..., I engage him with a love of an elder brother, hoping against hope, that he will change his position ever so slightly to accommodate my pov.
and I likewise, as a loving younger brother, hoping against hope, etc. etc.
Of course
There is world beyond this material world, that no one can ever understand. Mystics and sages all over the world through the beginning of time have told us so.
Come on brother KRS, is this what you have going? If nobody can ever understand, how come these mystics and sages did, that too from beginning of time. That there is a world beyond the material world is a belief based on the testimony of long gone mystics and sages the reliability of which is only a matter of faith. Further, the testimony of these mystics and sages all over the world are so contradictory, many are completely opposed to each other. Given this fact the only option allowed for a person of reason is to not rely on these testimonies of mystics and sages. To rely on them is an act of faith, not rationality.
Hanging your hat on the belief that Science is going to prove God's existence is exactly like what you have said, waiting for a pink unicorn to show up. Science is just not the right tool to do this.
It is invisible pink unicorn (IPU), the "invisible" is a very important attribute of the gods the theists claim. Whatever your opinion on scientific process may be, that is the only valid tool we have. If one wishes to imagine a world just based on unverifiable testimony of mystics and sages with their very identity shrouded in historical uncertainty, and one that will always be beyond the comprehension of scientific process, that is his/her prerogative, but to insist it is a valid position to have is like insisting on the validity of an IPU.
Further, if the claims for which science is just not the right tool, and therefore the validity of the claims must be accepted, then anything goes. Anybody can conjure up anything like IPU and claim, science is just not the right tool, science can never prove or disprove IPU. Absence of evidence for IPU is not evidence of the absence of IPU.
It has also been shown that a child's spirituality springs from within. Whether it stems from the DNA or not, it is in the psyche of most of the humans.
A child is born with a proclivity to trust, an important trait for survival. This is the opening soceity has used to indoctrinate children and later they think that is spirituality.
So unlike a Scientist's temperament, which should acknowledge something not yet proven with healthy scepticism
Healthy skepticism is not a one-size fits all proposition. When a theory is presented, like an IPU, with nothing but testimony from religious authority of unknown origin, healthy skepticism is demanding convincing evidence before accepting the hypothesis, i.e. show me and I will believe. On the other hand, if the hypothesis is based on solid theory with prima facie evidence, then healthy skepticism would mean alright, I will not reject the theory outright, I will keep an open mind.
The way you define healthy skepticism one would be required to keep an open mind on every theory that gets proposed, even the most outlandish ones like the existence of IPU.
Here the majority behaviour has validation against a minority view, As I have said before - like sexuality or any other deviation from the normal behavior.
This was about rationality, which you stated has something to do with majority behavior, this is clearly not the case. Take a look at dictionary definition of the word
here. If you still insist rationality is determined by majority behavior, then I must say your definition of rationality is radically different.
In Hinduism, science with respect to math, astronomy, medicine etc. have flourished. So it was under other religions. Sorry.
These things flourished during in the past, religion cannot claim any credit for that any more than the proverbial sparrow can claim credit for the falling palm fruit.
History has clearly shown that societies without God, supposedly based on humanism and equality as recent as this century were utter evil. So you need to reassess.
You are sidestepping what I was saying and have launched into a different topic. So, please note that my point still stands unanswered.
About this new point you raise, history has also shown societies based on religious values were utter evil. The difference is, in the case of religion the faithful willingly participated in the evil, where as in the societies you mention Stalin's Russia and Pol Pot's Cambodia, it was just the elite perpetrating evil upon their people.
In some sense the evil of Stalin and Pol Pot, terrible though it was, at l east it was confined to a brief period in history. The religious evil on the other hand, plunged Europe into the dark ages for centuries. When Martin Luther spearheaded the reformation he also inflamed the hatred against Jews that culminated in the extermination of 6 millions of them during WWII.
Whatever may be the origin of varna, you have conceded its derivative, the caste system, is an evil one. Our society has been living with this evil for 1000 years at least.
Morality is a by product of religion. To be spiritual, one is ennobled automatically to be moral. So, the answer is 'no' to both your questions, but as I just said, that is not the entire objective to be spiritual.
What you say cannot be accepted just because you are saying it. The "no" to the first question is correct. To show that "no" to the second question is wrong, all I have to do is point out one evil thing an otherwise noble person would do just because of religion, and there are many.
I just quoted Martin Luther above, somebody who is considered an embodiment of everything moral, yet he was rabidly antisemitic which comes from the religious concept of blood libel. Jesus himself says he has come to set father against son, mother against daughter, etc., not a very good thing to do is it? Then there is the Dharmashashthras, something that even the great reformer of his time Bhagavat Ramanuja endorsed because it was seen as a religious dictum. So, the resounding answer to Q2 can only be YES.
But on the other hand, if there is no God, and only Man, invariably that leads to monumental arrogance of thinking that one can change the behaviors of the whole human race by compulsion to solve the so called problems in the world (Mao, PolPot, Stalin etc.,). No sir, I would take God anytime over men who think they are God.
Of course you would take god, but this is not about what you want. Your comment "invariably that leads" is simply your opinion based on faulty or misinterpreted data. I do not accept your view. Mao, Pol Pot, Stalin, were megalomaniacs, caused a lot of suffering. So did lot of other very religious people, like Harry Truman, LBJ, Nixon, Kissinger, and George W. Bush. You may say these U.S. presidents had good reasons, but those who support Mao and Stalin would say the same for their chosen leaders. The victors get to write history.
Whatever morality that comes from faith in god is not morality at all, it is nothing more than behavior based on fear of punishment, or fear of continued suffering in samsara. True morality is one which makes the person love humanity as they are and for no other reason than just because, such a morality springs from our own genes. Like all other aspects of genes, there is no perfect replication, i.e. there is no perfect uniformity with which this morality manifests. The will to survive also springs from our genes, in fact the survival is for the genes, not to a single individual as we all perish.
Cooperation, love, empathy, all these are mechanisms by which early tribal communities survived. These emotions extended only to the members of the tribe. As the tribe expanded into cities and nations the cooperation and solidarity also expanded to cover larger populations. When we expand this even further we get to global solidarity and empathy for everyone. This is the basis of true morality. IMO, this is what Y means when he says he is a globalist, not that he is turning his back on a given country, he is embracing all countries. I think this is more moral, and an expansive view of justice and compassion.
No religion is capable of this. Their morality stops with their religion, at least some parts of other religion are seen as immoral. There is also the urge to impose, Christians want to impose their values on everyone, Hindus do the same -- see what Hindutva ideology is all about -- even though they vociferously deny.
So, in my considered opinion, morality arising from religion is no morality at all.
Cheers!
