Classical Greek Vs Indian Approaches in Rational Epistemics of Reality

Excerpt from Epistemics of Divine Reality (2009,2011)

While for the Greeks physical reality was a major concern, for the Indians conscious reality was the major concern. While the Greeks tried to find what the unifying basis of all physical reality was as such, the Indians wanted to find what the unifying basis of all conscious reality was as such. The Greeks began from physics and proceeded on to metaphysics. The Indians began from the self, from consciousness, and proceeded on to metaphysics. The Greeks tried to analyze the known in order to understand the known. The Indian analyzed the knower in order to understand the known. Thus, the Indian quest for ultimate reality can be described as a search for a psychological basis of the universe. This has several implications:

1. In the search for the external, one begins with the attempt to first understand the internal, viz. consciousness.
2. Before knowing what is out there, one begins with the attempt to first understand why knowing even exists.
3. If consciousness as one experiences it is false, then all quest no matter how scientific it appears will be wrong headed. But if consciousness as one experiences it is true, then the quest can end up in truth.
4. The problem is not why something exists, but why something such as consciousness exists. The knower is thus the starting point.
5. Liberation, thus, becomes noetic; knowledge of the Truth brings salvation.
6. No wonder, then, in advaita the Brahman is called Sat-chit-ananda, meaning Being-Consciousness-Bliss, with pure consciousness as the essence of being and bliss; bliss being that condition of being as consciousness in which no distraction or strife by virtue of duality exists.

Advertisements

Some Maxims of Wisdom

  1. Character is Carved by Choices
  2. Faith Flourishes by Favor
  3. Love Looks Beyond Lacks
  4. Truth is Tested on Temperance
  5. Silence Succors Sometimes
  6. Fear Fills up Folly
  7. Reverence Reflects Royalty
  8. Reliance Reassures Rest
  9. Intent Inspires Imagination
  10. Godliness Goes Before Glory
  11. Pride Precedes Perdition
  12. Discipleship Demands Denials
  13. Honor comes by Honoring
  14. Suretyship is a Sure Snare
  15. Frame no Thought on Fragmentary Talk
  16. Snobbery Secures Segregation
  17. The Devil’s Patience Doesn’t Postpone his Perdition
  18. Doubt Confuses, Faith Convicts
  19. Battles are won by Bravery and Belief
  20. Seduction can Steal the Stand
  21. The Sagacious Save in Summer
  22. Companionship Constructs or Corrupts
  23. Excellence comes through Endeavor
  24. Faith is Foundational; Doubt, Demolitional
  25. Prejudice Prevents Perception
  26. Bitterness Breeds Bitterness
  27. Thanksgiving is the Language of Trust
  28. To Love means To Listen
  29. Humility is the Health of one’s Heart
  30. To Love a Neighbor Means To Be a Neighbor
  31. The Wicked are not Won by Words
  32. Self-Examination Heals Several Hurts
  33. Volume doesn’t Validate
  34. Chattering can be Shattering

© Domenic Marbaniang, 2008

God of the Philosophers Vs God of the Gaps Vs the Biblical God

“God of the philosophers” would refer to the image of God conceived by philosophers in more abstract and rational terms. Concepts such as “pure being”, “wholly other”, via negativa/neti-neti, etc are usually employed by philosophers who emphasize more on the transcendent nature of God than on the immanent. God is bifurcated from nature in it.

“God of the gaps” would refer to the image of God conceived in empirical theologies in which God is usually inserted into nature quite immanently as looked to as explanation of things that usually cannot be explained by the natural sciences. Some atheistic scientists think that science has been able to explain quite a lot of things and has been able to evict God from several avenues of knowledge. So, now people no longer think in terms of God as the source of rain or lightning or harvest or an eclipse anymore. However, they have also criticized theologians who they think continue to find spots or gaps in scientific theories and explanations where they can somehow insert God to somehow philosophically or theologically retain the God in the gaps. For instance, some theologians resort to various forms of theistic evolution models in order to insert God into theories of evolution. One example of this would be where someone thinks that evolution did happen, but where science has failed to discover the missing links between two species, it is because God created the new species all afresh. Another example would be where theologians accept theories such as the Big Bang but try to make a leap to God as the Uncaused Cause of the Big Bang.

