PDA

View Full Version : ...does not exist?



yajvan
04 March 2010, 07:23 PM
hariḥ oṁ
~~~~~~

namasté

Today on the radio I heard ' there is so much scientific data to disprove the existence of a God' . I thought to myself I have not seen this data or information. What does it say? I must of missed this! Has the science of the finite been applied to the infinite, to the unmeasurable and come up with scientific fact that a God could not possibly exist? That the two cornerstones of science Newton and Einstein where mere rank and file amateurs when they said the following:

Newton


Gravity explains the motions of the planets, but it cannot explain who set the planets in motion.
God governs all things and knows all that is or can be done
And from true lordship it follows that the true God is living, intelligent, and powerful; from the other perfections, that he is supreme, or supremely perfect. He is eternal and infinite, omnipotent and omniscient; that is, he endures from eternity to eternity; and he is present from infinity to infinity; he rules all things, and he knows all things that happen or can happen. Einstein

Before God we are all equally wise - and equally foolish.
I see a clock, but I cannot envision the clockmaker. The human mind is unable to conceive of the four dimensions, so how can it conceive of a God, before whom a thousand years and a thousand dimensions are as one ?
What I'm really interested in is whether God could have made the world in a different way; that is, whether the necessity of logical simplicity leaves any freedom at all. praṇām

Eastern Mind
04 March 2010, 08:35 PM
Vannakkam Yajvan:

Scientists are a funny lot. Next to the spiritual ego, certainly the scientific ego must be running a close second in the race to get lost in the world of gridded intellect and maya.

So many of their theories have been disproved, you're think they could use their own scientific minds to see a pattern developing.

But I find it entertaining at least. Don't you?

Aum Namasivaya

mukunda20
05 March 2010, 04:11 AM
Namaste Yajvanji and EMji,
Its indeed funny to hear such claims. however one thing that couldn,t be understood properly was "there is so much scientific data to disprove the existence of a God' ". In what sense does some proof\data disprove another concept(existance of GOD) if the other concept's(existance of GOD) properties have not been set for consideration in the first place?
example: if there is so much scientific data to know how things work in this Cosmos, then in what way does it disprove the fact that these things work the way they work because someone\something has made it to work in that way based on some rules and principles(law of Cosmos).the law of Cosmos can be described through scientific data collection, but does this description answer as to what makes the law of Cosmos to be present in the first place?
What they are trying to state is proof by negation\contradiction.
A common method to establish http://www.math.csusb.edu/notes/proofs/pfnot/img3.gif is through proof by contradiction. As in direct proofs, we assume p is true but we also assume the negation of q is true. From these facts, we deduce that the negation of p is also true (or that p is false and hence the contradiction). Our conclusion is that the original statement q must be true. Logically we have http://www.math.csusb.edu/notes/proofs/pfnot/img20.gif is equivalent to http://www.math.csusb.edu/notes/proofs/pfnot/img4.gif .
Refer : http://www.math.csusb.edu/notes/proofs/pfnot/node6.html
but in the above case we take two entities which can be contested, but in the case we are speaking about, its two entities(Science and GOD) which are not contestable since one is a subset of the other(Science is a result of observation and logical conclusions of the Cosmos amongst other things), but Paramatma is inclusive of the Cosmos also, so naturally it becomes a superset consisting of Science also(The Whole is always greater than its parts).
Hope my jibberish words make sense.
Best Regards,
mukunda

yajvan
05 March 2010, 10:32 AM
hariḥ oṁ
~~~~~~

namasté EM and mukunda20,

thank you for considering the post. I must admit I do not know the position/rank/capability of the person talking on the radio as mentioned. Yet he spoke with such assuredness it caught my attention. There were no proofs offered.

