The Gospel According to Einstein?
By Dan Tow • Jan 30th, 2009 • Category: Misc, Worth A Second Look • 58 CommentsI once promised in these pages never to argue against any reader’s religion. While I intend to keep that promise, and I hope you do not feel this article breaks that promise, whatever your religion, I would like to humbly offer some thoughts on religion that I hope do not offend and that I hope do not conflict with your current religious core beliefs, some thoughts that I hope might in some small way point toward a possibility of greater unity between religions, and thereby toward greater world unity.
I want to address readers of all religions, here, and even readers with no religion, so I’m going to try to use relatively neutral terminology, while avoiding constant repetition of awkward phrases like “God, Allah, the Gods, or the universe, itself, or whatever you understand to have created the universe.” Therefore, throughout the article, I’ll use “the Creator” to mean whatever entity or entities you believe to be behind the creation of the universe, an entity you may call “God”, “Allah,” “the Gods,” or “the universe, itself” (if you believe in no god at all).
I’ll start with a long advance apology, as any discussion of religion is almost sure to offend many readers, as much as I wish to avoid this! If you are uninterested in my apology, you can skip this paragraph. For readers who believe in multiple gods, I humbly beg your pardon that I could not think of a term better than “Creator,” no term that is simultaneously singular and plural. For readers who believe in a single God, I humbly beg your pardon that by not referring to God, Allah, or Jehovah in terms that are conventional to your religion, and by not referring to your particular holy book as being special above the others, I may, with great regret and apologies, appear to be arguing against your religion, but please understand that this is not my intent at all! For readers who believe in no god at all, I realize that my argument likely appears somewhat nonsensical – you hold no book sacred, and you likely find it awkward at best to refer to “the Creator” and “the universe” as two separate things, when you believe that they are one thing, and you believe that one thing lacks some of the properties generally attributed to a “Creator.” It is possible that every reader (including those whose beliefs I agree with!) will find in my compromise terminology “proof” that I must hold some belief other than his or her own beliefs, even when I will surely agree with some readers! I understand that my sort of compromise terminology is surely not ideal to any readers, including to readers who believe precisely as I do (and I am deliberately not identifying my own beliefs, here, as I think these are irrelevant to the discussion!), but I hope it is at least inoffensive, representing a necessary compromise if I hope to exclude no religions from this discussion.
Most of the world’s faiths have writings that they hold sacred, writings that they generally believe to have been authored more or less directly by the Creator, or at least to have been inspired by the Creator. This notion of direct involvement of the Creator in the sacred writings understandably gives those writings extreme importance and authority among the faithful. Conflict arises when two religions interpret their sacred writings (which may be different, or may be the same, but interpreted very differently) to give incompatible instruction about how they must live, for example, when both religions interpret their sacred books to command the faithful to try to convert all others to follow the one true religion, and to keep themselves and their families true to the religion they grew up with. In such a case, your success converting me to your idea of the “true religion” is my brother’s failure to keep me within his idea of the “true religion,”, and, vice versa, his success converting your brother would be your failure (assuming both sets of brothers started out sharing two different religions). When whole nations adopt advocacy for a religion, or at least for a set of ideas that are more agreeable to one religion than to another, then this recipe for personal conflict becomes a recipe for conflict between nations. When a nation is split by conflicting, assertive religions, or even by assertive, conflicting branches of a religion, the recipe for conflict can lead to bloody civil war and to partition of the nation, or to oppression of one part of the population by another. (I realize that Pakistan’s own history exemplifies this point, but Pakistan is far from unique in this regard!)
As long as there are religions, and as long as people feel passionate about them, this source of conflict will remain. However, I think that some improvement would be possible if there was some sacred source of wisdom, a sort of alternative “sacred text” that all (or at least most) religions could agree on and share, if followers of any two religions could say, “Well, we disagree strongly about the holy authority of these two particular books, but here is a third thing that we both agree was directly authored by the Creator, and that we both can study, together, to better understand the Creator and the wisdom of the Creator, and by studying this third thing together, we can reduce the conflicts between our sets of belief and between our religions!” I think that would be a great foundation for global understanding! Well, I want to argue that such a “Shared Gospel” already exists, and it is the universe, itself! There may be exceptions (and feel free to point out if your religion is one of those exceptions!), but in general religions hold that the entity or entities I am calling here “the Creator” created the universe, directly, at least as directly as that entity created any holy book! I submit that this makes the universe, itself, a sort of shared revelation that nearly all religions ought to be able to agree on, and ought to study, together, for the wisdom that must be contained in such a shared revelation of the nature and wisdom of the Creator, “authored” personally by the Creator!
Imagine that one day we found written upon the moon, in letters many kilometers high, visible through any telescope, words stating that there was a previously unseen holy book, written by the Creator, buried 100 meters beneath the South Pole. Imagine that this book was then found written on meter-wide pages of diamond, exactly at the specified location, and every religious leader in the world was inspired by the Creator with unshakable faith that this new gospel was in fact the direct work of the Creator, written at some unknown date in the past. Would there be any reason to give study of this book less importance, within each religion, than study of the earlier-known holy books? In addition to being a direct revelation of the Creator, this new gospel would hold an additional virtue of being a shared gospel that all religions might learn from at once, something that might tend to bring them together. Would there be conflicts? Well, surely there would be times when this new, shared gospel seemed to contradict somewhat some cherished beliefs that came from those earlier-known gospels. Would this be a reason automatically to reject and ignore the new gospel? Remember, the new gospel, in this story, is just as much and just as directly the work of the creator as any other gospel. If these two holy texts disagree, both deserve respect, but as long as you believe both to be the direct work of the Creator, neither may simply be rejected, and you just have to deal with apparent contradictions as well as you can, I think, while giving all proper respect to both. This is nothing really new, though, I would argue: already, religious authorities and believers in general find apparently-contradictory notions even within each religion’s primary holy book, as for example when one part of the Christian Bible extols the virtues of mercy and forgiveness, and favors leaving punishment to the Creator, and another part appears to spell out mandatory and severe human-administered punishments for such crimes as working on the Sabbath. A large part of religious scholarship, I think, comes of attempts to reconcile these apparent contradictions within holy texts, and having a second source of holy truth, added to the traditional one, would not change this, though it might increase the challenges (but these increased challenges would be a good thing, handled with an open mind, bringing us closer to something like actual Truth!).
