| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Poststructuralist
Guest
|
 Posted: Fri Jul 25, 2008 1:48 am Post subject: Re: Pilgrims' Notes |
 |
|
Susan Maneck wrote:
| Quote: | presumes that human being descended from the same species of apes
which exist today. Darwin never said that.
|
Yes, the idea of the missing link came from Thomas Henry Huxley.
--
Regards, Mark A. Foster, Ph.D. * http://www.markfoster.net
"... the modern challenge is how to live with uncertainty. The
basic fault lines today are not between people with different
beliefs but between people who hold these beliefs with an
element of uncertainty and people who hold these beliefs with
a pretense of certitude." — Peter L. Berger, sociologist |
|
| |
|
 Back to top |
Poststructuralist
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri Jul 25, 2008 1:58 am Post subject: Re: Pilgrims' Notes |
|
|
Douglas McAdam wrote:
| Quote: | I'm taking this from my understanding of what the Master wrote in SAQ.
Also I seem to recall an article in the WO Mag by a scholar that was
titled something like Man, Distinctly Human. |
I don't recall that article. Can you summarize it?
| Quote: | Are you saying that science is absolutely correct in its theory of
evolution? Are we just highly evolved animals? Where does our |
intelligence come from? Was it always there in mineral, vegetable and
| Quote: | animal but it needed evolution to appear in humans?
|
I am saying two things: First, that I don't believe `Abdu'l-Baha was
directly discussing evolution (other than as an analogy for spiritual
involution). Second, that, even if I did believe `Abdu'l-Baha was
promoting a type of old-earth, or progressive, creationism, I would not
give His comments scientific authority. Ideas, like the Virgin Birth for
instance, can have scriptural authority without having historical or
scientific authority.
| Quote: | I seem to recall the term "distinctly human" in an article in the WO
Mag. some years back. Course we can say that our understanding of all
this is better now than when that article appeared. But then we also
must admit our current understanding is temporary. |
My understanding is that revealed religion and the sciences have their
own particular domains of authority, and that those domains should
remain separate.
--
Regards, Mark A. Foster, Ph.D. * http://www.markfoster.net
"... the modern challenge is how to live with uncertainty. The
basic fault lines today are not between people with different
beliefs but between people who hold these beliefs with an
element of uncertainty and people who hold these beliefs with
a pretense of certitude." — Peter L. Berger, sociologist |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Poststructuralist
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri Jul 25, 2008 1:59 am Post subject: Re: Pilgrims' Notes |
|
|
mikeran37@yahoo.com wrote:
| Quote: | His point being that our spirituality does not evolve from nature.
|
For what it's worth, that is also my understanding. I believe that
`Abdu'l-Baha is, in light of the emphasis on biological evolution,
focusing on the spiritual uniqueness of the human kingdom or category,
not that He was objecting to the scientific views expressed by Charles
Darwin and Thomas Henry Huxley.
The spiritual uniqueness of humans is explained by `Abdu'l-Baha as the
human kingdom embracing the mineral, vegetable, and animal perfections
with the addition of the rational soul. In the spiritual *involution* of
man, those perfections are progressively gathered over the course of
human evolution.
Spiritually (not biologically), I think `Abdu'l-Baha's point is that the
human kingdom, distinguished by human spirits or rational souls, also
contains the lower kingdoms. He is thus providing a spiritual
counterbalance to the emphasis on physical evolution.
--
Regards, Mark A. Foster, Ph.D. * http://www.markfoster.net
"... the modern challenge is how to live with uncertainty. The
basic fault lines today are not between people with different
beliefs but between people who hold these beliefs with an
element of uncertainty and people who hold these beliefs with
a pretense of certitude." — Peter L. Berger, sociologist |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Douglas McAdam
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri Jul 25, 2008 4:27 am Post subject: Re: Pilgrims' Notes |
|
|
On Jul 24, 2008, at 4:58 PM, Poststructuralist wrote:
| Quote: | Douglas McAdam wrote:
I'm taking this from my understanding of what the Master wrote in
SAQ.
