The Archeology of the Kingdom of God: Diving a Bit Deeper into a Baha'i Approach to Metaphysics

@Thomas,
Does this not regard the 'Manifestation of Reality' – Revelation – as axiomatic and therefore a priori to the discussion of the nature of human potential?

And here is a corresponding statement from Baha'u'llah: "The knowledge of Him, Who is the Origin of all things, and attainment unto Him, are impossible save through knowledge of, and attainment unto, these luminous Beings who proceed from the Sun of Truth."

Both the Bab and Baha'u'llah highlight that direct knowledge of God isn't the starting point. Studying the teachings and lives of these Manifestations - these remarkable human beings - is the starting point.

I'm not sure revelation as axiomatic is straightforward. Revelation, although transcendent, is transmitted in human language, which is itself contingent and imperfect - like filtering light through colored glass. If revelation is axiomatic, then why does it need the medium of human language?
 
@Thomas,
And here is a corresponding statement from Baha'u'llah: "The knowledge of Him, Who is the Origin of all things, and attainment unto Him, are impossible save through knowledge of, and attainment unto, these luminous Beings who proceed from the Sun of Truth."
The real meaning of the claim is that Bahaollah himself was one of these luminous beings. Don't these luminous beings feel shame in self-praise?
What would you say of a person who claims that you can double your money in one month only through him?
 
Last edited:
Both the Bab and Baha'u'llah highlight that direct knowledge of God isn't the starting point. Studying the teachings and lives of these Manifestations - these remarkable human beings - is the starting point.
OK, but are you not still starting with the manifestation as axiomatic, and the human in relation to ...

I'm not sure revelation as axiomatic is straightforward.
But the author is taking the works of Baha'u'llah as axiomatic, isn't he? He's working from the a priori standpoint of a given perspective.

Revelation, although transcendent, is transmitted in human language, which is itself contingent and imperfect - like filtering light through colored glass. If revelation is axiomatic, then why does it need the medium of human language?
There is sensing the world, which transcends language, and making sense of the world, which involves language ... the sense comes first.
 
There is sensing the world, which transcends language,

It is a false dichotomy (sensing the world vs. making sense of the world). Language provides a way to interpret the world; there is no such thing as isolated sensations without interpretation through the lens of language. What is an isolated sensation anyway? A paradoxical question like what's the sound of one hand clapping?

and making sense of the world, which involves language ... the sense comes first.

There might be a very basic, initial sensory detection happening in our brains, but even this gets categorized and interpreted instantaneously. Both are intertwined. When you feel red, it isn't just a raw sensation at first. The sensation of red is immediately perceived through the lens of our language and culture.

But the author is taking the works of Baha'u'llah as axiomatic, isn't he? He's working from the a priori standpoint of a given perspective.

If our initial experience is already influenced by our frameworks, then evaluating a message becomes even more crucial. Seekers are encouraged to study scripture, reflect critically, and arrive at their own understanding. This is quite different from accepting something axiomatic, which requires no independent investigation.
 
Last edited:
It is a false dichotomy (sensing the world vs. making sense of the world).
Well I disagree, but that's a digression.

The point: The author's claim that "... “the anthropic principle” (itself a philosophy) ... overturns all of philosophy and had multiple and fundamental implications which are far from being explored."
To which I replied the 'anthropic principle' is a philosophy in light of Baha'i Revelation ... therefore surely the revelation comes first?

Take God/Revelation/Divine Manifestation out of the picture and what have you got to work with?
 
Take God/Revelation/Divine Manifestation out of the picture and what have you got to work with?
If a tree falls in the forrest and no one is there to hear it, does it make a sound? We know when it fell it made sound wave vibrations, but it does need an ear to interpret the waves into sound.

So if we so take God/Revelation/Divine Manifestation out of the picture, well there is nothing to interpret.

I struggle with all these principles. Anthropic? Thus I easily loose the intent of such topics.

My current picture is this progression

God. From God - Holy Spirit/Manifestations/Creation/Revelation

I see that as being all eternal, tied together and without a beginning or an end. God without a creation cannot be imagined. God without a Revelation cannot be known in this material existence.

Is not the purpose of Creation and Revelation a bounty to enable us to know and love God? That knowledge is only given by those God Annointed to do so, to those who are willing to interpret.

Regards Tony
 
The point: The author's claim that "... “the anthropic principle” (itself a philosophy) ... overturns all of philosophy and had multiple and fundamental implications which are far from being explored."
To which I replied the 'anthropic principle' is a philosophy in light of Baha'i Revelation ... therefore surely the revelation comes first?
I struggle with all these principles. Anthropic? Thus I easily loose the intent of such topics.
Can we get this straightened out?
Does @Ahanu wish to outline the anthropic principle as intended here?

The 'anthropic principle' in physics says that we live in the universe that supports us, because if it was not so, we would not be around.

The Anthropic Principle also known as the "observation selection effect", is the hypothesis, first proposed in 1957 by Robert Dicke, that the range of possible observations that could be made about the universe is limited by the fact that observations could happen only in a universe capable of developing intelligent life. Proponents of the anthropic principle argue that it explains why the universe has the age and the fundamental physical constants necessary to accommodate conscious life, since if either had been different, no one would have been around to make observations. Anthropic reasoning is often used to deal with the idea that the universe seems to be finely tuned for the existence of life.

Weak anthropic principle: Our location in the universe is necessarily privileged to the extent of being compatible with our existence as observers.

Strong anthropic principle:The universe (and hence the fundamental parameters on which it depends) must be such as to admit the creation of observers within it at some stage.
 
Last edited:
IMO physics is desperate to show that intelligent life on Earth arose by blind chance. The list of fine-tuning parameters that allow for intelligent life on Earth is so hugely stacked – one astronomical coincidence stacked upon another – that they had to come up with the anthropic principle:

And to prop-up the anthropic principle, the multiverse theory is required? Taken to its extreme the multiverse theory proposes virtually infinite (10^500+) other universes: which raises the possibility of not just one but infinite copies of myself?
So I don't think the anthropic principle overturns anything, or even that it says anything: things are the way they are, because that's just the way they are ...

LOL -- how earthshaking is that!
 
Last edited:
Back
Top