immortal

Immortal,

 

I can also not read minds, but just from the posts, Inow's concern is with people that take the reality of a certain God, or other entity on faith, rather than on empirical evidence. When one believes that something is real, because they "wish" to believe such, and there is no, absolutely NO evidence that somebody else could view or find supports the claim upon testing fairly, then the belief is a made up thing. Hence basing ones life, and interaction with others on the existence of this figment of your imagination, is not substantially a different kind of thing than believing that pixies are whisperiing instructions into you left ear, as you make your life decisions.

My point is its not as simple as that, Inow seems to have studied only the organized religions which outer masses practice, you don't really have to believe in God to give thanksgiving and yet society has blindly following these religious holidays and has accepted it but as Sam Harris says "A kernel of truth lurks at the heart of religion." which deserves a serious discussion and an investigation without being dismissed as childish or wishful-thinking.

You have, yourself, (unless I mixed you with another poster) claimed to know the color of the jewels that God wears,

Ah, the jewel thing, you seem to have taken it too literally, actually its mystical. Please understand the concept of it, if you had seen pearls, diamonds and other gem stones you will see the bright lustre that emanates from it, now when I talk about the jewels of God I don't mean god is just wearing these jewels instead each and every different light rays that emanates from him are the different manifestations as to how the lesser gods have been created and how this cosmos is working. Vedas looks at Him in two ways. They are the Vishrutha(diffused or spread out form) and Samasthi. Looking at each ray of that mass of lustre is the former way(Vishrutha) and looking at it as a whole (yeka) is the latter way (Samasthi).

So this isn't something which I have made it up myself, its in the Vedas and the Upanishads and that's how traditional scholars study and view it. Please kindly understand that.

Pushan is one of the highest manifestations of the light rays that exists in the intelligible realm or Platonic realm or Mandala, whatever you might want to call it.

"Yes", said Pushan. "That is the Apojyothi. Observe carefully. Though it is burning bright it does not generate any heat. That, that should be the aim and object of a Brahmana. Go a step forward. Look at the Savitrumandala (Savithru disc) closely. Just as you see a sprout or a shoot between the two parts of a dwidaladhanya (gram, like Bengalgram etc) you see something subtle (sookshma) and yellowish (peetha) between the red colour of the Agnimandala and the blue of the Somamandala. That yellow, subtle mandala is the Savithru mandala. Just look! As soon as you face that Savitra. All that you have to do is to 'seize' that ray, bring it to Moola Prana, and then on to Maha Prana. Then direct that ray to Prana mandala, from which you finally transfer it to UdanaVayu. That Udana converts that tejas into sound, which will assume the form of a mantra. That mantra is destined to uplift the whole of mankind. But, Vishwamitra, be warned! If the mantra is given to an undeserving person (ayogya) then it will destroy the giver! If given to a deserving person then it protects him that gives, and him that recieves". Since Vishwamitra was a real friend of the universe. By your anugraha the task of the Brahmarshis has been fulfilled. What you have offered is for the benefit of the deserving. May I beseech you of the underserving also! Please tell me that which will benefit them also".

 

Pushan laughed aloud on hearing this request. His laughter brightened as it were, all the ten quarters. It was the laughter of a highly pleased individual. He said, "Brahmarshi! How magnanimous! Men of your stature may just be a hundred even in this Kritha yuga. Even that number is on the liberal side! Even men like you have doubts. So long as the sense of "I-ness" is there, doubts continue to crop up! That is what is called The knot of the heart. Let that be so! Now meditate on Savithru again! Then untie the knot of the hridyagranthi. Then analyse who is really deserving and who is not".

 

Vishwamitra did as directed. And then said, "Pardon me, Deva. I was wrong. Everyone is deserving in this world. Some are ready;the others are getting ready. I hear someone saying Jathamatrasya Gayathree"

which is, in your imagination, the litmus test, to determine if a person has or has not actually seen God.

No, it can be a litmus test for yourself and the second person who also knows about it but it can never be a litmus test for the third person. If I claimed I visited hell and came back without offering any shadow of evidence then would you believe me? No right. Empirical evidence is always the correct evidence to figure out the truth of something.

St. Theresa of Avila almost shattered the whole room so much that the nuns came running to see what happened to her. This is the kind of phenomena which I like to empirically study it.

