The god fallacy

[sarang]

Share:

Facebook X (Twitter) LinkedIn WhatsApp Email Share Link

Newton was autocratic, abusive, secretive and intolerant - so say his biographers. So this statement 'humility is the hallmark of a true scientist' needs revision. Durvasa and viswamitra lost their cool often and vengeful.

Dear Sravna,

Sometimes great individuals take re birth to reestablish the same work they had done before.
So for all we know Newton could have been a great intellectual giant from the past who has come again.

One thing common in great people of the past and present is humility.

Humility is the hall mark of a true scientist.

Dr A.P.J Abdul Kalam is the best example I can think of.

 

[renuka]

Newton was autocratic, abusive, secretive and intolerant - so say his biographers. So this statement 'humility is the hallmark of a true scientist' needs revision. Durvasa and viswamitra lost their cool often and vengeful.

Dear Sarang,

Biographers might not always write the truth isnt it?

Anyway with regards to Durvasa and Vishwamitra losing their cool..we have to remember that both of them are not ordinary individuals and sometimes the actions of great souls liberated while living may resemble even lunacy or sometimes appear even not within the norm.Asthavakra Samhita explains the actions of such men well.

They are not bound by their actions anymore and whatever remains is just the Prarabdha Karma and their body is like a cucumber just waiting to detach from the creeper of existence(Urvarukamiva Bandhanaat).

 

[sarang]

True, true, true.

I am really amazed (and approve) that you see the bright and good side of everything. Rare quality indeed.

A mini joke.

A deaf mappillai had to visit his father in law who was on his death bed. The SIL was totally deaf (damara sevidu). So he asked his friend for advise what to ask. The good friend tutored him what to ask and how to respond to the dying man's replies.

You ask him, how he is recovering; he will say, gradually better. Your response - I am sure the same will continue.
You ask him, who is the doctor; he will say a name and you respond - he is a good doctor, continue.
You ask him what medicine he is taking; he will give the name of some medicine and you respond - it is very good medicine, continue the same.
What really happened was quite different.
SIL: How do you feel?
FIL: Awful, sinking every moment.
SIL: That is fine, by god's grace, let it continue.
SIL: Who is your doctor?
FIL: Yama
SIL: He has excellent credentials; do not change him.
SIL: What medicine are you taking?
FIL: Only visham (poison).
SIL: Best medicine in the world, do not stop taking it.

Dear Sarang,

Biographers might not always write the truth isnt it?

Anyway with regards to Durvasa and Vishwamitra losing their cool..we have to remember that both of them are not ordinary individuals and sometimes the actions of great souls liberated while living may resemble even lunacy or sometimes appear even not within the norm.Asthavakra Samhita explains the actions of such men well.

They are not bound by their actions anymore and whatever remains is just the Prarabdha Karma and their body is like a cucumber just waiting to detach from the creeper of existence(Urvarukamiva Bandhanaat).

 

[Nara]

...but to extend it to "yes Brahminism/Hinduism" is flight of fancy, because OK was never possibly much familiar with Hinduism (which is not an organizsed religion in the first place) to reject its tenets.

Dear Saidevo, Please note, I did not say Omar Khayyam had Brahminism/Hinduism in mind, however, his severe criticism of religion, priestly class, etc., do hold for Brahminism/Hinduism.

Hinduism being not an organized religion is an often repeated view, but it is true or false only to the extent of other religions as well. Islam is also not an organized religion as there is no single head who speaks for all Muslims. Even among Christians, Pope only heads the Catholic Church. Similarly, there is no siognle head who speaks for all followers of Brahminism. However, there is an authority who speaks to every follower of Brahminism/Hinduism. Wthin each sect there is a respected orthodoxy with a revered leadership who gives directives as to how one must live, much the same way heads of other religions do. Most pick and choose which of these teachings to follow, just as any other religion, Islam or Christianity.

