The god fallacy

[saidevo]

Share:

Facebook X (Twitter) LinkedIn WhatsApp Email Share Link

namaste Nara.

This has reference to your post #172.

Let us look at what the Wiki article says, "this argument may have been wrongly attributed to Epicurus by Lactantius..." You take a "may have been" to a status of undisputed fact.

The full Wiki quote is (bullets added):
This type of trilemma argument (God is omnipotent, God is good, but Evil exists) was one favoured by the ancient Greek skeptics,

• and this argument may have been wrongly attributed to Epicurus by Lactantius, who, from his Christian perspective, regarded Epicurus as an atheist.[2]

• According to Reinhold F. Glei, it is settled that the argument of theodicy is from an academical source which is not only not epicurean, but even anti-epicurean.[3]

• The earliest extant version of this trilemma appears in the writings of the skeptic Sextus Empiricus.[4]

The time of Epicurus is 341-270 BCE, and the time of Sextus Empiricus is c160-210 CE). If the earliest extant version of this trilemma appears in the writings of the skeptic Sextus Empiricus, how can it be even attributed to Epicurus?

Further evidence is given in the Wiki article on trilemma:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trilemma

that the quote is "as summarised by David Hume" and that "Although traditionally ascribed to Epicurus, it has been suggested that it may actually be the work of an early skeptic writer, possibly Carneades.[3]"

I have also given a second link in my post #162, which speaks nothing about the quote:
http://theosophytrust.org/tlodocs/articlesTeacher.php?d=Epicurus.htm&p=41

You asked me:
Next, on what basis did you come to the conclusion that if the quote was not by Epicurus, then it must be from a crackpot?

• I was reading this post before I found out about the quote being wrongly attributed to Epicurus:
http://www.physicsforums.com/showpost.php?p=62144&postcount=5

• Notice the 'enhancement' given to the quote from the version "As recorded by Lactantius:" in the Wiki article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epicureanism

the way David Hume summarised it here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trilemma

and what you quote in your signature, it is certainly like an urban legend, deliberately worked up on the Internet--poor Epicurus!

Thirdly, in a discussion on the validity of the quote, ambiguity regarding who the quote is attributed to is irrelevant.

• I consider the quote as having loaded questions, similar to the question "Have you stopped beating your wife?"

• Further I have discussed the possible answers in the light of free-will and with the analogy of a novelist, and these are satisfactory answers for me.

Welcome to skepticism dear Saidevo. "I don't know" is a very good start.

• I am not averse to logical skepticism that admits all possibilities and realitiees--physical and metaphysical. In this case, as I said, I don't personally know the answer "at this level of my spiritual advancement". Notice that I also said that I believe in the "religious and spiritual paradigm given by Self-realized gurus for the contradiction".

I notice that you have skipped the penultimate paragraph of my post #167, wherein I have asked about how the atheists, based on science, would rationalize the evil and suffering prevalent in the world. You said in post #71 that The "spiritual" feelings we experience are product of neurons. Why not say something on that line about evil and suffering too?

I hope our friend Yamaka may come up with an answer from his field of specialization.

 

[C RAVI]

Let's see if we can derive certain qualities of God based on a basic assumption:

Assumption: God is beyond space and time

Form this omniscience, meaning all-knowing follows. Only something that is all knowing can become eternal. Otherwise there is always a possibility that is not known to the entity that might cause its end.

Omnipotence is concurrent with omniscience because it can accomplish anything with its perfect knowledge.

The state of bliss of a timeless entity follows from an extrapolation of our common experience. Time flows fast when experiences are pleasant. Einstein, while talking about relativity, in a lighter vein is supposed to have said that time passes swiftly when we spend it with a beautiful woman. Therefore in a timeless entity, we may reasonably conclude that the experience should be blissful.

Ok so based on our assumption that God is eternal we say he is omniscient, omnipotent, and is in a blissful state.

We know according to our scriptures , moksha is granted to every being, so that blissful state is the ultimate state of every soul. Scriptures also focus on the conditions for attaining moksha. So the aim of God is to to let you reach that blissful state. If it is necessary that all the qualities of God are attained after going through certain conditions, to put it explicitly after pains and pleasures, then they indeed have to be fulfilled. It doesn't diminish at all God's intentions. So we can conclude that God is also compassionate.

Shri Sravan,

The problem here is, Atheists are discarding GOD/Spirituality alltogether stating, why should God wants each soul to suffer and attain the blissful state? Instead why not granting the blissfull state straight away? Why should God have the agenda to make the people undergo and feel the pains emotionally and physically during their life time, be righteous still, get through the process of purification stage by stage untill everything been experienced and a balanced & perfect knowledge been obtained and at last be liberated once for all?

But since they reject GOD/Spirituality, they say, the presence of GOD and his omniscient, omnipotent and omnipresent qualities and that of Karma Theory are all nothing but the brain storm of some cruel men who wanted to exploit gullible people, backing up their preaches by some imaginary epic stories to support and justify their preaching.


When this is the case, how can even a best possible claims supporting Theist's POV can be expected to be accepted by Atheists?

All I would like to tell them is - Stope questioning any Theists. Just keep introspecting within onself, while realizing the real life time experiences, while going through each phases of life and get into your own conclusion.

Offcourse they can question Theists and Theists can question Atheists in a debate programs like this, to get their brains stimulated and have a good pass time.

 

[Nara]

On God's compassion

I would like to present a powerful critique of God's mercy by Mark Twain - a must read:

We hear much about His mercy and kindness and goodness -- in words -- the words of His Book and of His pulpit -- and the meek multitude is content with this evidence, such as it is, seeking no further; but whoso searcehth after a concreted sample of it will in time acquire fatigue. There being no instance of it. ..... To rescue without personal risk a cripple from a burning house is not a mercy, it is a mere commonplace duty; anybody would do it that could. And not by proxy, either -- delegating the work but confiscating the credit for it. If men neglected "God's poor" and "God's stricken and helpless ones" as He does, what would become of them? The answer is to be found in those dark lands where man follows His example and turns his indifferent back upon them: they get no help at all; they cry, and plead and pray in vain, they linger and suffer, and miserably die. If you will look at the matter rationally and without prejudice, the proper place to hunt for the facts of His mercy, is not where man does the mercies and He collects the praise, but in those regions where He has the field to Himself.

 

[C RAVI]

Dear Ravi, you may not change, but the world is fast changing.

I am afraid you and your Theist friends will be long forgotten in the New Era...all due to the immense power of logic and SET.. and in spite of SNA!

Watch out.

LOLLLLL

I have heared of plenty of Atheists/Scientists/Agnostics in this modern era, from every walk of life, from across the Globe, have rejected Atheism and embrassed Theism out of their real life time experiences and realization. They have openly declared and honestly don't feel that they would shame themself by such open acceptance. You see, because they have realized and are happy to have the realizations.


Shri Yamaka, I honor, appreciate and often get wonder stuck at the spectacular acheivements of SET. And I know that me and theists people like me are very much part and parcel of the whole majority of believers, including many those who have contributed and contributing greatly for the success of SET.

Colorful and informative ATLAS to know the geograpy well and some systematically generated Statistics to support certain claims, published through Internet etc. never can succeed in misleading people who could know what the reality about the Theism/Atheism could be, across the Globe.

 

[Mayuram V.Sankaran]

Dear MVS, you are most welcome to intervene with your views and I am sure Shri Saidevo will welcome it too, as he has always opened his posts with such a welcome. Going further, I really thank you for reading my posts and caring to respond, I appreciate it.