Well, I will argue that the universe, itself, if you believe it to be the direct work of the Creator, is not really different from the above imaginary new holy book (except that the universe is real!), as a source of important truth, and as a source of insight into the true nature of the Creator (so far as we feeble humans can understand this!). The main difference is that to study a book, you must read it, in whatever human language it uses, while to study the universe, itself, calls for direct observation, and for organized efforts to share and refine ideas about observations made by all who study the universe. Now, the universe is a terrifically big, complex and subtle thing, not so easy to read as a book, so if a single person wanted to learn from both the universe, and from a book, that person might learn more by focusing on just the book. I think, however, that if many people work together to learn from the universe, and if they refine very clever, systematic methods to learn from the universe over many generations, it (the universe, that is) can be as productive a source of important, profound truth as any book. (I hope that this statement does not seem blasphemous – remember, under my argument, both the holiest possible book and the universe, itself, are the direct product of the Creator, so (it seems to me) either one might be a perfect source of truth, or, perhaps, the two, combined, might be ideal.)
So, if you agree, how can we best “read” the universe’s lessons of truth? Your answer to that question might differ from mine, but having degrees in chemistry and chemical engineering, I admit that I have a strong belief in science, and in the scientific method as the very best and most powerful means humans have so far developed to study the universe. At the core of the scientific method is the assumption, by scientists, that ultimate scientific truth lies in the universe, itself, and any words of any scientist are only true to the extent that they manage accurately to reflect the universe, itself. Even when a scientific theory appears to reflect experimental fact perfectly, that theory is understood to be open to revision, and even to be likely to be revised, as it is tested against future experiments and observations. So, if we seek to better understand the Creator’s wisdom through study of the Creator’s universe using the methods of science, we can read the works of great scientists, to learn from their deep insights, but those same scientists would be the first to deny that their words hold any ultimate, final truth – there is no infallible “Gospel According to Einstein,” for example, even while Einstein and other great scientists can serve as very helpful guides to the truths that the universe holds. Instead, study of the truths of the universe, through science, makes use of an evolving collection of scientific theory – the real truth, the complete and unchanging truth, lies in the universe, itself, not in any written collection of scientific works!
The scientific literature is vast and deeply complex. No single human could keep up, even, with just the abstracts (half-page summaries) written for the scientific articles published for a single major branch of science, such as chemistry, physics, or biology. Even a mathematics genius could spend a lifetime just trying to understand all the mathematical tools used to describe every scientific theory. And even if one could, with miraculous help, achieve a complete understanding of all of today’s science, that understanding would become instantly obsolete, and would have no hope of perfectly reflecting the actual truth contained in the universe. I can imagine some persons of faith objecting, “OK, the universe, as the direct product of the Creator, must be as true as my holiest book, but I can read my holy book in a few days, and I can reread that book over a hundred times in my lifetime, so surely that can bring me more complete truth and a more complete understanding than study of this monstrously large, imperfect, and never-to-be-complete body of scientific literature?” I can sympathize with this wish to find complete truth in a single book, and you may disagree with me regarding my view, here. However, even given that your holy book is a perfect product of the Creator, does this mean that therefore any mere human, by reading that book (even a thousand times!), can reach a perfect understanding of the Creator’s truth? I think not! The book, it is true, may seem like a short path to the Creator’s truth, while science may seem like a steep road with no end. However, I think that it is a dangerous illusion to believe that any book, however holy and however much it really is the perfect product of the creator, is a short path to true understanding of the Creator’s truth! If, as I believe, such ultimate truth is utterly beyond human reach, then we humans are far better off humbly understanding that any path to the Creator’s truth is a steep road with no end! The fact that science is obviously a steep road with no end is actually a good thing – it is far harder for a scientist to fool himself or herself into delusional certainty that he or she knows ultimate truth than it is for a prideful religious fanatic, who, betraying his religion’s true principles, imagines that all truth is easily read and understood from a single holy book, who imagines that he knows the Creator’s will with such certainty that this knowledge, for example, gives him holy license to kill persons that he imagines to be the Creator’s enemies!
This does not mean that we should simply give up on truth! An improved (but still highly imperfect) understanding of truth is vastly better than complete ignorance, and this partial, imperfect understanding of ultimate truth can be sought simultaneously from a perfect holy book and from direct study of the Creator’s universe, and (I think) this suggested path toward truth does not conflict with the fundamentals of any religion that has a holy book! What I am saying is just that science is a wonderful (full of wonders) road to better understanding of the Creator’s universe. That road, as steep as it obviously is, has some real benefits: Science is a road that people of all faiths, and people of no faith, can follow towards truth, together! The obvious difficulties of this road bring useful humility to those who follow it, a useful sort of self-doubt that makes us less likely to do violent harm to those with opposing religious ideas, violence done solely because we despise their ideas and because with delusional overconfidence, and in betrayal of every religion’s true principles, we imagine that we understand the Creator so well that we have license to kill in the Creator’s name.
Trackback URL
|
|
|
There are many questions in philosophy to which no satisfactory answer has yet been given. But the question of the nature of the gods is the darkest and most difficult of all…. So various and so contradictory are the opinions of the most learned men on this matter as to persuade one of the truth of the saying that philosophy is the child of ignorance…
— Cicero, The Nature of the Gods
Dear Dan Tow ! Your ideas are nearer to agnosticism.
No sane person can justify violence in name of any religion or any sect thereof. Those who tread on this path are condemnable.
I disagree with the notion that the ONLY source to know the ‘ultimate truth’ is Holy Book. Yes, the Holy Books are the most important source of knowledge yet those are not the ONLY source. Every religion enunciates a set of notions, tenets and and a particular philosophy. One needs to juxtapose all what is included in that religion. For Muslims, Quran can be understood in a better way when it is read with Hadith (Sayings of Holy Prophet Mohammad Peace Be Upon Him).
To know the truth, meditation is required. If one is really interested to know, text is not enough. Being faithful is one thing but in pursuit of knowledge, one needs to follow the sufism which leads to revelation. The first lesson for that is self-negation. The first half of Kalima, (a pre-requisite to convert to Islam) La Ilaha Illa Allah….means, there is NOTHING but Allah. The Creator is omnipresent. We need to feel Him and it can be done only when we become LAA (Nothing, selflessness). When one starts considering himself NOTHING but a part of Allah (His creation), then he starts FEELING the presence of the Ultimate Truth, which is Allah Himself.
The spiritualism in other religions is not much different from that of Islam.
In my opinion, spiritualism can do a lot better for the humanity than any other scientific approach for acquiescence of the truth, to make the world a better place.
Many of your points are commendable as this article was written in good faith. I appreciate it. You should not have been apologetic.
Hi Dan!
Human behavioral deviations with acquired qualities as traits are the result of variant catastrophe in the form of death and destruction.
These traits targeted different platform and portfolio so to accomplish the desired motto as is being requested by the extortionist.
It is this theme of desirable motto that was and is being utilized sometimes in the shape of ethnic, social, state based or religious belongings.
None of the religion including Islam and Christianity preaches and offers such slogans to demolish or decrypt the humanity.
