lördagen den 31:e oktober 2009

Design vs Manifestation

Dear Jehan

You are clearly a monist, but please note that if you separate the intelligence from the design, you have also separated Ahura Mazda from The Universe. If you however mean that design and intelligence are one and the same thing, you are a monist. But in that case, using and supporting the term intelligent design is a bit unfortunate. It would be better in English to speak of "intelligence manifested". Just a recommendation! Even Hoyle may have been a bit sloppy with his words, or he may honestly have been just a good old Christian dualist.

Ushta
Alexander

2009/10/30 Jehan Bagli



Daer Parviz:

I am sorry Parviz if I gave you a wrong impression. The intelligent design is just a concept of human thought. It does NOT IMPLY someone up there in the sky is sitting with a potters wheel shaping things to send them down.

As i believe, Ahura Mazda is the absolute Truth, the absolute Purity, the absolute Love and Benevolence. I regard Ahura mazda as the Divine energy that pervades through the Universe. That is the Omnipresence of Ahura Mazda, hence it is in each one, as part of us. Zarathushtra may have anthropomorphized it for the sake of understanding but that is only to bring the concept within the realm of comprehension of the mankind. Fortunately or unfortunately mankind has a wide spectrum of intellectual capacity. In order that everyone can fathom, the concept needs to be dressed in some way to reach the entire mankind.

I hope this clarifies the matter.

Mehr Afzoon

Jehan




On 30-Oct-09, at 6:11 PM, Parviz Varjavand wrote:

>
> Dear Jehan,
>
> You are not giving me a clear answer as to YOUR position such as the one Moobed Kamran Jamshidi gave. So he is the only Monist Moobed we have so far that I know of. You and Mr. Jafarey do also imply that Zarathustra was teaching Intelligent Design and an Ahoora Mazda separate from His/Her creation, that he was a Monotheist rather than a Monist. This is what I gather from your complex post, if I am wrong, please do correct me.
>
> I wish Dina would be kind enough to share with us her views on Intelligent Design. Please Dina, if you read this post, give us an answer as to YOUR view on this.
>
> Ushta te,
> Parviz Varjavand
>
> --- On Fri, 10/30/09, Jehan Bagli wrote:
>
>
> From: Jehan Bagli
> Subject: Re: [Ushta] A question for dastoor Bagli
> To: Ushta@yahoogroups.com
> Date: Friday, October 30, 2009, 1:43 PM
>
>
> Dear Parviz:
>
> I believe that Hoyle was proponent of Order in Nature. He said so in his Omni Lecture to the Royal Society that,
>
> "...biomaterial with their amazing measure or order must be the outcome ofINTELLIGENT DESIGN. No other possibility I have been able to think of..."
>
> Hoyle's mention of INTELLIGENT DESIGN is yet another case of a scientist accepting existence of knowledge/intellige nce beyond the realm of the physical. In a sophisticated manner Hoyle is trying to tell us what Mobedyar from Kerman is telling you in his own way.
>
> The above anouncement only confirms the statement of Hoyle, that you have quoted. These confirm that Hoyle was staunch believer in the Order of Nature. His statements only reinforces the concept of Asha that pervades Zarathushtrian theology.
>
> The concept of Asha that clearly embodies the Truth that is vested in the Immutable Order of Nature demonstrates beyond all doubts the strength of the philosophy of life delineated by Zarathushtra.
>
> Peace and Light
>
> Jehan Bagli
>
>
>
> On 30-Oct-09, at 3:58 AM, Parviz Varjavand wrote:
>
>> Dear Moobed Jehan Bagli,
>>
>> The astronomer Fred Hoyle says, "the likelihood of even the simplest biological cell arising via random process is comparable to that of a tornado sweeping through a junkyard assembling a Boeing 747".
>>
>> As a learned Zoroastrian Moobed, what do you think the position of Zoroastrianism is with regards to this issue?
>>
>> Yours sincerely,
>> Parviz Varjavand

Inga kommentarer: