After Death - What?

[CLN]

Share:

Facebook X (Twitter) LinkedIn WhatsApp Email Share Link

Dear Shri Nara,

Ha ha ha ... I perceive a parallel here. Mathematics, as a subject in itself, is actually extremely fascinating and is a very powerful tool for use by all sciences. But look at its fate in schools. It is, by far, the most dreaded subject to most students, thanks to the majority of mathematics teachers, who, by their pointless assumption of a stern facade and strict rules of dealings with errant students, contribute mostly to the phobia for the subject germinating in the young minds. So are some of our Vedic gurus!

 

[KRS]

I do not subscribe to the view that religion is the cause of bloodshed in this world. Without religion, whether organized or not, the bloodshed would have been greater, and internal, as have been demonstrated by Communism and Socialism.

Without the concept of God, any restraints in the past would have been absent. Killing of other beings would have been carried out with abandon. Unless the humans perceive a higher power, their intellect is just not enough to act in the interests of their fellow human beings.

No, the problem is not with the religious philosophies. It is with us human beings who use that to justify our animalistic tendencies. No religion prescribes wanton killing.

I also think that all the ceremonies we perform for the departed are for the benefit of the living. Remembering our forefathers for what they did for us, in terms of us standing on their shoulders, should in no way be confused with them needing our ceremonies here on earth to feel good.

Karma theory, in my mind is too logical to ignore. That is the only theory that somewhat explains the different birth conditions of humans. I have been practicing amateur astrology for a long time, and I am quite convinced based on my experience that our Vedic Astrology, which lays out our Karma Phala in this life, is correct.

I also think that mysticism in all religions is the essence of those religions. Not the prescriptions of how to go to toilet. Because, life itself is magic.

I know several of you will argue with my posting. Please do. But the above is the truth I have discovered in my life of 63 years, which by and large was fashioned by pursuing Physics.

Regards,
KRS

 

[sangom]

I do not subscribe to the view that religion is the cause of bloodshed in this world. Without religion, whether organized or not, the bloodshed would have been greater, and internal, as have been demonstrated by Communism and Socialism.

Dear Shri KRS,

My views are different. For example Islam contains a clear mandate to kill a "kafir" who does not adopt Islam and such an act is considered meritorious according to that religion. The histroy of the crusades, the inquisitions, etc., are some examples where religion caused wars. Coming nearer home, the rigveda is full of prayers to destroy dasyus, dasas and other perceived enemies of the rigvedic aryans; it also mentions a war of ten kings. Though it is not easy to specify whether it was a religious dislike or purely geographic/political which caused such things to form part of the so-called holy veda, there is clear evidence that the enmity was between people of different belief systems.

 

[KRS]

Dear Sri Sangom Ji,

Yes, I have heard about such an injunction in Islam. But in researching it more, this was not from any injunction from Koran, but rather from Hadith, and it has its qualifications. Crusades were clearly against the teachings of Christ and they were, as you know were the orchestrations of a Pope, who was trying to stop the expansion of Islam.

In all these cases, the followers hi jacked the originator's words, to suit their own political purposes. But in these transgressions, they at least had some moral limitations. Not so with the modern godless systems. This is my point.

Regards,
KRS

 

[Nacchinarkiniyan]

Wars have taken place even before the advent of any organized religion. Chengiz Khan , Huns, the Mongols in general, the Sakas, the Greeks, Vikings, Persians all waged wars without any religious background.

Coming to India we always talk as if the Mogals were the only/first invaders of the sub continent. We forget the Sakas, Kushans, Huns, Greeks and number of others who invaded India and ruled parts of India for centuries.

Saka - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Kanishka - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Barbarian - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[sangom]

Dear Sri Sangom Ji,

Yes, I have heard about such an injunction in Islam. But in researching it more, this was not from any injunction from Koran, but rather from Hadith, and it has its qualifications. Crusades were clearly against the teachings of Christ and they were, as you know were the orchestrations of a Pope, who was trying to stop the expansion of Islam.

In all these cases, the followers hi jacked the originator's words, to suit their own political purposes. But in these transgressions, they at least had some moral limitations. Not so with the modern godless systems. This is my point.

Regards,
KRS

Dear Shri KRS,

Quran or Bible are not written up by the respective prophets. They are accounts of their (the prophets') pronouncements by those who heard from them direct. In that sense, Hadith is also equally an authority for the Islam. And Prophet Muhammad himself waged war if not wars, the idea being to subjugate those who did not accept his religion.