It is the abolishment of values as depicted and explained by religion, that have acquired the place as resident in the form of attitude ,ego, color, cast ,classes, cadre, community, races, genders, generation and nation.
Natures and beings are formed beyond the premises of any acquired boundaries, domains and religion with specialized and distinct instinct of its own with similar habitat and activities, reactions, reasons with static and defined dominancy.
However it is this expression of genetic features that is over whelmed and ignite in individual resulting in to destructive approach towards superiority, lust, leisure, desire, abuse, and every such factor that occupy the portfolios and platforms of selective domains as religion, culture, races and reign that becomes the reasons of catastrophe, although such portfolios are the acquired mode for such acts.
“Religion and science are different modalities of similar thought.
What should not be the chapter of conflict has unduly been dragged in to the theme of disbelief thereby, managing to curtail the vantage of complex domain of research.
Interestingly, the subject, unknowingly been dragged in to the vertical sin, but if we perceive and virtually indulge the realm of the theme of the subject of science, nothing in the conceit of sanctity and its officious importance, has or been the words of the observation or hypothesis, as been cited and perceived in terms of issue by my kind critics.”
“Religion does not depend on science to prove its sanctity and concept but infact science route its direction towards and through the expressed conceptual slogan, otherwise.
Perhaps it is this religion as factor that hinders most, the eventual outcome of inventory of research, thereby limiting in terms of excelling and accepting.”
“Religion is nothing but a materialized form and format of built-in way as, attitude, behavior, morality and grooming of beings.
It is a potential and vacant area of human nature that is only expressible through observation and occupies reserved instinctive place in human nature as desire, belief and acceptance.”
Inquisitiveness, curiosity and excavation is a human behavioral tendency that ignite the intrinsic to supple and seep all such element or factor that has never been the subject of human intervention in terms of invention or exposure as discovery.
Humans, being head and edge of the versatile presentation as living being, procure every logical relief that could support the concept of her superiority over other species in terms of intellect, refinement and understanding.
However inspite of her excellence and magnificent tendencies to delineate and thrust the excellence, no efforts could settle the account of understanding and exposing variant rules of the law of nature.
The concept of god and its ultimate divinity is among the same rule of laws which has and is still the subject of mythical degloving.
Though logic demand that sophisticated creation can not be procure without sophisticated excellence but master pieces of creativity are still devoid and declining its creator inspite of logical understanding and proof.
Theories as ideas, abstract as concept and revelation as hypothesis all have become the subject of controversy, so to explain the evolutionary egg of the prima but no concept could equivocally being validated and valued to reimburse the genuine fleet of origination.
It was this unsettled plethora of curiosity as essentially which reacted and strived to dig its own progenitors that remained the table of discussion among and within the genes of different genome of human society and religions.
People from all era and diversified belief though explained and admitted the mightiness of some divine force that could be the possible source behind the succession but the tendency to perceive such force in materialistic theme defrosted the conceptual insignia of creation.
It was this concept of bits and pieces as perceptions and belief that replenish the worship of every such element that was considered to be stronger or strongest in the vicinity around, may it be animal or natural existence as sun or the moon.
It is the same notion that is still perishing inspite of advancement and irrevocable excellence of human superiority in terms of technology.
Human by design have intrinsic trait to believe and second the concept of lord as instinctive ability.
It is such an undefined characteristic of natural remnant as essential instinct that is hard to prove and unattainable to disprove.
This existing perception as reality has innate route of defining the lord in holiness and divinity sanctuary of sanctity concept.
But still, variant themes of human presentation through approachable layout securely employ various schools of concept as thoughts, thus though admitting the concept of god but deviates the original insignia of belief as divinity, sacredness and holiness.
Hinduism is among the same deviant of the belief where although the thoughts and thinking routes the direction of originator but belief, practice and perception malign the concept.
Similar sibling as variant of deviant exist is multiple forms and formats, may it be Buddhist or theist though instinct to worship the lord of the universe and living still remains the subject of interest and belief.
Putting apart the conceptual belief and practices of people to perceive their lord of the universe and securely contravening the religious attachment as faith of existing schools, logical reasoning to dig and define lord without the element of practice as belief have always been the interest of people who are always in search to delineate lord through nature.
Though the subject to search declines the acquired behavioral tendency of human being in general but still instinct to believe defies own practice.
In my opinion religion thyself have always hindered the subject to search and prove lord through surrounding and scene.
This is not because of some logical act of curtailment but self designed principality of practices and self created element of sanctification beyond discussion, understanding and debate that is the thrust point of hindrance and ultimate search.
This aura to perceive the lord as being handed over through genes and genera resulted in the theme of practice that dragged the element of continuous changes as myth hence presented the lord in various vicinity as endemic way of insignia of belief thereby, shaping the immaterial in to materialized form and format resultant; perceiving the divinity in to real means that could be felt, touch, talk and sketch as desire.
From here to hitherto variant decorum entered the premise of the faith and faithful who continually triggered the decoration so to enlighten and modify their concept in to variant modes and move however instinct to believe among such individual could well be ascertained as instinct that the universe can not be without the originator.
This evidence in my opinion is sufficient that every individual inspite of it’s derange concepts and belief can not deny the rule as truth that there is some one who is beyond and behind the theme of colors and coolers.
Human’s infact have innate desire as rule to express and admit his feel to someone more valuable and honorable who can crucify his guilt and fault though through the undisclosed means of conscience; and as such always tries to accept as confess to someone who can forgive and own him without provoke and harm thus befitting and benefitting him.
Here comes again the real need of the lord as instinct which moulds the rude behavior to find the special from in and around.
It is this rule of thumb which carry individual towards the most appropriate and feasible mode of practice as religion though regardless of its sanctity and practice but on the basis of individuals logical evaluation, tendency, perception, inference and self assessment or hereditary attachments as generation.
However besides these factors characteristic features as material incentive may it be women, wine and wealth is always the crushing point of entrance in proprietary slogan of many religions.
Carefully scrutinizing, there is no individual on earth who can defy or deny the presence of meticulous involvement of power that is reflecting to endorse and stamp; of its present.
Though modes and manner of observation can differ but belief to the extent of thought and thinking as sanctified or powerful always second the principle concept of practice.
Here it is to be remembered that any thing that takes flight as new existence impress the sight as view with the impression of its architect. This display of draftsman is an essential essence of marketing and helps to delineate the expert skill of its designer.
Sophisticated architect display their name with unique conceptual elegance which further elaborate their finest skill.
Being a magnificent state of the art as creativity, universe can not be without the basic and impressive impression of exemplified expression of its creator.
The unique organized structural arrangement of universe, which is soothing to the extent of desire and thought self, explains some artistic concept deliberately confiscated within the theme of expression as thoughtful creativity.