So, OM's criticism of Islam, the religion of his time and place, applies with equal force to Brahminism/Hinduism as well.

instead of seeking to accomplish their goals within their belief, often blame the theists and their efforts of accomplishing their goals within their own belief.

Curious term you use, "blame", who is blaming the theists here, pray tell. Historically, it is the atheists who have suffered persecution at the hands of the theists. We reject theism, not the theists, but in the reverse, the theists reject the atheist.

Let us not go there Saidevo, I won't blame any theists for anything and I ask you to show the same courtesy in reverse.

As for Shelley, he saw the Spirit as the One lasting reality that activated both nature and man. He might have refuted deism but unlike many other atheists, he did not glorify science as the final answer.

Again, you are missing the point, who said anything about science here? Why are you dragging science into this discussion.

BTW, since you brought science up into this discussion, and have made an erroneous statement, I am going to have to clarify, but I have no interest in reigniting a debate on science in this thread.

Please understand that nobody glorifies "science as the final answer". In fact I don't think anybody thinks in terms of final answer. The only thing that I am concerned with is, whether something is rational or, at the very least not irrational. Scientific process is the only methodology available to us to make a determination on this question. Scientific process may very well not find a definitive answer to all the questions out there, but it is the only means available to us by which reliable answers, if possible, can be found.

While you may think there are other means to finding true knowledge, which is fine by me, please understand what my position is, which is certainly not "glorifying science as the final answer."

This should apply to both of us, isn't it Nara?

Absolutely, I couldn't agree more, keeping an open mind and an attitude to be persuaded by reason is what got me to where I am now.

Cheers!

 

[saidevo]

namaste Nara.

wrt your post #5 on Thomas Hobbes:

The Wiki page on Hobbes you have referred to also says that TH "always defended himself from such accusations" that he was an atheist or his teachings lead to atheism;

and "there is still widespread disagreement about the exact significance of Hobbes's unusual views on religion."

For all the atheism perceived in his writings by later readers, TH is 'said to have uttered the last words "A great leap in the dark" in his final moments of life.'

As regards the Epicurean paradox:
Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent.
Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?

The answer to this paradox seems tied to the concept of free will.

• Although Epicurus was first to assert human freedom as coming from a fundamental indeterminism in the motion of atoms, Epicurus follows Aristotle in his concept of free will and
clearly identifies three possible causes - "some things happen of necessity, others by chance, others through our own agency." Aristotle said some things "depend on us" (eph hemin). Epicurus agreed, and said it is to these last things that praise and blame naturally attach.
Epicurus - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Thus, when Epicurus acknowledges that the problem of evil rests with human free will, his paradoxical questions on God are only rhetorical against belief in God, without giving any solutions in his atheistic philosophy.

• Contrasting this with the teaching of our Advaita Jagadguru shrI Chandrashekara BhAratI of the Shringeri MaTham, we have a better answer to the paradox in the Hindu theory of karma:

Fate is past karma; free-will is present karma. Both are really one, that is, karma, though they may differ in the matter of time. There can be no conflict when they are really one.

By exercising your free-will in the past, you brought on the resultant fate. By exercising your free-will in the present, I want you to wipe out your past record if it hurts you, or to add to it if you find it enjoyable.

In the duality of Creation, good and evil are two poles of its axis; and when Creation involves motion, good and evil chasing each other is not a surprise. Both the atheist and the theist have their free wills to create their own world of happiness and also be responsible for it.

 

[biswa]

Newton is a great scientist without doubt. But I don't understand why members of this forum should be drawn into comparison with Newton. If you want to really want to understand where Newton stands in comparison to true intellectual giants like our great philosophers of the past, IMO he would be far behind.

Well here's the reason. The credibility of a message depends on the reputation of the messenger. If you will excuse me, something that Biswa says or Sravna says in this forum has relatively little credibility. On the other hand the works and influence of Newton are very highly regarded throughout the modern world (without getting into comparison with the unnamed philosophers you mention).