In the case of the crusades, may be we can blame the egoistic Popes. But what made them and their voice that much powerful? Not their military prowess, such as in the case of Chenghis Khan, or Alexander, but their religious position, but for which they would have been much less powerful as mere small potentates. That I feel is the role played by religion in the crusades.


Shri Nacchinarkiniyan,

I do not know how you say there was no organised religion at the time of Jenghis Khan. Pl see this from wikipedia:

"Genghis Khan's religion is widely speculated to be Shamanism or Tengriism, which was very likely among nomadic Mongol-Turkic tribes of Central Asia. But he was very tolerant religiously, and interested in learning philosophical and moral lessons from other religions. To do so, he consulted Buddhist monks, Christian missionaries, Muslim merchants, and the Taoist monk Qiu Chuji."

What you say may perhaps be that wars happened even without a religious angle. That is true. But the point here is that we have no instance of even one war having been averted because religion came into play as a peacemaker. Perhaps you may be able to give examples of some large scale wars which were so averted.

 

[Nacchinarkiniyan]

Organized religion whether it is Hinduism, Christianity or Islam is about Power. They want to strengthen their hold on people. They are not bothered about peace or welfare of Humanity.

The crusades were fought for political purposes not religious. The veneer of religion is used for gaining Power, territorial gains. It is not correct to blame the religions for that. Blame the religious organizations like the Papacy.

 

[Nara]

....In all these cases, the followers hi jacked the originator's words, to suit their own political purposes.

Dear Shri KRS, I think this is the case with some of the leaders who got to the position of putting communism to practice. The Popes of the time incited their mobs into religious frenzy to wage brutal war on the followers of another religion. Stalin used his powerful position to twist the ideas of Karl Marx to justify his brutal regime.

I agree with Sangom sir that the religious texts offer enough leeway for a ruthless manipulator to come along and take advantage of them, and in that respect, Stalin was no different from some of these religious leaders. Religious wars are probably have political motivation from the leaders who do the inciting, but religion offers them an easy and convenient way to make the ordinary people to go to war. The Pope may have been politically motivated, but the foot soldiers and even generals were religiously inspired to kill and maim.

There is another way in which religion plays a more insidious role than political ideology. Political ideology, except in some rare cases, do not induce individuals into hateful acts. Religious ideologies do. If, as an individual, say I do not accept Jesus as Christ, then I am condemned to eternal hell, which in their mind is an awful thing and they wish that upon me. If I am gay and I want to marry a man, I am prevented in the name of god and religion. They invade a woman's privacy while waxing eloquent about individual freedoms.

Islam is even worse.

Individual Hindus have committed untold atrocities against others in the name of religious doctrine. These are individuals, in many cases, may very well be wonderful people in other ways, but in the name of religion they can do all these hateful things and not feel any remorse, may even feel satisfaction for living up to the religious doctrines they revere.

Cheers!

 

[ShivKC]

There is another way in which religion plays a more insidious role than political ideology. Political ideology, except in some rare cases, do not induce individuals into hateful acts. Religious ideologies do.
Cheers!

sh,nara since you have used the term ideology often, i have a share of my thought here.

Ideology by definition applies to both theists & atheists or any.

if we take a close look at the definition of ideology , it says 'An ideology is a set of ideas that constitutes one's goals, expectations, and action". here i stress the word 'one;s goal'.

a writings of any religion/ principles could be conveniently tilted in to the benefit of 'ONE;s 'goal,.


this pattern applies to all of the sections of mankind or society, be it stalin/pope/idi amin/germans (thanks to you, i wont mention Nazi here)/ godse etc etc.

Our constitutions priciples or teachings are very clear and human and supports liguistics. but, see how bal thackery has drawn his ideology from the same constitution we all rever.


so, over all, few took on religious ideology for doing wrong, very many took on non-religious ideology to benefit ONE's own.

to prove your point that religions owns the highest head count, then you have to quantify and compare the killing here. Some apprx figure should be ok with me. please, dont forget to count the 6Mn deaths of WW2 because of german ideology and another 1Mn for communism.

as sh.krs puts its back, if not for religion, why one would say 'killing is wrong?

 

[CLN]

Mr. Sangom's words "... the point here is that we have no instance of even one war having been averted because religion came into play as a peacemaker. Perhaps you may be able to give examples of some large scale wars which were so averted" in his post #56 is a telling point. The only instance which I can think of as having anything to do with averting wars because religion came into play is when Samrat Ashoka had a dramatic mental transformation, but only after he waged a particularly bloody war against Kalingas, goading him to embrace Buddhism. As a result of this, one can perhaps say, that he did not wage any more wars, which, he would have certainly done, given his burning ambition before converting to Buddhism, to conquer every kingdom in this vast land, had he not converted so. A classic case of War leading to Peace leading to no more Wars!

