(30-07-2010 02:44 PM)mvish Wrote: Ok you said freethought is opposite of ideology...
Then what is an ideology? The same wikipedia article says that:
“An ideology is a set of ideas that discusses one's goals, expectations, and actions. An ideology can be thought of as a comprehensive vision, as a way of looking at things (compare worldview)...“
Will that mean freethought is opposite of "ideas", "worldview" or "way of looking at things"?
Will that not make a person do not possess an idea, worldview or a perspective (way of looking at things)?
Firstly, you are being dishonest. The same wikipedia article says nothing about ideologies. However, the article on ideology does: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ideology
If you read the whole thing in context, it becomes obvious that you are observing the colloquial definition of 'ideology' that the article clearly identifies as such, and are ignoring the formal meaning of 'ideology' that follows in the lines just after the ones that you quoted.
"An ideology can be thought of as a comprehensive vision, as a way of looking at things (compare worldview), as in common sense (see Ideology in everyday society below) and several philosophical tendencies (see Political ideologies), or a set of ideas proposed by the dominant class of a society to all members of this society (a "received consciousness" or product of socialization)."
The original definition of ideology is the latter. Freethought is not an ideology in the true sense of the word 'ideology'.
Quote:Then you said "it is the belief in evidence-based science and reason.". Yes as you said it is also a "BELIEF"... that mean instead of believing on one thing you believe on another thing. Thus it is one viewpoint vs. another viewpoint -- there is nothing "free" here as far as thought is concerned!!
Of course, it is a belief system. You are confusing between belief
. The very act of being sentient consists of beliefs. However, belief without evidence constitutes faith. Life is always about one viewpoint vs another. Where did I claim that freethought does not involve viewpoints? This is what is known as a straw man. It is a logical fallacy. Look it up.
Quote:From a scientific perspective (which is based on physical evidence) there is no such thing called rebirth.
But if you look carefully, it is also true that there is no scientific evidence to proof that there is only “single birth” or “there is no possibility of rebirth”.
Then what made the contemporary scientific community to presume that the humans have only "single-birth" instead of "many-births"?
This shows basic ignorance about science and logic, but let me humor you.
There is no evidence that there are "many births". It is pure fantasy that you indulge in. This is what makes your belief an ideology based on faith.
But you cannot prove a negative. You ask why science rejects "many births" when it has not disproved it. Here you are being illogical. We all reject ideas when there is absolutely no reason for believing in them. But since this form of fantasy is part of your belief system, you seem to think that science must disprove
"many births" before you can reject it.
The proof, however, is very well documented. If you think that "single birth" needs proof, then I must only conclude that you don't know the meaning of the word 'evidence'.
Quote:Well the reason behind is, the Judeo-Christian perspective or beliefs is used as the default paradigm by the western scientific community.
Wrong. Now you are just insulting all scientists. Specifically, you are insulting the tens of thousands of Indian scientists. I would venture to say that the above idea is the single least coherent argument that I have seen on this website. Are you seriously under the impression that modern science uses Judeo-Christian perspective as the "default paradigm"
What "paradigm" is that?
Quote:A scientist who was raised from a Judeo-Christian background, "many-births" is something unheard therefore it requires a proof for him or her to believe. Similarly if the scientist is raised from a Hindu background, "single-birth" is also something unproven for him or her to believe in it.
At this point I am seriously starting to have my doubts. Are you for fucking real?
Quote:Thus here the argument is not about science itself as an endeavor, but rather about the "worldview" that a scientist forms the opinion from -- whether it is Judeo-Christian or Hindu.
The fact is, you are so conditioned by your view of the world through the colored lens of religion that you cannot see objective reality. Just as the Christians, Muslims and Zoroastrians of the world, you are brainwashed. Science is about evidence. What you are talking about is pure drivel.
Quote:That’s why we have many Sanskrit literature on scientific subjects and they never contradict "many-birth" view while the western based scientific theories evolve around "single-birth" view as it default paradigm
Bullshit. You don't know what science is. Science is a very specific way of studying the universe. There is something called the scientific method, and there is something called peer-review, which makes the scientific process very different from the kind of crap that you are promoting.
But lets observe what's going on here. You are positing that you have just as much reason to believe in "many-births" as in "single-birth". The only reason this is possible is if you think that pure fantasy is evidence.
Quote:This is just one example, but there are many such instances.
Oh, please don't stop. Bring it on. I'd like to see how many such instances you are wrong about.
Science is not an ideology in the classical sense of the word ideology. But if you do not value evidence- if you don't think that proof and logic are useful tools that the brain uses to distinguish between nonsense and facts, then you would not understand this. You will go on forums and attempt to equate science with complete gibberish.