Post by Week 11&12 on Nov 11, 2015 0:16:15 GMT
1. Why is Faqir Chand's experiences important in understanding the projective nature of religious visions and miracles?
In the reading, The Unknown Stage, they mention that Faqir Chand became "quite outspoken about how gurus, masters, prophets, and mystics posing all knowing beings have deceived millions of followers". In the reading it is also mentioned how visions of religious personages are the products of ones inner development. This is important in understanding the nature of religious visions and miracles. The reason is that many different religions have different visions and miracles that people in that religion have in encounter that makes them believe they are true. For example, in the reading, they provide an example of someone who undergoes a near death experience and beholds a "Jesus or a Nanak or an Angle in the middle of the light at the end of a long dark tunnel". It is believed that it is the neophyte who is projecting the sacred personage on to the light from his/her own biological and cultural history. It really all depends on what a person believes in and all this relates to their religion too. Further on in the reading they mention that Faqir Chand would have miraculous appearances to disciples during the time of needs. He even confessed, " that he was never aware of appearing to his devotees".
2. What is meant by the phrase, "philosophy done well is science; philosophy done poorly remains philosophy.
The phrase "philosophy done well is science; philosophy done poorly remains philosophy." means that philosophy is not just one subject. It is a combination of different ideas and understandings in different aspects. The reason being that there are a lot of theories and hypothesis behind science. Also there is evidence that backs up science. One must use science to back up your claims. Whether it be biology, chemistry, math, philosophy and so on. One must use a form of science to back up the claims of what they say. If you don't use science to support your claims then who knows if your claims are really true or not. Philosophy needs science for example in the reading, "The Circle of The Wise", in the section of "Which Philosophical Tradition Do You Agree With Most?', Paul Churchland says, " I guess the correct answer is the philosophical tradition that takes the natural sciences very seriously and that would be the tradition".
In the reading, The Unknown Stage, they mention that Faqir Chand became "quite outspoken about how gurus, masters, prophets, and mystics posing all knowing beings have deceived millions of followers". In the reading it is also mentioned how visions of religious personages are the products of ones inner development. This is important in understanding the nature of religious visions and miracles. The reason is that many different religions have different visions and miracles that people in that religion have in encounter that makes them believe they are true. For example, in the reading, they provide an example of someone who undergoes a near death experience and beholds a "Jesus or a Nanak or an Angle in the middle of the light at the end of a long dark tunnel". It is believed that it is the neophyte who is projecting the sacred personage on to the light from his/her own biological and cultural history. It really all depends on what a person believes in and all this relates to their religion too. Further on in the reading they mention that Faqir Chand would have miraculous appearances to disciples during the time of needs. He even confessed, " that he was never aware of appearing to his devotees".
2. What is meant by the phrase, "philosophy done well is science; philosophy done poorly remains philosophy.
The phrase "philosophy done well is science; philosophy done poorly remains philosophy." means that philosophy is not just one subject. It is a combination of different ideas and understandings in different aspects. The reason being that there are a lot of theories and hypothesis behind science. Also there is evidence that backs up science. One must use science to back up your claims. Whether it be biology, chemistry, math, philosophy and so on. One must use a form of science to back up the claims of what they say. If you don't use science to support your claims then who knows if your claims are really true or not. Philosophy needs science for example in the reading, "The Circle of The Wise", in the section of "Which Philosophical Tradition Do You Agree With Most?', Paul Churchland says, " I guess the correct answer is the philosophical tradition that takes the natural sciences very seriously and that would be the tradition".