☀️ JOIN SPN MOBILE
Forums
New posts
Guru Granth Sahib
Composition, Arrangement & Layout
ਜਪੁ | Jup
ਸੋ ਦਰੁ | So Dar
ਸੋਹਿਲਾ | Sohilaa
ਰਾਗੁ ਸਿਰੀਰਾਗੁ | Raag Siree-Raag
Gurbani (14-53)
Ashtpadiyan (53-71)
Gurbani (71-74)
Pahre (74-78)
Chhant (78-81)
Vanjara (81-82)
Vaar Siri Raag (83-91)
Bhagat Bani (91-93)
ਰਾਗੁ ਮਾਝ | Raag Maajh
Gurbani (94-109)
Ashtpadi (109)
Ashtpadiyan (110-129)
Ashtpadi (129-130)
Ashtpadiyan (130-133)
Bara Maha (133-136)
Din Raen (136-137)
Vaar Maajh Ki (137-150)
ਰਾਗੁ ਗਉੜੀ | Raag Gauree
Gurbani (151-185)
Quartets/Couplets (185-220)
Ashtpadiyan (220-234)
Karhalei (234-235)
Ashtpadiyan (235-242)
Chhant (242-249)
Baavan Akhari (250-262)
Sukhmani (262-296)
Thittee (296-300)
Gauree kii Vaar (300-323)
Gurbani (323-330)
Ashtpadiyan (330-340)
Baavan Akhari (340-343)
Thintteen (343-344)
Vaar Kabir (344-345)
Bhagat Bani (345-346)
ਰਾਗੁ ਆਸਾ | Raag Aasaa
Gurbani (347-348)
Chaupaday (348-364)
Panchpadde (364-365)
Kaafee (365-409)
Aasaavaree (409-411)
Ashtpadiyan (411-432)
Patee (432-435)
Chhant (435-462)
Vaar Aasaa (462-475)
Bhagat Bani (475-488)
ਰਾਗੁ ਗੂਜਰੀ | Raag Goojaree
Gurbani (489-503)
Ashtpadiyan (503-508)
Vaar Gujari (508-517)
Vaar Gujari (517-526)
ਰਾਗੁ ਦੇਵਗੰਧਾਰੀ | Raag Dayv-Gandhaaree
Gurbani (527-536)
ਰਾਗੁ ਬਿਹਾਗੜਾ | Raag Bihaagraa
Gurbani (537-556)
Chhant (538-548)
Vaar Bihaagraa (548-556)
ਰਾਗੁ ਵਡਹੰਸ | Raag Wadhans
Gurbani (557-564)
Ashtpadiyan (564-565)
Chhant (565-575)
Ghoriaan (575-578)
Alaahaniiaa (578-582)
Vaar Wadhans (582-594)
ਰਾਗੁ ਸੋਰਠਿ | Raag Sorath
Gurbani (595-634)
Asatpadhiya (634-642)
Vaar Sorath (642-659)
ਰਾਗੁ ਧਨਾਸਰੀ | Raag Dhanasaree
Gurbani (660-685)
Astpadhiya (685-687)
Chhant (687-691)
Bhagat Bani (691-695)
ਰਾਗੁ ਜੈਤਸਰੀ | Raag Jaitsree
Gurbani (696-703)
Chhant (703-705)
Vaar Jaitsaree (705-710)
Bhagat Bani (710)
ਰਾਗੁ ਟੋਡੀ | Raag Todee
ਰਾਗੁ ਬੈਰਾੜੀ | Raag Bairaaree
ਰਾਗੁ ਤਿਲੰਗ | Raag Tilang
Gurbani (721-727)
Bhagat Bani (727)
ਰਾਗੁ ਸੂਹੀ | Raag Suhi
Gurbani (728-750)
Ashtpadiyan (750-761)
Kaafee (761-762)
Suchajee (762)
Gunvantee (763)
Chhant (763-785)
Vaar Soohee (785-792)
Bhagat Bani (792-794)
ਰਾਗੁ ਬਿਲਾਵਲੁ | Raag Bilaaval
Gurbani (795-831)
Ashtpadiyan (831-838)
Thitteen (838-840)
Vaar Sat (841-843)
