Not just a cocktail - The dead end
Previous post, also an extension of related post
One of the results of the factors driving humans is incessant quest for meaning behind existence.
The latest idea which attempts to answer this question can be safely classified as scientific reductionism. In brief the explanation behind existence of life is that it is a result of evolution occurring over a span of billions of years. The evolution in turn is understood in terms of natural selection of fitter life forms. Hence the reason behind presence of any characteristic of homo sapiens, including but not limited to the the principle faculties referred to in earlier post, is a simple result of environmental pressure to drive toward bigger brains and dexterity.
Is idea of evolution perfect ? Not being an expert, I can not decide one way or other.
However, the problem that is presented with such a theory is while it does, in great detail, explain the mechanism behind the existence, it doesn't explain the existence. The only view one can form, if he were to take evolution and only that as the starting point is that life has not meaning, and existence is futile.
And once such conclusion is reached, there is no "rational" basis behind morality, ethics or civilization. Thereafter a rapacious murderer is on same footing as a saint.
This is nothing but nihilism in a modern cloak. As far as society goes this is harbinger of destruction.
Therefore if one aspires to find basis behind morality and ethics, it has to be beyond the narrow boundaries of rational dogmas. To put it another way, while rationality can explain phenomenon at experiences belonging to order of daily events, as we go far from it rationalism as a tool is less effective, at the extreme range (that is matters concerning self-existence) it fails completely.
Therefore life has to be understood not inside a petri dish* but outside the laboratory.
I suspect, in fact I am very much afraid that a moder atheist is arrogant of shallow rationalism, he doesn't even bother to examine the limits, and therefore modern atheism (and companion such as liberalism and individualism) as a foundation for society is dead end.
* Earlier invoked here
6 comments:
But people end up becoming atheists because they are not able to believe in God. How will they accept spirituality solely on the grounds that not doing so might be harmful to the society? They will have to dispense with their sense of honesty to do so.
And don't worry, when their numbers increase too much, and dharma declines due to the factors you mentioned, God will project himself ( tadAtmAnaM sRjAmyahaM ) :-))
Jaffna,
You flatter, but I do not deserve this.
Frog,
Wait for my further posts.
By the way, I think God is not some entity which is independent of us.
Paramatma and atma are one and the same
Regards
If you don't mind discussion on the God issue ( and from the point of view of advaita ) : from the realm of absolute reality God is not independent of us because in absolute reality we are the Atman=Brahman=God and not our body-mind-complex ( even this is an abuse of notation; a better statement would be "Brahman is." ). I am referring to "Ishvara" rather than "Brahman" - who does come down to our illusory realm within which we identify ourselves with the respective body-mind complexes. Within the illusory realm there certainly is a distinction between us and God. "tadAtmAnaM sRjAmyahaM" means he projects himself, not that he projects the Atman ( Atma in the sense of oneself ).
Frog,
Well you know my views Kalki is not coming anytime soon, to quote it is up to us to raise ourself
You are equating God with spirtuality!
Religion is merely one of the tools which can tell you what is right and wrong. The limits of rational discourse are in many ways, self defined.
Confused,
A spiritual atheist,Wonders will never cease!
By the way just wanted to ask what is this spirituality and whether it comes in mango flavour and whether it can be eaten with cornflakes
;-)
Post a Comment