 

[sangom]

Mr. Sangom's words "... the point here is that we have no instance of even one war having been averted because religion came into play as a peacemaker. Perhaps you may be able to give examples of some large scale wars which were so averted" in his post #56 is a telling point. The only instance which I can think of as having anything to do with averting wars because religion came into play is when Samrat Ashoka had a dramatic mental transformation, but only after he waged a particularly bloody war against Kalingas, goading him to embrace Buddhism. As a result of this, one can perhaps say, that he did not wage any more wars, which, he would have certainly done, given his burning ambition before converting to Buddhism, to conquer every kingdom in this vast land, had he not converted so. A classic case of War leading to Peace leading to no more Wars!

Shri CLN,

Ashoka embraced Buddhism, but all available historical accounts reveal that he continued to maintain a very large, efficient well-trained, and well-nourished army with all latest arms available then. So, subsequent to the Kalinga war, the mere name of Ashoka was enough to subdue all outlying small territories to abide by Ashoka's stone edicts. Just as the adoption of Buddhism was real in the case of Ashoka, it was most realistic of him to know realpolitiks and ensure that he achieved his goals without waging a war. But such a situation does not exist anywhere in the world now, I think.

 

[KRS]

Dear Sri Sangom Ji,

You have said:
Dear Shri KRS,

Quran or Bible are not written up by the respective prophets. They are accounts of their (the prophets') pronouncements by those who heard from them direct. In that sense, Hadith is also equally an authority for the Islam. And Prophet Muhammad himself waged war if not wars, the idea being to subjugate those who did not accept his religion.

In the case of the crusades, may be we can blame the egoistic Popes. But what made them and their voice that much powerful? Not their military prowess, such as in the case of Chenghis Khan, or Alexander, but their religious position, but for which they would have been much less powerful as mere small potentates. That I feel is the role played by religion in the crusades.


Most scholars believe that Mohammed's wars were for defensive purposes only. But regardless, his mission was to unite the arab tribes and the dead count in all his wars is estimated to be between 1200 to 1500 soldiers.

Crusades are another matter - while the soldiers were mobilized with an appeal to fight for God, if you look at their real motive - it was to get more wealth for the church.

While I agree that religion was used as a motivation to fight and kill, abolishing it would be like abolishing a kitchen knife because someone uses it to kill. People even today are clannish and provincial. This type of inherent quality in men is the main reason for wars. Today it is religion, province, language, country etc. that give vent to this quality. So to pick religion as the cause, in my opinion is not valid.

Edicts of morality has to come from a higher source than men. If not it will become relative morality, where there are no absolutes in terms of human laws.

Regards,
KRS

 

[KRS]

Dear Professor Nara Ji,

Yes, what drives people to kill others is beyond religion or any other ideology. Religion or non religion in the case of Communism is used to help achieve the real motives.

Society evolves. Today in America, there is more acceptance of gay unions than even ten years ago. Most people now accept the idea of Civil Unions. They only become uncomfortable if the term 'marriage' is brought up. This is perhaps with it's connotation from time immemorial to the union between a man and a woman. It will take time to accept this concept. I really think that the government should not play any role in providing 'marriage' certificates - they should call all unions as 'civil'.

Abortion is another matter. In my mind, the freedom to abort by anyone ends when that fetus/baby is able to live outside the body of the mother. Till then a mother has every right to abort, if she wishes and the society has no right to limit that.

But again, these are all moral issues faced by any society. The prevailing mores and customs of an evolving society will determine these outcomes, irrespective of what you and I think.

Regards,
KRS

 

[Nara]

....Without the concept of God, any restraints in the past would have been absent. Killing of other beings would have been carried out with abandon. Unless the humans perceive a higher power, their intellect is just not enough to act in the interests of their fellow human beings.

Shri KRS, I am not this pessimistic about human nature. IMO, humans by and large are decent. They do operate in self-interest, but, often that self-interest itself means cooperation and taking into account the interests of others, a kind of I scratch your back, you scratch my back arrangement, or, at the very least a mutual agreement to leave each other alone.

