More Denton: derail (Introduction)

by romansh , Wednesday, August 12, 2015, 14:40 (3391 days ago) @ Balance_Maintained

Tony: You can believe(or not)
> > true
> > >Tony: in which ever God(ess)(s/es) you wish to believe in.
> >Romansh: False, at least for me. 
> Random chance is as much of a God as any other. You believe it capable of miracles that defy logic and observation. 
You missed my point completely ... I don't wish to believe in anything per se ... I do end up in believing in stuff like the first and second laws of thermodynamics and concepts like cause and effect. And speaking of cause and effect, I think many people on both sides of the debate misunderstand chance and randomness. Both of these concepts are governed by cause and effect.-Even in the quantum world it would appear quantum events can be described deterministically. The probabilities of these quantum phenomena are determined and the precise outcome is always uncertain. -> > >Tony: Personally, I believe in God in terms of a monotheistic Abrahamic variety.
> >Romansh I can take this statement at face value.
> > >Tony: Why, well, that has more to do with my religious research than my scientific, 
> >Romansh: Well then, perhaps you can discuss with me the Vedic and Buddhist interpretations of their scriptures. As I am not overly familiar of how we should interpret them. I have read a fair amount of Joseph Campbell though and I think he view point would be a useful vehicle examine the various mythologies you have studied. 
> If one assumes that everything is a myth, then they leave no possibility for something to be truth. Sure, they accept that there may be truths in the myths, but not that the myth may be true in and of itself. Joseph Campbell worked from the assumption that they were all myths, and by definition, not true; as apparently do you. I've read Campbell, and while I agree with him on many points, I do disagree on some fairly significant ones, not the least of which is the possibility that a myth could be truth. -So you disagree with Campbell that myths are "more powerful" the religious dogma? 
> > 
> > >Tony: though the scientific factors heavily into it as well. To me, religion is very much like a scientific theory. If it doesn't fit the evidence....
> > 
> >Romansh: Yeah, I am not sure how an Abrahamic god fits the Evidence though.
> 
> That has been discussed at great lengths elsewhere. The Bible does not get deep into science, but where it does it is accurate and eerily prescient considering that most of the truths revealed were not 'discovered' until many centuries (if not millenia) later. Even in the realm of psychology there are things only recently 'discovered' that were written down in detail some thousands of years ago. 
Islam also claims that the Koran is scientifically accurate, though this too has to be taken with a grain salt.-But you do seem to agree with Campbell that a Myth is somebody else's religion.-> 
> As for the Vedic texts, I view them as part history and part myth. 
So what did you think of the two birds in a tree metaphor and the Upanishad and Vedic interpretations. This is neither history nor myth.