While I do not disagree with the existence of the numinous, nor each of our undeniable deep connections to, and associations with the greater world around us, there is a similarity between the belief in Santa Claus and the specifically described attributes of the God of the Bible, or the one that wears particularly colored jewels.

As I said you seem to have taken the colored jewels too literally, see above to realize how esoteric is that.

Please elaborate, I see equal amounts of evidence for both concepts....

C.D Broad.The Argument From Religious Experience, 1930.

thank you for your responses immortal. You say Hawking is dishonest when he says philosophy is dead. I confess I have not read his thoughts on this matter, so I must rely upon you.

 

If he states unequivocally as a fact that philosophy is dead, when it self evidently is not, then he is being intellectually dishonest. However, I rather suspect that he is using rhetoric and hyperbole to emphasise his opinion that philosophy has passed it Sell By date. Can you clarify?

Even I have not read it but I saw a couple of threads about his claim in the philosophy forums(SFN).

He must be really crazy, irrespective of in what form he has expressed it, its quite evident that he is saying philosophy is dead. As far as I know philosophers are being hired in every new research field of science from consciousness studies to interpret the results of quantum experiments and if there were no philosophers I wonder what erroneous claims scientists would have made while interpreting their results. Has science explained the ontology of space and time, does science know what space and time are really made of? Has the problem of universals been solved or has science solved it?

http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/66219-hawkings-and-philosophy/

There is no double standard. A decision evolved a few hundred years ago that science would employ methodological naturalism. That is to say it was decided that whether or not the supernatural existed science would not investigate it because its randomness would render it inconvenient or impossible to study. Supernatural events were not discounted, simply excluded from the field of scientific study. It's analagous to not learning any French words when you are studying Swahili.

No, scientists cannot act as though they cannot see the history of mankind and think that only modern science exists. When making claims about religion and philosophy they should consider other phenomena as well and also what disciplines other than the exact sciences have discovered.

You seem to be conceding that your statement was indeed meaningless. In other words you cannot define science on the basis of what people who don't understand it think it is.

If the existence of God turns out to be a well established fact then science will indeed turn out to be a study of one of his creations.

Any scientist who rejects God is not functioning as a scientist. He is perfectly free to reject God in his role as person, but science - because it is currently methodologically naturalistic - has nothing to say about God.

That's the reason I said scientists reject a God hypothesis and not science.

Immortal: Thanks for support.

 

If by repeated contemplation & meditation on the lines propounded above, man succeeds in acquiring the aforesaid perspective which is higher than that of the wakeful state & thus begins to accept the possibility that wakeful state universe might also be as unreal as the dream sleep state universe, then it is inevitable that he would ask the question :-" then, what is the source of all this unreality called wakeful state universe ?

This is the point where science and religion converges.

Quantum weirdness: What we call 'reality' is just a state of mind

So you just don't have to keep hoping, its actually happening, both science and advaita can be reconciled and when scientists begin to realize that the universe doesn't exist when no one is looking at it then they will start taking advaita seriously. Your mind disagrees with this first, its so hard to swallow, you hate this, you desperately try to keep an objective external reality of the world but once you investigate it and as you said contemplate it then you will realize that advaita is indeed true as experiments from quantum mechanics have shattered our cornerstone beliefs.

Once you arrive to this conclusion then next advaita says there is a Mind(Manas), behind the mind an Intellect (Buddhi), behind the Intellect the totality of divine powers(the Pleroma of God/Agnisoma Mandala) and behind this is the infinite (unity, Brahman, Ein Sof) or whatever you might want to call it. We can reach up to the Pleroma of God and discuss it through intellect and its affable but anything beyond it is ineffable and therefore should not be spoken.

(On a side note there is no word called Pleroma in advaita, its actually a Gnostic concept but they just called the same thing by different names for example:- the Brahmins called the infinite as Brahman and the Kabbalahists called it the Ein Sof.)

Therefore the idea of adwaita or nondualism attempts to answer this very question by putting forward a tentative view that this wakeful state universe is a self-willed dream of a higher being aka god & hence this iconic idea of adwaita or nondualism that "before the beginning of time & at the end of time god becomes dimensionless awareness AND after the beginning of time & before the end of time god becomes four dimensional space time".