I don't envisage anything dear MVS, in fact I reject a creator God who cares for the human condition. All this is no more than an inquiry about the assertion of theists that there exists a God, who is omnipotent and benevolent. If you don't assert this, then we don't have an argument. But I have a feeling you do, if so, please state your counter. This is not about what I envisage, but what the theists claim.

Now, given an omnipotent and benevolent God who has the power either to give free-will or free his creations from suffering, the substantive question is what would that God choose to do, give free-will and let his creations that he so loves go about and suffer, or free them from suffering? Heck, with very limited compassion that I have I will choose the later in a NY second.

If this God chooses to give free-will, at the very least a tiny portion of his compassion, which must still be infinite as he starts out with an infinite amount of it, give his creations perfect wisdom as well to choose correctly. It is downright sadistic, IMO, given he has the powers to do whatever he so wishes, to bestow free-will to screw it up, but not the perfect wisdom to avoid screw it all up.

I must say, I have more respect for an all powerful, benevolent God, if such a thing exists, as I think it would act compassionately. It is indeed a mystery to me that the theists have such a low opinion of a God you guys believe in!!!

Dear MVS, you are deftly changing the topic, it is not about what I want, it is about what an omnipotent and benevolent God would do if it exists.

Dear MVS, I am not trying to fashion the world in any shape or form, I don't have the power nor the inclination. The question is the rational validity of a personal God who cares for human condition, that is all. Let us stick to it.

This is progress, you are admitting you have no idea about this God of yours, you have eviscerated theism and are embracing agnosticism, that is good!!

Cheers!

Shri Nara, It is not at all correct to say that I am changing the topic under consideration, that is, 'The God Fallacy', whether deftly or otherwise.

In your write-ups, you pick on all the believers of 'God' for attributing to their 'God' the powers of 'Omnipresence, Omniscience and Omnipotence' and then go on to ask rhetorically that if their 'God' is also considered 'All Compassionate' ('Sarva Karunya', as Saidevo puts it), then why does 'He' allow for any 'free will' to the human beings to choose 'good' from 'bad' with all its implications and consequences, that is, the power to do 'harm' in varied ways and thus cause a lot of 'suffering' in this world. You go on to add in almost all your replies that if you, as a 'limited transient being' like all other human beings, were to play 'God', that is, have a modicum of 'His' power even, then you would be 'much more compassionate' and 'free everyone from suffering'!

Therefore, in the ultimate analysis you want to put an 'end to all suffering' in the world!

Further, since 'suffering' is 'the common lot' of 'all living things' on this earth other than human beings, as have any feeling, I would presume that you would want to put an end to their 'suffering' also in whatever form, however 'limited' their 'level of consciousness of their own suffering' may be as compared to, say, human beings.

Moreover, since human beings, who are a part of 'Nature', are not the only source of 'suffering' in this world, but 'Nature' also wreaks its own 'calamities' periodically, like the earthquakes, volcanic eruptions, floods, fire, and so forth, leaving a trail of 'death, destruction and suffering', I would presume that you would want to 'fashion Nature' itself in such a manner to take away that power, if you were to play 'God', or at least have a modicum of such powers.

So we are not drifting away from the topic. Your repeated argument on these pages is that since 'God' does not do all that you, as a human being endowed with even a limited power of 'reason' and 'emotion', would do, the whole conceptualization of 'God' in such terms is 'fallacious'!

Based on that line of argument, we come to the oft-raised question, why does a 'God', presumably benevolent, allow for 'suffering' in this world?

In that context, your question can be answered with only a counter-question. My question to you is: why do you want to avoid 'suffering'?

That is where you change the topic, shall we say, 'deftly', and claim that it is not at all about what you want, or how you want to 'fashion the world in any shape or form', but the 'rational validity' of a 'personal God', who is claimed to be 'benevolent' and 'caring for human condition' would do, if 'He' were to be really 'Omnipresent, Omniscient and Omnipotent' as attributed to 'Him'!

Just stop and think at this stage. Are you not 'projecting' what you would do, if you were that 'God' with all the 'attributes' as conceived by the theists to 'Him'?

And that begs the question: why should that 'God' adopt your 'thoughts' or 'feelings', even if that were the 'common thoughts and feelings of human beings' all over the world, and 'shape' that 'Nature', which includes us, 'human beings' within its fold, accordingly?

Remember, with or without a belief in a 'God', mankind has attempted over the centuries to take control of their 'destinies', so to speak, for lack of a better word, and 'shape' a world where 'dharma', as they could conceive of it, reigns and all people living in a society so regulate their conduct as to 'sub-serve to the common good' in their common drive for 'material acquisitions' ('artha') and 'sensory pleasures' ('kama'). Has mankind really succeeded in their attempt? Even in the 'New World'? Even in an 'affluent society', like the United States of America, where a 'majority' identify themselves as 'middle class'? Why is there such a yawning gap between people's 'aspirations' and their 'achievement'? Even if they purport to be guided by their 'reason' and not by their 'belief' in an 'Almighty God'? [The American currency still reads: "In God we trust"!]

The answer, my friend, is 'blowing in the wind', as one song-writer puts it! The state of 'misery' and 'suffering' in the world is not because of 'religious beliefs', as someone like 'Yamaka' would have it. As originally conceived, the 'religions' of the world tried to teach the human beings 'values' and to abide by some laid down 'norms'. There are any number of other causes, based on superficial differences, like race, color, language, region, gender, and so forth, and the various types and forms of 'discrimination', 'iniquities' and 'injustices' associated with them, which seem to come to us naturally, that cause a 'conflict' and consequent 'misery' and 'suffering' in the world. The 'desire for dominance' also leads to 'violence' among human beings very often.

To conclude, 'suffering' is inbuilt into existence as we know it. Otherwise, we cannot know 'bliss'. The 'pairs of opposites' and the many 'contradictions' would continue to govern our lives. Being 'mortal' is itself a 'source of suffering' and at the same time, a 'relief'. The various 'ailments' of this body and mind complex, is another source of 'suffering', whether one is affluent or not, but they help us to understand the meaning of 'well-being'. 'Old age' is both a 'curse' and also a 'blessing in disguise'! The list could go on without there being an end to it. The sooner you got wiser to all that, the better, I would say. Thank you.

 

[Nara]

...and what you quote in your signature, it is certainly like an urban legend, deliberately worked up on the Internet--poor Epicurus!

Wow saidevo, you have elevated it to a certainty now. Let it be, whether it is wrongly attributed to Epicurus or rightly done, you have to have that debate with somebody else, my interest is in the quote, not who it is attributed to.

• I consider the quote as having loaded questions, similar to the question "Have you stopped beating your wife?"

• Further I have discussed the possible answers in the light of free-will and with the analogy of a novelist, and these are satisfactory answers for me.

I have already shown the utter weakness of both answers, please go back and read my replies.

• I am not averse to logical skepticism that admits all possibilities and realitiees-

Saying this is easy, but to be open to skepticism requires the courage to jettison long held superstitions. Handed down uncritical wisdom of Gurus with what you call self-realization is a matter of blind belief, no rational basis to qualify to be seen with agnosticism. If you insist it works for you, no problem, enjoy!!

I notice that you have skipped the penultimate paragraph of my post #167, wherein I have asked about how the atheists, based on science, would rationalize the evil and suffering prevalent in the world. You said in post #71 that The "spiritual" feelings we experience are product of neurons. Why not say something on that line about evil and suffering too?

I will be happy to discuss that in a different thread, I invite you to start one. I don't want this thread to get side tracked into that discussion.

Cheers!

 

[saidevo]

namaste Sravna and Ravi.

Wrt your post #174, Sravna, I think God omniscience comes from his omnipresence. Since knowledge is power, his omniscience gives him omnipotence. His blissful/peaceful state is the result of there being none other than him.

