Cosmological Conceptions

[Pilosofia]

This post is directed towards a cosmological understanding on
Abdu'Baha's writings on the "Tablet of the Universe" and other
matters pretaining to infinity,space time,etc. discussions.
We will begin with:

Picture in your mind a cube or globe in empty space, space is the
void or massless state while the object is the mass apparent in space.
These two conditions space and matter if absolute can not be the cause
of creation if it were the only existing conditions in all creation.
There would have to be much more,yes much more then just a single
mass and empty space. Abdu'baha stated that how can one,without
proof or testimony,conceive of creation being bound by limits?
this question causes one to realize creation is not finallized by signal
conditions such as absolute space and matter in the condition which
renders further capablities for creative growth as impossible.
Further Abdu'Baha continues to talk on the creation of the universe as
not something completely by itself but as a condition of God's infinite wisdom displayed in all creation as boundless and unlimited. The
mystery deepens when Abdu'Baha explains God who caused His Names
and Attributes to penetrate the degrees of existence. We are now
faced with a universe with a purpose and direction,even though it
may appear to be a mindless universe to the inquiring mind, we are
to realize the Omni All-Embracing God as limitless in all things!
Thus to continue our observation of an object in empty space we now
visualize not just on object but many in a space that waits for creation.
Thus our objects just sit motionless in space, in order to have change
something must move from point to another even if only just one object
moves. Thus God has ordained that motion be a part of existence and
that it be checked or rein by some regulator otherwise motion would
continued unchecked exceeding the speed of light as we understand it,
imagine the speed of light continuing unchecked? a disruption of order in
the universe would bring about unimaged chaos! Most science readers already know according to Dr.Einstein nothing goes faster then the speed
of light even though a few physicists are beginning to think Einstein may
have been wrong, however if that may be the case I seriously doubt the
speed of light will continue to go faster unchecked for very good reasons
as already mentioned. Our model of space and object (mass) has
advanced to mass having motion,this condition gives way to some very
interesting developments, space/time. Abdu'Baha further expounds on
the relationship of the orbs of light,their vibratory effects and attraction
in their celestial spheres in the universe as spiritual and material, a
balanced union of the seen and unseen forces throughout all creation.
The poetic songs of many mystic poets have given rise to Creation's
mysterious longing as the love epic displayed without ending. It is
without doubt the true Prophets of God have all comprehended this
relationship between the Creator and creation,yet without compromising
in their understanding that God is not the created but the Author of it.
Further this beauty,this awesome order of worlds,suns and limitless stars
gives way to the Most Great Ocean whose waves beats against all nations
with divine verses from the most great pen of Him throwing open the
gates of illusion flooding the minds with understanding in this Day!.

Science has asked where the end of the universe lies? some physicists
have theorized that space expands as needed,and that an end is only
hypothetical, others say it is curved and straight lines which are in reality
bent travalling through space return again somewhat changed, while
science fiction enthusiast continue to mentally explore possiblities of
space time travel into worm holes and dimensions without end.
God moves resplendent in a vast infinte space in the micro and marco
cosmos of all creation. The search for the mind of God is simply beyond
math, beyond all human conceptions and inventions,for one thing the
tools needed just do not exist for the human brain to comprehend.
Thus Abdu'Baha compassionately expounds to humanity an understanding
of the universe unlimited with the spiritual Sun and material sun in an
ever progressing creative process much like a cosmological dance with
breath taking vastness undreamed. Dr.Einstein had not realized his
dream for finding the the one piece of the puzzle that would finally join
the cosmos with the micro cosmos, in other words the universe with the
smallest particle, a gap between two was missing the conception and
math that would in theory lead finally to the one theory of everything,
Einstein passed on leaving this piece of the puzzle to future generations.
Quantum Mechanics has proven difficult to understand as part of the
puzzle,until string theory came along a whole new theory developes in
the scientific world that holds possiblities as the missing piece, the problem was that there were too many String theories, Ed Witten a
renown physicist started working on the String theory and discovered that there are five String theories of which four were reflections of the
one String theory, the rest is history. The theory of everything in another sense lies in the unity of all created things, a theory without
requiring a need for math to understand.

To Be Continued.