As I told I don't understand what you're trying to say here.

Immortal. You seem to disagree with Cuthber's opinion that deity believers are just as broken as santa believers. I agree with Cuthber's opinion (though I don't care enough to label santa believers as broken) because I consider the amounts of supportive evidence for each belief to be the same. I make the comparison because both beliefs use similar broken logic to adopt the belief (assuming the individual is critically contemplating them before adopting them as beliefs). You disagreed, so either you don't think the comparison should be made in the first place, or you consider there to be unequal amounts of supportive evidence? provide the reasoning for your disagreement please.

Not only the comparison is silly but also there are unequal amounts of supportive evidence.

Can you provide an example of his intellectual dishonesty?

For example his claim that philosophy is dead.

What questions should they ask?

Steven Weinberg: "Against Philosophy" (from "Dreams of a Final Theory").

I do find that there is a strong social influence on what constitutes as scientific consensus and which hypotheses gets more funding and media hype. I do think that the discipline of science should work under the positivist philosophy of science but there are things which are unobservable for example:- quarks, one cannot find an isolated quark no matter what but we can see that it exists by observing its effects through a phenomena known as bremsstrahlung. In the same way even God and the numinous is unobservable but its effects can be empirically studied. So if we can accept that quarks exist why can't we accept that the numinous exists too. Why such double standards?

Only those who believe in God through faith believe that science is the study of God's creations. Therefore your statement here makes no sense.

I know what science is but most religious people see science as the study of God's creations while scientists often try to reject a God hypothesis by applying Occam's razor.

Moreover only very small amount of inconclusive scientific evidence points towards the existence of God.

Scientists should be more matured while making claims about religion and philosophy. They even go on to say that God is dead.

For man wakeful state universe is real from his wakeful state perspective. For man dream sleep state universe is real from his dream sleep perspective Man says :- dream sleep state universe is unreal from his wakeful state perspective. Idea of adwaita or nondualism says :- by repeated contemplation & meditation man can reach a perspective higher than wakeful state perspective & from this higher perspective he would then realize that even the wakeful state universe is as unreal as his dream sleep state universe.

This is a much more substantive argument compared to your past arguments and if you concentrate on this one keeping aside god and dimensionless awareness which are vague terms then there will be much point in what you're arguing.

I can't read his mind so, unlike you, I can't be sure if he's being honest or not.*

I have argued with him in the past and he explicitly states in this very thread that...

The only force involved here is the conviction of my position, the clarity of my words, and the nature with which I deliver them. These people are not being forced to do anything, and can believe in the existence of santa claus, unicorns, and puff the magic dragon if they so choose. The larger issue is that we as a society really do need to cease and desist from showing special deference and undue respect to these positions. The moment someone mentions faith, their position should be weakened in the mind of the audience, not granted special authority nor become immune from criticism.

 

My primary hope in expressing these points is that these individuals will genuinely consider what is being said, hopefully reflect on the specious and childish nature of their beliefs, and perhaps even show a bit of strength, courage, and mental fortitude by letting go of any belief they've accepted on faith and begin to lead a better life not anchored by fairy tales and nonsense.

How is this different from Talibanization? It sounds great when you read his post for the first time but I think its a very extreme position like "I am going to decide what's accepted and what's not", "I am going to decide which hypothesis gets a pass and which don't", "I am going to decide what's childish and what's mature". I find such vitriolic positions often unnecessary and unfounded. The first strawman which he makes is by placing the concept of God on the same grounds as the concept of Santa Claus, unicorns etc. To be honest if the whole of religion was just about Santa Claus, unicorns and puff the magic dragon then obviously no theist would have come to SFN claiming that these entities exist but the majority of religious doctrines are highly philosophical, intellectual and quite rational and he thinks all concepts of God are like belief in unicorns without noticing the genuine differences between the different concepts of God that exists out there in the literature and he concludes all theists are like this and that they only accept things by blind faith and never allow criticism by others and demand respect for their beliefs.

On the whole it is just a too narrow of a position to apply for such a broad topic. What are his standards to decide what should be acceptable by the society and what not? How reasonable it is? What makes him think that he is not showing double standards himself?