Also I seem to recall an article in the WO Mag by a scholar that was
titled something like Man, Distinctly Human.
I don't recall that article. Can you summarize it?
|
Hi Mark-
I do not recall the author except it was a woman. She claimed the
Writings say that man is distinctly human.
As far as science and religion are concerned my understanding is that
fundamentally both are in harmony and it is we who create the
disharmony. There is a quote saying "true religion" is in harmony with
"true science". Do we have true science and religion yet? I don't
think so but as time goes by and we become more spiritual then science
will improve and be able top prove the spiritual teachings of
Baha'u'llah.
So my view is to not take a stance either way, i.e. I don't see science
trumping religion or vice verse. It is best not to be absolute about
these things at this time for we are all in a very limited degree of
development.
regards,
doug
| Quote: |
Are you saying that science is absolutely correct in its theory of
evolution? Are we just highly evolved animals? Where does our
intelligence come from? Was it always there in mineral, vegetable and
animal but it needed evolution to appear in humans?
I am saying two things: First, that I don't believe `Abdu'l-Baha was
directly discussing evolution (other than as an analogy for spiritual
involution). Second, that, even if I did believe `Abdu'l-Baha was
promoting a type of old-earth, or progressive, creationism, I would
not
give His comments scientific authority. Ideas, like the Virgin Birth
for
instance, can have scriptural authority without having historical or
scientific authority.
I seem to recall the term "distinctly human" in an article in the WO
Mag. some years back. Course we can say that our understanding of all
this is better now than when that article appeared. But then we
also
must admit our current understanding is temporary.
My understanding is that revealed religion and the sciences have their
own particular domains of authority, and that those domains should
remain separate.
--
Regards, Mark A. Foster, Ph.D. * http://www.markfoster.net
"... the modern challenge is how to live with uncertainty. The
basic fault lines today are not between people with different
beliefs but between people who hold these beliefs with an
element of uncertainty and people who hold these beliefs with
a pretense of certitude." — Peter L. Berger, sociologist
|
|
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Douglas McAdam
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri Jul 25, 2008 4:33 am Post subject: Re: Pilgrims' Notes |
|
|
Dear Susan-
Why is it a problem from a scientific viewpoint? Scientific means that
the results were obtained by scientific method and yet those same
results are also subject to the uncovering of new evidence. However
scientists may think the theory of evolution is sound enough to make
the kinds of statements you say in that they believe man descended from
animal but that does not make it so. Where is the evidence?
My belief, and notice I said belief, based on many years of study of
the Writings, is that Baha'u'llah would be incapable of revealing
anything but truth, a truth that science would be capable of validating
since He also revealed the principle of the harmony of science and
religion. I doubt He would go against His own God manifested Teaching.
regards,
doug
On Jul 24, 2008, at 4:04 PM, Susan Maneck wrote:
| Quote: | According to the quote in question he also said that man was never an
animal. And that is the important distinction to me.
Dear Doug,
And that is what is problematic from a scientific standpoint.
So how did the idea
that man descended from an animal get started if not by Darwin?
I didn't say that Darwin didn't teach that man descended from an
animal. I said he didn't indicate that we descended from any of the
existing apes which is where the notion of a missing link comes from.
warmest, Susan
|
|
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Douglas McAdam
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri Jul 25, 2008 4:34 am Post subject: Re: Pilgrims' Notes |
|
|
Hi Mark-
Does this mean that intelligence does not evolve from nature?
regards,
doug
On Jul 24, 2008, at 4:59 PM, Poststructuralist wrote:
| Quote: | mikeran37@yahoo.com wrote:
His point being that our spirituality does not evolve from nature.
For what it's worth, that is also my understanding. I believe that
`Abdu'l-Baha is, in light of the emphasis on biological evolution,
focusing on the spiritual uniqueness of the human kingdom or category,
not that He was objecting to the scientific views expressed by Charles
Darwin and Thomas Henry Huxley.
