Originally posted by ThinkOfOneI did not link up pride/feeling of superiority/ego to the position of disbelief in the existence of God. All I meant was one should have an open mind while approaching relearning or new learning. Pride,feeling Superior, Ego comes in the way of relearning or new learning because it does not allow an open mind. A similar situation in many arguments : Unless one is a good listener, one does not hear what the other fellow is saying. One has to mentally keep aside one's counterarguments, at least for a few moments, in order to absorb the other side. That was my request to Sonhouse.
"Hubris" and "pride" don't really substitute well for "ego". "Hubris" and "pride" may be symptoms of "ego", but do not equate to it. That said, I'll rephrase the question:
"Can you explain why you see the position of disbelief of the existence of God because there is no evidence of the existence of God as a product of [pride]? You have said that one ne ...[text shortened]... [pride] involved in the construction and maintenance of that position?"
Originally posted by tim88A typical quote from one of the older generation scientists. Sir Arthur Eddington :- We are complicated physical machinery--puppets that strut and talk and laugh and die as the hand of time turns the handle beneath.
Yes Indeed! thanks for pointing the out
In optics, mechanics, and mathematics, Newton was a figure of undisputed genius and innovation. In all his science (including chemistry) he saw mathematics and numbers as central. What is less well known is that he was devoutly religious and saw numbers as involved in understanding God's plan for history from the Bi ...[text shortened]... mets, could only proceed from the counsel and dominion of an intelligent and powerful Being."
But let us remember that there is one elementary inescapable answer: We are that which asks the question.
2 edits
Originally posted by rvsakhadeoSeems that your position keeps shifting. When I first asked about it, you said that you really meant "pride" when you said "ego". So I took the exact same text from when I first asked about it and substituted "pride" everyplace that "ego" occurred. Now you are claiming that instead of "pride" you really meant not having an "open mind".
I did not link up pride/feeling of superiority/ego to the position of disbelief in the existence of God. All I meant was one should have an open mind while approaching relearning or new learning. Pride,feeling Superior, Ego comes in the way of relearning or new learning because it does not allow an open mind. A similar situation in many arguments : Unles at least for a few moments, in order to absorb the other side. That was my request to Sonhouse.
Not only that you now claim that you were not addressing "the position of disbelief in the existence of God" at all, but about "approaching relearning or new learning". This despite the fact that in your post to SH you said, "surrender your ego for a moment or two and you will realize that God is there" which clearly indicates a link to his "position of disbelief in the existence of God".
Seems like there is more than a little bit of pride at work in yourself here. Rather than just admitting that your position did not hold water, you seem to have taken on a path of deceit in an sorry attempt to "save face". What's up with that?
Quite frankly your latest attempt doesn't seem to make much sense either. From what I can tell, you are practitioner of Bhakti Yoga. Since you've mentioned both Ramakrishna and Vivekananda, it would seem likely that you're part of the Ramakrishna Order. It's my understanding that that order supports four yogas including Jnana Yoga which doesn't necessitate a belief in a "God" per se. So perhaps YOU are in need of keeping an "open mind".
What's more, in a discussion I had a few year back with a Swami from the Ramakrishna Order, he confirmed that ultimately the only path to a full realization of Brahman is that of Jnana Yoga. The other three are useful, but ultimately they must be abandoned for Jnana Yoga. While it seems you feel you've gotten benefit from your chosen path, not only is it not the only path, ultimately it's not even the path necessary for full realization.
Originally posted by RJHindsWhere is the assumption made that "all college graduates have higher IQs than others"?
Well, I was right and my wife was wrong. So I did have a little doubt, but
I am not going to tell her she was wrong. That might make both of us
unhappy. But it did not matter much to my point that sampling a small
portion of the population is not enough for absolute proof and assuming
all college graduates have higher IQs than others is no way to cond ...[text shortened]... about ASSUME.
P.S. One can assume if it does not really matter, but not in science and law.
--- Penguin
2 edits
Originally posted by RJHindsNowhere on the link does it say the assumption was made that, specifically, ALL college graduates have higher IQs than others although it did imply that the assumption was made that the average IQ of graduates are higher than others ( which is true ) but that assumption ( now proven ) was merely made as the MOTIVE of doing one of the studies rather than the PREMISE of the analysis of any of the data.
That was stated in the article referred to by humy when he made his statements. Here is the link:
http://www.ehow.com/info_8115822_studies-iq.html
-but I have already explained this to you so I don't know why you bring it up again; do you not know the difference between motive and premise?
1 edit
Originally posted by ThinkOfOneI don't know whether to laugh or wonder at your presumptuous reply !!
Seems that your position keeps shifting. When I first asked about it, you said that you really meant "pride" when you said "ego". So I took the exact same text from when I first asked about it and substituted "pride" everyplace that "ego" occurred. Now you are claiming that instead of "pride" you really meant not having an "open mind".
Not only that y mately it's not even the path necessary for full realization.
First and foremost, let me admit my mistake in that I mixed up my reply with the my two positions with two posters. Sonhouse and Stellspalfie were confused by me in my last reply to you. Sorry for being negligent.
I still maintain that ego / feeling of superiority / not being a good listener will affect one's ability to absorb new learning /relearning, which was true in respect of Stellspalfie. I also maintain that ego / feeling of superiority has come in the way of Sonhouse not being able to realize God.