[Richard]

Not an easy thing for many to comprehend infinity, this understanding
often must be compared to something else, i.e, imagine a journey around
the earth in 30 days,then suppose this journey continues without end,
round and round and round the earth never a stop,never a pause forever
into eternity time without end round and round. But it does not stop there
without other effects, the journey will have a change on it's circling,it
will get further out as it travels further and further, or it will come spirling
inward closer and closer untill it's journey comes to an end? no remember
it is travelling forever,thus it's journey will not end, change course or
another dimension? our simple comparision now becames somewhat
complex, what about it's size or speed,etc. etc. etc. ? or maybe it will
retain the very same circle without change. When we think about infinity
in our minds it's simply vast and unending but when we give it further
thought it becomes further complicated to grasp it's meaning,thus math
comes into the picture and gives the mind tools for thinking and or
further understanding in a realm existing in the mind measuring the
micro and marco cosmos of creation. God is in the realm of infinity!
how do we measure that? mere human tools of the mind can in no wise
come even close. Remember the tower of Babel ?:roll:

[Pilosofia]

This is the last on this topic since it's nature belongs in a forum
for long discussion. Finally I wish to add that we are on the road
to understanding a grand conception of the universe in light of
Baha'u'llah's Revelation.

[brettz9]

Dear Pilosofia and all,

I'm sorry if I didn't mention it, but you can use http://bahai9.com/forum/ for ongoing discussions (be sure to include the last slash). In this case, it would go under "topical discussions".

Although it is a different system than this one, it allows for sorting in different ways, such as by title, etc. as well as by recency. It also allows infinite subforums and other nice features.

best wishes,
Brett

[dawu d]

It seems to me that if you're going to invoke science, you have to be open in principle to the possibility that science will say something that Baha'i philosophy doesn't agree with. (Same for scholarship in general.) So, if the physicists one day decide that matter is eternal, or self-created, or the universe is limited, or whatever, you have to agree either to reject Abdul Baha when that happens, or give up invoking science now.

AB notwithstanding, the fact that we cannot conceive of something, is no guarantee that it is not true.

Talk of the universe being given "purpose and direction" seems strange. Who decides what my purpose is? Can't I do that for myself? If God and I disagree, do you side with him just because he's bigger than me? I think you're projecting human psychological patterns onto a nonhuman cosmos.

[brettz9]

Dear Dawud,

It seems to me that if you're going to invoke science, you have to be open in principle to the possibility that science will say something that Baha'i philosophy doesn't agree with. (Same for scholarship in general.)

Well, that is part of the pursuit of truth. Of course, there is always the matter of judging whether a scientific discovery is either incomplete or whether one's understanding of the Baha'i Writings was incomplete. One does not abandon a proven doctor which they have been seeing to success for years just because they read one article on the internet which they think, as a layperson, appears on the surface to disagree with their doctor. They may bring up the question or investigate the matter, but that doesn't mean that one must be perpetually on the threshold of abandoning them.

And I think the corrolary to this is that if one is going to invoke truth of any kind, they should be open to the possibility that religion may in fact prove something which science has not yet discovered or that a religion may in fact be in harmony with all science and not going to be disproven.

So, if the physicists one day decide that matter is eternal, or self-created, or the universe is limited, or whatever, you have to agree either to reject Abdul Baha when that happens, or give up invoking science now.

Self-creation is probably the most ridiculous cosmology there is, yet it somehow finds credence among scientists today who are too lazy to imagine any further. If we see a baby, isn't it logical to presume there is a mother? Yet the doctrine of simplicity would have us presume the "simpler" view is true that it came out of nothing.

Likewise with the view of the universe being limited. Just because human beings might find some limitations in exploring this universe, or even discovering that it is "spherical" or whatever, does not mean that that is all there is to it.

As far as Bahá'is go, however, it is important, I think, for us to be quite tentative and not seize dogmatically onto certain statements of our Writings which we think we understand. For example, perhaps God's creation is infinite, but there is a limit to the portion of it we can ever access.