How peaceful are many of us at home when our wife is gone to her parents home? This peaceful state for the husband (or wife vice versa) comes from the realization that he/she is alone and independent at home!

We human souls are married to our material sheaths and thus experience their sensuous endowments. God knows that the day we realize the impermanence of the connections, we would be free from evil and suffering and understand his compassion in a better way.

Wrt your post #177, Ravi, I think our aim is not to convince the atheists, but to find answers that suit our postion as theists, to the queries they raise--where they are logical.

 

[sravna]

Shri Sravan,

The problem here is, Atheists are discarding GOD/Spirituality alltogether stating, why should God wants each soul to suffer and attain the blissful state? Instead why not granting the blissfull state straight away? Why should God have the agenda to make the people undergo and feel the pains emotionally and physically during their life time, be righteous still, get through the process of purification stage by stage untill everything been experienced and a balanced & perfect knowledge been obtained and at last be liberated once for all?

But since they reject GOD/Spirituality, they say, the presence of GOD and his omniscient, omnipotent and omnipresent qualities and that of Karma Theory are all nothing but the brain storm of some cruel men who wanted to exploit gullible people, backing up their preaches by some imaginary epic stories to support and justify their preaching.


When this is the case, how can even a best possible claims supporting Theist's POV can be expected to be accepted by Atheists?

All I would like to tell them is - Stope questioning any Theists. Just keep introspecting within onself, while realizing the real life time experiences, while going through each phases of life and get into your own conclusion.

Offcourse they can question Theists and Theists can question Atheists in a debate programs like this, to get their brains stimulated and have a good pass time.

Dear Ravi,

Let us consider only the compassionate thing now. The other qualities logically follow from the basic assumption of eternal existence. The best way to answer your question is to consider what is suggested by the atheists for God to be considered compassionate, which is why can't God grant the blissful state right away? To understand this, we have to rely on the ingenious theory of Advaita.

Remember there is an omnipotent, omniscient, eternal entity in a state of bliss. Let me start with the fact that there can be only one omnipotent entity. This implies that there can be only one omniscient and one eternal entity, these concepts being interrelated. Thus there is only one ultimate reality and other realities are transient and only its lower realities.

So what we see as different beings are in essence the same single being. So you cannot strictly say that it is causing pain to the worldly beings since it is more apt to say it is causing pain and pleasures to itself at a lower level but when experienced holistically at a higher level that is bliss. The main idea is, as Sankara beautifully explains is that creation and lower beings happen as a nature of God just as say breathing happens in the lower beings.

So the quality of compassion doesn't seem to exist only when we consider God and wordly beings as separate notions and once the bigger scheme of things is understood, we understand why evil exits. To be more explicit, evil exists because it shows that God is eternal, and possesses other qualities such as onmiscience etc because as we see in the lower reality, sufferings can produce
such good qualities. It is the way nature is built.

 

[sravna]

namaste Sravna and Ravi.

Wrt your post #174, Sravna, I think God omniscience comes from his omnipresence. Since knowledge is power, his omniscience gives him omnipotence. His blissful/peaceful state is the result of there being none other than him.

I more or less agree with you. Omnipresence or eternal existence either is fine. Blissful state may also be due to his omniscience and omnipotence.

 

[saidevo]

namaste Nara.

This has reference to your post #181.

• I said the answers of free-will and the analogy of a novelist "are satisfactory answers for me", so thanks for your opinion of 'utter weakness' in them.

• Yes, our gurus' guidance towards self-realization works for me: I am convinced intellectually, although it is a long way experientially. The labels you ascribe to my beliefs and concepts do not affect me.

• Even as you ask me to have the courage "to jettison long held superstitions", I notice that you lack that same courage to jettison tenuously clutching to Epicurus for the validity of the quote, despite the contrary evidences I have shown. All that you can say is, "Wow saidevo, you have elevated it to a certainty now", and not something like, "Yes, it looks almost certain that the quote is wrongly attributed to Epicurus, although it still has its validity."

Assigning labels, ridiculing the concepts and beliefs of theists, and blindly dismissing their words--you and Yamaka specialize in it--are easy; what is difficult is to find and explain any answers within your own beliefs of atheism/agnosticism/emprical science.

 

[Nara]

....In that context, your question can be answered with only a counter-question. My question to you is: why do you want to avoid 'suffering'?

Dear MVS, from your admission that "[my] question can be answered with only a counter-question" it is clear the proposition is vindicated as it stands, but a new proposition is being put forth. Be that as it may, I have already given my answer to your counter-question, which is not very different from what you are saying. Indeed we are projecting our own notions of good and evil upon a presumed God, but it is the theists who are doing the projecting and I am only questioning it. In as far as I am an atheist, I can't project anything on a God whose reality I reject.

The Theists attribute human qualities of potentiality and compassion to God and elevate it to infinity by saying He is omnipotent and an ocean of compassion. These are but mere projections of human qualities. In as much as this God is manufactured by the human mind and upon whom human qualities are projected, albeit in the extreme, I would like to put it to test by projecting what we humans consider good and evil upon this asserted omnipotent and compassionate God. This is nothing but a "what-if" test. As I have shown, this presumed God of omnipotence and utmost benevolence fails this test miserably. Therefore, the only rational conclusion we are permitted is, there is no such God, one who cares about what we think of as evil, good, or moral.

Whether there is a God who does not care about human condition or what we think of as evil and good is an open question, about which we can only be agnostic. But, given the implausibility of it, I speculate even that God does not exist, while readily conceding it is only a conjecture.

The state of 'misery' and 'suffering' in the world is not because of 'religious beliefs', as someone like 'Yamaka' would have it. As originally conceived, the 'religions' of the world tried to teach the human beings 'values' and to abide by some laid down 'norms'. There are any number of other causes, based on superficial differences, like race, color, language, region, gender, and so forth, and the various types and forms of 'discrimination', 'iniquities' and 'injustices' associated with them, which seem to come to us naturally, that cause a 'conflict' and consequent 'misery' and 'suffering' in the world. The 'desire for dominance' also leads to 'violence' among human beings very often.

I am not sure I understand your point. I agree that misery, suffering, bliss, pleasure are natural human emotions, they are integral to our existence. God and religion have nothing to do with it. So, it is a tautology to say getting rid of God and Religion will not eradicate these emotions.

However, it is an indisputable fact that God and Religion are very easy and convenient tools, as if they are made for this very purpose, to be used to make people do evil things. Human history is littered with numerous examples. But that is a different topic, one that has also been discussed many time here and I have no wish to start another round of it all over again.

Discussions on god and religion have been going on for millennia, and for years in this forum as well. I have clearly stated my world view many times in the past. It is not uncommon for members here to criticize us freethinkers as though we are somehow damaged, we turned away from God because of disappointment with God, some personal calamity, or we have some sort of defect in our brain structure, or we lack moral core, bound to do bad evil things, and many such arguments. The intent behind this thread is to show that many great thinkers have rejected faith and religion and gone on to live productive and moral lives. Also, this rejection of faith came at great personal cost to many of these thinkers.

Thank you.

 

[Nara]

...Assigning labels, ridiculing the concepts and beliefs of theists, and blindly dismissing their words--you and Yamaka specialize in it--are easy; what is difficult is to find and explain any answers within your own beliefs of atheism/agnosticism/emprical science.

Dear Saidevo, this is an unfair characterization. Please show me where I blindly dismissed your words, I have always tried to respond as best as I can.

Regarding ridiculing concepts and beliefs, this is a matter of perspective. Arguing against faith in God and superstitions is a perilous task, one that can be easily accused as "ridiculing". If you think I ridiculed your beliefs, all I can do is say sorry, no ridicule was meant, but I can't say I didn't mean any of my arguments.

