense that gives directions for the flow of rationalism.

I can't make much sense of much of your post. Too many nebulous words that is quite typical of mysticism and quite the opposite of rationalism ("cross the Border of self", "nothing beyond self", "outer truth", "why is the self limiting factor"). Since you are keen on quoting Dennett, he might call such terms as deepities.

(18-09-2011 03:20 PM)srikgn Wrote:  So reading works of a man like vivekananda completely only can help us to arrive at a proper conclusion. Nodobut there is an English saying " A country without History has no future". if we extend 'country' to both East and West then it has profound sense. A sense that gives directions for the flow of rationalism.

You will find that many here have read their history. Even more so than people who want to show us the error of our ways, that is - not singing the requisite praises for muddled ideas of the past. So calls for history lessons are unneeded.

(18-09-2011 04:00 PM)Lije Wrote:  I can't make much sense of much of your post. Too many nebulous words that is quite typical of mysticism and quite the opposite of rationalism ("cross the Border of self", "nothing beyond self", "outer truth", "why is the self limiting factor"). Since you are keen on quoting Dennett, he might call such terms as deepities.

(18-09-2011 03:20 PM)srikgn Wrote:  So reading works of a man like vivekananda completely only can help us to arrive at a proper conclusion. Nodobut there is an English saying " A country without History has no future". if we extend 'country' to both East and West then it has profound sense. A sense that gives directions for the flow of rationalism.

You will find that many here have read their history. Even more so than people who want to show us the error of our ways, that is - not singing the requisite praises for muddled ideas of the past. So calls for history lessons are unneeded.

Quote:nothing beyond self", "outer truth"

- This is written in the light of Biocentrism.

Quote:history lessons are unneeded

- Agreed, but many Authors have made use of history to place their arguments. Please rethink

Quote:You will find that many here have read their history:-

Ok- i meant we should read vivekananda completely, not to arrive that he is a visionary, just to arrive that he was also a rational..., kindly wait i got ur point of him spreading detrimental karma philosophy, shall create another thread, vivkenananda never advocated karma philosophy.

The stated purpose of this thread, namely to somehow grandly reconcile the stances of Dennett and Craig, seems about as meaningful as trying to reconcile the stances of Richard Dawkins and Ray Comfort. It is true that there is value in Gibran's contribution to world literature and Vivekananda's to the popularization of Indology, but to suggest that their work can be used to prop up the phantom of a reconciliation between scientific evidence and theological obscurantism, is a wild goose chase which will understandably find few takers in a forum like this one.