" I started to understand enough about the world/universe to realise that much of the true nature of existence is way beyond our ability to comprehend."
Can you quantify this with one of your own experiences? I will learn from it vicariously if possible.
I am not militating theists and neither am I propagandizing atheism. Surprisingly enough these superstitions have saved animals and humans before (Ex: Hinduism, Bhudisim, Jainism, etc.) but caused more harm than good. I will look up people you referred and their writings. We will always be unbeknown about God or some super power because no matter how much technically advanced we become, there will always be layers deeper to dig into and we can never declare that we know everything to prove that God doesn't exist.
We can only fail to accept God but never truly reject him.
This is a universal truth.
You have all the freedom to be an agnostic(which I am too) and not an atheist, but what I am urging on more people should be educated enough to be agnostic and have the courage to question an action made in the name of God the almighty.
The question was to rekindle thoughts among HNs as to where we really stand in this path towards unknown waters.
Replace "God the almighty" with "homeland", "honor", or "science". Does it make a difference?
If it doesn't make a difference, then what does any of this matter? If the issue is people using imaginary persons, relationships, and qualities to justify bad behavior, I don't see how the response should be promoting a reactionary identity that fundamentally commits the same error. Some communists committed unimaginable horrors in the name of suppressing religious ideas. I'm not trying to equivocate history, but am trying to point out that replacing theism with anti-theism or even skeptical-theism isn't necessarily going to produce different outcomes in the long run. God exists, such as he does, whether you say "there is a God" or you say "there is no God" or you say "I don't know if there's a God". The only way to purge the idea is to say nothing at all.
If there is a difference, then there might something distinct and salient about such a concept that might be beneficial and worth preserving, notwithstanding all the harms.
Not sure if you'll read this so long after posting the comment - please reply if you do so I know it was worth the effort to write!
A few years ago, after going through a very difficult few years in my life, during which I became very angry and resentful at the world, including at all forms of religion, as well as being very physically fatigued and unwell, I started experimenting with various techniques to try to heal my body and mind. You can read my HN comment history for more detail on this.
After about 6 years of trying various healing practices, and about 3 years after discovering a set of mindfulness techniques and subconscious healing practices that I was finding to be particularly effective, I started experiencing altered states of consciousness that forced me to question the conventional (materialistic) understanding of how the mind and body work together. I started experiencing intuitions and insights that opened a path to new realisations that led me towards a much more healthy and happy life.
These experiences were not linked with any mind-altering substances, and there was no suggestion from people close to me that I had any serious psychiatric illness (apart from being a bit hysterical due to the unfamiliar experiences I was having; nobody saw any need for any medical intervention, I just had to chill out a bit, which I did).
It inspired me to more deeply investigate the most up-to-date research and debate about the mind and body, and the origins of consciousness. It turns out very little is known about where consciousness comes from; it's accepted in the mainstream that consciousness emerges out of brain matter, but when you examine this theory, it's an assumption based on our best understanding of evolution, but it's not proven in its own right.
It turns out that the notion that consciousness is some immaterial ("spiritual") phenomenon, and that consciousness originates from somewhere outside of our own brains/bodies, is just as plausible as the materialist hypothesis, and there are credible, eminent scientists who have sophisticated theories on this.
Probably the most compelling and sound is Sir Roger Penrose and his "quantum microtubules" concept [1]. But there are others with ideas worth exploring. I've gotten a lot out of reading Bernardo Kastrup, Rupert Sheldrake and Rudy Tanzi.
None of this is to say that science proves the merits of any organised religion (or mitigates any of its failings or wrongoings), but it's certainly not the case that science has disproven religion/spirituality and made it all irrelevant.
I'm with you that organised religion as done, and continues to do, much harm in the world. But we also take for granted how much good it has done (the Western system of government and judiciary, and everything that has emerged out of that, for a start).