The spiritual uniqueness of humans is explained by `Abdu'l-Baha as the
human kingdom embracing the mineral, vegetable, and animal perfections
with the addition of the rational soul. In the spiritual *involution*
of
man, those perfections are progressively gathered over the course of
human evolution.
Spiritually (not biologically), I think `Abdu'l-Baha's point is that
the
human kingdom, distinguished by human spirits or rational souls, also
contains the lower kingdoms. He is thus providing a spiritual
counterbalance to the emphasis on physical evolution.
--
Regards, Mark A. Foster, Ph.D. * http://www.markfoster.net
"... the modern challenge is how to live with uncertainty. The
basic fault lines today are not between people with different
beliefs but between people who hold these beliefs with an
element of uncertainty and people who hold these beliefs with
a pretense of certitude." — Peter L. Berger, sociologist
|
|
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Susan Maneck
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri Jul 25, 2008 6:11 am Post subject: Re: Pilgrims' Notes |
|
|
On Thu, Jul 24, 2008 at 6:33 PM, Douglas McAdam
<douglasmcadam@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
| Quote: | Dear Susan-
Why is it a problem from a scientific viewpoint? Scientific means that the
results were obtained by scientific method and yet those same results are
also subject to the uncovering of new evidence.
|
Dear Doug,
That's the problem. There is no evidence that man has always been a
separate species physically speaking and plenty of mounting evidence
that he descended from lower animals.
However scientists may
| Quote: | think the theory of evolution is sound enough to make the kinds of
statements you say in that they believe man descended from animal but that
does not make it so. Where is the evidence?
|
You can read all about it here: http://www.gate.net/~rwms/EvoEvidence.html
| Quote: | My belief, and notice I said belief, based on many years of study of the
Writings, is that Baha'u'llah would be incapable of revealing anything but
truth,
|
To my knowledge Baha'u'llah never said anything on this subject.
warmesst, Susan |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Poststructuralist
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri Jul 25, 2008 9:51 am Post subject: Re: Pilgrims' Notes |
|
|
Douglas McAdam wrote:
| Quote: | I do not recall the author except it was a woman. She claimed the
Writings say that man is distinctly human.
|
Doug:
I agree "that man is distinctly human." However, that distinctiveness is
found in the rational soul, not in evolutionary descent.
| Quote: | As far as science and religion are concerned my understanding is that
fundamentally both are in harmony and it is we who create the
disharmony. There is a quote saying "true religion" is in harmony with
"true science". Do we have true science and religion yet? I don't
think so but as time goes by and we become more spiritual then science
will improve and be able top prove the spiritual teachings of Baha'u'll
ah. |
We have discussed this subject many time before. As I see it, the
harmony of the sciences with the Baha'i Faith can be achieved when each
of them operates in its own domain and does not intrude on the other.
| Quote: | So my view is to not take a stance either way, i.e. I don't see science
trumping religion or vice verse. It is best not to be absolute about
these things at this time for we are all in a very limited degree of
development.
|
I agree on being relative. However, an aspect of that relativity, IMO,
involves respecting the core competencies of each domain.
--
Regards, Mark A. Foster, Ph.D. * http://www.markfoster.net
"... the modern challenge is how to live with uncertainty. The
basic fault lines today are not between people with different
beliefs but between people who hold these beliefs with an
element of uncertainty and people who hold these beliefs with
a pretense of certitude." — Peter L. Berger, sociologist |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Poststructuralist
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri Jul 25, 2008 9:56 am Post subject: Re: Pilgrims' Notes |
|
|
Douglas McAdam wrote:
| Quote: | Does this mean that intelligence does not evolve from nature?
|
I think that `Abdu'l-Baha's point is that the intellect, or rational
soul, distinguishes man from other animals. The issue of whether that
human intelligence evolved from nature is a matter to be determined by
biological and other natural scientists.