It is up to all of us to verify and discover the nuances of the universe as they are, not to look with colored lenses which can obscure it. However, I think it is much better to look with the expectation of ever-greater possibilities and unbounded grandeur than to make the assumption which has so often proved wrong in the past that existence is probably just limited to what we can discover with our own senses and present-day instruments. The worldly-wise have not only often been wrong in their conclusions, nor simply wrong in their disparaging of others who did not adhere to their views, but also injurious by the spiritual and psychological constraints they have laid for themselves and others in confining things to the sphere immediately perceptible to themselves.

Talk of the universe being given "purpose and direction" seems strange. Who decides what my purpose is? Can't I do that for myself? If God and I disagree, do you side with him just because he's bigger than me? I think you're projecting human psychological patterns onto a nonhuman cosmos.

According to religious belief, human beings are given a degree of free will to choose as they wish. But that doesn't mean the choice will always be in harmony with what is best for us.

And it is not anthropomorphizing to believe that our Creator has some awareness and direction for His creation. I think it is, on the contrary, fairly limited to believe in a Creator which is intelligent enough to create life, but so stupid as to have no idea why He created us, or so as to be unable to assist the beings in their search for Him--a faculty with which they have manifestly been endowed in peoples around the world. Or, that our Creator must for some reason be utterly apathetic. Yes, it is anthropomorphizing to think that we know what it means when we say that God is the "All-Merciful" ('Abdu'l-Bahá actually says that we affirm the attributes of God "not to prove the perfections of God, but to deny that He is capable of imperfections" (Some Answered Questions, p. 148)) (and that these praises really revert to the Manifestations of God, of which we can obtain at least some faint degree of comprehension). But I also think it is anthropomorphizing to think that God must be stupid or indifferent.

I can believe my purpose is to fly, but if I jump off of a cliff, it doesn't mean my purpose is in harmony with the rules of nature. Same with my neglect of the spiritual laws which God has put in place. I think references to humanity's "purpose" is along the lines of living adaptively according to the spiritual laws under which we believe we are all governed, not by the "purpose" or "purposes" which we devise for ourselves.

best wishes,
Brett

[Dawud]

You could make the same arguments on behalf of any belief system. Who's to say that astrology and science might not turn out to be harmonious? As a layman, I wouldn't want to abandon my family fortune-teller just because of something I read on the internet...

If self-creation sounds absurd to you, so does theism to many others. But then, so does modern particle physics to me! Thing is, we can have some grounds for agreeing on who is a doctor, or a physicist. But when it comes to prophets, it just boils down to opinion and wishful thinking (however much we may try to disguise it).

Is it possible to have a religion whose prophets honestly admit they don't know where the universe came from? Hmmm. Daniel Quinn says it's a peculiarity of "Taker" (read non-indigenous) culture that we are too impressed with prophets.

[brettz9]

Dear Dawud,

Yes, one could make the same arguments based on any belief system. My point was that there is nothing inherently contradictory about holding a belief and believing in science. Materialists have their own belief system which I think tends to obscure their judgement, but I don't think it prevents them from pursuing science and revising at least their material conceptions once evidence comes to light. With an Arabic name like "Dawud", I would presume you would know something about the many Muslim scholars who have contributed to civilization through their science.

I think theism sounds absurd to people because they think of it the way it is often presented--as though there were a Deity who came before the universe temporally.

Well, it is possible to have a religion where the "prophets" admit they don't know where the universe came from...I'm not sure how convincing it would be to people to be united in a common discipline and faith, if their prophet did not possess a greater knowledge than themselves.

Of course, your statement presumes again that there can be no true religion whose Prophets really were inspired with the knowledge of creation and the like. As Bahá'ís we do not feel that the Manifestations of God come to enlighten us about the process of creation (except such spiritual allegories of Adam and Eve which we believe are really about the new "creation" brought by each Manifestation of God). As 'Abdu'l-Bahá proves, I believe, quite convincingly, despite what some detractors may say, there is a logical need for the existence of a Creator--or perhaps more exactly, a Sustainer. We don't claim to know anything about the Creator (besides that He must exist and be perfect, however little we can know what this really means), and the Manifestation of God only claims to express God's will to us, not to have full knowledge of all of the secrets of God's creation.

Brett

[Dawud]

To me, the strangest thing about theism is the presumption that "my" culture or subculture's religion / God makes sense in a way that the cults and idols of Zeus or Mumbo Jumbo, God of the Congo, do not. At least with science, there is always the recognition that we might be wrong, even on the most fundamental level.

