All that we KNOW is that Religion, Philosophy, Science are literary categories.
What else they are can only be measured in terms of their usefulness as metaphors to guide us through our lives. This is where The Story of Evolution works a lot better than The Story of Adam and Eve. Rather than pointing to a story being truer than another story, it is better to speak of its usefulness, of one story being more relevant to our lives than another story. Creationism is simply a story that has no relevance to children's education. So it should not be taught anywhere outside of the subject of Mythologies.
The big bang is a useful such story as it explains the background radiation in space and the origin of our current physical universe (better than alternative narrative we have come up with so far). Adam and Eve explains nothing more than a ceratin culture's obsession at a certain time with coming up with a mythology of the origin of the nuclear family (it does nit explain how the physical umiverse come about). However, it does not explain why the nuclear family exists in the first place (if it does outside of some fantasies). Which is why Adam & Eve belongs in a Mythologies class but not in a Science class.
The problem with Ali Jafarey's claims is that he says Zoroastrianism should be scientistic. But Science was not a narrative that existed at the time of Zarathushtra (it was not regarded as relevant yet). Which may also explain why Jafarey then goes on to believe in lots of things which are clearly incompatible with Science (such as dualism). It is all very confusing and not very fit to win hearts and minds of people. Fairytales and Science make a bad mix.
2010/11/6 Special Kain
Dear Parviz and Ron,
Isn't it ironic that August Comte, who is considered the Father of Rationalism in France, tried to commit suicide because of a broken heart and then spent six months in a sanitorium?
It is naive to believe in "what is considered rational" only or to stick to "scientific evidence" so dramatically, because rationality changes as times change. And we are living and thinking in a web of beliefs that have not been scientifically verified yet, but we still hold them to be scientifically true.
This is where I agree with Alexander that we need words with capital letters, such as Religion, Philosophy, Science, Politics, etc.
--- Parviz Varjavand
Von: Parviz Varjavand
Betreff: Re: [Ushta] FW: What is YOUR philosophy?
An: "ron's group"
Datum: Freitag, 5. November, 2010 22:58 Uhr
I have traveled down the road of this line of arguments that you are presenting more times than I care to remember. At the end, you will get to prove that the soul is as real as anything else, which in a way will prove my point too, that the Jinns are as real as the members of the Zoroastrian Assembly. They (the Jinns) gather in Hammams and hold their congregation there just before the sun comes up. We even have some Zartoshti Jinns still, a famous Jinngir in Yazd has informed me. I wonder how these Zartoshti Jinns are surviving and if they might need some of our newer books that explain our religion better than the old ones. If this is where you want to take us, consider it done and don't stress your mind any further.
--- On Fri, 11/5/10, Zaneta Garratt
From: Zaneta Garratt
Subject: [Ushta] FW: What is YOUR philosophy?
To: "ron's group"
Date: Friday, November 5, 2010, 1:51 PM
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Park East Security
Date: Fri, Nov 5, 2010 at 4:37 PM
Subject: Re: What is YOUR philosophy?
To: Parviz Varjavand
I think I see what you are saying. The operative determinant of something being real for you is that it must be rational. Then the question becomes what is rational and, specifically what do you consider rational and why. Before I go on, I want to go as slowly as you want to go, so I believe we should define what we say and mean and avoid misunderstanding each other. So just what do you mean by rational and why is it rational, is my first question.
I think that we can have a very productive conversation this way. We will define what we mean and why. It might be, that we are in general agreement on basics and disagreement on peripheral issues. Or it might be that we are totally at odds, we shall see. For example, take faith. Our definitions would almost certainly be different. Why I could only guess and I do not want to guess but find out. So we should discuss faith as well.
I would just venture one thing that is self evident, which is, that we perceive and interpret the physical only through mind, brain if you prefer, although to me the brain is just the vehicle of the intelligence which is mind. But let's not discuss the peripheral just yet, but concentrate on the central. We, also, scientifically know that what our minds perceive, is not precisely what is out there, that is, we do not see the fact that, in any given material object that appears to us as solid and contiguous, is in reality a collection of subatomic particles arranged in a particular way and separated by mostly SPACE, empty space. And that this 'material' object is actually held together (like all physical reality) by energy, an energy that, in fact, permeates the universe.
The different perceptions that we form of what is 'out there', tells us that what we see (or perceive in any other way through the senses) are INTERPRETATIONS of reality. In other words OUR reality is the interpretation of absolute reality, arrived at by our minds and the ground of our reality, therefore, is mind.
That maybe why, Quantum tells us that reality, that is the reality that Science observes which is material reality, needs an observer to manifest/exist . Or why it says that we change or create OUR reality, according to what we choose out of a infinitude of possibilities. I don't know, but then I have not heard of a Quantum scientist ( or any other scientist, that knows all either. We all speculate, form opinions, arrive at conclusions and we BELIEVE. For the thing is, that what we can actually measure, quantify, falsify and copy or re-enact, is precious little in the scheme of things. We all, as a matter of fact, must function in some ways on what we believe to be, rather than we know is.
So I am looking forward to your opinions and beliefs in this matter with an open and mind which I have learned, from Zarathushtra, to keep open, indeed, wide open and with a willingness to test what I believe against what you believe and see if I can learn truth from it.