--
Regards, Mark A. Foster, Ph.D. * http://www.markfoster.net
"... the modern challenge is how to live with uncertainty. The
basic fault lines today are not between people with different
beliefs but between people who hold these beliefs with an
element of uncertainty and people who hold these beliefs with
a pretense of certitude." — Peter L. Berger, sociologist |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Kent Johnson
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri Jul 25, 2008 4:33 pm Post subject: Re: Pilgrims' Notes |
|
|
Hi Susan,
It appears to me this is smoke and mirrors anyway, since what we are talking
about is whether or not the original Persian is existent so that phraseology
can be checked in the event of a dispute. No one but perhaps you is
claiming that the entire books are wrong.
| Quote: | Sorry, the burden of proof would be on you to establish that a
specific passage *is* authentic.
|
For what purpose would that be my burden? For scriptural authority? For
external consistency of the ideas presented? For spiritual inspiration? For
attributing ideas to Abdu'l-Baha and not a Covenant Breaking translator?
Is it just for PUP and Paris Talks that such a burden is placed on me? Is
there any other translations that are not in question, so I am not so
burdened? It seems to me your claim is that some of the Writings in those
books are unauthenticated, that is all. There is a letter from the House of
Justice you keep quoting that says some of those two books might be
questioned, and a letter from Shoghi Effendi who defines what it means to be
authentic. Together you assert those letters mean we should discount two
highly influential books, and it is my burden to decide why or how, but all
other works are okay. Am I wrong about that?
If I were to learn Persian, travel to the Holy Land and catalog the
translators and where to find the original of each of these talks, itemize
the passages that are missing original Persian texts, and show the wording
of inconsistent passages, what will the Baha'i community have gained beyond
silencing your complaints that such has not been done yet? Is there
anything that we can see now, today, that we are certain to gain by that
work? Or would I do that just on the possibility of silencing criticism and
perhaps finding an important error or two to correct?
Me:
| Quote: | Wouldn't there be letters
cautioning us about misrepresenting texts that had been published previous
to finding these Covenant Breakers' agendas?
You:
The above doesn't make sense to me.
|
If there were grave danger of misunderstanding Baha'i teachings by reading
these books, wouldn't there be lists of cautions from those who are aware of
those dangers, those misunderstandings, those cautions that people who know
about these dangers, misunderstandings and cautions are aware?
As we do not have any listed dangers, misunderstandings or cautions, isn't
that a good indication that these two books are generally accurate in gist
if not in the entire phraseology?
You:
| Quote: | No, what we should be talking about is which parts of these books
*can* be authenticated. But you need to have some knowledge of Persian
to join in that conversation. ...
Becuase all the documentation which might establish the authenticity
of such texts is in Persian.
|
Why would one have to know the language of the text in order to take part in
the conversation about whether or not some parts of two books are
authenticated with regard to translation?
--Kent
"Susan Maneck" <smaneck@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:te6dnav-pL0tfhXVnZ2dnUVZ_tzinZ2d@giganews.com...
| Quote: | om> wrote:
Hi Susan,
...we can't be sure of what Abdu'l-Baha said.
Are you saying that specifically about P. 359 of PUP?
Dear Kent,
I'm saying it is true of any talk which we do not have the original
transcript to compare it against. If you can find the orignal Persian
transcript of what is on p. 369 of PUP and demonstrate that it is
consistent with what we have in English, then and *only* then can we
be sure it actually represents what Abdu'l-Baha said.
Because if you can state with authority that specific passage is
unauthenticated we have merely an issue of bad translation.
Sorry, the burden of proof would be on you to establish that a
specific passage *is* authentic.
I would put the burden of proof on those who wish to discount the works.
The vast bulk of that work is just wonderful, no doubt directly from the
Mind of 'Abdu'l-Baha.
Sorry, until a text is fully authenticated it isn't.
So, if there were such a case, wouldn't Baha'i academics be aware of
them?
If there were lots, weren't there be lists?
No, there are no lists but there are Persian books which contain the
original transcripts for some of those texts. If we wish to work with
one we try and see if we can find it.
Wouldn't there be letters
cautioning us about misrepresenting texts that had been published
previous
to finding these Covenant Breakers' agendas?
The above doesn't make sense to me.