When we were hunter/gatherers we had to cooperate with each other within a tribe -- no higher power than survival and reproductive imperative was needed. Of course when rival tribes encroached on each others territory there was bloodshed, and once again no higher power than the pangs of certain organs were at the root of these clashes. In his book "Guns, Germs, and Steel", Jared Diamond observes such clashes between hunter/gatherer tribes in New Guinea, no higher-power seemed to have intervened and prevented these deadly clashes.

The advent of agriculture gave rise to small villages which grew to large cities. People had to deal with strangers on a regular basis and secular laws were devised to keep them from killing each other. Secular laws were sufficient for this purpose. But, soon, rich and ruling class rose and it became imperative for them to keep the plentiful poor and the powerless from rising up. Secular laws were not sufficient for this, they needed something else, something that will make them willingly be subservient. God, religion, life after death, heaven and hell were invented. To maintain order we do not need anything more than secular man-made laws, but an invented higher-power, and some priestly mumbo-jumbo, makes it easy to keep a population subjugated.

I think most people are decent and will cooperate with each other for mutual benefit. In matters that are ambiguous they need well articulated laws so that they can act within them. Those who willfully go outside these laws, for the most part, are not going to be deterred by claims of higher-power and punishment after death. They are more likely to be deterred by man-made laws with consequences much more real and immediate.

Also, if we look around various nations, the ones that are ruled by the so-called laws given by god are far more brutal than the ones ruled by man-made secular ones. Canada, where secular laws are supreme, is much more of a just nation than say Saudi Arabia or Iran where god-given laws are supreme.

Karma theory, in my mind is too logical to ignore. That is the only theory that somewhat explains the different birth conditions of humans.

I think it is a fallacy to expect nature to produce any kind of human notion of fairness. When a lioness chases a zebra who could one root for? To expect an explanation for such randomness in our life is a fallacy. As humans we need to try our best to alleviate the harsh realities nature sometimes doles out.

Cheers!

 

[Nara]

Dear Shri KRS, Greetings!

....Society evolves. Today in America, there is more acceptance of gay unions than even ten years ago. Most people now accept the idea of Civil Unions.

Yes they do. Today, the AG Holder has announced the DOJ will not defend DOMA (Defense of Marriage Act) in the courts any more. This proves my point. It is secular forces that make these changes happen. Leave it to the religious folks and we will go back 2000 years.

Abortion is another matter. In my mind, the freedom to abort by anyone ends when that fetus/baby is able to live outside the body of the mother. Till then a mother has every right to abort, if she wishes and the society has no right to limit that.

The Republicans in congress, motivated by appealing to the religious right, want a special category called "forced rape" as if there is any other kind of rape, to chip away the right to abortion. The important point here is, the people who stand firm on individual freedom, suddenly want to restrict it to others, in the name of religion. A truly freedom loving person will say, I hate abortion and I will never accept it for myself, but I will defend another person's right to have an abortion, similar to what is widely attributed to Voltaire. It is religion that comes in the way to tell this otherwise freedom loving person that it is wrong to allow somebody else to have an abortion.

In any case, I am yet to see one serious moral issue that can only be resolved by religion, where as, I have seen many issues that religion makes impossible to solve.

Cheers!

 

[suba42]

[FONT=&quot]After death, What?[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]The Aathman has to go to higher state 2nd Dimension - Swarga according to its Good Deeds or go to Naraha – 4th or 5th or some Nth Dimension – according to its bad deeds to live and survive. Remember the time span is again defined by the dimension and it may vary according to the Dimension and the said Aathman’s good or bad deeds. [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Sometimes, due to the Aathman;s desire IT may straight-away go to the Dimensionless State. This may also happen. Since life is a line and every birth is only a dot on it, the Aathman has to take several million births before reaching the Dimensionless State (MOKSHA).[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]

 

[suba42]

The Death can not be defined by Barrack Obama or the Senate or the Congress of the US of A or The noted Prof. Nara.

There are nine holes in the body - 2 eyes, 2 nostrils, 2 ears, 1 mouth, 1 urinal outlet and 1 stool outlet (Nava Dhwaarams)/

But Mundaka Upanishadh says there are 11 holes i.e apart from the 9 outlets, there are navel point (umblical cord through which the fetus get its nourishment and through which the excretions of the fetus are sent in to its mother's womb) and Brimrandram (Pineal Gland between the two lobes). If the fetus dies inside its mother's womb, its Aathman is sent to its mother's womb and goes into the atmosphere through any one of her 7 holes. And also there is a Brihmarandram (Pineal Gland between the brain lobes) you can see that the top portion of the new born baby's head is not covered with cranium and this is also found to be open in the Realized Souls. Once the Aathman goes through the Brihmarandram, IT attains MOKSHA and goes to the Dimensionless State of the Nirguna ParaBrahman (which is neither born nor does IT have a death) never to return back to this viscious Birth and Death Cycle.