Chhant (843-848)
Vaar Bilaaval (849-855)
Bhagat Bani (855-858)
ਰਾਗੁ ਗੋਂਡ | Raag Gond
Gurbani (859-869)
Ashtpadiyan (869)
Bhagat Bani (870-875)
ਰਾਗੁ ਰਾਮਕਲੀ | Raag Ramkalee
Ashtpadiyan (902-916)
Gurbani (876-902)
Anand (917-922)
Sadd (923-924)
Chhant (924-929)
Dakhnee (929-938)
Sidh Gosat (938-946)
Vaar Ramkalee (947-968)
ਰਾਗੁ ਨਟ ਨਾਰਾਇਨ | Raag Nat Narayan
Gurbani (975-980)
Ashtpadiyan (980-983)
ਰਾਗੁ ਮਾਲੀ ਗਉੜਾ | Raag Maalee Gauraa
Gurbani (984-988)
Bhagat Bani (988)
ਰਾਗੁ ਮਾਰੂ | Raag Maaroo
Gurbani (889-1008)
Ashtpadiyan (1008-1014)
Kaafee (1014-1016)
Ashtpadiyan (1016-1019)
Anjulian (1019-1020)
Solhe (1020-1033)
Dakhni (1033-1043)
ਰਾਗੁ ਤੁਖਾਰੀ | Raag Tukhaari
Bara Maha (1107-1110)
Chhant (1110-1117)
ਰਾਗੁ ਕੇਦਾਰਾ | Raag Kedara
Gurbani (1118-1123)
Bhagat Bani (1123-1124)
ਰਾਗੁ ਭੈਰਉ | Raag Bhairo
Gurbani (1125-1152)
Partaal (1153)
Ashtpadiyan (1153-1167)
ਰਾਗੁ ਬਸੰਤੁ | Raag Basant
Gurbani (1168-1187)
Ashtpadiyan (1187-1193)
Vaar Basant (1193-1196)
ਰਾਗੁ ਸਾਰਗ | Raag Saarag
Gurbani (1197-1200)
Partaal (1200-1231)
Ashtpadiyan (1232-1236)
Chhant (1236-1237)
Vaar Saarang (1237-1253)
ਰਾਗੁ ਮਲਾਰ | Raag Malaar
Gurbani (1254-1293)
Partaal (1265-1273)
Ashtpadiyan (1273-1278)
Chhant (1278)
Vaar Malaar (1278-91)
Bhagat Bani (1292-93)
ਰਾਗੁ ਕਾਨੜਾ | Raag Kaanraa
Gurbani (1294-96)
Partaal (1296-1318)
Ashtpadiyan (1308-1312)
Chhant (1312)
Vaar Kaanraa
Bhagat Bani (1318)
ਰਾਗੁ ਕਲਿਆਨ | Raag Kalyaan
Gurbani (1319-23)
Ashtpadiyan (1323-26)
ਰਾਗੁ ਪ੍ਰਭਾਤੀ | Raag Prabhaatee
Gurbani (1327-1341)
Ashtpadiyan (1342-51)
ਰਾਗੁ ਜੈਜਾਵੰਤੀ | Raag Jaijaiwanti
Gurbani (1352-53)
Salok | Gatha | Phunahe | Chaubole | Swayiye
Sehskritee Mahala 1
Sehskritee Mahala 5
Gaathaa Mahala 5
Phunhay Mahala 5
Chaubolae Mahala 5
Shaloks Bhagat Kabir
Shaloks Sheikh Farid
Swaiyyae Mahala 5
Swaiyyae in Praise of Gurus
Shaloks in Addition To Vaars
Shalok Ninth Mehl
Mundavanee Mehl 5
ਰਾਗ ਮਾਲਾ, Raag Maalaa
What's new
New posts
New media
New media comments
New resources
Latest activity
Videos
New media
New comments
Library
Latest reviews
Donate
Log in
Register
What's new
New posts
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Welcome to all New Sikh Philosophy Network Forums!
Explore Sikh Sikhi Sikhism...