No, what we should be talking about is which parts of these books
*can* be authenticated. But you need to have some knowledge of Persian
to join in that conversation.
Why?
Becuase all the documentation which might establish the authenticity
of such texts is in Persian. .
warmest, Susan
|
|
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Kent Johnson
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri Jul 25, 2008 4:38 pm Post subject: Re: Pilgrims' Notes |
|
|
Hi Mark,
| Quote: | IMO, it is more than classifying what He believed. It is placing them in
their proper contexts.
|
How does placing His beliefs in the proper context differ from classifying
His beliefs? Is it like His belief in "ether" which was a common scientific
idea of the day, that you believe we should be deciding what scientific
background and knowledge Abdu'l-Baha had to work with more than what He
believed?
"Thus this light is the vibration of that ethereal matter, and from this
vibration we infer the existence of ether." (Abdu'l-Baha, Some Answered
Questions, p. 190) BTW this is an authenticated text, and the term appears
only once in unauthenticated text, while it appears several times in
authenticated texts.
--Kent
"Poststructuralist" <drfosternotfromgloucester@nospamgmail.com> wrote in
message news:u5qdnaIi8JkkfhXVnZ2dnUVZ_oninZ2d@giganews.com...
Kent Johnson wrote:
| Quote: | So whether or not 'Abdu'l-Baha could be termed a "creationist" is depen
dent
firstly on putting together an outline of what He believed on the subje
ct,
then classifying those beliefs.
|
`Abdu'l-Baha's discussion of the subject relies as much on Neoplatonic
terminology as it does on the terms of Charles Darwin and Thomas Henry
Huxley. IMO, it is more than classifying what He believed. It is placing
them in their proper contexts.
| Quote: | It would be perfectly acceptable and accurate, would it not Mark, to us
e the
texts from PUP and Paris Talks to outline those beliefs, because those
works
have a high degree of accuracy when representing 'Abdu'l-Baha's beliefs
....
Wouldn't you say so, Mark?
|
I have no way of subjectively determining whether they are accurate.
--
Regards, Mark A. Foster, Ph.D. * http://www.markfoster.net
"... the modern challenge is how to live with uncertainty. The
basic fault lines today are not between people with different
beliefs but between people who hold these beliefs with an
element of uncertainty and people who hold these beliefs with
a pretense of certitude." — Peter L. Berger, sociologist |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Douglas McAdam
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri Jul 25, 2008 7:29 pm Post subject: Re: Pilgrims' Notes |
|
|
On Jul 25, 2008, at 12:51 AM, Poststructuralist wrote:
| Quote: | Douglas McAdam wrote:
I do not recall the author except it was a woman. She claimed the
Writings say that man is distinctly human.
Doug:
I agree "that man is distinctly human." However, that distinctiveness
is
found in the rational soul, not in evolutionary descent.
|
Hi Mark-
I have no problem with believing the body of man came from evolutionary
descent. However for us to have intelligence and other animals do not
means to me that we were created distinctly human and not animal.
| Quote: | As far as science and religion are concerned my understanding is that
fundamentally both are in harmony and it is we who create the
disharmony. There is a quote saying "true religion" is in harmony
with
"true science". Do we have true science and religion yet? I don't
think so but as time goes by and we become more spiritual then science
will improve and be able top prove the spiritual teachings of
Baha'u'll
ah.
We have discussed this subject many time before. As I see it, the
harmony of the sciences with the Baha'i Faith can be achieved when each
of them operates in its own domain and does not intrude on the other.
|
I don't know what you mean by intrude. To my knowledge no Baha'is are
intruding on science or vice verse and if they did the House of Justice
would solve the problem. I often think the problem has more to do with
how non-Baha'is in science and religion are intruding on each other and
thus our own scholars, professionals etc. are fearsome of this in our
own community. But for me I see no worry. As I have said many times
the real problem I see is when a Baha'i asserts his or her
interpretation to judge others.
| Quote: |
So my view is to not take a stance either way, i.e. I don't see
science
trumping religion or vice verse. It is best not to be absolute about
these things at this time for we are all in a very limited degree of
development.