Cheers!

 

[Nara]

Mark Twain on fly

I give below a lightly edited version of Mark Twain's hilarious deconstruction of design using a common fly. It starts out quite funny, but turns into a scathing indictment of the supposed Creator.

The planning of the fly was an application of pure intelligence, morals not being concerned. Not one of us could have planned the fly, not one of us could have constructed him, and no one would have considered it wise to try, except under an assumed name.

[...]

There is much inconsistency concerning the fly. In all the ages he has not had a friend, there has never been a person in the earth who could have been persuaded to intervene between him and extermination; yet billions of persons have excused the Hand that made him -- and this without a blush. Would they have excused a Man in the same circumstances, a man positively known to have invented the fly? ....

When we reflect that the fly was as not invented for pastime, but in the way of business; that he was not flung off in a heedless moment ... but was the fruit of long and pains-taking labor and calculation, and with a definite and far-reaching, purpose in view; that his character and conduct were planned out with cold deliberation, that his career was foreseen and fore-ordered, and that there was no want which he could supply, we are hopelessly puzzled, we cannot understand the moral lapse that was able to render possible the conceiving and the consummation of this squalid malevolent creature.

[...]

If we can imagine such a man, that is the man that could invent the fly, and send him out on his mission and furnish him his orders: "Depart into the uttermost corners of the earth, and diligently do your appointed work. Persecute the sick child; settle upon its eyes, its face, its hands, and gnaw and pester and sting; worry and fret and madden the worn and tired mother who watches by the child, and who humbly prays for mercy and relief with the pathetic faith of the deceived and the unteachable.... with none to listen but you, Fly, who get all the petting and all the protection, without even praying for it. Hurry and persecute the forlorn and forsaken wretch who is perishing of the plague, and in his terror and despair praying; bite, sting, feed upon his ulcers, dabble your feet in his rotten blood, gum them thick with plague-germs -- feet cunningly designed and perfected for this function ages ago in the beginning -- carry this freight to a hundred tables, among the just and the unjust, the high and the low, and walk over the food and gaum it with filth and death. Visit all; allow no man peace till he get it in the grave; visit and afflict the hard-working and unoffending horse, mule, ox, ass, pester the patient cow, and all the kindly animals that labor without fair reward here and perish without hope of it hereafter; spare not creature, wild or tame; but wheresoever you find one, make his life a misery, treat him as the innocent deserve; and so please Me and increase My glory Who made the fly"

 

[Mayuram V.Sankaran]

Dear MVS, I am not sure I understand your point. I agree that misery, suffering, bliss, pleasure are natural human emotions, they are integral to our existence. God and religion have nothing to do with it. So, it is a tautology to say getting rid of God and Religion will not eradicate these emotions.

However, it is an indisputable fact that God and Religion are very easy and convenient tools, as if they are made for this very purpose, to be used to make people do evil things. Human history is littered with numerous examples. But that is a different topic, one that has also been discussed many time here and I have no wish to start another round of it all over again.

Discussions on god and religion have been going on for millennia, and for years in this forum as well. I have clearly stated my world view many times in the past. It is not uncommon for members here to criticize us freethinkers as though we are somehow damaged, we turned away from God because of disappointment with God, some personal calamity, or we have some sort of defect in our brain structure, or we lack moral core, bound to do bad evil things, and many such arguments. The intent behind this thread is to show that many great thinkers have rejected faith and religion and gone on to live productive and moral lives. Also, this rejection of faith came at great personal cost to many of these thinkers.

Thank you.

Shri Nara, I agree with you that many people want to be 'free thinkers' these days uninflenced by the religious conceptions of the 'primitive' period, the 'medieval' period and the 'modern' period of recent date. In particular, 'organized' religions, like 'Judaism', 'Christianity' and 'Islam', have come under heavy criticism as having a tendency to perpetuate their organzational interests more than promote the 'spiritual welfare' of their followers. 'Unorganized' and 'amorphous' religions, like 'Hinduism', which comprise within its fold various schools of thought, sects, customs and traditions, depending on the region and the linguistic, cultural group concerned, may be more 'flexible' since one can claim to be a 'Hindu' in various 'official forms' without reading any scripture, going to any temple, or doing any rituals, or indulging in any 'prayers, pujas or bhajans'! I am sure that in the 'developed and liberal' nations of the world also people may be paying 'lip service' to the 'ancient' religions of the world for it suits them to identify with and belong to some such groups at least officially for they do not want to be 'differentiated' and 'discriminated' against!

However, i do not think that it is wiser to reject all notions of 'God' along with the ancient religious thoughts for that would be to throw the proverbial 'baby out with the bathwater'. Even if you think that this 'Universe' originated with a 'Big Bang' of some 'heavily condensed matter' which exploded for some unknown reason, the proverbial question remains: From where did that 'heavily condensed matter' come from? You see, we can only 'speculate' upon the 'origin of the Universe' as we know it and cannot be 'definitive' about anything! So also, about the 'origin of life' on this earth. You may believe in the 'hypothesis of evolution' as offering a 'credible' explanation to the mystery of these varied forms of life on earth including the 'ascent of man' from ape-like creatures. Still you have to address the question: Why there is such a 'vast gulf' between the 'characteristics' of a human being and the chimpanzee that shares 96% of the genes of the human being! Or for that matter the question: Why are we not witnessing any further evoution in a physical sense even though we, as human beings, may be evolving 'socially' and 'culturally'!

Further, you see, we are 'transient' beings in this world and what may be giving us the 'illusion of permanancy' may be our ability to develop a 'language' and accrue our 'heritage' through it. That is how we become 'conscious' of the 'thoughts' and 'feelings' of our ancients. In spite of our many scientific and technological achievements, we 'know' our 'shortcomings' and 'limitations' and how little 'control' we have over 'Nature' itself of which we are a part. In the nature of things, therefore, it has been inferred or intuited, or, if you would have it so, 'conjectured or surmised' that there has to be an 'Efficient' cause for 'the origin of the Universe or life, as we know it' and that cause is also 'Infinite', 'Eternal' and transcends us. 'Nature', as we know it, is a 'manifestation' of that!

As regards the 'attributes' of that, the ancients believed it to be 'Perfection' itself! Not as we know 'Nature' to be, both 'perect' in some ways and 'imperfect' in other ways! Not as we know 'human beings', the highest form of life on earth, with the unique capacity for self-reflection, both 'rational' in some ways and 'irrational' in other ways! The ancients attributed 'omni-presence, omniscience and omnipotence' to it because they believed in'Creation' as opposed to 'Evolution' and 'Pre-determinism' as opposed to 'Random happenings' without any 'design' or 'order' being uniformy followed. Since these are mutually exclusive conceptions, those who believe in the 'Divine' powers of 'God' cannot understand or appreciate the latter's point of view. Neither side can 'prove' anything because these remain in the realm of 'speculations' and, therefore, 'believed' in rather than 'proved'!

To conclude, 'God' is not a 'person' that you can be introduced and shake hands with or interview with a lot of questions that you have been bottling up for 'Him' to answer! 'God' is a 'conception' that we tend to 'personalize', 'adore' and 'pay our obeisance' to for granting this 'boon' of life and making things work to sustain life! The many 'pairs of opposites' or 'contradictions' that we witness in the course of life are 'deemed' to be contained in that! The individual 'self' longs to be identified with it when this individual life ends! Thank you!

 

[Yamaka]

Dear MVS:

Sorry to intervene in your discussion with dear Nara.

Your last para is interesting to me.

You said, "God is not a person". "God is a conception". Fine.

I call God is an IDEA propounded by Vedic people, Puranic Authors, followers of Jesus and Muhammed.

Naturalists say God = Nature = God.

What I don't get is, why would anyone want to "pay obeisance" and do prayers, poojas and bhajans to this IDEA or Concept or to Nature?

Is this not a form of outright BRIBERY? If it is, Why? If not, why not?

For Nature created trillions of living things in this Universe... living beings have birth and death, no matter what.

Cheers.

 

[Nara]

Dear MVS, thank you for your continued interest in this discussion and I appreciate your calm eloquence.

You have raised several disperate topics in this post, much of which I disagree with, some based on facts and some upon my own considered reflection. But I am afaraid discussions on these points will take us far afield in several directions all at once. Yet, I shall express my views on them.

...In particular, 'organized' religions, like 'Judaism', 'Christianity' and 'Islam', ....'Unorganized' and 'amorphous' religions, like 'Hinduism', which comprise within its fold various schools of thought, sects, customs and traditions, ...

The fact is, what passes for Hinduism, one that is more aptly called Brahminism, is as "organized" as the three Abrahamic religions you have cited. All these religions have scores of denominations and sub-denominations, each professing differences in theological interpretations and practice. However insignificant these differences may seem to an impartial observer, they are of immense importance to the sectarians, so much so, they condemn each other to eternal hell, or, in the case of Brahminism, continued suffering in samsara.

However, i do not think that it is wiser to reject all notions of 'God' along with the ancient religious thoughts for that would be to throw the proverbial 'baby out with the bathwater'.

Whether there is a baby in the bathwater or is it just a pail of dirty bathwater is what is being discussed. So, that there is a baby, and it must not be thrown out is an apriori conclusion.

Even if you think that this 'Universe' originated with a 'Big Bang' of some 'heavily condensed matter' which exploded for some unknown reason, the proverbial question remains: From where did that 'heavily condensed matter' come from? You see, we can only 'speculate' upon the 'origin of the Universe' as we know it and cannot be 'definitive' about anything!

The question is not about primordial cause, intelligent or otherwise. That question may always elude human understanding. My arguments are only about a First Cause that cares about its creation. One can be agnostic about this question only if there is a rational basis for it. My contention is there is none.

...You may believe in the 'hypothesis of evolution' as offering a 'credible' explanation to the mystery of these varied forms of life on earth including the 'ascent of man' from ape-like creatures. Still you have to address the question: Why there is such a 'vast gulf' between the 'characteristics' of a human being and the chimpanzee that shares 96% of the genes of the human being!

Evolution is not a hypothesis, it is a fact. The evidence is overwhelming. Biologists argue about competing theories at the frontier of knowledge, but there is unanimity among the scientists on the basic principles of evolution.

There are lots of differences between different species even within great apes including humans. But they also have lot in common than our more distant relatives like other mammals or amphibians, with whom also we share a lot of similarities, albeit to a lesser degree compared to our simian cousins. So, the difference argument is not persuasive.

We must also note that intermediate species in the tree of evolution are being identified in fossil records exactly as predicted by theory of evolution. Human knowledge is incomplete, sure, but arguing in favor of God based on gaps in human knowledge is simplistic. A trite answer that God did it is quite unsatisfactory. Fortunately, scientists refuse to accept facile answers and prod along to expand human knowledge.

Or for that matter the question: Why are we not witnessing any further evoution in a physical sense even though we, as human beings, may be evolving 'socially' and 'culturally'!

Evolution occurs not in human time scale for us to observe in a life time. Our closest cousin species Neanderthals are said to have coexisted with modern-looking humans as late as about 30K years.

or, if you would have it so, 'conjectured or surmised' that there has to be an 'Efficient' cause for 'the origin of the Universe or life, as we know it' and that cause is also 'Infinite', 'Eternal' and transcends us. 'Nature', as we know it, is a 'manifestation' of that!

This is what I have been saying, and no disagreement, the God concept is a manufactured one as a ready-made answer to the vexing questions and fears early man faced. As scientific process started finding verifiable answers to many of the questions, the theists have retreated to the yet unanswered questions and keep claiming God did it as the answer for those questions. What is going for theists is, this set of unanswered questions may never become a null set.

Neither side can 'prove' anything because these remain in the realm of 'speculations' and, therefore, 'believed' in rather than 'proved'!

A one-size fits all acquiescence to claims to agnosticism is irrational. If a concept lacks solid proof, then, there must exist at least a rational basis before one is permitted to take an agnostic position with regard to it. Otherwise, any claim, however outlandish, like there exists an invisible pink unicorn, can stake a claim to be viewed with agnosticism. Given the suffering all around us, an omnipotent and benevolent God lacks this rational basis and therefore we are not permitted to take an agnostic view with regard to this God.

'God' is a 'conception' that we tend to 'personalize', 'adore' and 'pay our obeisance' to for granting this 'boon' of life and making things work to sustain life! The many 'pairs of opposites' or 'contradictions' that we witness in the course of life are 'deemed' to be contained in that! The individual 'self' longs to be identified with it when this individual life ends!

Does this mean God for you is simply a concept and no more?

Dear MVS, my arguments are about the widely held belief in God, not the kind you are proposing. For a Christian, that Jesus gave his life for the redemption of man is not some esoteric concept, anything less than absolute faith will result in eternal hell fire. There may be a Christian here or there, who, embarrassed by this ridiculous proposition, may try to find some plausible explanation or excuse. The same is the case with all other religions including Brahminism. Brahminism purports hell is where one is headed for ignoring dharma shasthra edicts -- of course they promise another chance to behave properly. Further, almost all followers of Brahminism treat their God(s) as a veritable supermarket. Like those bashful Christians, a small number of followers of Brahminism find this quite uncomfortable with this and try to find a reasonable defense of these ideas. But the fact of the matter is, there is no way such Gods who care for human condition, listen to our prayers and respond, can be rationally justified.

One of the interesting aspects of all religions is they all extol faith and scorn knowledge. In the Abrahamic faiths the original sin was eating the fruit from tree of knowledge. In Brahminism, the only true knowledge is the other-worldly kind, worldly knowledge is not only useless, it is dangerous for "spiritual" progress.

Some of the points I answered in this post are tangential to the topic of God fallacy, like evolution. I don't want to get pulled away from the main topic of this thread into such tangential ones.

Cheers!

 

[Mayuram V.Sankaran]

Dear MVS:

Sorry to intervene in your discussion with dear Nara.

Your last para is interesting to me.

You said, "God is not a person". "God is a conception". Fine.

I call God is an IDEA propounded by Vedic people, Puranic Authors, followers of Jesus and Muhammed.

Naturalists say God = Nature = God.

What I don't get is, why would anyone want to "pay obeisance" and do prayers, poojas and bhajans to this IDEA or Concept or to Nature?

Is this not a form of outright BRIBERY? If it is, Why? If not, why not?

For Nature created trillions of living things in this Universe... living beings have birth and death, no matter what.

Cheers.

Shri Yamaka, The answer to your question is simple.

We tend to 'personalize', 'adore' and 'pay obeisance' to our conception of 'God' as the 'Originator' of all that we witness, out of 'respect', nay, 'reverence' for this 'phenomenal Universe' including this unique world of 'ourselves'!

This 'reverence' that we show to 'God' ('Daiva') is much more than the 'respect' and 'obeisance' that we show for our 'parents' ('mata', 'pita'), who are the 'immediate' or 'proximate' cause of ourselves, and also, our 'teacher(s)' ('guru') of 'knowledge'. You must have heard of the old saying: "mata, pita, guru, daivam" -- to delineate to whom we owe our respect. The first three being 'transient' beings, like ourselves and a 'trillion' other living things, as you put it, who are bound by the natural laws, 'God' -- the 'Efficient' cause, the "Absolute', the 'Immutable', the "Eternal' -- as we conceive 'It' deserves our 'humble obeisance'!