Restrictions and demarcation of discussion within the premises of domain deviates the end result.
Scope of horizon should not be curtailed in restricted domains of religion.
The birth of universe has its own philosophy and structural architecture and religion serves and reverses the scattered phenomena of this unique structure by nature designed en routes and causeways through its route towards the architect as creator so to second the concept of originator, as god.
In other word religion helps in finding your lord but nature speaks the truth of creator.
Dear Friends,
The author has tried to portray his views pertaining to history of different religions placed and in work in various societies by placing them far apart from each others. His apologetic description of old prevalent myths driven by various cultural in put is unique. But society like in Pakistan; the land of Muslims (pure) is placed at much higher stations bestowed with their Islamic vision and wisdom. They know it well that after the dawn of Islam there is no such space left for any concoction of myths and illusions.
This will be appropriate to mention here the ‘Darwin theory of Evolution’, of human specie which reveals that centuries back we used to be apes and as the time passed by; man gradually got refined and through the process of evaluation it took its present shape as a ‘civilised man’. One may not like to believe all this but it does support our common belief that man has certainly been through some kind of evolution to reach at the present stage. The display of knowledge in the nature and its observation by the ancient man as well as dictates of environments did play their part to achieve him the refinement and attaining of adult hood of man’s conscious; starting at a lesser state to a modest and then to present day superior form.
Likewise, the history of our Modern Religion which is just about six thousands years old that when God Almighty revealed the word of enlightenment to our common religious father Abraham*; the word revealed was Peace; means Islam. Some other ancient and dieing religious denominations like Buddhism, Hinduism and Zoroaster etc, were also present as the diminishing far flung civilisations. Abraham* took a start with the very basic primary teachings of enlightenment; followed by Moses* whose Judaic era occupies a space of about some 1200 years. This is the most trivial era faced by the people chosen by God where they went through many trials and tests in order to get transformed and moulded to become the righteous peoples of God.
Judaic old era was an era of infancy in our modern religion. Present day Jews are still stuck in the past. They may be rightly relishing their past when they used to be at the top of the world as the recipient of all the vast proviso of blessings from their God. Initially it used to be all a state of peace and plenty; all over a honky- dory and miraculous ‘mun-o-salva’(food) was provided in abundance for them. Infancy does demand a kindness and protective hands to save guard the siblings. They got all that but they were also, later admonished, punished and rejected when they grew old and tried to betray God and manipulate the teachings. They were raised from being low of the low under Pharaoh in Egypt; to the most favoured nation on earth in Palestine till they became the transgressors and earned the wrath of God.
Any how Moses had imparted the teachings and had tried to take the masses to higher levels. At this stage the Judaic were in dire need of reformation and Jesus* took up the task of ‘Reformer’; there after; the Christianity took its start and brought some glorious period in the life of mankind.
The show of our living God goes on and in order to achieve the complete adulthood of man’s conscious and take it up to its summit; God Almighty sent Prophet Mohammad* with the glorious book; Quran and completed His religion for the entire mankind through Islam.
God through His messengers delivered His word in a planned successive and progressive manner to take the mankind to its higher status; step by step. There is no monopoly exercised by any messenger of God at any stage in this successive deliverance of word of God and neither any scripture supports this monopoly.
As said earlier; the water does not stop flowing under bridges. After going through a stage of reformation under Christianity; the caravans of God kept on moving for their new destinations in the future. Islam at its summit is not a new religion. It is, in essence, the same message and guidance which Allah revealed to all prophets before Prophet Muhammad peace be upon him came.
Allah says in the Quran (2:137)”Say; We believe in ALLAH and that which has been revealed to us, and that which was revealed to Abraham and Ishmael and Isaac and Jacob and the tribes, and in that which was given to Moses and Jesus and other Prophets from their Lord. We make no distinction between any of them and to HIM we submit.” (3-85). Islam happens to be the path of all those who are obedient to Allah and who establish peace with Him and His creatures.”
Present day Muslims may be feeble, and destitute; they are being mocked and they know that oppressing forces are all out to cease their lands, subjugate them and take away their God given economic resources from them. (Invariably all the Prophets were mocked and jeered; they were persecuted and even killed) It is not something new for the Muslims. They know it well. Muslim may be weak but in God they trust is not weak. This is God’s design; Islam has come to stay and it will prevail.
——————————
Love for all, Hatred for none
(*Peace be upon them all)
So boy, hows uncle Anton Szandor LaVey?
The same materialistic approach has ruined your economy Mr, and the same materialistic approach towards religion has also rendered your soulless.
R u crazy???When the world is burning and the clash of civilization is destroying the human race, you are pitching in with a new conflict. Shame on you.
I need to read this article with more concentration, so will come back later to comment it out.
Dear Dan,
A very thought provoking article . One of the best in The Pak Spectator.
i am an engineer myself and have studied science all my life. i am always struck by fact that MAJORITY OF THE SCIENTISTS are atheists.
ALBERT EINSTEIN is one of the most intelligent man of all times.
ALBERT EINSTEIN said:-
“”"”"”"”"”"”"”"”’I cannot conceive of a God who rewards and punishes his creatures, or has a will of the kind that we experience in ourselves. Neither can I nor would I want to conceive of an individual that survives his physical death; let feeble souls, from fear or absurd egoism, cherish such thoughts. I am satisfied with the mystery of the eternity of life and with the awareness and a glimpse of the marvelous structure of the existing world, together with the devoted striving to comprehend a portion, be it ever so tiny, of the Reason that manifests itself in nature. (Albert Einstein, The World as I See It)”"”"”"”"”"”"”"”"”"”"”"”"”"
@@”I am satisfied with the mystery of the eternity of life” ……….A concept in Hinduism/Buddhism.
@@ The above statement WILL BE ENOUGH TO HAVE EINSTEIN KILLED in Islamic societies.
ALBERT EINSTEIN said:-
“”"”"”"”"”"”"”"”"‘The religion of the future will be a cosmic religion. It should transcend personal God and avoid dogma and theology. Covering both the natural and the spiritual, it should be based on a religious sense arising from the experience of all things natural and spiritual as a meaningful unity. Buddhism answers this description. If there is any religion that could cope with modern scientific needs it would be Buddhism. “”"”"”"”"”"”"”"”"”"”"”"””
SPOT ON………..Example ……JAPAN. and South Korea.
The essence of Hinduism is Buddhism .
You guys see PEOPLE OF CHINA, JAPAN , SOUTH KOREA , INDIA , HONG KONG , SINGAPORE etc follow mainly NON-ABRAHAMIC RELIGIONS and have seen RAPID ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT.
Therefore, Einstein’s theories are PROVING TO BE CORRECT in the 21st century.