I idolize Ramakrishna and Vivekananda, as two modern Avatars of God. I have read and hopefully absorbed a lot of their teachings. A couple of visits to both Dakshineshwar and Belurmath were very uplifting for me. But I am not a formal follower of Ramakrishna / Vivekananda. I am in no way connected with that Order and in no way an ordained sannyasi or bhakta or a member of Ramakrishna mission. I hope this is very clear. My Guru is Kalavati Aai who died in 1978.
I have no need to deceive you or anyone in a debate or any informal/formal dialogue. I am not keeping scores here as some people obsessed with loosing or winning do. I may well loose or win this argument with you, I do not care at all. You say I want to save face -- really with whom ? So why this unwarranted accusation ?
Let me tell you, Bhakti Yog is best for people who are householders. To practice Jnana Yog, one requires to give up formally all attachment with this world and don ochre robes. I am not upto that and probably will never be, seeing that I am 65 and running 66.
4 edits
Originally posted by humyThe following is the whole paragraph, I was referring to:
Nowhere on the link does it say the assumption was made that, specifically, ALL college graduates have higher IQs than others although it did imply that the assumption was made that the average IQ of graduates are higher than others ( which is true ) but that assumption ( now proven ) was merely made as the MOTIVE of doing one of the studies rather than the PRE between motive and premise?
The same study stated that 90 percent of Americans believe in God.
In 1972 a Gallup survey revealed 33 percent of college graduates are believers of creationism. Fifty-five percent of people who only graduated from high school believe in creation and 66 percent of people who only graduated from grade school believe in creationism. Gallup based its study on the assumption that college graduates have a higher IQ than high school and grade school graduates.
Look at the last sentence. See the 7th word in the sentence. I will enhance it.
"Gallup based its study on the assumption that college graduates have a higher IQ than high school and grade school graduates.
As you say, Gallup did not know the truth of this assumption, but they
made it anyway. This smacks of bias in the intention of trying to prove a point.
P.S. I would say that their motive was to prove their assertion that people with higher IQs don't believe in creationism. Not even that most do not.
And religious people are less intelligent than atheists.
The same study stated that 90 percent of Americans believe in God.
Originally posted by rvsakhadeoYou're too funny. My previous post detailed the reasons for my observation. So why the pretense that it didn't? What keeps you from either directly addressing the following or admitting that your position doesn't hold water? Thus far you've done little more than exhibit one ego defense mechanism after another in your attempts to avoid doing so.
I don't know whether to laugh or wonder at your presumptuous reply !!
First and foremost, let me admit my mistake in that I mixed up my reply with the my two positions with two posters. Sonhouse and Stellspalfie were confused by me in my last reply to you. Sorry for being negligent.
I still maintain that ego / feeling of superiority / not being a good ...[text shortened]... chre robes. I am not upto that and probably will never be, seeing that I am 65 and running 66.
Can you explain why you see the position of disbelief of the existence of God because there is no evidence of the existence of God as a product of ego? You have said that one needs to "surrender [ones] ego" and "gets one's ego out of the way", but still haven't said why you believe such a position is the product of ego. I'm truly interested. It wouldn't seem to be the case. Specifically, how is the ego involved in the construction and maintenance of that position?
Let me tell you, Bhakti Yog is best for people who are householders. To practice Jnana Yog, one requires to give up formally all attachment with this world and don ochre robes. I am not upto that and probably will never be, seeing that I am 65 and running 66.
You seem to have missed the point which is that the path of Jnana Yoga "doesn't necessitate a belief in a 'God' per se". It would seem that you need to open your mind to this fact. From what I can tell, SN simply doesn't believe in the existence of God because there is no evidence of the existence of God. If you have evidence, then give it to him instead of trying to make it sound like he is somehow deficient.
Also from my understanding your assertion that "To practice Jnana Yog, one requires to give up formally all attachment with this world and don ochre robes" is a lot of tripe.
1 edit
Originally posted by RJHinds“...As you say, Gallup did not know the truth of this assumption, ...”
The following is the whole paragraph, I was referring to:
[b]In 1972 a Gallup survey revealed 33 percent of college graduates are believers of creationism. Fifty-five percent of people who only graduated from high school believe in creation and 66 percent of people who only graduated from grade school believe in creationism. Gallup based its study on the lligent than atheists.
The same study stated that 90 percent of Americans believe in God.[/b]
I didn't say this.
“...but they made it anyway. ...”
-and where proven right to do so by other studies.
“...This smacks of bias in the intention of trying to prove a point. ...”
how is an intention of proving a point using valid scientific method equate with “bias” of the type that will invalidate their discoveries? That would make no sense.
When I was talking about “bias”, I was referring to bias selection of the test sample which does not equate with intentions.
"...religious people are less intelligent than atheists...."
What their motives where in confirming and proving that fact is irrelevant to the fact that their findings DID prove this so:
of course they where talking about averages: what is PROVEN is that religious people are less intelligent than atheists ON AVERAGE ( you implied that they meant that this fact was true in all cases when they obviously didn't mean that at all )
Originally posted by humyThey did not prove anything other than they do not understand the scientific method.
“...As you say, Gallup did not know the truth of this assumption, ...”
I didn't say this.
“...but they made it anyway. ...”
-and where proven right to do so by other studies.
“...This smacks of bias in the intention of trying to prove a point. ...”
how is an intention of proving a point using valid scientific method equate with “bias” of the typ ...[text shortened]... hey meant that this fact was true in all cases when they obviously didn't mean that at all )