I agree on being relative. However, an aspect of that relativity, IMO,
involves respecting the core competencies of each domain.
|
Yes, but again I see no disrespect from Baha'is in either field. But I
do see communication problems with certain individual assert their
interpretations and beliefs in an authoritative and judgmental way for
that leads to ego battles.
regards,
doug |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Douglas McAdam
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri Jul 25, 2008 7:35 pm Post subject: Re: Pilgrims' Notes |
|
|
On Jul 25, 2008, at 12:56 AM, Poststructuralist wrote:
| Quote: | Douglas McAdam wrote:
Does this mean that intelligence does not evolve from nature?
I think that `Abdu'l-Baha's point is that the intellect, or rational
soul, distinguishes man from other animals. The issue of whether that
human intelligence evolved from nature is a matter to be determined by
biological and other natural scientists.
|
Or could it be possible that we already have had the answer revealed by
the Manifestation and the sciences will eventually prove it? We know
there are three ways to learn things, i.e. Discovery, Experience and
Revelation. Could it be that the Manifestation reveals all knowledge
to us but we then must discover and experience it. This power faith
enables us to accept the Manifestation and what is revealed but we also
must use our intellectual powers and the physical senses to experience
those beliefs in real action in order to consciously know something.
regards,
doug |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Susan Maneck
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri Jul 25, 2008 11:45 pm Post subject: Re: Pilgrims' Notes |
|
|
No one but perhaps you is
| Quote: | claiming that the entire books are wrong.
|
Kent,
I *never* said the entire books were wrong. What I said is that
without the Persian transcripts we can't know what is right or wrong.
| Quote: |
Sorry, the burden of proof would be on you to establish that a
specific passage *is* authentic.
For what purpose would that be my burden? For scriptural authority? For
external consistency of the ideas presented? For spiritual inspiration? For
attributing ideas to Abdu'l-Baha and not a Covenant Breaking translator?
|
You act like I had introduced the phrase "burden of proof." If you
didn't know what it meant, why did you use it? But yes, establishing
the authenticity of a the text is necessary for establishing its
authority. If you just want to use it for spiritual inspiration, that
is an entirely different matter.
It seems to me your claim is that some of the Writings in those
| Quote: | books are unauthenticated, that is all.
|
Once again, they are not the Writings, they are talks.
There is a letter from the House of
| Quote: | Justice you keep quoting that says some of those two books might be
questioned, and a letter from Shoghi Effendi who defines what it means to be
authentic. Together you assert those letters mean we should discount two
highly influential books,
|
The word 'discount' is yours not mine.
and it is my burden to decide why or how, but all
| Quote: | other works are okay. Am I wrong about that?
|
I'm saying that the burden of proof is on you to establish that a talk
is authoritative by ascertaining that the original exists. The burden
of proof is not on me to ascertain that talk is *not* authoritative as
you alleged.
| Quote: |
If I were to learn Persian, travel to the Holy Land and catalog the
translators and where to find the original of each of these talks, itemize
the passages that are missing original Persian texts, and show the wording
of inconsistent passages, what will the Baha'i community have gained beyond
silencing your complaints that such has not been done yet?
|
Then they would know which parts to consider authoritative and which not.
| Quote: | As we do not have any listed dangers, misunderstandings or cautions, isn't
that a good indication that these two books are generally accurate in gist
if not in the entire phraseology?
|
It is an indication we don't yet know how accurate those books are.
...> Why would one have to know the language of the text in order to take part in
| Quote: | the conversation about whether or not some parts of two books are
authenticated with regard to translation?
|
By 'joining that conversation' I meant participating in the
determination of which texts were authentic. You can talk about
whatever you want.
Susan |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Susan Maneck
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri Jul 25, 2008 11:47 pm Post subject: Re: Pilgrims' Notes |
|
|
| Quote: | Or could it be possible that we already have had the answer revealed by the
Manifestation and the sciences will eventually prove it?
|
What did Baha'u'llah reveal in this regard and where did He reveal it? |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
|