ALBERT EINSTEIN said
“”"”"”"”"”"”"”"”"I believe in Spinoza’s God who reveals himself in the orderly harmony of what exists, not in a God who concerns himself with the fates and actions of human beings.”"”"”"”"”"”"”"”"”"‘
(Albert Einstein, responding to Rabbi Herbert Goldstein who had sent Einstein a cablegram bluntly demanding “Do you believe in God?” Quoted from Victor J. Stenger, Has Science Found God? 2001, chapter 3.)
The ultimate source is light, this ultimate source, clear light, is close to the notion of a Creator, since all phenomena, whether they belong to samsara or nirvana, originate therein. But we must be careful in speaking of this source, we must not be led into error. I do not mean chat there exists somewhere, there, a sort of collective clear light, analogous to the non-Buddhist concept of Brahma as a substratum. We must not be inclined to deify this luminous space. We must understand that when we speak of ultimate or inherent clear light, we are speaking on an individual level.
Likewise, when we speak of karma as the cause of the universe we eliminate the notion of a unique entity called karma existing totally independently. Rather, collective karmic impressions, accumulated individually, are at the origin of the creation of a world. When, in the tantric context, we say that all worlds appear out of clear light, we do not visualize this source as a unique entity, but as the ultimate clear light of each being.
Any discussion with regard to science and religion requires a high level of toleration. We seem to be passing through a time in history when the levels of toleration are very low.
In such circumstances it becomes a great challenge to initiate any purposeful interaction on the subject.
In human evolution religion inspired “revolution within revolution.” It inspired great works of art, literature and science. It inspired traditions that helped civilize primitive instincts so that people could live in a peaceful and harmonious manner. It nurtured toleration and respect for other religions, faiths and culture.
Interpretations of religious texts have differed in different eras. Such interpretations have acted as a mirror of human thoughts, instincts, hopes, aspirations, fears, etc. In times when the human mind was simple and uncomplicated, the religious interpretations also reflected this.
Ever since “reason” has been gaining ground over “faith”, the religious interpretations have begun to mirror the new reality. Public insecurities, fears and confusion regarding the world around are being reflected in the diverse religious/political/economic/scientific discourse, that is now rapidly transmitted far and wide owing to the communication and technological revolution.
Slowly the levels of toleration between the followers of different religions is going down. I wonder whether religion would one day be interpreted/allowed to become a “weapon of mass destruction.” In the name of religion, openly or secretly, the human beings are being exhorted to harm one another.
I repeat that there is nothing wrong with religions. They gave us our cultural and social moorings. So long people had real faith, there was no conflict between/within religions. Conflicts arose when the levels of toleration went down and greed, lust for power and confusion began to dominate.
Hence the use of religions in a different manner and their different interpretations. So when I hear people making comments about religion, basically they are expressing their own understanding (or the lack of it) of the great heritage of humanity.
If we look at the history of science and different religions, we have numerous instance when the spirit of enquiry peacefully coexisted with religious practices. In what is described as the Golden Age of Islam, “artists, engineers, scholars, poets, philosophers, geographers and traders in the Islamic world contributed to the arts, agriculture, economics, industry, law, literature, navigation, philosophy, sciences, sociology, and technology.”
“Howard R. Turner writes: ‘Muslim artists and scientists, princes and laborers together made a unique culture that has directly and indirectly influenced societies on every continent’.”
“Early scientific methods were developed in the Islamic world, where significant progress in methodology was made, especially in the works of Ibn al-Haytham (Alhazen) in the 11th century, who is considered the pioneer of experimental physics.
“The most important development of the scientific method was the use of experimentation and quantification to distinguish between competing scientific theories set within a generally empirical orientation. Ibn al-Haytham (Alhazen) wrote the Book of Optics, in which he significantly reformed the field of optics, empirically proved that vision occurred because of light rays entering the eye, and invented the camera obscura to demonstrate the physical nature of light rays.
“Ibn al-Haytham has also been described as the ‘first scientist’ for his introduction of the scientific method, and his pioneering work on the psychology of visual perception is considered a precursor to psychophysics and experimental psychology.”
In addition to this, “the most prominent view in recent scholarship, however, as exemplified by Toby E. Huff, Will Durant, Fielding H. Garrison, Muhammad Iqbal, Hossein Nasr and Bernard Lewis, holds that Muslim scientists did help in laying the foundations for an experimental science with their contributions to the scientific method and their empirical, experimental and quantitative approach to scientific inquiry…”
To read more please click here…
And to read the history of science and technology in India, China, ancient Greece, Rome, and medieval Western Europe, please click here…
But why am I am saying all this? Because in the past religion has never hindered the spirit of enquiry that remains a major motivating force behind science. In the end, it is all a matter of interpretation!!!
If there has never been a creator God where the idea came from?
Here is another link to Science in Medieval Islam…please click here…
FIRST SOME QUOTES FROM RUMI:
“Out beyond ideas of wrongdoing and rightdoing,
there is a field. I will meet you there.”
“Reason is the shadow cast by God; God is the sun.”
“Let the beauty of what you love be what you do.”
“I want a heart which is split, part by part, because of the pain of separation from God, so that I might explain my longing and complaint to it.”
“All day I think about it, then at night I say it. Where did I come from, and what am I supposed to be doing? I have no idea. My soul is from elsewhere, I’m sure of that, and I intend to end up there.”
“Silence is an ocean. Speech is a river.”
“Your task is not to seek for love, but merely to seek and find all the barriers within yourself that you have built against”
“Everyone is so afraid of death, but the real sufis just laugh: nothing tyrannizes their hearts. What strikes the oyster shell does not damage the pearl.”
“If in thirst you drink water from a cup, you see God in it. Those who are not in love with God will see only their own faces in it.”
The Creator is macrocosm that created the microcosm-the Universe –including every thing, also us and many others we don’t even know. Creator thus, from the available evidence, could undo and redo it all over again.
The [Man] is the greatest wonder in nature. All other things under God are always in themselves of one certain kind of being; this [human] essence is at once all of them. It possesses in itself images of the divine things upon which it depends. It also possesses the reasons and models of the inferior things which it in a sense brings forth. Since it is the mean of all things, it possesses the powers of all; hence it transforms itself into all things. And because it is itself the true bond of the universe, in passing into some things it does not forsake the others, but enters into individual things, and at the same time preserves all things. Therefore it can with justice be called the center of nature, the middle point of all that is, the chain of the world, the face of al, and the knot and bond of the universe.*(1)
Of all his creations humans, evolved or implanted from elsewhere, is the only creation that needed creator’s intervention for fashioning its conduct, between the spaces called birth and death.
Morality, right and wrong, good and evil, life after life, life after death are or issues generic to humans.