 

[biswa]

Dear Sravna,

Sometimes great individuals take re birth to reestablish the same work they had done before.
So for all we know Newton could have been a great intellectual giant from the past who has come again.

One thing common in great people of the past and present is humility.

Humility is the hall mark of a true scientist.

Dr A.P.J Abdul Kalam is the best example I can think of.

I want to support Renuka on this. Humility is the hall mark of a true soul. Scientist, atheist, everybody. As corroboration, here is an excerpt from the wikipedia page: Albert Einstein's religious views - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Einstein said: You may call me an agnostic, but I do not share the crusading spirit of the professional atheist whose fervor is mostly due to a painful act of liberation from the fetters of religious indoctrination received in youth. (sound familiar? ) I prefer an attitude of humility corresponding to the weakness of our intellectual understanding of nature and of our own being.

Attitude of humility: that is what makes a true scientist. If you already think you know everything, you will know nothing more.

 

[sravna]

Well here's the reason. The credibility of a message depends on the reputation of the messenger. If you will excuse me, something that Biswa says or Sravna says in this forum has relatively little credibility. On the other hand the works and influence of Newton are very highly regarded throughout the modern world (without getting into comparison with the unnamed philosophers you mention).

Well it is my opinion about Newton and where he stands among the geniuses. I am not saying this for acceptability by all. It is just that everyone has his own opinion and I aired mine.

 

[Nara]

...The Wiki page on Hobbes you have referred to also says that TH "always defended himself from such accusations" that he was an atheist or his teachings lead to atheism;

Dear Saidevo, you must appreciate the dangers of openly espousing atheism in his time -- even today LOL! John Stuart Mill talked about it, see one of my previous post.

Thomas Hobbs' contemporary, Galeleo, was made to recant, was imprisoned, and his books were banned. Hobbs not wanting such a fate to befall upon him is not unreasonable. So, I won't make much of his protestations and defense of accusations of atheism, I will look at the ideas he expressed.

Thus, when Epicurus acknowledges that the problem of evil rests with human free will, his paradoxical questions on God are only rhetorical against belief in God, without giving any solutions in his atheistic philosophy.

To recognize a problem does not mean one is required to provide a solution even if it is to plucked out of thin air.

Freewill is a different, complex subject; highly technical and liable to lead into another round of unresolvable debate. Besides, role of freewill of individuals cannot possibly mitigate the existence of evil that an all powerful and compassionate god, if it exists, cannot eliminate. Babies born with birth defects like cerebral palsy or autism do not do so out of their own freewill. Death and destruction caused by natural disasters do not happen out of the freewill of people. Have we not seen mere mortals try their best to help the unfortunate victims of these events? How come a compassionate and all powerful god not stop these evils? I would, if I had the power, even though my compassion can not be limitless as that of the presumed God.

If you say natural disasters are not evils, then what about the millions who were murdered by wars by many nations, Russians, Germans, Japanese, Turks, British, Americans, etc. In what way the freewill of the victims play a role in these evils?

No, if there exists a god, there might be, but I doubt it, it does not care for humanity, any more than it would care for the Zebra who gets hunted down by the lionesses while the lazy good-for-nothing lion sits and watches.

My friend, the riddle of Epicurus is not a paradox, it has an answer, and it is that there is an all powerful and compassionate God is untenable.

, we have a better answer to the paradox in the Hindu theory of karma:

Well, of course, if we are allowed to simply make things up we can conjure up a solution to any problem. But, in a rational discussion, we are not allowed that luxury.

Cheers!

 

[Yamaka]

What's humility?

My dictionary says it is "the quality of being humble".

Most Scientists have been humbled by the Awe-Inspiration of Nature... and the saying "Kattrathu Kai Mann Alavu... Kallathathu Olaga alavu"....