Prophet-oriented religions tend to find this perspective threatening, because it interferes with their system of authority. Quinn would say that this is because of their growth-dynamics--the religions that grew are the ones which were able to enlist more and more followers in support of their project, not the more laid-back familial ones.

Yes, it is possible to believe that science and religion X are both true, just as it is possible to believe without contradiction that the earth is hollow, and we are living on the inside. In other eras, we might not even think to question our culture's religious beliefs. Today, we know deep down that whatever religion we may have, it is just one among many others which are more or less the same.

And we also expect science to be more reliable than religion. Some people can tell themselves to "believe" in things they otherwise wouldn't, perhaps as a condition of group membership, or out of psychological need (as with astrology), but more and more of them understand the choice they are making.

It's like this German Christian group I heard about which believed that Jesus would come back, took the train to some hilly place where their leader said he was going to land, waited in vain, and then...found out that they had ALL purchased return tickets! We're all like that these days, except the crazy ones.

"Proofs of God" are like this too--I don't think very many philosophers accept such arguments these days, even if they personally believe in God. But do you know who DOES use them? Religious people, trying to make their religion look better! (But they only accept this kind of reasoning on behalf of their own religion.)

Time is confusing to science and religion both, I think! What was God doing before he created time? Was time created at the moment of the Big Bang? Is there "meta-time", a sort of 'time beyond time" in which time can be created and destroyed? Expecting religions to have a coherent answer to this is like expecting them to answer the problem of evil--it's just too much.

[Pilosofia]

Thank you for your thoughts. It was very interesting.

[brettz9]

To me, the strangest thing about theism is the presumption that "my" culture or subculture's religion / God makes sense in a way that the cults and idols of Zeus or Mumbo Jumbo, God of the Congo, do not. †

One can believe in a particular religion, while appreciating the common human psychology which processes its understandings. But just as one can appreciate that a schizophrenic or psychotic or whatever is my brother, and perhaps find within myself that I may even, as a human being, possess slight traces of such a mindset, and appreciate that they can function, even relatively adaptively with their condition, does not mean that I uphold their view of reality as being real for all. Just because someone worships a stone, and I can appreciate why someone could come to such a conclusion, and whereby I could appreciate the grain of truth in their profound and simple awe for God's creation, it does not mean that I must submit my brain to believe that something lower than myself (the stone) is actually higher and possesses magic. You may not make a distinction between religion and such superstititions, but we feel that there is a profound difference---and true religion has always helped to propagate such a high awareness.

At least with science, there is always the recognition that we might be wrong, even on the most fundamental level.

As I mentioned before, the Baha'i Faith allows and encourages openness both on the account of whether our understanding is in fact correct, and as far as even our Faith itself. Our Writings mention that we are not to adhere to this blindly. 'Abdu'l-Baha mentions that a man must be ready to start his spiritual journey all over again if necessary. He, in a passage I cannot find now, mentions He would be willing to set aside Baha'u'llah if it could be proved untrue.

And what about the admission of the possibility that polytheists could be wrong (as opposed to theists), if as you say it is important to be open to admitting one is wrong?

Prophet-oriented religions tend to find this perspective threatening, because it interferes with their system of authority. Quinn would say that this is because of their growth-dynamics--the religions that grew are the ones which were able to enlist more and more followers in support of their project, not the more laid-back familial ones.

Well, as you are probably aware, we as Baha'is do believe it is a sign of progress, that a system can integrate larger circles of people, while still allowing their autonomy. Being too laid-back is not adaptive. On the other hand, schemes which are not in harmony with real unification tend to break apart, as the Soviet Union did in not exemplifying the diversity part of "unity-in-diversity" which you have been emphasizing.

The purpose of authority--the purpose of all religion Baha'u'llah avers--is to create unity--real unity. If a child has no authority within a family, it is not as likely that it can find unity with its siblings...if for example, no discipline is administered when the rights of a family member are transgressed by another. Or if no discipline is administered by police in a neighborhood, or when a world community refuses to intervene on behalf of an oppressed nation.