However, the Biblical God is not as remote as the abstract pure being of the philosophers. Nor is He a mere explanatory hypothesis that can be used to fill in the gaps of scientific knowledge. His presence and power pervades through the Universe and nature recounts His glory. Just because there could be a natural explanation for rain, harvest, planetary motions, and healing through medicines doesn’t mean that God is not involved. And, just because pure reason isn’t able to comprehend the possibility of divine intervention in a causal universe doesn’t mean that God is not working in our midst today. Of course, not everything given in divine revelation can be comprehensively explained by science, philosophy, or theology. Therefore, the birth, death, resurrection, and ascension of Christ is referred to as the Mystery of Godliness.

Why Does the Universe Look So Old? | Albert Mohler Transcript at ICR

Excerpt from Talk

Why does the universe look so old? First, the most natural understanding from Scripture on the age of the universe is this: The universe looks old because the Creator made it whole.When He made Adam, Adam was not a fetus; Adam was a man. He had the appearance of a man, which by our understanding would have required time for Adam to get old. But not by the sovereign creative power of God. He put Adam in the garden. The garden was not merely seeds; it was a fertile, fecund, mature garden. The Genesis account clearly claims that God creates and makes things whole.

Secondly, the universe looks old because it bears testimony to the effects of sin, and thus the judgment of God seen through the catastrophe of the Flood and catastrophes innumerable thereafter. The world looks old because, as Paul says in Romans 8, it is groaning. It gives empirical evidence of the reality of sin. And even as this cosmos is the theater of God’s glory, it is more precisely the theater of God’s glory for the drama of redemption that takes place here on this planet in telling the story of the love of God. Is this compatible with the claim that the universe is 13.5 billion years old?

In our effort to be most faithful to the Scriptures and most accountable to the grand narrative of the Gospel, an understanding of creation in terms of 24-hour calendar days and a young earth entails far fewer complications, far fewer theological problems, and actually is the most straightforward and uncomplicated reading of the text as we come to understand God telling us how the universe came to be and why it matters. The universe is telling the story of the glory of God, the Ancient of Days.

Source: Why Does the Universe Look So Old? | The Institute for Creation Research

Also check:

What Was the Light On Day 1 Of Creation And How Come There Was Night When The Sun Was Created On Day 4? | Domenic Marbaniang

Then God said, “Let there be light”; and there was light.

And God saw the light, that it was good; and God divided the light from the darkness.

God called the light Day, and the darkness He called Night. So the evening and the morning were the first day. (Gen 1:3-5)

Then God said, “Let there be lights in the firmament of the heavens to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs and seasons, and for days and years; and let them be for lights in the firmament of the heavens to give light on the earth”; and it was so.

Then God made two great lights: the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night. He made the stars also. God set them in the firmament of the heavens to give light on the earth, and to rule over the day and over the night, and to divide the light from the darkness. And God saw that it was good. So the evening and the morning were the fourth day. (Gen 1:14-19)

On Day 1, pure physical light was created. The earth was covered with waters and deep darkness. The only movement was the movement of the Spirit over the face of the waters.

When God created light on Day 1, darkness was still there. Light was divided from the darkness in the sense that where light shines, darkness cannot be – light travels, darkness can’t. Light is energy. The creation of Light signified the beginning of the Time-Clock. The time run down begins here. This is when the clocks begin to first tick. This is when the ancient symbols of time run – night and day – take charge. It doesn’t mean that day is day because of the sun and night is night because of the moon. It signifies the beginning of physical time in the universe with the first act of God.

Of course, there are many opinions and suggestions given regarding the identity of this light. For examples,Dr. Rabbi Zev Farber documents a few rabbinic views such as the buried light view (that the original light got buried and withheld from sinful men), the unfixed lights view (that the lights on day 1 and 4 are identical but not fixed yet on day 1), and the placed in the sun view (that the light was placed in the sun to limit its radiance and heat on day 4). But, these are mere opinions and conjectures.

The fact stated is clearly that God said, “Let there be light”; and there was light. It doesn’t say “lights”, but “light” signifying the creation of the generic light.

Source: What Was the Light On Day 1 Of Creation And How Come There Was Night When The Sun Was Created On Day 4? | Domenic Marbaniang