I can provocatively state that only the Believers lack humility... because they proudly say that their Human-like Personal Gods and the Spirits (the SNA) know it ALL.

The SNA - the Gods & Spirits - know ONLY as much as the Authors of the IDEA of these SNA & the Spirits (like the Vedic People of 1500 BC, Poets Vyasa, Valmiki, and the followers of Jesus Christs (who lived about 2000 years ago) and Prophet Muhammed about 650 AD etc etc.).

Because only these people - human beings - created the God: the SNA & the Spirits... Lol.

Innum varum...

 

[renuka]

There is a saying in Malay that goes "Siapa makan cili dia rasa pedas"

that means "the person who ate the chilli,he feels the "hot" taste"

 

[saidevo]

namaste Nara and all others.

Although I try to hold a conversation with Nara, any member might supplement or contradict the ideas I am presenting.

Post #54:
Scientific process is the only methodology available to us to make a determination on this question. Scientific process may very well not find a definitive answer to all the questions out there, but it is the only means available to us by which reliable answers, if possible, can be found.

• The scientist, atheist and theist--all only use their mind and intellect to research possible solutions to the problems of life and world. To both the scientist and atheist, the mind is the physical brain, whereas to the theist mind is a subtle organ--antaHkaraNa.

• The scientist relies on physical instruments he invents to prove/supplement the findings of his mind and believes that the answers thus arrived at are valid, empirical and verifiably objective.

• The atheist relies on science as a rational means of expression of his philosophy and trusts its authority. Still, all his rationality and ratiocination are only expressions of human mind, although the atheist ignores what can't be proved to his rational mind or physical senses.

• The theist trusts the authority of his gurus who have done all the mental processing for him; but the gurus also encourage him to verify the apparently subjective answers through contemplation and meditation.

• Now, while the theist admits the validity of the answers provided by science in the realm of physical world, both the scientist and the atheist would have none of the contemplative or meditative methods of the theist under the pretext that they are not rational.

Thus, it is a question of mind and matter where the theist takes the side that mind is not matter, while the other two believe that mind is only matter. The irony is that when the mind is closed over matter for them, the scientist and atheist believe it to be open and exhort the theist to have an 'open mind'!

 

[sravna]

Good points Shri. Saidevo. The physical evidence should act only as a corroboration. You can have a situation say like Quantum Physics, where is no convincing explanation for the math behind it and the science stands only on experimental support. But quantum physics is hailed as one of the greatest intellectual achievements of science. What a tragedy! To me this is a problem with science. You really do not need to understand something as long as you are able to make something work or as long as you can predict it. With such a philosophy you are bound to have inconsistencies in your knowledge and the need for a deeper intuitive understanding would be felt sooner or later.

 

[sarang]

In a nutshell, theists believe that there is more than what is perceived by one's senses and what can be demonstrated with physical aids; but atheists bull headedly refuse to see more than what is in front of their noses. And what is worse, an atheist wants to convert everyone to his level, as followers of communism, christianity and islam are keen on. Our faith allows all these isms to co-exist and gives them freedom to follow what they want. A monochromatic ism like communism has to be destroyed as in Russia for other isms to survive.

 

[sarma-61]

Learned members,

The "god fallacy" arises because God is nowhere else except within you, me and every living being; may be it is in all the so-called "non-living" (i.e., things like rock, sand, water, etc.) also but it will be very difficult for a human being to understand or experience the presence of "God" in such things.

So, people like Prof. Nara are correct when they say there is no God such as the ones projected by different religions. But if one looks inside one's own self deeply and meditates on what is life, it will be possible to understand, find and experience God within. Once a person achieves this he can either keep happily quiet in the fashion described by Saint Arunagirinathar in his words -

ASA nikaLam tukaLAyina pin
pESA anubhUti piRantatuvE

or,

such a person may still get deluded that he is verily GOD and pretend so, just as some of the famous Godmen of the last century did, delude large number of people and then die just as miserably as any human being !