However, despite what I have mentioned, this does not mean that Baha'is view more traditional religions as having no merit. We believe that there is a great deal of experience gathered by all kinds of religions and peoples and which, while it is the time to harmonzie our basic aspirations in a common Faith, we believe, it should not be at the cost of neglecting these different ways. It is not merely for institutions (though that is reflected in Baha'i administration in its encouragement for minorities in the case of tie votes going to a minority), but also in culture. In a statement which is not yet online (it will hopefully be soon), the House of Justice repeately encourages each people to preserve the positive and diverse aspects and skills of its culture to transmit to posterity.

Yes, it is possible to believe that science and religion X are both true, just as it is possible to believe without contradiction that the earth is hollow, and we are living on the inside. In other eras, we might not even think to question our culture's religious beliefs. Today, we know deep down that whatever religion we may have, it is just one among many others which are more or less the same.

Baha'u'llah mentions not just that the Prophets of the major religions were inspired, but also that:

"There can be no doubt whatever that the peoples of the world, of whatever race or religion, derive their inspiration from one heavenly Source, and are the subjects of one God. The difference between the ordinances under which they abide should be attributed to the varying requirements and exigencies of the age in which they were revealed. All of them, except a few which are the outcome of human perversity, were ordained of God, and are a reflection of His Will and Purpose. Arise and, armed with the power of faith, shatter to pieces the gods of your vain imaginings, the sowers of dissension amongst you. Cleave unto that which draweth you together and uniteth you."

And we also expect science to be more reliable than religion. Some people can tell themselves to "believe" in things they otherwise wouldn't, perhaps as a condition of group membership, or out of psychological need (as with astrology), but more and more of them understand the choice they are making.

Is science more reliable in convincing kids to stay of drugs than religion is? (check the success of non-religious programs in drug rehab, if you are not sure). Is science reliable in offering a strong enough incentive to someone who is in dire straits (or even wel off) to avoid the temptation to exploit one's neighbor. Has science prevented retaliation such as the Baha'is in Iran have avoided amidst great abuse? Have atheistic states (communist or capitalist) been successful in instilling an enduring work ethic freed of most corruption, or has the loss of spiritual incentives in such systems driven people to attempt to create their own moralities based on justifying carrying out their immediate wishes, regardless of the cost to others?

"Proofs of God" are like this too--I don't think very many philosophers accept such arguments these days, even if they personally believe in God.

Who came up with the proofs in the first place?

But do you know who DOES use them? Religious people, trying to make their religion look better! (But they only accept this kind of reasoning on behalf of their own religion.)

Have you considered them without prejudice, or does your antagonism against religion (however understandable to you based on your apparently negative experiences) make it difficult for you to consider such things, without looking down on those who believe in faith systems different than your own?

Time is confusing to science and religion both, I think! What was God doing before he created time? Was time created at the moment of the Big Bang? Is there "meta-time", a sort of 'time beyond time" in which time can be created and destroyed? Expecting religions to have a coherent answer to this is like expecting them to answer the problem of evil--it's just too much.

Well, even the Baha'i Writings mention that suffering is a mystery which cannot be adequately fathomed by people (though there are helpful explanations of it too)...

As far as God, that is why I referred to God as the Sustainer. Baha'is belive that there has always been a material existence (which does not preclude a Big Bang of sorts or multiple Big Bangs for that matter or Big Contractions or whatever) The Baha'i Faith speaks of cycles where every trace of the past is wiped out.

As I saw one Christian scientist/philospher arguing for God's existence, what keeps things adhering to a common law in the first place? What sustains this majestic universe?

[Dawud]

[Brett says:]

Just because someone worships a stone...does not mean that I must submit my brain to believe that something lower than myself (the stone) is actually higher and possesses magic.

Of course there is no compulsion to believe anything. But I think the presumption that indigenous religions are simple, superstitious, or backward compared to MY up-to-date advanced one, is hazardous.

You may not make a distinction between religion and such superstititions, but we feel that there is a profound difference---and true religion has always helped to propagate such a high awareness.

"Superstition" is a tricky word. I'm afraid it can all to easily mean, "a religious tradition I don't like." In China for example, "Taoism" is legal (and state-controlled) but casting horoscopes is not...even though that was very much a traditional part of Taoism. So is this restriction a reform, or a denial of religious freedom? (Before you answer, remember that the Babis used talismans.) Having said that, yes, I accept that there are stupid religious beliefs.

