I believe that the mistake being made in the debate is that somehow people believe that if we remove the designer we also remove the intelligence. But we don't and I never understood why we should. Science does not, as you so correctly point out. Where western dualists are either for "intelligent design" or against it, as Zoroastrians we have always been able to skip the designer and embrace the intelligence wholeheartedly directly (the Mazda of Ahura Mazda). In other words: The Universe is the manifestation of intelligence, coming from WITHIN itself, not from some spooky wrongly assumed outside. Whether we THEN refer to this as Pantheism or Panentheism, we do all believe in something distinctly different from Western dualism or the Abrahamic faiths. We share the belief in Ahura with the Brahmanists in India (their Brahman), what is unique to us is the belief in the Mazda. This is why we are Mazdayasni and not Brahmanists.
Ushta
Alexander
2009/11/1 Parviz Varjavand
Dear fellow Mazdayasni Philosophers,
(I have explained before why I believe Mazda-Yasna and Philo-Sophia mean the same thing, Lovers of Thinking)
The "Intelligent Design" argument can and does work against itself in trying to prove that an ultimately Wise Creator must have created the very complex parts of this creation. Richard Dawkins is the best modern scientist-philosopher for taking the Intelligent Design argument apart and making it work against an Abrahamic Monotheistic view of a Wise Creator having a workshop outside His/Her creation doing it all.
When we consider that billions of universes exist and they are constantly being born and dying, then it would not be surprising if in one of these billions upon billions of chances, in one of these universes and in a tiny planet in one of them, our kind of life has accrued. A "Designer Free" evolutionary theory works better for explaining our situation than does an "Intelligent Designer" doing it all as the Abrahamic faiths teach.
We still know Ostad Jafarey as a good teacher of Zoroastrianism. I would truly appreciate it if he would join us and tell us where we Monist Zoroastrians are going wrong and that a Monotheistic view of Zoroastrianism should be the only proper one to undertake.
Mehr Afzoon,
Parviz Varjavand
2 kommentarer:
Technically I find this subject very interesting. One way I choose to view creation is by understanding Memetics. Something I think some of you already touched on when naming Dawkins.
I personally find this explanation more fascinating then if simply Theos (god) just magically created and designed the world then left to fall from it's past glory.
One common problem that I also feel that you have stressed is that language and especially words represent different things to different people. Therefore when using an English word as intelligence, it can be confusing as one might have the idea of intelligence arriving from an person. Or an attribute only an person may have. And if I understand you correctly Alexander, you speak more of an functionalistic meaning of intelligence. Meaning that if the outcome is intelligent then the source is that also. Not needing a person but only a function. Something that as I have understood fits with Memetics.
Basically, what originally made me confusing about Zoroastrianism is the fact that I had these Abrahamitic concept of the words being used, in affect hindering me to really grasp everything around Zoroastrianism. Thus I was even then fascinated by some of the concept being spoke about like emergence with in effect made for an pragmatic world view. One thing that I really didn't understand then, was how someone with insight like that could still believe in Theos and have an dualistic world view. But just altering the relationship with him (in reality ofc it would have happened the other way around), I also thought back then that as all other religions. I honestly only knew much about the Abrahamitic and Platoes views (dualism) ones vs pantheism (fysikalism or at least monist).
I even wrote something like, take some Memetics, Zoroastrianism, Buddhism, Pantheism and Agnosticism mix it and you will have my view. Being an strong atheist meaning I didn't really believed in an dualistic world.
One more thing can be confusing are the words monist and dualism, that essentially equals to believing in one aspects or of two. But what these aspects are, these words doesn't explain by themselves.
Something that the west especially encyclopaedias like Wikipeida but other ones as well have confused themselves with regarding to Zoroastrianism. There is an tread to all this and that is by mainly reading your blogg; and it is as if all pieces all falling into place. Zoroastrianism feel more contestant and close now, and this is the point. Thank you, appreciate the blogg very interesting reading.
Skicka en kommentar