In its original usage, Talibanization referred to groups who followed Taliban practices such as:

 

• usually strict regulation of women, including forbidding of most employment or schooling for women;
• the banning of long lists of activities generally tolerated by other Muslims—movies, television, videos, music, dancing, hanging pictures in homes, clapping during sports events;
• the banning of activities (especially hairstyles and clothing) generally tolerated by other Muslims on the grounds that the activities are Western;
• oppression of Shia, including takfir threats that they convert to Sunni Islam or be prepared to be killed;
• aggressive enforcement of its regulations, particularly the use of armed "religious police";
• the destruction of non-Muslim artifacts, especially carvings and statues such as Buddhas of Bamyan, generally tolerated by other Muslims, on the grounds that the artifacts are idolatrous orShirk (polytheism)
• harboring of Al Qaeda or other Islamic terrorists;
• a discriminatory attitude towards non-Muslims such as sumptuary laws against Afghan Hindus the Taliban regime enacted, requiring them to wear yellow badges, a practice reminiscent ofNazi Germany's anti-Semitic policies.

However, I can say that I think that people who believe in God are just as broken as adults who never grew out of believing in Santa and the tooth fairy.

That's the same problem with you too. Unfortunately the majority of the literature in religion doesn't really address either about the Santa or the tooth fairy. If that was the case then there was no point in arguing for almost 60+ pages for this thread topic. As I said things are not as simple as both of you guys are thinking.

* BTW, if you can't read minds then your post is an ad hom.

I am not reading any minds, its a claim which he explicitly stated earlier. IMHO, there is no need for such extremism as no true religions encourage hatred as Barack Obama said, "But no matter what we choose to believe, let us remember that there is no religion whose central tenet is hate."

All religions argue that everything came from the Self.

I'm not sure if "honest" is the right word here, especially since I am incredibly authentic with my thoughts on this topic. With that said, perhaps you will elaborate why you think I should have arrived at a different conclusion than I have?

I think DrDNA made a few very good points in the beginning of the thread.

Add to that the fact that quantum theory and the supernatural are quickly converging.

 

It's only a matter of time.

 

JohnC11 wrote: Ponder this: In the quantum world things don't exist until they are observed by a consciousness. Einstein tried his darnedest to refute that but science has thus far shown his objections to be unsubstantiated. Keep an open mind to all possibilities. The universe is stranger than we think it is!

So I really find your extreme intolerance towards religion quite unnecessary and claiming that people who believe in God are broken is definitely a dishonesty on your part.

By the way, your own quote from Harris contradicts the argument you're trying to make. You specifically mentioned religion. Harris was talking about the numinous and nuanced nature of consciousness. I was talking about belief in god(s), not religion. Your point fails on a few different levels.

Religion <=> Deities <=> Consciousness are all interconnected.

I recently saw 'Stephen Hawking special- Did God create the universe? ' , a program in the Discovery channel. The great mind concluded that he believes there's no god, and before the big bang, there was no space or time to begin any creation. And that everything was made from "nothing".

So i was thinking, okay, there may not be a God, but what was this "nothing"? If the Big Bang started from an atom sized thing, how did it appear in the first place? If space is not "nothing", then what is it?

For those who want to watch the program, search the title in youtube.

Thanks in advance

The conclusion of Stephen Hawking is ill founded and he is intellectually dishonest. Scientists are basically asking the wrong questions, all scientific evidence is pointing towards the existence of a God owing to the belief that science is the study of God's creations.

"The message would be that the purpose of life is not to eat and drink, watch television and so on. Consuming is not the aim of life. Earning as much money as one can is not the real purpose of life. There is a superior entity, a divinity, le divin as we say in French that is worth thinking about, as are our feelings of wholeness, respect and love, if we can. A society in which these feelings are widespread would be more reasonable than the society the West presently lives in."

- Bernard D'Espagnat, theoretical physicist and philosopher of science.

Good thing you've done no such thing. The paper is essentially garbage. I can start a thread discussing it when I get home if you'd like.

Go ahead. Simply stating that a published paper is garbage without making any valid points adds no value to the discussion.

Have you actually read the article? It's actually even worse than I expected from SciAm.

Yes and I have also heard that if someone brings concrete evidence against one's views then they should simply accept it.

You can state it as many times as you like, Immortal, but it won't make it true.

Now an appeal to authority so that you can continue holding on to your false views.

Anyone who thinks that Buddhism is theism needs to read a book.

Anyone who thinks that there are no gods in Buddhism is inexcusably ignorant. You definitely need to read about eastern religions before questioning about my authority. Your views are blatantly wrong and not true at all.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mandala

Mandalas are commonly used by tantric Buddhists as an aid to meditation. More specifically, a Buddhist mandala is envisaged as a "sacred space," a "Pure Buddha Realm,"^[16] and also as an abode of fully realised beings or deities.^[14] While on the one hand, the mandala is regarded as a place separated and protected from the ever-changing and impure outer world of samsara,^[17] and is thus seen as a "Buddhafield"^[18] or a place of Nirvana and peace, the view of Vajrayana Buddhism sees the greatest protection from samsara being the power to see samsaric confusion as the "shadow" of purity (which then points towards it). By visualizing "pure lands," one learns to understand experience itself as pure, and as the abode of enlightenment. The protection that we need, in this view, is from our own minds, as much as from external sources of confusion. In many tantric mandalas, this aspect of separation and protection from the outer samsaric world is depicted by "the four outer circles: the purifying fire of wisdom, the vajra circle, the circle with the eight tombs, the lotus circle."^[19] The ring of vajras forms a connected fence-like arrangement running around the perimeter of the outer mandala circle.^[20]

 

The mandala can be shown to represent in visual form the core essence of the Vajrayana teachings. In the mandala, the outer circle of fire usually symbolises wisdom. The ring of 8 charnel grounds^[24] represents the Buddhist exhortation to always be mindful of death, and the impermanence with which samsara is suffused: "such locations were utilized in order to confront and to realize the transient nature of life."^[25] Described elsewhere: "within a flaming rainbow nimbus and encircled by a black ring of dorjes, the major outer ring depicts the eight great charnel grounds, to emphasize the dangerous nature of human life."^[26] Inside these rings lie the walls of the mandala palace itself, specifically a place populated by deities and Buddhas.

Have you any evidence of scholarship or knowledge in this area,

Do you know why Upanishads have no authors? Its because they knew that everything belongs to God - "Covet nothing, everything belongs to God" - Isha Upanishad. You just study it but I live by it. I don't believe in the Intellectual property rights.

Yes, I have studied it and many scholars in the field are reconsidering their views and questioning the epistemology of Advaita and Science. I am quite happy to see that you're views are turning out to be wrong.

“QUANTUMPHYSICS AND VEDANTA”: A PERSPECTIVE FROM BERNARD D'ESPAGNAT'SSCIENTIFICREALISM – Jonathon Duquette.

Towards aphilosophical reconstruction of the dialogue between modern physics and AdvaitaVedanta: an inquiry into the concepts of akasa, vacuum and reality –Jonathon Duquette.

Why is that much of what I say is correct?

Its simply because of the reliability of my sources and how authoritative they are.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Devudu_Narasimha_Sastri

"Hewas chosen for the honour of being ‘worshipped’ in the ceremonial way, as oneamong the hundred traditional scholars, by the first president of India, BabuRajendra Prasad, in the sacred Varanasi. He hailed from a family of royalpriests in Mysore, but the stature that he had as a traditional scholar wasacquired by him as a result of his systematic study of the shastras for 20years."

Your views are self-refuting and has no support from these traditions and these works are evidence of it. We all have to believe you just because you think you have a higher authority over these issues? Do you? Really?

or do you just state your heterodox views on internet forums to confuse people?

Its not my ideas, its the orthodox and the correct view of the Acharays who gave the doctrine of Advaita to the world.

Of course, many aspiring and practicing Buddhists speak of Gods. Physicists speak of rubber sheets and billiard balls. The Buddha, however, does not speak of Gods, and it is blindingly obvious that Middle Way Buddhism is not theism. This is such a basic issue that I can't believe we're discussing it. Seeing as how Buddhist meditation encompasses philosophical analysis and metaphysics perhaps you'd be better off advising people how to practice on a Buddhist forum. Good luck.

What makes you think I am not doing that, metaphysics is useless and its a dead end.

I'm reminded of why there is no chance of a decent disussion in this forum. I would invite anyone who doubts your authority to speak on these issues to check the Buddha's position on theism. Easily done. Then there need be no doubt.

I don't have to defend myself for your strawman arguments.