Sign up
Log in
Discussions
Interfaith Dialogues
Live Free
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Caspian" data-source="post: 148015" data-attributes="member: 5962"><p>I'm always open to discourse <img src="" class="smilie smilie--sprite smilie--sprite2" alt=";)" title="Wink ;)" loading="lazy" data-shortname=";)" /> more so now then maybe I was before, a year or two ago. And seeing as Ockham lived from 1288 to 1348, I can't "fault" him for believing in god. It was essentially the simplest explanation back then after all. I would hope, given all the advances in science and philosophy since then, he would happily apply his razor to his own beliefs if he was alive right now (or who noes? <img src="" class="smilie smilie--sprite smilie--sprite7" alt=":p" title="Stick Out Tongue :p" loading="lazy" data-shortname=":p" /> maybe he wouldnt). Science has no agenda and we welcome the contributions of religious men like Occam, Mendle (whos beanstalks, in conjunction with the theory of evolution, paved the way for a modern understanding of genetics) and Lemaître (a catholic priest who first proposed the big bang theory). Indeed, religious men and women have contributed greatly to the sciences. Not that science cares for their religion. </p><p></p><p>Can science answer moral question? I take it you believe science is not capable of answering questions like "what it means to be good." And I know a great many atheists who would disagree with that outlook. I know Sam Harris gets used alot but I quite liked his ted talk entitles "sciencecan answer moral questions" ( <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hj9oB4zpHww" target="_blank">YouTube - Sam Harris: Science can answer moral questions&rlm;</a> ).</p><p></p><p>The world is generally moral and wholesome because evolution dictates it in my opinion. Without getting into the nitty gritty details of evolution. If you accept evolution as a viable explanation for how we humans came to be as we are today. Then you must accept that most of our traits, be it physical or psychological were honed to our survival. That includes our internal morality center. Its not a supernatural entity like a soul that gives rise to our good nature. Were simply good natured because it is evolutionarily advantageous to be good natured. But as times change ever more quickly, traits from the past that may have been evolutionarily advantageous (like our fight/flight/freeze response) could be evolutionarily disadvantageous in the future (in the modern world, the fight/flight/freeze response gets triggered by mundane activities like doing one's taxes, this could lead to stress which could lead to nervous breakdowns if prolonged and a whole host of psychological disorders like depression). I feel like our belief in god, is one of those traits that is no longer advantageous to us—but thats another talk all-together. </p><p></p><p>To better answer the original question. Let me ask you in reverse. If you attribute the world being generally good and wholesome to some diving essence—that of a god perhaps. Then what do you attribute the negative aspects of our nature to? If you were fair you would say that the bad part of us also stems from this divine nature. But I think its more practical to attribute both our good and bad traits to ourselves and ourselves only <img src="" class="smilie smilie--sprite smilie--sprite7" alt=":p" title="Stick Out Tongue :p" loading="lazy" data-shortname=":p" />. Nothing divine about it as far as I can see. </p><p></p><p>Personally, If god exists, I dont think going to confession is going to make you any more or less of a religious person in his eyes. But I can say that about a whole host of traditions and conventions. Keeping your hair and beard is not going to make you any more or less religious in his eyes either. If religion is a search lets do away with the names (why do we have to ascribe ourselves as sikhs, it only serves to seperate and distinguish us from one another when we ought to be focusing on what unites as humans), lets get rid of all these silly conventions, lets get back to the philosophy and science of it.</p><p></p><p>The idea's are more important then the man. If there's one thing I would love to stress on this forum, its that one should be able to judge ideas independently from the character, moral, and outlooks of the person who thought of the ideas to begin with. Just like with Occam, we've adopted his maxim, despite it ironically threatening his very beliefs. Same applies to newton and the many great scientists you speak of. Lets judge their idea's seperately from their other ideas. I mean newton was bang on with Calculus and Newtonian mechanics (easily one of the smartest people to ever have lived)—But in my opinion he was also slightly wrong in his beliefs about Alchemy and religion. Lets not let his success in one field (calculas and physics) imply or validate any of his other beliefs, ideas and opinions without first examining them on their own merit. And there comes a time where we ought to lay some ideas to rest. Alchemy couldnt survive as a theory, and Newton isnt any less of a genius because of that—but lets not take his word for everything <img src="" class="smilie smilie--sprite smilie--sprite2" alt=";)" title="Wink ;)" loading="lazy" data-shortname=";)" /> thats all im sayin.