As I mentioned before, the Baha'i Faith allows and encourages openness both on the account of whether our understanding is in fact correct, and as far as even our Faith itself.

You have some writings which say that, but they would escort you out of the faith if you reached certain conclusions that differed too much from the expected ones. The most that would happen in the scientific / scholarly world is, you'd get ignored.

And what about the admission of the possibility that polytheists could be wrong (as opposed to theists), if as you say it is important to be open to admitting one is wrong?

Okay, fine... I'm afraid that Baha'i is ideologically committed to the belief that its dogmas are true. I get the impression that indigenous religions tend to be more flexible. The Dalai Lama for instance encourages Christians and Jews to stay in their own religions, and admits that Buddhist tradition might be wrong about a lot of things.

Well, as you are probably aware, we as Baha'is do believe it is a sign of progress, that a system can integrate larger circles of people, while still allowing their autonomy....The purpose of authority--the purpose of all religion Baha'u'llah avers--is to create unity--real unity.

Perhaps it's a question of aesthetics. I don't see this unity as a good thing, you do. Who's to say?

However, despite what I have mentioned, this does not mean that Baha'is view more traditional religions as having no merit.

I'm aware that your ideology states that they are worthwhile.

In a statement which is not yet online (it will hopefully be soon), the House of Justice repeately encourages each people to preserve the positive and diverse aspects and skills of its culture to transmit to posterity.

I would like to read this. An obvious question is, what do they think of preserving non-Baha'i religious traditions? Do they envision a Tibet in which the natives practice their traditional lama dances, but have no lamas (since Baha'i opposes monasticism)? Does it make any sense to speak of an Indian culture without Hinduism? etc.

Is science more reliable in convincing kids to stay of drugs...

I concede that religion often has beneficial effects, quite apart from the question of its truth or falsity. However, this does not tell us which religion is true or better. (Scientology has drug clinics too.) Anyway, are religious people satisfied to be adhering to a "useful lie"?

Who came up with the proofs in the first place?

Catholic religious, mostly--Saints Anselm and Aquinas, Descartes later.

Have you considered them without prejudice, or does your antagonism against religion (however understandable to you based on your apparently negative experiences) make it difficult for you to consider such things, without looking down on those who believe in faith systems different than your own?

I don't dare say that I am without prejudice. However, I generally make a good-faith effort to consider other people's positions as honestly and realistically as I can. Like most human experiences, religion is a mixed bag. Baha'i as I see it is just one more religion, though you as a group tend to think of yourself as the "upgrade" for all others. If you saw yourselves as just a normal religion, no higher up the evolutionary chain than other ones, it would be easier to look past the black marks.

As I saw one Christian scientist/philospher arguing for God's existence, what keeps things adhering to a common law in the first place? What sustains this majestic universe?

I dunno. What sustains God?

[Pilosofia]

Thank you dawud for the many interesting points you brought out.
There is much to think about in what you are saying and in some
points I find myself having to concede that it does exist.
This discussion has gone beyond the Cosmology post into areas that
I had not intended, perhaps it can be continued under another more
appropriate title, though I am not the one to decide what is appropriate
and what is not,therefore this is only a suggestion.

Brettz9 thank you for the replies to dawud, thank you dawud for the
counterpoint, both of you have shown the spirit of differing opinions
that parties share together,this is what the Bahai Faith is all about.

Most sincerely,
pilosofia

[brettz9]

Dawud and all,

FYI, the compilation I had referred to earlier is now online here at http://bahai-library.com/?file=compilat ... urity.html . Based on the discussion, some might also be interested in the compilation at http://bahai-library.com/?file=compilat ... enous.html which has also just been added. I think these contain some quotations which confirm some of Dawud's points about the sometimes more advanced conceptions and ways of living among aboriginal/native peoples...

Brett

[Pilosofia]

Cosmological conception name is being changed with a new title keeping
in line with the author's presentation of spiritual conceptions to be posted
else where due to it's length, and printed in a booklet format.

[Pilosofia]

It is important that a part of cosmological conception be explained,
"That mass or object is not seperated from motion and visa-versa,
the two are as one yet having functions different from each other."
Please do not respond to this post, thank you.