I don't know why I bother. Sorry for being sucked in again.

Yeah, you never learn.

Ah, yes. The prestigious Scientific American. Because popular science writing is quality stuff.

Those are facts established from experiments. Kant was right after all.

"Kant taught that space and time are not part of external reality but are rather preexisting structures in our minds that allow us to relate objects and events."

I don't know how many times I have to state this, those who think that there are no gods in Buddhism don't really know how esoteric Buddhism really is. One should understand these religions in their own milieu and the strength of their doctrines lies in following their methodologies and their views about the cosmos.

The Buddhist Mandala - Sacred Geometry and Art

I would be grateful if meta-physicians and philosophers keep themselves away from this and stop distorting these sensitive religious doctrines and ideas.

LoL. The link address is from Templeton but the original paper is from Scientific American.

http://www.scientificamerican.com/media/pdf/197911_0158.pdf

The reason I linked it to the former address is simple because its free from unrelated ads.

Nope, experiments prove that there is a reality not embedded in space-time.

^ Citation needed.

Then you should be able to provide me with a paper.

Sure.

http://www.templeton...20Am%201979.pdf

http://arxiv.org/pdf...h/9802046v2.pdf

http://catdir.loc.go...31/88003658.pdf

"An 'ultimate reality' exists which is not embedded in space or time"

- Bernard D'Espagnat

Our cosmos doesn't obey this proof and hence this whole thread is pointless.

1. All that exists, exists within space-time.

Nope, experiments prove that there is a reality not embedded in space-time.

So I was reading over at Wikipedia about anorexia nervosa and seen something about epigenetics that had sparked my curiousity.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anoretic

 

"epigenetics: Epigenetic mechanisms: are means by which genetic mutations are caused by environmental effects that alter gene expression via methods such as DNA methylation, these are independent of and do not alter the underlying DNA sequence. They are heritable, as was shown in the Överkalix study, but also may occur throughout the lifespan, and are potentially reversible. Dysregulation of dopaminergic neurotransmission and Atrial natriuretic peptide homeostasis resulting from epigenetic mechanisms has been implicated in various eating disorders.[74] "We conclude that epigenetic mechanisms may contribute to the known alterations of ANP homeostasis in women with eating disorders."[74][75]"

 

My question is that it says there are mutations caused by environmental factors that alter gene expression, but yet seem not to alter DNA sequence. Can someone please explain to someone who doesn't know much about genetics?

 

Another question is about mutations being reversible. Can someone elaborate on the possibility of mutations being reversible because I was under the impression that it was fixed once it occurs. Is it possible to revert to normal gene expression from mutations?

 

Thanks

There are various types of genetic mutations, point mutations are one type of mutation where a change of base occurs at one of the three places of a Codon and hence in these type of mutations DNA sequence is altered but there are other type of mutations like regulatory mutations which doesn't change the sequence of the target gene but instead try suppress or express the gene expression and and these genetic changes are normally induced by environment factors.

Mutations cannot be reversible but it is indeed possible to reverse a gene expression just like you can switch on or switch off a light bulb. To know more read about RNA interference and how prions regulate phenotypes in certain microbes at different times of the seasons.

I had the opportunity to take pictures of a Kingfisher from my living room and was fascinated by its beak design solution and the Japanese Bullet Train which was designed is a form of Bio-mimicry in engineering and the train travelled 10 percent faster, consuming 15 percent less energy and it no longer created a sonic boom after adopting this design into the Bullet Trains.

Birds have always been an interesting genera of organisms to study evolution from Ring species on how mating songs among a population change over time and induce reproductive barriers and there by speciation to their adaptations of beaks for different environmental niches. These examples of finches show that evolution can occur in our life time which we call as micro-evolution. Even though everyone agrees that evolution is happening there are minor disagreements on how it happens and what are the mechanisms that underlie it and this brought me to The Beak of the Finch: A Story of Evolution in Our Time

This seems to be an important study for both neo-darwinists as well as proponents of punctuated equilibrium theory and I think both the 'gene-selectionist view' as well as many of the tenets of the punctuated equilibrium view of the palaeontologists should be considered seriously because natural selection acts at both the gene level as well as at the ecological level and also on local scales and also on longer time scales of hierarchical evolution.