Every other creation of the Creator is created on specific nature and never needed any scientific or divine instruction, nor need to answer the above issues. All live in harmony with the nature or order of their creation or evolution.
The concept of religion and scientific inquiry are generic to humans of the species.
The issues raised in “The Gospel According to Einstein? By Dan Tow, relate to Human Society, interaction amongst them at the level of each other, inter-societies, Tribes, Clans, Nations, amongst Nations, Races, and their belief systems.
There is no contradiction between scientific enquiry, Theosophy and Philosophy as each of them and many more are, but vehicles of human thought. The out put of necessity has for ions generated debates, some times healthy, most of the times ugly, bloody or shoddy.
The issue has and will be, whether we humans, will ever find tolerance, of each other on above mentioned levels?
Now as to “The Gospel According to Einstein?” one may quote:
Einstein and ‘God’
Albert Einstein was not a Christian. He had no concept of the God of the Bible or trust in Jesus Christ as his Lord and Saviour. His views on religion and ‘God’ were evolutionary and pantheistic.
He wrote, ‘I cannot conceive of a God who rewards and punishes his creatures, or has a will of the kind that we experience in ourselves. Neither can I nor would I want to conceive of an individual that survives his physical death; let feeble souls, from fear or absurd egoism, cherish such thoughts.’22
‘The desire for guidance, love, and support prompts men to form the social or moral conception of God. … The man who is thoroughly convinced of the universal operation of the law of causation cannot for a moment entertain the idea of a being who interferes in the course of events. … A God who rewards and punishes is inconceivable to him … .’23
‘During the youthful period of mankind’s spiritual evolution human fantasy created gods in man’s own image. … The idea of God in the religions taught at present is a sublimation of that old concept of the gods. … In their struggle for the ethical good, teachers of religion must have the stature to give up the doctrine of a personal God … .’24
Answering a Japanese scholar who asked him about ‘scientific truth’, Albert wrote, ‘Certain it is that a conviction, akin to religious feeling, of the rationality or intelligibility of the world lies behind all scientific work of a higher order. This firm belief, a belief bound up with deep feeling, in a superior mind that reveals itself in the world of experience, represents my conception of God. In common parlance this may be described as “pantheistic” (Spinoza).’25
It is thus clear that when Albert mentioned ‘God’, e.g. ‘God does not play dice with the universe’, and ‘The Lord God is subtle, but malicious he is not’,26 he was referring to something like rationality in the universe. He is recorded as saying that a ‘deeply emotional conviction of the presence of a superior reasoning power, which is revealed in the incomprehensible universe, forms my idea of God’.27 However, he certainly was not referring to anything like the God of the Bible, who is Creator, Lawgiver, Judge and Saviour.
Addressing Princeton Theological Seminary on May 19, 1939, Albert said, ‘[A] conflict arises when a religious community insists on the absolute truthfulness of all statements recorded in the Bible.’25,28
Christian apologist Dr Hugh Ross claims that, despite not believing in the biblical God, ‘Einstein held unswervingly, against enormous peer pressure, to belief in a Creator.’29 However, in the normal meaning of these terms, Einstein believed no such thing (see aside below on starlight and time). Thus, Christians who inappropriately invoke Einstein in their preaching, writing or witnessing do so to the detriment of their cause.
Einstein’s belief in ‘the divinity of nature’
Pantheists believe that everything is God. It means that ‘God’ just becomes another word for ‘everything’ and loses any real meaning—saying that everything is ‘zinquth’ is just as meaningful. Albert Einstein explicitly shared the pantheism of Spinoza, of whose views The Hutchinson Softback Encyclopedia, 1996, writes: ‘Mind and matter are two modes of an infinite substance that [Spinoza] called God or Nature, good and evil being relative.’ Like New Age and Eastern thought, this is a ‘monistic’ belief, which explicitly denies a Creator in the normal meaning of the word, i.e. one who pre-existed (and is thus independent of, or ‘outside’) that which was created.
Relativity and Morality
Some people have mistakenly blamed Einstein’s theory of relativity for the decline in morality seen today. In fact, Einstein proposed a view of nature in which absolute space and time were replaced by absolute velocity of light. He preferred to call his theory the ‘invariance’ theory, but the term ‘relativity’ stuck.
The basis for morality is the absolute truth of the Word of God, which contains God’s rules for holy living. These have been undermined, not by Einstein’s theory of relativity, but by the teaching of evolution, wherein man rejects the absolute truth about God and our need to live in a right relationship with Him, and man himself decides how he wants to live.
Science can only tell us what is, not what ought to be. For example, science tells us that shooting a man in the heart will (normally) kill him, and that certain sexual practices promote the spread of AIDS, but it cannot tell us whether these actions are right or wrong. For this we need a divine Lawgiver. (2)
Einstein’s God
Atheists seem very eager to claim Einstein for one of their own. Richard Dawkins devotes a whole section to Einstein in The God Delusion and Christopher Hitchens’ Portable Atheist is peppered with Einstein quotations seemingly rejecting all belief in God. Recently an Einstein letter surfaced which showed the great scientist scorning the idea that the Jews were in any sense God’s chosen people.
But all that these quotations prove is that Einstein was not an orthodox believer. He rejected the idea of a personal God “who would directly influence the actions of individuals or would sit in judgment on creatures of his own creation.” Einstein also rejeted the immortality of the soul, noting that “one life is enough for me.”
At the same time, Walter Isaacson in his celebrated new biography Einstein provides ample evidence that Einstein not only believed in a higher or transcendent power, but also that Einstein despised atheists. Here are some quotations, drawn from Isaacson’s book with full documentation, that I offer as a needed counterbalance to the one-sided list provided by Dawkins, Hitchens and the others.
On whether he considered himself religious: “Yes, you could call it that. Try and penetrate with our limited means the secrets of nature and you will find that, behind all the discernible laws and connections, there remains something subtle, intangible and inexplicable. Veneration for this foce beyond anything we can comprehend is my religion.”
On whether he accepted the historical existence of Christ: “Unquestionably! No one can read the Gospels without feeling the actual presence of Jesus. His personality pulsates in every word. No myth is filled with such life.”
On whether he considered himself an atheist: “I’m not an atheist. The problem involved is too vast for our limited minds. We are in the position of a little child entering a huge library filled with books in many languages. The child knows someone must have written those books. It does not know how. It does not understand the languages in which they are written. The child dimly suspects a mysterious order in the arrangement of the books but doesn’t know what that is. That, it seems to me, is the attitude of the most intelligent human toward God.”
On the nature of God: “That deeply emotional conviction of a presence of a superior reasoning power, which is revealed in the incomprehensible universe, forms my idea of God.”