</p><p></p><p><span style="color: Red"><strong>Apologies for the typo's, I'm too lazy right now to fix them. Stanley cup, Game 7, Go Canucks <img src="" class="smilie smilie--sprite smilie--sprite2" alt=";)" title="Wink ;)" loading="lazy" data-shortname=";)" /></strong></span></p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Caspian, post: 148015, member: 5962"] I'm always open to discourse ;) more so now then maybe I was before, a year or two ago. And seeing as Ockham lived from 1288 to 1348, I can't "fault" him for believing in god. It was essentially the simplest explanation back then after all. I would hope, given all the advances in science and philosophy since then, he would happily apply his razor to his own beliefs if he was alive right now (or who noes? :P maybe he wouldnt). Science has no agenda and we welcome the contributions of religious men like Occam, Mendle (whos beanstalks, in conjunction with the theory of evolution, paved the way for a modern understanding of genetics) and Lemaître (a catholic priest who first proposed the big bang theory). Indeed, religious men and women have contributed greatly to the sciences. Not that science cares for their religion. Can science answer moral question? I take it you believe science is not capable of answering questions like "what it means to be good." And I know a great many atheists who would disagree with that outlook. I know Sam Harris gets used alot but I quite liked his ted talk entitles "sciencecan answer moral questions" ( [url="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hj9oB4zpHww"]YouTube - Sam Harris: Science can answer moral questions‏[/url] ). The world is generally moral and wholesome because evolution dictates it in my opinion. Without getting into the nitty gritty details of evolution. If you accept evolution as a viable explanation for how we humans came to be as we are today. Then you must accept that most of our traits, be it physical or psychological were honed to our survival. That includes our internal morality center. Its not a supernatural entity like a soul that gives rise to our good nature. Were simply good natured because it is evolutionarily advantageous to be good natured. But as times change ever more quickly, traits from the past that may have been evolutionarily advantageous (like our fight/flight/freeze response) could be evolutionarily disadvantageous in the future (in the modern world, the fight/flight/freeze response gets triggered by mundane activities like doing one's taxes, this could lead to stress which could lead to nervous breakdowns if prolonged and a whole host of psychological disorders like depression). I feel like our belief in god, is one of those traits that is no longer advantageous to us—but thats another talk all-together. To better answer the original question. Let me ask you in reverse. If you attribute the world being generally good and wholesome to some diving essence—that of a god perhaps. Then what do you attribute the negative aspects of our nature to? If you were fair you would say that the bad part of us also stems from this divine nature. But I think its more practical to attribute both our good and bad traits to ourselves and ourselves only :P. Nothing divine about it as far as I can see. Personally, If god exists, I dont think going to confession is going to make you any more or less of a religious person in his eyes. But I can say that about a whole host of traditions and conventions. Keeping your hair and beard is not going to make you any more or less religious in his eyes either. If religion is a search lets do away with the names (why do we have to ascribe ourselves as sikhs, it only serves to seperate and distinguish us from one another when we ought to be focusing on what unites as humans), lets get rid of all these silly conventions, lets get back to the philosophy and science of it. The idea's are more important then the man. If there's one thing I would love to stress on this forum, its that one should be able to judge ideas independently from the character, moral, and outlooks of the person who thought of the ideas to begin with. Just like with Occam, we've adopted his maxim, despite it ironically threatening his very beliefs. Same applies to newton and the many great scientists you speak of. Lets judge their idea's seperately from their other ideas. I mean newton was bang on with Calculus and Newtonian mechanics (easily one of the smartest people to ever have lived)—But in my opinion he was also slightly wrong in his beliefs about Alchemy and religion. Lets not let his success in one field (calculas and physics) imply or validate any of his other beliefs, ideas and opinions without first examining them on their own merit. And there comes a time where we ought to lay some ideas to rest. Alchemy couldnt survive as a theory, and Newton isnt any less of a genius because of that—but lets not take his word for everything ;) thats all im sayin. [COLOR=Red][B]Apologies for the typo's, I'm too lazy right now to fix them. Stanley cup, Game 7, Go Canucks ;)[/B][/COLOR] [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Discussions
Interfaith Dialogues
Live Free
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
Accept
Learn more…
Top