 

[Iyyarooraan]

தெய்வம் என்றால் அது தெய்வம், வெறும் சிலை என்றால் அது சிலைதான். உண்டு என்றால் அது உண்டு, இல்லை என்றால் அது இல்லை - கண்ணதாசன்.

 

[Nara]

....Although I try to hold a conversation with Nara, any member might supplement or contradict the ideas I am presenting.

Dear Saidevo, don't worry, nobody is going to contradict your ideas .

• The scientist, atheist and theist

We talk about science all the time, and it always ends the same way, we go around several rounds stating our views and finally get tired of saying the same thing over and over again and stop. Since we have done this many times I would like to be excused from this round of the same old same old. As I said earlier, here in this thread, I want to present some of the thoughts of serious thinkers about God and religion.

... but atheists bull headedly refuse to see more than what is in front of their noses.

My dear brother sarang, why must you do this always, just make some comment but never enter into a reasonable discussion? Please tell me, what is it that I am bullheadedly refusing to see? Yes, I do refuse to see what is not out there, but why do you think I am doing this in a bullheaded fashion? Please be assured, I did not come to my view lightly, I thought long and hard, it was not easy to jettison something that I valued highly for many years. So, I really would like to know why you are saying I am being bullheaded, which means I am being foolishly or irrationally stubborn; headstrong and obstinate?

And what is worse, an atheist wants to convert everyone to his level, as followers of communism, christianity and islam are keen on. Our faith allows all these isms to co-exist and gives them freedom to follow what they want. A monochromatic ism like communism has to be destroyed as in Russia for other isms to survive.

I don't want to convert anyone to my level, let your god forbid it. All I am doing here is presenting the thoughts from philosophers from the recent past. To get persuaded or not is the reader's business.

On the other hand, you say you want to destroy "A monochromatic ism like communism as in Russia". This unnamed monochromatic ism that must be destroyed like communism in Russia must be atheism I suppose, and now I going to cite a viral song for the second time in a span of just few hours, "why this kolai veri di"? Why must my ism be destroyed for your ism, and other isms, to survive?

BTW, fyi, the Communist party is the largest opposition party in Russia behind United Russia Party.

I wish you would talk to me than make declarative statements, but then I realize people like me are not worthy of your direct engagement, I understand.

Cheers!

 

[saidevo]

namaste Nara.

I had only invited--not worried--when I said, "any member might supplement or contradict the ideas I am presenting".

I understand your purpose in this thread, so it would be okay with me if you choose not to respond to anything I write on science in this thread.

I think you have declared yourself to be an atheist in practice and agnostic in thinking, so wrt Sarma's post #61, what is your position on an immanent God?

 

[saidevo]

namaste Sarang.

I am reminded of the song in TiruvaruTch cheLvar:

uyirE azhukkuth thuNi uvar maNNE nam piRappu
bhoo ulaga vAzhkkai ennum pollAdha kallinilE
mOdhi adikkaiyilE mutRum kasakkaiyilE
Adhisivan ennum AtRil varum veLLaththilE
azhukkellAm veLukkudhadA veLLaiyappA

Favorite analogies in TFM

Guru the washer man, disciple is the cloth
The name of God liken to the soap
Wash the mind on foundation firm
To realize the glow of Truth

kabir

 

[KRS]

Folks,

Here is a fascinating long conversation between Dr. Dawkins, the famous atheist and one Dr. Collins who was in charge of the genome project on God and Science. Dr. Collins is a Christian and so looks for answers to the grand questions of 'Whys' from the perspective of a dualist God. He argues that Science can only answer the question 'how?'. Dr. Dawkins' position is well known.

Please do not miss the summation from each on his position at the end of the article and Dr. Dawkin's last sentence is indeed fascinating.

God vs. Science - TIME

Regards,
KRS

 

[Nara]

....I think you have declared yourself to be an atheist in practice and agnostic in thinking, so wrt Sarma's post #61, what is your position on an immanent God?