 

[suba42]

Dear Sir,

Koran or Bible are written by Egotistic persons who wanted their people to believe them irrespective of what they say. They do not preach Universal Love. They only preach death for non bielivers of their Ideals. Only our Sanaathana Dharma preaches Universal Love and says the though the form is different, the Aathman - Brahman is the same for all entities. Our Sanaathana Dharma only teaches Perennial Love - Devoid of Hatred.

Read Guru Kavacham - It say, Anbe Shivam, Anbe Shakthi, Anbe Shaantham, Anbe Maunam, Anbe Aanandam, Anbe Brahmam, Anbe Neeyum, Anbe Naanum.

Our Thirukkural says " Anbillar Ellaam Thamakkuriyar, Anbudaiyaar Endrum Uriyar Pirarkku".

 

[CLN]

[FONT=&quot]After death, What?[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]The Aathman has to go to higher state 2nd Dimension - Swarga according to its Good Deeds or go to Naraha – 4th or 5th or some Nth Dimension – according to its bad deeds to live and survive. Remember the time span is again defined by the dimension and it may vary according to the Dimension and the said Aathman’s good or bad deeds. [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Sometimes, due to the Aathman;s desire IT may straight-away go to the Dimensionless State. This may also happen. Since life is a line and every birth is only a dot on it, the Aathman has to take several million births before reaching the Dimensionless State (MOKSHA).[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]

Can you please clarify whether you are basing your ideas of the 'states' 'dimensions' and 'time spans' you are speaking about on any ancient text or any Guru's teachings or your own anubhoothi ?

 

[KRS]

Dear Professor Ji,

My response in 'blue' below:

Shri KRS, I am not this pessimistic about human nature. IMO, humans by and large are decent. They do operate in self-interest, but, often that self-interest itself means cooperation and taking into account the interests of others, a kind of I scratch your back, you scratch my back arrangement, or, at the very least a mutual agreement to leave each other alone.
I think that this altruism comes from a higher source - not just from survival instincts. Empathy in fully evolved, spiritual folks is Universal.

When we were hunter/gatherers we had to cooperate with each other within a tribe -- no higher power than survival and reproductive imperative was needed. Of course when rival tribes encroached on each others territory there was bloodshed, and once again no higher power than the pangs of certain organs were at the root of these clashes. In his book "Guns, Germs, and Steel", Jared Diamond observes such clashes between hunter/gatherer tribes in New Guinea, no higher-power seemed to have intervened and prevented these deadly clashes.
I was not talking about GOD intervening in the daily lives of people. I don't understand how this relates to belief in Gods. If you take away God, they would still be behaving the same way. It is tribalism.

The advent of agriculture gave rise to small villages which grew to large cities. People had to deal with strangers on a regular basis and secular laws were devised to keep them from killing each other. Secular laws were sufficient for this purpose. But, soon, rich and ruling class rose and it became imperative for them to keep the plentiful poor and the powerless from rising up. Secular laws were not sufficient for this, they needed something else, something that will make them willingly be subservient. God, religion, life after death, heaven and hell were invented. To maintain order we do not need anything more than secular man-made laws, but an invented higher-power, and some priestly mumbo-jumbo, makes it easy to keep a population subjugated.
I do not share your view that religion was 'invented' to control the masses. May be people's sentiments in the belief of God/Religion were misused. I think the religious inclination of a human being is innate. As I have said before, most brilliant scientists are either deists or outright theists. There are very few atheists among them

I think most people are decent and will cooperate with each other for mutual benefit. In matters that are ambiguous they need well articulated laws so that they can act within them. Those who willfully go outside these laws, for the most part, are not going to be deterred by claims of higher-power and punishment after death. They are more likely to be deterred by man-made laws with consequences much more real and immediate.
I don't know what evidence you have to claim this human type of deterrence? 'God fearing' is a very commonly used word.

Also, if we look around various nations, the ones that are ruled by the so-called laws given by god are far more brutal than the ones ruled by man-made secular ones. Canada, where secular laws are supreme, is much more of a just nation than say Saudi Arabia or Iran where god-given laws are supreme.
'Just nation' is an ideal, that the people in those countries want. In their evolution, you can not impose your ideas on them, if they do not want it. Education over time will resolve these issues, not banishing God.

