Dangerous content, Rated Atheism, Read at your own risk ========================== . . . . . . . . . . . . . Actually I have no idea why people cant accept the fact that the Buddha did not know anything about prehistoric life or a globular earth or many of the knowledge only revealed by gradual pursuit by several scholars of humanity. In fact they used to call him Phayar yet also accept his mortality with the concept of impermanence. Actually they used to accept the Buddha not as an immortal creator god, but an enlightened person. Actually the Buddha is only a human in monotheistic sense, almost perfect but not perfect. However the Buddhists assumes the Buddha as a perfect person, who can be as much perfect as the laws of nature allows. Then why should they refuse to accept that Buddha did not know everything. Why isnt being enlightened enough to be a Buddha for them. Another contradiction is that they say the Buddha did not talked about the big issues (origin of everything, purpose of life etc.) because these issues are useless to discuss yet also assume that the Buddha knows everything including those useless issues?? One of the most irritating things is that when I talk about something concerning with science, they say, hey, our lord Buddha already told that 3000 years ago. or if a Christian, hey its in our bible which was written 2000 years ago. Tell me, how is it possible that pure imaginative texts match up with todays scientific knowledge? As one of my friends say, it could well be a wild guess fortunate enough to be one of the scientific facts. Every philosopher and scholars of antiquity made such wild guesses and many of them were correct. So should I tell you that hey, one Greek philosopher blah blah has already discovered about that stuff 2500 years ago without using modern science, amazing isnt it? Ok, whatever the argument is, what is the real use of it? Does it help progress science? nope. Does it reveal a new hypothesis to be tested? nope. Does it confirm anything previously discovered? nope. One thing it makes is building a false confidence for the faith the person holds. But it is entirely wrong to rely on scientific data to hold up some faith. Ironically it is the same person who criticize some scientists who are contradicting to their (pronoun refers to the believers) worldview while praising others who are compatible or happen to be supporting their faith. Faith is a human psychological phenomenon that is very useful when trusting some information (which might be helpful for survival but hard to be tested) and committing to it. But it can have serious consequences when pursuing rationalism. Not only the religious, but atheistic humanists too have faith. Humanists blindly believes and embraces virtues as described by the Humanist manifesto which has no scientific data, but just for the sake of holding up onto some morals and a meaning of life to cling on, without which we feel very uncomfortable.
Posted on: Thu, 11 Dec 2014 10:46:39 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015