Dear Saidevo, my agnosticism is one of technical necessity borne out of the practical inability to prove the nonexistence of God, just as the non-existence of a celestial teapot circling the sun cannot be proved.

I do not subscribe to the idea of any immanent divinity, there is no ghost in the machine, or in nature. We may feel or experience such a presence as Sarma implies, but that is not an irrefutable proof of its existence. The I-consciousness we feel is a product of all the parallel computing going on in our heads. The "spiritual" feelings we experience are product of neurons.

Obviously, this is my theory, one I would like to think I have come up with, for myself, after careful study and thinking.

Cheers!

 

[saidevo]

namaste everyone.

This post is not to refute anything in Nara's post #23 on Spinoza, but only an attempt to dispel any wrong notions of comparison.

Spinoza and Advaita

Although some Western scholars (chiefly Max Muller and HP Blavatsky) found Spinoza's philosophy similar to Advaita, people have pointed out the vital differences, which are paraphrased below:

• Spinoza's God=Nature/Universe idea talks about a deity that has parts; in Advaita, Brahman has no parts.
• Spinoza's God has (infinitely many) attributes, whereas Brahman in Advaita is NirguNa.
• Although Spinoza talks of divine manifestation in all things and beings of the universe, he never explicitly says that Brahman=Atman (Self), as in Advaita.
([Advaita-l] western monism/pantheism)

• A society that follows Advaita acts within the concepts of dharma and ahimsA. Everyone is aware of the retributive effects of the law of karma and is aware of the individual's responsibility for his/her actions.

• In Spinoza's society, God is responsible for everything that happens, an idea that can hardly reconcile the conflicts and turmoils of life. When he talks about a single, divine substance (essence) undergoing modes or modifications and thus acquiring attributes, and does not speak about the relative realities of these three states, it seems to be a far cry from Advaita.
(Advaita and Spinoza's ethics)

• Advaita's non-dualistic Absolutism is uncompromosing. Simply because some Western thinkers have advocated monism, for example, Parmenides, Plato, Spinoza, Hegel, Bradley, Bosanquet or the unifying vision of mystics, does not mean that there is an exact parallel to Advaita's Brahman/Atman.--Problems and perspectives in religious discourse: Advaita Vedanta implications By John A. Grimes, John Grimes (Google books)

 

[Nara]

John Stuart Mill

Writing about his father and what he taught him, John Stuart Mill says of his father's view of religion:

"As it was, his aversion to religion, in the sense usually attached to the term, was of the same kind with that of Lucretius: he regarded it with the feeling due not to a mere mental delusion, but to a great moral evil. He looked upon it as the greatest enemy of morality: first by setting up factitious excellencies, - belief in creeds, devotional feelings, and ceremonies, not connected with the good of human kind, - and causing these to be accepted as substitutes for genuine virtues: but above all, by radically vitiating the standard morals; making it consist in doing the will of a being, on whom it lavishes indeed all the phrases of adulation, but whom in sober truth it depicts as eminently hateful."
​

 

[prasad1]

If I say I saw a black cat go into a dark room, how can a blind man disprove it and say I am just imagining it.
To disprove you need to shine the light, a seeing person must explore every corner of the room, and still the cat might have left by this time. So it still does not disprove my original contention. If a motion sensing camera was there I can prove what I said, but I have no need as I know what I saw, that is that.

 

[sravna]

Shri Nara believes in this logic:

Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil? Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God? -- Epicurus

Here's similar logic:

Is a doctor willing to not administer injection to an infant, but not does not know how? Then he is not well qualified. He knows to administer but is not willing. Then he is not doing his duty. He is neither willing nor knows to administer. Then he is not fit to be a doctor. He is willing and knows to administer. Then why does he pain the child?

Can Shri.Nara and other atheists understand which part of the logic is fallacious?