On whether science leads to religion: “Every one who is seriously involved in the pursuit of science becomes convinced that a spirit is manifest in the laws of nature—a spirit vastly superior to that of man, and one in the face of which we with our modest powers must feel humble. In this way the pursuit of science leads to a religious feeling of a special sort.”
On how religion motivates scientific inquiry: “The cosmic religious feeling is the strongest and noblest motive for scientific research.”
On whether science and religion are at odds: “The situation may be expressed by an image: science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind.”
On how he feels about atheist efforts to claim him as an ally: “There are people who say there is no God, but what makes me really angry is that they quote me for support of such views.”
On how he regards atheists: “The fanatical atheists…are creatures who cannot her the music of the spheres. I do not share the crusading spirit of the professional atheist. What separates me from most so-called atheists is a feeling of utter humility toward the unattainable secrets of the harmony of the cosmos.” (3)
Cosmology - study of the Universe
Cosmology, from the Greek: κοσμολογία (cosmologia, κόσμος (cosmos) world + λογια (logia) discourse) is the study of the Universe in its totality and by extension man’s place in it. Though the word cosmology is recent (first used in 1730 in Christian Wolff’s Cosmologia Generalis), the study of the Universe has a long history involving science, philosophy, esotericism, and religion.
Disciplines
The earliest form of cosmology appears in the origin beliefs of many religions as they seek to explain the existence and nature of the world. In many cases, views about the creation (cosmogony) and destruction (eschatology) of the Universe play a central role in shaping a framework of religious cosmology for understanding humanity’s role in the Universe and his relationship to one or more divine beings.
In recent times, physics and astrophysics have come to play a central role in shaping what is now known as physical cosmology, i.e. the understanding of the Universe through scientific observation and experiment. This discipline, which focuses on the Universe as it exists on the largest scales and at the earliest times, begins by arguing for the Big Bang model, a sort of cosmic explosion from which the Universe itself is said to have erupted ~13.7 ± 0.2 billion (109) years ago. After its violent beginnings and until its very end, scientists then propose that the entire history of the Universe has been an orderly progression governed by physical laws.
In between the doctrines of religion and science, stand the philosophical perspective of metaphysical cosmology. This ancient field of study seeks to draw logical conclusions about the nature of the Universe, man, god and/or their connections based on the extension of some set of presumed facts borrowed from religion and/or observation. One example is the cosmological argument which is an argument for the existence of God based primarily on the point of view that the mere existence of a universe demands a creator. However, recent work on string theory suggests a megaverse where about 10500 models exist. “If every type of universe exists, there is no need to invoke God (or an unknown master theory of physics) to explain why one of them ended up like ours.”
As a finer distinction between religion and philosophy, esoteric cosmology is distinguished from religion in its more sophisticated construction and reliance on intellectual understanding rather than faith, and from philosophy in its emphasis on techniques of psycho-spiritual transformation.
Religious cosmology
Many world religions have origins beliefs that explain the beginnings of the Universe and life. Often these are derived from scriptural teachings and held to be part of the faith’s dogma, but in some cases these are also extended through the use of philosophical and metaphysical arguments (e.g. argument for the existence of God). In the vast majority of origin beliefs, the Universe was created by a direct act of a god or gods who are also responsible for the creation of man. As a conscious creation, the Universe is usually assumed to be endowed by its creator with some purpose or design, aspects of which are often used to frame man’s role in the world and his relationship with God. In many cases, religious cosmologies also foretell the end of the Universe, either through another divine act or as part of the original design.
Buddhism, Hinduism and Jainism believe that the Universe passes through endless cycles of creation and destruction, each cycle lasting for trillions of years (e.g. 331 trillion years, or the life-span of Brahma, according to Hinduism), and each cycle with sub-cycles of local creation and destruction (e.g. 4.32 billion years, or a day of Brahma, according to Hinduism). The Vedic (Hindu) view of the world sees one true divine principle self-projecting as the divine word, ‘birthing’ the cosmos that we know from the monistic Hiranyagarbha or Golden Womb.
Both Christianity and Judaism accept creation according to Genesis, although the Roman Catholic Church recognizes evolutionary debates, as long as God is recognized as the driving force behind Evolution. Many religions accept the findings of physical cosmology, in particular the big bang, and some, such as the Roman Catholic Church, have embraced it as suggesting a philosophical first cause. Others have tried to use the methodology of science to advocate for their own religious cosmology, as in intelligent design or creationist cosmologies.
Physical cosmology
Physical cosmology is the branch of physics and astrophysics that deals with the study of the physical origins of the Universe and the nature of the Universe on its very largest scales. In its earliest form it was what is now known as celestial mechanics, the study of the heavens. The Greek philosophers Aristarchus, Aristotle and Ptolemy proposed different cosmological theories. In particular, the geocentric Ptolemaic system was the accepted theory to explain the motion of the heavens until Nicolaus Copernicus, and subsequently Tycho Brahe, Johannes Kepler and Galileo Galilei proposed a heliocentric system in the 16th century. This is known as one of the most famous examples of epistemological rupture in physical cosmology.
With Isaac Newton and the 1687 publication of Principia Mathematica, the problem of the motion of the heavens was finally solved. Newton provided a physical mechanism for Kepler’s laws and his law of universal gravitation allowed the anomalies in previous systems, caused by gravitational interaction between the planets, to be resolved. A fundamental difference between Newton’s cosmology and those preceding it was the Copernican principle that the bodies on earth obey the same physical laws as all the celestial bodies. This was a crucial philosophical advance in physical cosmology.
Modern scientific cosmology may be considered to begin in 1915 with Albert Einstein’s publication of his general theory of relativity and the growing ability of astronomers to study very distant objects. Prior to this, physicists had assumed that the Universe was static and unchanging. However, the general theory of relativity was not amenable to a static Universe. Thus the Big Bang theory was proposed by the Belgian priest Georges Lemaître in 1927 and rapidly confirmed by Edwin Hubble’s discovery of the red shift in 1929 and later by the discovery of the cosmic microwave background radiation by Arno Penzias and Robert Woodrow Wilson in 1964.
Recent observations made by the COBE and WMAP satellites observing this background radiation have effectively, in many scientists eyes, transformed cosmology from a highly speculative science into a predictive science, as these observations matched predictions made by a theory called Cosmic inflation, which is a modification of the standard big bang theory. This has led many to refer to modern times as the “Golden age of cosmology.”
Metaphysical cosmology
In philosophy and metaphysics, cosmology deals with the world as the totality of space, time and all phenomena. Historically, it has had quite a broad scope, and in many cases was founded in religion. The ancient Greeks did not draw a distinction between this use and their model for the cosmos. However, in modern use it addresses questions about the Universe which are beyond the scope of science. It is distinguished from religious cosmology in that it approaches these questions using philosophical methods (e.g. dialectics). Modern metaphysical cosmology tries to address questions such as:
What is the origin of the Universe? What is its first cause? Is its existence necessary?