And for the record, I haven't had any more of those altered states of consciousness for about 3 years, but every aspect of my life (physical/emotional health, friends/family/relationships, career/financial success) has been improving at an accelerating rate since that episode.
"Archaic hunter-gatherers were just another species of animal. Farmers saw themselves as the apex of creation. Scientists will upgrade us into gods"
I think you misunderstood the context I am really emphasizing on, here. it's not about whether this world consists of "true" atheists or not rather it is about when can at least a majority of us become agnostic about God and supernatural powers. As @tomhoward mentions below superstition may be a byproduct after all ,but I agree with your take on the dire requirement needed to mitigate the rampage of unscientific belief being capitalized by demagogs knowingly or unknowingly. Mere education seems to be working but personally, I can't withstand its dawdling struggle against gov funded conventions. What pragmatic steps do you think we can take to ramp up the processes of awareness without being ousted by the society or of that sorts.
True I am inclined more towards entrepreneurial methodologies, in fact bootstrapping a small startup. thanks for your insight. I like the way you played the question "why MBA".
If so, I would focus on entrepreneurship. You don't need an MBA - and it may even be counterproductive for the earliest stages of entrepreneurship (coming from someone who has both an eng degree and MBA).
Still, hard to say 100% without knowing your background and goals.
I actually think one of the best cases for an MBA is for a techie who wants to expand their business skills. When someone who does an undergraduate business degree comes back for an MBA, they're really wasting time going over things they already learned, just to gain a credential. For a programmer, though, an MBA could be your first exposure to fundamental stuff like the basics of finance, accounting, and marketing. Heaven knows they don't teach us about compound interest in high school.
So true, well I have a question, my plan is to work for 2 years in R&D and curate a story line telling how now that I know the technical part I would like to learn more about management part. Or should I make the story about the startup I am working on which is in the energy sector, showcasing how I grew the company from what it is to what it became?
What do you think will look more appealing for the MBA colleges a kid who built a small startup(might become successful but fewer chances, also it can fail too ) or a kid who worked at a Fortune 50 company for 2 years as R&D Engineer and learned the technologies good enough? Honest opinion
Unless you're targeting the Harvards and Whartons of the world, either should be fine. Graduate schools aren't too picky, they just want to know that you have the ability and are going to follow through and finish. My point was really that you should know for yourself why you want the MBA. Honesty works well in interviews.
Now, if you're targeting a top-10 program, understand that for those schools it's all about the rankings. MBA programs are ranked on things like GMAT scores but also on starting salaries after graduation. What's the best indicator you'll get a high salary after graduation? Answer: you have a high salary before entering the program. If you want to get into a Harvard or Wharton MBA, tell them about your job making six figures at a Fortune 50 company and that you want the MBA so you can get promoted to the next rank of management. Acing the GMAT would also help. No matter what the brochure says, they don't really want dreamers who want to change the world. For those top-10 schools, the full time MBA program is really kind of a showcase to keep them up in the rankings. Then they can cash in with undergraduate tuition, executive and part-time MBA programs (companies usually pay for these for their employees), publishing, and other side ventures.
oh so I should be working more on my career at the company rather than my startup, is it? But the problem is in my company on average it takes 10 years to become a manager (with just bachelor's degree) and I within next 2 years I think I can hardly be promoted from R&D Engineer 1 to R&D Engineer 2, will this increment matter or count in anyway?
The point is promotion is too farfetched in my company no matter how smart I am. What do you think I should do in such cases? btw thank you for taking your time and guiding this random stranger :)
For this very reason, I had planned to work on my startup more and leverage it for getting admits from top 10 post exit.
Well, why do you actually want the MBA? What are you hoping to get out of it? Remember you're going to be sacrificing two years that you could be spending on something else, so it matters. Once you can answer that, I can give you better advice on application strategy.
hey, this is my email address [email protected] can you please drop a mail there so that we can continue conversing there if you don't mind :)
Thank you
If not we can surely continue the conversation here.
