Intelligence
Fri, 01/25/2008 - 17:57 — admin
VIDYANANDA: Well, let's see if we can add some more weight to the argument. Organization, design, harmonization, creation-all of these activities are possible only under the influence of intelligence. Without the faculty of intelligence, it would certainly not be possible to plan or design any project or structure nor, on a practical level, to see to its creation and maintenance.
MICHAEL: I'm afraid I have to raise an objection. Certainly we can shake a bottle of colored sand and then see beautiful designs which appear independently of intelligent manipulation or design. Thus, there are at least some examples of randomly caused beauty, etc.
VIDYANANDA: Of course there are. When discussing Information Theory, we acknowledged that if a peg and block of wood with a hole in it were put into a container and shaken, that chance might cause the peg to fit into the hole. Similarly, chance may be responsible for an object or event of beauty, although, according to Information Theory, it would have to have a comparatively low information content. The role of chance is not the question at hand, however, so I fail to see the point of your objection. The issue at hand is whether the outside agent of organization required in systems of high information content can be an impersonal force. My present point is that the activities of designing, organizing, creating, etc., are not without intelligence. Now, we have no experience of intelligence except in connection with living beings. We can therefore conclusively know that living beings or persons do possess intelligence. On the other hand, we have no evidence whatsoever of a non-person or an impersonal force possessing intelligence.24
The fact that the cause of the universe possesses intelligence therefore indicates that this cause is a person, and not a non-person.
Before I expand on this point, let me tell you a story from the life of Sir Isaac Newton. Among Newton's acquaintances and fellow scientists was an atheist, with whom he would sometimes debate. One morning this man paid Sir Isaac Newton a visit. When he entered Newton's study, he noted a remarkably well-made replica of the universe sitting on his desk. The model was complete with rotating planets, and Newton's associate was quite impressed by its detail and authentic nature.
“This is wonderful!” he exclaimed. “Who made it?”
‘Nobody’ replied Newton. His friend repeated the question and again Sir Isaac replied, “Nobody made it. It just appeared this morning by itself.”
“Stop kidding me. Obviously someone made this. Someone possessed of great intelligence! I’d like to meet the person who made this.”
“Where is your logic!’ Newton exclaimed. ‘You and your atheistic colleagues try to tell me that there is no Supreme Being. You say that the vast and wonderfully intricate universe, of which this tiny model is but a replica, has created itself, whereas you adamantly deny the same possibility with this model! You say an intelligent person must have created this model, but you deny the Supreme Person behind the universe!”25
I might add that although it was not Newton's line of approach, if he had told his friend that an impersonal force, so vague that he himself could not properly perceive it, had created the model, his friend would have been equally skeptical.
In the same way that we do not befriend or reject somebody just on the basis of the type of clothing he is wearing, we should not feel prejudice nor bigotry towards others just because of the type of body that they are wearing. We should know that we aren't our bodies and thus not relate with others according to their temporary bodies.Intelligence
Science of Identity Foundation – Siddhaswarupananda
VIDYANANDA: Well, let's see if we can add some more weight to the argument. Organization, design, harmonization, creation-all of these activities are possible only under the influence of intelligence. Without the faculty of intelligence, it would certainly not be possible to plan or design any project or structure nor, on a practical level, to see to its creation and maintenance.
MICHAEL: I'm afraid I have to raise an objection. Certainly we can shake a bottle of colored sand and then see beautiful designs which appear independently of intelligent manipulation or design. Thus, there are at least some examples of randomly caused beauty, etc.
VIDYANANDA: Of course there are. When discussing Information Theory, we acknowledged that if a peg and block of wood with a hole in it were put into a container and shaken, that chance might cause the peg to fit into the hole. Similarly, chance may be responsible for an object or event of beauty, although, according to Information Theory, it would have to have a comparatively low information content. The role of chance is not the question at hand, however, so I fail to see the point of your objection. The issue at hand is whether the outside agent of organization required in systems of high information content can be an impersonal force. My present point is that the activities of designing, organizing, creating, etc., are not without intelligence. Now, we have no experience of intelligence except in connection with living beings. We can therefore conclusively know that living beings or persons do possess intelligence. On the other hand, we have no evidence whatsoever of a non-person or an impersonal force possessing intelligence.24
The fact that the cause of the universe possesses intelligence therefore indicates that this cause is a person, and not a non-person.
Before I expand on this point, let me tell you a story from the life of Sir Isaac Newton. Among Newton's acquaintances and fellow scientists was an atheist, with whom he would sometimes debate. One morning this man paid Sir Isaac Newton a visit. When he entered Newton's study, he noted a remarkably well-made replica of the universe sitting on his desk. The model was complete with rotating planets, and Newton's associate was quite impressed by its detail and authentic nature.
“This is wonderful!” he exclaimed. “Who made it?”
‘Nobody’ replied Newton. His friend repeated the question and again Sir Isaac replied, “Nobody made it. It just appeared this morning by itself.”
“Stop kidding me. Obviously someone made this. Someone possessed of great intelligence! I’d like to meet the person who made this.”
“Where is your logic!’ Newton exclaimed. ‘You and your atheistic colleagues try to tell me that there is no Supreme Being. You say that the vast and wonderfully intricate universe, of which this tiny model is but a replica, has created itself, whereas you adamantly deny the same possibility with this model! You say an intelligent person must have created this model, but you deny the Supreme Person behind the universe!”25
I might add that although it was not Newton's line of approach, if he had told his friend that an impersonal force, so vague that he himself could not properly perceive it, had created the model, his friend would have been equally skeptical.
“VIDYANANDA and MICHAEL, the principal characters in the dialogue, are entirely fictitious and not connected to any past or present persons.”