What are the ultimate material components of the Universe?
What is the ultimate reason for the existence of the Universe? Does the cosmos have a purpose?
Esoteric cosmology
Many esoteric and occult teachings involve highly elaborate cosmologies. These constitute a “map” of the Universe and of states of existences and consciousness according to the worldview of that particular doctrine. Such cosmologies cover many of the same concerns also addressed by religious and philosophical cosmology, such as the origin, purpose, and destiny of the Universe and of consciousness and the nature of existence. For this reason it is sometimes difficult to distinguish where religion or philosophy end and esotericism or occultism begins. However, esoteric cosmology is distinguished from religion in its more sophisticated construction and reliance on intellectual understanding rather than faith, and from philosophy in its emphasis on techniques of psycho-spiritual transformation. Common themes addressed in esoteric cosmology are emanation, involution, evolution, epigenesis, planes of existence, hierarchies of spiritual beings, cosmic cycles (e.g., cosmic year, Yuga), Yogic or spiritual disciplines, and references to altered states of consciousness. Examples of esoteric cosmologies can be found in Gnosticism, Tantra (especially Kashmir Shaivism), Kabbalah, Sufism, Surat Shabda Yoga, Theosophy, Anthroposophy, the Fourth Way teaching of Gurdjieff and Ouspensky, the teachings of Patrizia Norelli-Bachelet, Gnostic circle and in The Rosicrucian Cosmo-Conception (book).(4)
From Rumi, with love:
The “Rumi phenomenon” has taken the world by storm.
His poetry is read by people of all religions, quoted by Deepak Chopra and Wayne Dyer, recited by movie stars such as Demi Moore and Martin Sheen, and even sung by Madonna.
Who is this amazing mystic who has been the best selling poet in the U.S. for the past several years?
Rumi was a conservative theologian who lived around 750 years ago. Love transformed him into a liberated, euphoric Sufi poet who fervently fell in love with the Divine Creator and the whole universe.
Divine destiny placed in Rumi’s path an old Sufi drifter, Shams of Tabriz, who guided him to the glorious path of love. Rumi had a lot to lose when he took his enormous gamble on love and followed Shams. However, this new majestic path elevated Rumi to the peak of such euphoria and enlightenment that nothing mattered to him anymore.
When Rumi threw off his turban and robe and started to whirl jubilantly, the most beautiful poetry poured from his lips.
Rumi, through his higher senses, experienced the most astonishing visions about the mechanism and structure of the universe, its realities and mysteries.
He described phenomena such as the creation of the universe, the origin of music, force of gravity, nuclear explosion, the sun’s light, the spinning Earth and galaxies, matter and antimatter, our five higher senses, and many other scientific phenomena that scientists discovered many centuries later.
Above all, Rumi’s poetry emphasizes love, the miraculous force that quickens the flow of the energy of our souls and allows us to soar to the highest state of ecstasy.
Rumi declares that love is the reason for the creation of the universe. Love makes mountains dance and the whole universe sing a heavenly song of divine unity.
Love surpasses all the boundaries of race, nationality, gender, religion, civilization, custom and culture. As love is universal, so is the truth. Human beings share the same magnificent journey of life in this universe and beyond.
I was dead,
I became alive.
I was tears,
I became laughter.
The majesty of love came,
And I became an everlasting majesty myself.
A lot of the so-called translations of Rumi’s poetry are the work of people who do not know Rumi’s language (Farsi) and do not fully comprehend Rumi’s mystical culture and background.
As a result, sometimes the most important essence of Rumi’s insight and teachings has been lost. Rumi’s works are so profound that one can study them for many years, from several different perspectives, yet still find that some of his verses remain elusive. Although Rumi’s poetry sometimes appears deceptively simple, it is actually very complex if one understands the deeper meanings of his verses and usage of words, rhythms, and parables.
Rumi’s practical methods and teachings set forth a road map for human beings to reach the highest state of serenity and ecstasy. It is amazing that one who truly follows Rumi’s insights and teachings, cannot only learn how to live happily in our troublesome world, but also peacefully and productively with oneself and others.
Rumi shows how to appreciate the wonderful journey of life in time and space on this earth and beyond. (5)
The problem of evil, as described circa 300 B.C.
In about 300 B.C., Epicurus eloquently summed up the problem of the existence of evil. It has come to be known as the Riddle of Epicurus or the Epicurean paradox. It was translated by David Hume in the Dialogues concerning Natural Religion:
If God is willing to prevent evil, but is not able to Then He is not omnipotent.
If He is able, but not willing
Then He is malevolent.
If He is both able and willing
Then whence cometh evil?
If He is neither able nor willing
Then why call Him God? (6)
(1)http://employees.oneonta.edu/farberas/arth/ARTH214/Mcrocosm.html
(2)http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v23/i1/einstein.asp
(3)http://www.0rig.in/cosmology/cosmology.htm
(4)http://news.aol.com/newsbloggers/2008/05/21/einstei ns-god/
(5)http://racematters.org/fromrumiwithlove.htm
(6)http://dangerousintersection.org/2008/04/17/the-problem-of-evil-as-described-cerca-300-bc/
Mr. Two, Once again thanks for another excellent essay/post, and your disambiguation, that’s why I heart ya. Your essay sure had my mind moving at light-speed
One, there is no such thing as an agnostic. What you call agnostic is actually weak atheism. Two, if ones does not believe in God, exactly how should one take your statement that God loves them?
I don”t get this! Will someone please explain to me what the hell is wrong with just being an open minded person without some ideology or theology hanging around your neck? If you believe in a personal savior, then good for you, your faith, however should be strong enough to allow you to co-exist with the likes of me.
“Formerly there were those who said; you believe things that are incomprehensible, inconsistent, impossible because we have commanded you to believe them; go then and do what is unjust because we command it. Such people show admirable reasoning. Truly, whoever is able to make you absurd is able to make you unjust. If the God-given understanding of your mind does not resist a demand to believe what is impossible, then you will not resist a demand to do wrong to that God-given sense of justice in your heart. As soon as one faculty of your soul has been dominated, other faculties will follow as well. And from this derives all those crimes of religion which have overrun the world.”
Voltaire “Questions sur les miracles (1765)
There in a nut shell is the problem we face from religion!
People who are wasting time in this screwed up imaginative screwing should be sent to mental therapy. It seems this American has got the economic recession to his head and now vomiting this crap on this under-developed site, as the super-power vomits its wrath on Pakistan.
Proof? You decide:
This video is in 2 parts:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_EWwzFwUOxA
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5965wcH2Kx0&mode=related&search=