I think it is a fallacy to expect nature to produce any kind of human notion of fairness. When a lioness chases a zebra who could one root for? To expect an explanation for such randomness in our life is a fallacy. As humans we need to try our best to alleviate the harsh realities nature sometimes doles out.
Who says life is fair? Is that not the basic tenet of the Karma theory? I do not see 'randomness' in life as you do. As Einstein put it : 'God does not play dice with nature' and I agree with him.

Cheers!

Regards,
KRS

 

[suba42]

It is purely obtained through Raja Yoga.

 

[Nara]

Who says life is fair? Is that not the basic tenet of the Karma theory? I do not see 'randomness' in life as you do. As Einstein put it : 'God does not play dice with nature' and I agree with him.

Dear Shri KRS, I don't think you are addressing my argument that all we need are secular laws to maintain order in society, there is no need for a higher-power to make people behave decently.

Einstein was a deist, not a theist, He was convinced that there is a unifying theory that explains everything in the universe. In other words, when everything can be explained, there can be nothing random. This part of his theory is still open.

What I was referring to was not about order or disorder in the universe. IMO, the karma theory tries to bring an artificial human-centric fairness to life, surely because karma is a human made construct. My point is what you and I feel is fair are only transient. In the long history of life on earth, the only fairness is determined by the process of random mutation and natural selection. That is it. Anything that is not conducive to survival and procreation of the species in the aggregate is unfair, anything that promotes it is fair.

Cheers!

 

[CLN]

Einstein was a deist, not a theist, He was convinced that there is a unifying theory that explains everything in the universe. In other words, when everything can be explained, there can be nothing random. This part of his theory is still open.

I think that all scientists, by the very nature of the profession itself, have to be deists or agnostics but not certainly theists, no matter whether they subscribe to any outward religious practices or not, due to pressures from family / society (a very common spectacle in our country and particularly among *******!). No person who believes that God (or many gods) can and does (or do) interfere with the natural course of things, who believes that miracles are evidences for acts of God (or gods) and disasters are curses of God (gods), angry with erring humans can really be a scientist, because the very task of science is to unravel the mystery underlying all that has happened / happening / will happen in Nature and understand the processes logically. In fact, the mystery remains a mystery only so long as the underlying process is not clear to human mind and so ceases to be any more a mystery once the explanation is available. If there is a God who has the habit of directing or guiding or interfering abruptly in all affairs, as theists tend to believe, scientific pursuit of anything is pointless and sheer waste of time, because such a God can just change any thing at His will even without a moment's notice and all the efforts of a scientist to 'explain' any natural process can be made to look silly and invalid.

 

[Nara]

I think that all scientists, by the very nature of the profession itself, have to be deists or agnostics but not certainly theists,

Yes sir, that is what a reasonable person will expect. But, unfortunately, the ways of the human mind is enigmatic indeed. Somehow, even the most celebrated of scientists manage to keep air tight compartments in their minds, one for science they are good at and one for superstitions they are drilled into, to accept from the very first moment since they started thinking. The most glaring example is Dr. Francis Collins, the scientist who led the human genome project. Dr. Collins is an avowed Christian who has faith in all its glorious nonsense.

I agree with Sri Sangom. If there is an all powerful God who cares about human affairs and is compassionate, then there cannot be any grief in this world. An all powerful god mist be able to annihilate all karma in an instant. If I were an all powerful god, I will tell karma to take a hike and make all beings all loving and happy, free of any kind of grief or guilt. I just can't accept an all powerful and compassionate god would be anything less than yours truly. All this surely means there is no god.

The very fact there is so much grief in this world clearly shows either there is no god, or if he exists, he is either compassionate but not all powerful, or all powerful but not compassionate. One can't have it both ways.

Cheers

 

[CLN]

The most glaring example is Dr. Francis Collins, the scientist who led the human genome project. Dr. Collins is an avowed Christian who has faith in all its glorious nonsense.

Dr. Collins, may perhaps be just one of the numerous samples, an illustrious person at that, of people using 'props' for their own comfort (notwithstanding Mr. Sangom not being in agreement with my "Props Theory"!). For, the owerpowering opiatic effect of Religion on humans of all cross-sections cannot be underplayed and wished away that easily. Religious beliefs, for those who have them, do serve the all-soothing effect on a mind tormented by even unpleasant mundane experiences like physical pain, disappointments, failures, losses etc., leave alone the elusive and ethereal quest for Universal Truth, Ultimate Goal, Parabrahmam and the like.