It is not as you think that we do so as a form of 'bribery' or a sort of 'quid pro quo' to get something in return! While saying that, I do not deny that there may be people who do so also because all that they can think of is their hedonistic 'creature comfort', 'freedom from all kinds of suffering' and the 'general welfare' of themselves and those 'near and dear' to them. The same does not negate the higher feeling!

 

[Yamaka]

Shri Yamaka, The answer to your question is simple.

We tend to 'personalize', 'adore' and 'pay obeisance' to our conception of 'God' as the 'Originator' of all that we witness, out of 'respect', nay, 'reverence' for this 'phenomenal Universe' including this unique world of 'ourselves'!

This 'reverence' that we show to 'God' ('Daiva') is much more than the 'respect' and 'obeisance' that we show for our 'parents' ('mata', 'pita'), who are the 'immediate' or 'proximate' cause of ourselves, and also, our 'teacher(s)' ('guru') of 'knowledge'. You must have heard of the old saying: "mata, pita, guru, daivam" -- to delineate to whom we owe our respect. The first three being 'transient' beings, like ourselves and a 'trillion' other living things, as you put it, who are bound by the natural laws, 'God' -- the 'Efficient' cause, the "Absolute', the 'Immutable', the "Eternal' -- as we conceive 'It' deserves our 'humble obeisance'!

It is not as you think that we do so as a form of 'bribery' or a sort of 'quid pro quo' to get something in return! While saying that, I do not deny that there may be people who do so also because all that they can think of is their hedonistic 'creature comfort', 'freedom from all kinds of suffering' and the 'general welfare' of themselves and those 'near and dear' to them. The same does not negate the higher feeling!

Dear MVS:

1. Because most Believers 'personalize' their Gods, Ghosts and Spirits as some Super Human Beings, the PPB becomes "reasonable" to them. Hence a "bribery" is doable in their minds. As a FORCE or Nature or you call the "IT" can't be bribed in the traditional sense of the word. Therefore, the God must be "HE" and the Believers ask "HIM" for favors.

2. "Mata, Pita, Guru, Deivam" is a good propaganda line of the Believers.

3. When most Believers ask for "freedom from all kinds of sufferings", "general welfare" of themselves and those "near and dear to them", PPB IS a clear form of BRIBERY or quid pro quo, IMO.

4. If the Believers are just admiring the SNA = God, then they can say "God is Great - Allahu Akbar" and stop there. They don't. Immediately, they ask for all sorts of favors as mentioned in item 3 above.

To me, the Believers are caught with their hands in the cookie jar; they want to wiggle their way out! Lol.

Cheers.

 

[Nara]

The most favorite argument of theists for a Creator God is the rhetorical question, "Why is there something rather than nothing?". In other words, for there to be something there must be a cause, ergo, God's existence is proved. However, they blithely ignore the very serious logical fallacy of infinite regress in their argument. That is, if there must be a cause for an effect to exist, then, there must be an a priori Cause for this Creator God to exist, and that a priori Cause to exist there must a preexisting Cause and so on down the path of infinite regress.

At this point some theists concoct an argument that this Creator God is outside space and time and therefore does not need an a priori Cause. This being just a convenient assertion is lost in their zeal to affirm their favorite God theory.

Last year, Lawrence M. Krauss, a renowned cosmologist and theoretical physicist, published a book called "A Universe from Nothing: Why There is Something Rather Than Nothing". He gave a brief whiff of the arguments from his book in this interview he did with Sam Harris.

Indeed, the question, “Why is there something rather than nothing?” which forms the subtitle of the book, is often used by the faithful as an unassailable argument that requires the existence of God, because of the famous claim, “out of nothing, nothing comes.” ....... Modern science has made the something-from-nothing debate irrelevant. It has changed completely our conception of the very words “something” and “nothing”. Empirical discoveries continue to tell us that the Universe is the way it is, whether we like it or not, and ‘something’ and ‘nothing’ are physical concepts and therefore are properly the domain of science, not theology or philosophy. (Indeed, religion and philosophy have added nothing to our understanding of these ideas in millennia.) I spend a great deal of time in the book detailing precisely how physics has changed our notions of “nothing,” for example. The old idea that nothing might involve empty space, devoid of mass or energy, or anything material, for example, has now been replaced by a boiling bubbling brew of virtual particles, popping in and out of existence in a time so short that we cannot detect them directly. I then go on to explain how other versions of “nothing”—beyond merely empty space—including the absence of space itself, and even the absence of physical laws, can morph into “something.” Indeed, in modern parlance, “nothing” is most often unstable. Not only can something arise from nothing, but most often the laws of physics require that to occur.

Now, having said this, my point in the book is not to suggest that modern science is incompatible with at least the Deistic notion that perhaps there is some purpose to the Universe (even though no such purpose is manifest on the basis of any of our current knowledge, and moreover there is no logical connection between any possible “creator” and the personal God of the world’s major religions, who cares about humanity’s destiny). Rather, what I find remarkable is the fact that the discoveries of modern particle physics and cosmology over the past half century allow not only a possibility that the Universe arose from nothing, but in fact make this possibility increasingly plausible. Everything we have measured about the universe is not only consistent with a universe that came from nothing (and didn’t have to turn out this way!), but in fact, all the new evidence makes this possibility ever more likely.

Darwin demonstrated how the remarkable diversity of life on Earth, and the apparent design of life, which had been claimed as evidence for a caring God, could in fact instead be arrived at by natural causes involving purely physical processes of mutation and natural selection. I want to show something similar about the Universe. We may never prove by science that a Creator is impossible, but, as Steven Weinberg has emphasized, science admits (and for many of us, suggests) a universe in which one is not necessary.


I cannot hide my own intellectual bias here. As I state in the first sentence of the book, I have never been sympathetic to the notion that creation requires a creator. And like our late friend, Christopher Hitchens, I find the possibility of living in a universe that was not created for my existence, in which my actions and thoughts need not bend to the whims of a creator, far more enriching and meaningful than the other alternative. In that sense, I view myself as an anti-theist rather than an atheist.

Some may be tempted to reject Krauss's entire argument simply based on this honest disclaimer at the end. They have a right to do this, but that won't be rational.

 

[Mayuram V.Sankaran]

The most favorite argument of theists for a Creator God is the rhetorical question, "Why is there something rather than nothing?". In other words, for there to be something there must be a cause, ergo, God's existence is proved. However, they blithely ignore the very serious logical fallacy of infinite regress in their argument. That is, if there must be a cause for an effect to exist, then, there must be an a priori Cause for this Creator God to exist, and that a priori Cause to exist there must a preexisting Cause and so on down the path of infinite regress.

At this point some theists concoct an argument that this Creator God is outside space and time and therefore does not need an a priori Cause. This being just a convenient assertion is lost in their zeal to affirm their favorite God theory.

Last year, Lawrence M. Krauss, a renowned cosmologist and theoretical physicist, published a book called "A Universe from Nothing: Why There is Something Rather Than Nothing". He gave a brief whiff of the arguments from his book in this interview he did with Sam Harris.