The current battle between these two different schools of thought can be right summed up as Dawkins vs Gould and Sterelny clearly summarizes the different points of view of these two evolutionary biologists where Dawkins identifies more with the gene-selectionist view and Gould and others identifying themselves with punctuated equilibrium.

This particular study like some of the many other studies seem to question the cumulative nature(cumulative selection) of how evolution was normally thought to operate by the neo-darwinists i.e. a gradual series of accumulation of good designs but as said there are cases where this normally not how evolution seem to work and this is where species selection comes into picture for the accumulation of novel design solutions. One such case is this -

Kim Sterelny (2007) cites this rapid natural selection as illustrating an important point about periods of relative stasis in the punctuated equilibrium hypothesis of Niles Eldredge and Stephen Jay Gould: "In claiming that species typically undergo no further evolutionary change once speciation is complete, they are not claiming that there is no change at all between one generation and the next. Lineages do change. But the change between generations does not accumulate. Instead, over time, the species wobbles about its phenotypic mean. Jonathan Weiner's The Beak of the Finch describes this very process".

The Grants observed that drought conditions led to larger average weight, wingspan, and bill size, whereas flooding experienced a few years later resulted in reduced measurements: "Everything the drought had preferred in size large . . . the aftermath of the flood favored in size small" (Weiner, p. 104). Rather than continuing "to shoot like an arrow in the same direction" (p. 104), evolution had turned back. "Natural selection had swung around against the birds from the other side. . . . Selection had flipped. . . . Not only can evolution push a species fast in one direction. Evolution can reverse direction and push it back just as swiftly" (pp. 104, 106).

It is indeed an wobbling over its phenotypic mean within a generations of species lineages where suddenly the large beak sizes where replaced by smaller ones and hence showing that novel designs doesn't necessarily accumulate over time with in a species and that certain species specific characteristics need to be transferred to daughter species and only then the novel design might have a chance that it gets accumulated over time.

I think species selection, non-adaptive change, uncoupling of macroevolution and microevolution and species stasis and mosaic evolution which are some of the main views of Gould on evolutionary biology along with the functional constraints of the phenotypes in developmental biology should be seen as well accepted tenets of evolutionary biology.

And there will always be people who still doubt evolution by natural selection without understanding how it works.

"Darwinism in the West is in much the same condition as was Soviet Marxism in its last days. Its power and prestige rest not on any real scientific accomplishments but on the theory's role in upholding the ruling philosophy. Obscure scientists who go to a remote island to measure finch beaks can become the subjects of television documentaries and Pulitzer Prize-winning books, because the intellectual elite relies on finch-beak variation to convince the public that materialism is true."

- Philip Johnson, a proponent of ID

Except, it CAN be explained using natural causes. Just because you are ignorant of those causes or just because you choose to ignore them does NOT mean they do not exist.

That doesn't mean the idea of God is a pure imagination either.

Why do assume I have not done this already, and simply arrived at a different conclusion than you?

Its simply because of your vitriolic position on religion. If you had really investigated it, the conclusion should have been a little more honest.

 

MYSTICISM is a rational enterprise. Religion is not. The mystic has recognized something about the nature of consciousness prior to thought, and this recognition is susceptible to rational discussion. The mystic has reasons for what he believes, and these reasons are empirical. The roiling mystery of the world can be analyzed with concepts (this is science), or it can be experienced free of concepts (this is mysticism). Religion is nothing more than bad concepts held in place of good ones for all time. It is the denial—at once full of hope and full of fear—of the vastitude of human ignorance.

 

 

A kernel of truth lurks at the heart of religion, because spiritual experience, ethical behavior, and strong communities are essential for human happiness. And yet our religious traditions are intellectually defunct and politically ruinous. While spiritual experience is clearly a natural propensity of the human mind, we need not believe anything on insufficient evidence to actualize it. Clearly, it must be possible to bring reason, spirituality, and ethics together in our thinking about the world. This would be the beginning of a rational approach to our deepest personal concerns. It would also be the end of faith.

 

- Sam Harris, End of Faith

But that's silly.

 

 

That seems obscenely and unnecessarily convoluted... a nasty display of painful mental gymnastics and cortical contortion... and all just so you can attempt to rationalize a pre-existing belief. Or, as I said above, silly.