Indeed, the question, “Why is there something rather than nothing?” which forms the subtitle of the book, is often used by the faithful as an unassailable argument that requires the existence of God, because of the famous claim, “out of nothing, nothing comes.” ....... Modern science has made the something-from-nothing debate irrelevant. It has changed completely our conception of the very words “something” and “nothing”. Empirical discoveries continue to tell us that the Universe is the way it is, whether we like it or not, and ‘something’ and ‘nothing’ are physical concepts and therefore are properly the domain of science, not theology or philosophy. (Indeed, religion and philosophy have added nothing to our understanding of these ideas in millennia.) I spend a great deal of time in the book detailing precisely how physics has changed our notions of “nothing,” for example. The old idea that nothing might involve empty space, devoid of mass or energy, or anything material, for example, has now been replaced by a boiling bubbling brew of virtual particles, popping in and out of existence in a time so short that we cannot detect them directly. I then go on to explain how other versions of “nothing”—beyond merely empty space—including the absence of space itself, and even the absence of physical laws, can morph into “something.” Indeed, in modern parlance, “nothing” is most often unstable. Not only can something arise from nothing, but most often the laws of physics require that to occur.

Now, having said this, my point in the book is not to suggest that modern science is incompatible with at least the Deistic notion that perhaps there is some purpose to the Universe (even though no such purpose is manifest on the basis of any of our current knowledge, and moreover there is no logical connection between any possible “creator” and the personal God of the world’s major religions, who cares about humanity’s destiny). Rather, what I find remarkable is the fact that the discoveries of modern particle physics and cosmology over the past half century allow not only a possibility that the Universe arose from nothing, but in fact make this possibility increasingly plausible. Everything we have measured about the universe is not only consistent with a universe that came from nothing (and didn’t have to turn out this way!), but in fact, all the new evidence makes this possibility ever more likely.

Darwin demonstrated how the remarkable diversity of life on Earth, and the apparent design of life, which had been claimed as evidence for a caring God, could in fact instead be arrived at by natural causes involving purely physical processes of mutation and natural selection. I want to show something similar about the Universe. We may never prove by science that a Creator is impossible, but, as Steven Weinberg has emphasized, science admits (and for many of us, suggests) a universe in which one is not necessary.


I cannot hide my own intellectual bias here. As I state in the first sentence of the book, I have never been sympathetic to the notion that creation requires a creator. And like our late friend, Christopher Hitchens, I find the possibility of living in a universe that was not created for my existence, in which my actions and thoughts need not bend to the whims of a creator, far more enriching and meaningful than the other alternative. In that sense, I view myself as an anti-theist rather than an atheist.

Some may be tempted to reject Krauss's entire argument simply based on this honest disclaimer at the end. They have a right to do this, but that won't be rational.

Shri Nara, When Krauss readily admits his 'bias', you say that it is simply an 'honest disclaimer' and assert that it would be irrational to 'reject' his entire observations on that ground!

Why, he even admits that it can never be proved by science that a 'Creator' is impossible, while you and Shri Yamaka go about with a 'LOL' at the idea! In this regard, the 'theists also say that the 'Creator' made this 'Universe' (that 'something') out of 'nothing' and all dissolves into that 'nothing' at the end!

Further, 'life', as we know it on earth, could just as well be the 'creation' of 'God', who made allowances for 'mutation' and 'natural selection' for 'nature' was designed by 'Him'! How could you disprove it?

The 'play' is actually on the word, a 'caring' 'personal God' and the kind of rhetoric that follows, on how 'caring' 'He' really is about 'His' creation or design! For all you know, 'He' could be both benevolent' or 'malevolent' as 'He' chooses to be! Does 'He' need your feedback or your vote of approval?

I am firmly of the opinion that you must 'cultivate' the 'frame of mind' that the ancients say is required for any 'insight' to be gained, that is, 'non-identification' with the 'ego' self of 'likes' and 'dislikes' and 'non-attachment' to things that are per se 'evanescent' and, therefore, 'unreal' and focus on attaining 'knowledge' of the 'truth' that is 'real' and 'immanent' in everything!

 

[Nara]

Why are people so prone to religious belief? Some ask this question in a rhetorical vein and declare, ergo, God is proved. But, of course, it is elementary that to have a tendency to believe does not necessarily mean what is believed is real. Steven Pinker, a cognitive scientist and a professor at Harvard, author of many books, took this question on in a lecture he gave to Freedom from Religion Foundation in 2004. I give below an excerpt.

To answer the “why is Homo sapiens so prone to religious belief?” you first have to distinguish between traits that are adaptations, that is, products of Darwinian natural selection, and traits that are by products of adaptations…...

An example: Why is our blood red? The explanation for why our blood is red is that it is adaptive to have a molecule that can carry oxygen, mainly hemoglobin. Hemoglobin happens to be red when it's oxygenated, so the redness of our blood is a byproduct of the chemistry of carrying oxygen. The color per se was not selected for. Another non-adaptive explanation for a biological trait is genetic drift. Random stuff happens in evolution. Certain traits can become fixed through sheer luck of the draw.

To distinguish an adaptation from a byproduct, first of all you have to establish that the trait is in some sense innate, for example, that it develops reliably across a range of environments and is universal across the species. That helps rule out reading, for example, as a biological adaptation. Kids don't spontaneously read unless they are taught, as opposed to spoken language, which is a plausible adaptation, because it does emerge spontaneously in all normal children in all societies.

The second criterion is the causal effects of the trait would, on average, have improved the survival or reproduction of the bearer of that trait in an ancestral environment --…Crucially, the advantage must be demonstrable by some independently motivated causal consequences of the putative adaptation…. An example: Via projective geometry, one can show that by combining images from two cameras or optical devices, it is possible to calculate the depth of an object from the disparity of the projections. Likewise for fear of snakes. In all societies people have a wariness of snakes; one sees it even in laboratory-raised monkeys who had never seen a snake.

In contrast, it's not clear what the adaptive function of humor is, or of music. I think the explanations of religion that I've reviewed have the same problem, namely not having an independent rationale.

Yet another explicable feature of religion is signs of expertise in occult knowledge. If you're the one who knows mysterious but important arcane knowledge, then other people will defer to you. Even in non-religious contexts, most societies have some division of labor in expertise, where we accord prestige and perquisites to people who know useful stuff. So a good strategy for providers of religion is to mix some genuine expertise -- and indeed, anthropologists have shown that the tribal shaman or witch doctor really is an expert in herbal medicine and folk remedies – with a certain amount of hocus-pocus, trance-inducing drugs, stage magic, sumptuous robes and cathedrals, and so on, reinforcing the claim that there are worlds of incomprehensible wonder, power, and mystery that are reachable only through one's services.

There are also emotional predispositions which evolved for various reasons and make us prone to religious belief as a by-product. …. This aspect of religious belief is thus a desperate measure that people resort to when the stakes are high and they've exhausted the usual techniques for the causation of success.

Those are some of the emotional predispositions that make people fertile ground for religious belief.

p.s.
Ever since the time I started posting in this site we have been having discussions on superstitions, God, etc. I am sure you are as tired of hearing my same old arguments as I am of yours. This is one of the reasons I am posting these selected excerpts instead of simply arguing. I hope those who care to read these posts are getting to read something new.

 

[Nara]

Shri Nara, When Krauss readily admits his 'bias', you say that it is simply an 'honest disclaimer' and assert that it would be irrational to 'reject' his entire observations on that ground!

Why, he even admits that it can never be proved by science that a 'Creator' is impossible, while you and Shri Yamaka go about with a 'LOL' at the idea!

Dear MVS, the impossibility of proving something does not exist has been discussed many times, even in one my replies to you -- please see post 191.

In this regard, the 'theists also say that the 'Creator' made this 'Universe' (that 'something') out of 'nothing' and all dissolves into that 'nothing' at the end!

The point is about all effects needing a cause. Krauss says a Creator is not necessary for our universe to manifest from nothing. But you are inserting a Creator into this equation, that is what I question.