No, its not. What's silly is how you dismiss the whole of religion as pure human imagination and fantasies of a feeble mind and state that a group of people are broken based on this pre-existing belief of yours. Its definitely not as simple as that. Religious experiences even though its rare induce an irrevocable change in people lives which cannot be explained using natural causes. These religious experiences are not evidence of anything but evidence of empirical effects itself.

If you remain agnostic and if you investigate such cases by being in their shoes and look at things from their perspective you will realize that its not as simple as you think it is to conclude that they are somehow broken.

If so, how does this "defy evolutionary psychology?" Thanks for any clarification or help you can offer here.

Its something which I have argued in the past where I question the origin of religion and religious acts itself and argue that both evolution by natural selection and cultural evolution cannot account for such behaviours and an external divine force is acting in keeping such memes in the meme pool and also of their origins. See #86, #89 from a different thread and also this.

I also oppose that religion is beyond the scope of science and it is wrong for science to model religion. Evolutionary psychology of Religion and Breaking the spell: Religion as a natural phenomena by Daniel Dennett.

 

The following argument shows why the origin of religion based upon evolutionary psychology cannot account for behaviours displayed by religious people.

 

1. No matter how strong economically and politically a religious organisation is it will try to spread its message and their beliefs and the chances that their ideas are transmitted and accepted by other people around a wide population icreases. For example :- the church will always spread the message of the Gospel.

 

2. These bad religious ideas or practices don't cost much if the members of the religion as long as they don't take their religious ideas seriously but once if they start taking those religious beliefs and practices seriously then that is where the problem starts for those selfish genes who control our psychological behaviours.

 

3. We will have a small population of people who take those unreal beliefs and practices and their only purpose in the society will be to spread their message and make others to believe in those religious practices and make them that they too take them very seiously.

 

4. This will lead to more and more people following such beliefs and such people don't serve any purpose to society in any way because they don't have any interest in propagating their genes in the gene pool nor they have any interest to do something good for the society because their only goal is to have self-realization.

 

5. This is what we observe in the history of the world and such behavious are being displayed by people even today and more and more people are leaving their families destroying the social framework and its stability making up their mind to spend rest of their energy and life to attain salvation and deliverance and that is there only aim and don't have any interest in the affairs of the world.

 

6. If this is the case then religion seems to be a very bad idea and a hindarance for those selfish genes and hence evolutionary psychology cannot account for such behaviours because such behaviours doesn't in any way help in the reproductive fitness of those individuals who display those behaviours.

 

7. If we give an alternate explanation and say they are all suffering from a psychological problem then cultural evolution should have come in to keep a check on such ideas and prevent people to not to learn such behavious but I don't see that happening and we also have to accept the fact that it was these men with psychological problems who wrote those scriptures which later turned out to be the belief systems of many of the major religions of the world and the ultimate message that is given in those scriptures is that human beings should follow and learn to become like those men who took unreal human imaginary ideas developed by selfish genes controlling our psychological behaviours so seriously so much that they lost their reproductive fitness itself.

 

8. Therefore the two natural forces natural selection and cultural evolution cannot account for the origin of religion and an origin from a higher authority like God is one of a plausible explanation which we cannot rule out very easily.

I'm not sure what you're trying to say here. Can you please restate this another way? Do you mean that religious beliefs and belief in deities may have evolved and been selected for throughout human history? If not, what do you mean? If so, how does this "defy evolutionary psychology?" Thanks for any clarification or help you can offer here.

Oops sorry, it should have been.

"I have argued these religious acts defy evolutionary psychology and raises doubts about the natural origin of such memes through evolutionary mechanisms."

I still have problems with the Argument from religious experiences, the common structure of the experiences experienced by different religious people following different religions like Gnostic Christianity, Tantric Buddhism, Vedic Aryans, oral traditions of Judaism shows that the idea of God cannot be dismissed so easily, even though the empirical effects of the experiences cannot prove that a particular God exists, the sense of oneness in these empirical effects proves that a numinous exists. I would very much be happy to call this divinity as a God.

Also as I have argued these religious acts defy evolutionary psychology and raises the natural origin of such memes through evolutionary mechanisms.

"These experiences often have very significant effects on people's lives, frequently inducing in them acts of extreme self-sacrifice well beyond what could be expected from evolutionary arguments. "