BTW, there are innumerable variety of theists, you can't possibly speak for all of them. Even within Brahminism not all theists say creator made the universe from nothing and it will return to nothing.

Further, 'life', as we know it on earth, could just as well be the 'creation' of 'God', who made allowances for 'mutation' and 'natural selection' for 'nature' was designed by 'Him'! How could you disprove it?

This argument is no more valid than a believer in a invisible pink unicorn challenging me to disprove its existence. Please see my post 191.

The 'play' is actually on the word, a 'caring' 'personal God' and the kind of rhetoric that follows, on how 'caring' 'He' really is about 'His' creation or design! For all you know, 'He' could be both benevolent' or 'malevolent' as 'He' chooses to be! Does 'He' need your feedback or your vote of approval?

Dear MVS, if so, the universally claimed omnipotent and benevolent God is not true, no argument then!

I am firmly of the opinion that you must 'cultivate' the 'frame of mind'

I am of the firm opinion that all of us must cultivate a critical frame of mind and demand at least for a rational basis before putting our faith in anything, if we don't, such faith, whatever it may be, however greatly it may be revered, for however long, or by however many people, can never be anything more than superstition.

Cheers!

 

[Mayuram V.Sankaran]

Just recently I was glancing through "Vedanta:The Science of Life: Part One, Understanding Human Nature" by Swami Chinmayananda [Published by 'Central Chinmaya Mission Trust', Bombay, 1979] and I would like to refer to Section V, Chapter 16 of the book, which is on "The Worldly and the Godly"! I cannot quote extensively therefrom without prior permission of the Trust since that would be a copyright violation, but still I feel tempted to give these excerpts, which can in turn be traced to, 'Bhagvad Gita', Ch. XVI, Verses 7 to 20:

"The demoniac know not what to do and what to refrain from; neither purity, nor right conduct, nor truth, is found in them" (Ch. XVI,Verse 7);

"They say:The Universe is without Truth, without (moral) basis, and without a God; it is not brought about by any regular sequence, but only with a lust for for its cause; what else?" (Ch. XVI, Verse 8);

"Holding these views, these ruined souls of little intelligence and fierce deeds, come forth as the enemies of the world for its destruction" (CH.XVI,Verse 9);

"Filled with insatiable desires, full of hypocrisy, pride and arrogance, holding evil ideas through delusion, they work with impure resolves" (Ch.XVI, Verse 10);

"Giving themselves over to immeasurable cares ending only in their death and considering gratification of lust as their highest aim, they feel sure that that is all (that matters)" (Ch.XVI, Verse 11);

"Bound by a hundred ties of hope and given to lust and anger, they strive to obtain by unlawful means hoards of wealth for sensual enjoyments" (Ch.XVI, Verse 12);

"Today this has been gained by me; this desire I shall obtain; and this wealth also shall be mine in future" (Ch.XVI, Verse 13);

"They think:"That enemy has been slain by me, and others also I shall destroy. I am the Lord, I am the Enjoyer, I am Perfect, Powerful and Happy" (CH.XVI, Verse 14);

"And they also think:"I am rich and well born.Who else is equal to me? I will sacrifice. I will give (alms). I will rejoice" Thus, they are deluded by ignorance" (Ch.XVI, Verse 15);

"Bewildered by many a fancy, entangled in the snare of delusion, addicted to gratification of lust, they fall into a foul hell" (Ch.XVI, Verse 16);

"Self-conceited, stubborn and filled with pride and intoxication of wealth,they perform sacrifices in name (only) out of ostentation, contrary to scriptural ordinances" (CH.XVI, Verse 17);

"Given over to egoism, power, haughtiness, lust and anger, these malicious people hate Me residing in their bodies and in those of others" (Ch.XVI, Verse 18);

"These cruel haters are the worst among men in the world; I hurl these evil-doers forever into the wombs of demons only" (Ch.XVI, Verse 19);

"Entering into the demoniacal wombs, deluded in birth after birth and not attaining Me, thus they fall .... into a condition still lower than that" (Ch.XVI, Verse 20);

"Contrast these persons with vain hopes, of vain actions, of vain knowledge and senseless, who are possessed of the nature of 'Rakshasas' and 'Asuras',

"with the Mahatmas (great souls) who partaking of My Divine Nature, worship Me with a single mind, knowing Me as the imperishable source of all things" (Ch.IX, Verse 13);

"... those always glorifying Me, striving, firm in vows, prostrating before Me, and always steadfast, they worship Me with devotion" (CH.IX, Verse 14);

"... they, by offering the 'wisdom-sacrifice' also worship Me, regarding Me as One, as distinct, as manifold, -- Me, in all forms faces up everywhere" (Ch.IX, Verse 15).

Swami Chinmayananda, who is a scholar in both Sanskrit and English gives a wonderful commentary to these verses which one must read in his own inimitable style in the book referred to by me. Thank you!

 

[Jaykay767]

Lets be clear. Atheists have NO explanation for the origin, purpose & meaning of life !. all they have to say/can say is "prove God's existence, then we will believe". isnt it funny that they litter the internet with so much of material to say that the religious texts are wrong. you can do that with 1 statement & a few thousand likes. !!

(Refer my earlier post - vedic texts are being proved right by science).

Now lets come to the scientific view of the world - Big Bang theory is fairly well accepted theory in scientific circles. - the universe & its components come from energy source. - our texts says all of world's creation comes from Brahman, the supreme being, the Shakti - energy. Near death experience talks about the "bright light at the end of the tunnel" !. Time travel - needless to say, this is now proved correct by Einstien. Good & evil co-exist in everything, & every being - Matter & Anti matter theory !, etc..

So the Karmic/PJK (purva janma karma) theory also may get proved in the future !.

so going by the scientific advance, & they are coming closer to our religous views, it is matter of time, they will prove this conclusively.

many people in the 18th & 19th century thought the time travels in Vedas are fiction & have no basis. similarly arguing with the atheist in the 21st century is pointless !.

 

[Yamaka]

Lets be clear. Atheists have NO explanation for the origin, purpose & meaning of life !. all they have to say/can say is "prove God's existence, then we will believe". isnt it funny that they litter the internet with so much of material to say that the religious texts are wrong. you can do that with 1 statement & a few thousand likes. !!

(Refer my earlier post - vedic texts are being proved right by science).

Now lets come to the scientific view of the world - Big Bang theory is fairly well accepted theory in scientific circles. - the universe & its components come from energy source. - our texts says all of world's creation comes from Brahman, the supreme being, the Shakti - energy. Near death experience talks about the "bright light at the end of the tunnel" !. Time travel - needless to say, this is now proved correct by Einstien. Good & evil co-exist in everything, & every being - Matter & Anti matter theory !, etc..

So the Karmic/PJK (purva janma karma) theory also may get proved in the future !.

so going by the scientific advance, & they are coming closer to our religous views, it is matter of time, they will prove this conclusively.

many people in the 18th & 19th century thought the time travels in Vedas are fiction & have no basis. similarly arguing with the atheist in the 21st century is pointless !.

Hi JK:

How are you?

My view is Theists will be better off if they say, "Our Belief and Faith is important to us. That comes from our Tradition. We don't need to get any LOGICAL or RATIONAL meaning for what all we do".

The problems come when these People of Belief & Faith venture into LOGIC and REASONING. They need to quit this attempt.

By definition, Belief & Faith means suspension of LOGIC & REASONING, IMO.

Take care.

Y

ps. According to Nobelist Amartyan Sen who knows Sanskrit very well, there are plenty of literature available in Sanskrit about Atheism; even Vedas talk about it in detail. For some reason, such literature is totally ignored by the People of Belief & Faith. Why?