When the conversation continued it was more of a decention on the Christian view of God then any other. I found the conversation quite parochial at best with more 'opinion' then fact or good analysis.

praṇām

yajvan
05 March 2010, 01:17 PM
hariḥ oṁ
~~~~~~

namasté

Lets say we visit the science community and offer the muṇḍaka upaniṣad 1.1.6 as the framework of Reality, of the core of this universe coming into existence:
Invisible, ungraspable, having no family line, colorless, sightless, hearingless, it is , the handless and feetless. Eternal, omnipresent, all pervading, exceedingly subtle that undecaying is; perceived all over by the wise and (is) the source of all that has emerged.

But then we say, let me help you just a bit more with this understanding, and say we are talking of turīya¹( some choose to say caturtha) the 4th. It is Being, it is ātma, it is the essence of our self and is Universal-SELF.
The scientist's ask you to describe this 4th ( they relax and think 'at least it has a number to it, so there's got to be more numbers to the definition'!).

So we say let's look to the māṇdūkya upaniṣad 7th śloka which says ( turīya) is not that which is conscious (the śloka uses the word prajñaṃ¹) of the internal world nor that which is conscious of the external world , nor that which is conscious of both, nor that which is a compact mass of knowledge nor that which is simple consciousness nor that which is insentient. It is unseen, unrelated, incomprehensible, indefinable, unthinkable, indescribable, the sole essence of the consciousness of the Self with no trace of the conditioned world; peaceful, all-bliss, non-dual. This is the ātman, the Self and is to be realized.

Now we ask the scientists to set their meters, sensors, apprataus, etc. to sense and measure this turīya. What will the gauges read? What will it pickup? What will be measured? At the end of the day, this brahman is svatāsiddha :



svatā +siddha
svatā = the state of belonging to one's self , ownership as sva स्व = one's own , my own.
siddha = accomplished , fulfilled , effected , gained , acquired, well-known
Thus svatāsiddha is the notion of being self-revealed, self-known on a personal-subjective-intimate level. We can talk of it and study it, but to know it comes from personal experience.

words

turīya from catúr - considered the 4th, pure spirit, brahman; also considered a 4th.
prajñaṃ = prajña which is 'knowing'; pra + jña ; pra is filling or full + jña is intelligent ; some say the thinking soul and therefore puruṣa; in its masculine gender it is a name for brahmā . Hence we ( I ) look at pra + jña as that which is full (pra) of brahmā (jña). The upaniṣads reference this to consciousness., thus the connection.

Ramakrishna
05 March 2010, 09:32 PM
Namaste yajvan,

I also think it's pretty ridiculous to say "there is so much scientific data to disprove the existence of a God' , especially when none of that "data" is shown or explained. Maybe there is scientific data and proof to disprove the existence of the Christian God, since we know for a fact that the earth was not created in 7 days and the earth did not experience a giant flood that destroyed nearly all life. But then again, not all Christians interpret the Bible literally and the Christian God and our God could be the same, and it's not my role to judge. Regardless, I think if one to to make such a bold statement they should back it up with facts and data.

"I believe in God as I believe the sun rises; not only because I can see it, but by it I can see everything else."
C.S. Lewis

sanjaya
06 March 2010, 01:42 PM
Today on the radio I heard ' there is so much scientific data to disprove the existence of a God' . I thought to myself I have not seen this data or information. What does it say? I must of missed this! Has the science of the finite been applied to the infinite, to the unmeasurable and come up with scientific fact that a God could not possibly exist?

Very interesting. I often hear this claim as well. On the one hand it isn't completely baseless, but on the other, it's not as though you can do some scientific test for the existence of God and get a definitively negative result. I would say that rather than disproving the existence of God, science has merely shown certain conceptions of God as unlikely if not absurd. In almost all cases, scientific objections to God are really scientific objections to historical claims of Christian doctrine. And this isn't surprising. The scientific method was largely pioneered by the West, and so of course science is going to offer us objections to Western spirituality. With the exception of Hindu astrology, I don't think I've ever seen scientific objections to the Eastern, Hindu teachings about God.

Ignoring for the moment the East/West spiritual distinctions, I'm guessing that the "scientific objections" to the existence of God are coming from two fronts. The first is the modern science of cosmology, and the second is evolutionary biology.

As far as cosmology goes, we know:

The universe is the way it is because of quantum fluctuations that were enlarged due to a period of rapid inflation in the first fraction of a second of the universe's existence. A spherically symmetric distribution of matter has no preferred direction, so it's impossible for the universe to be anything but a spherical distribution of matter. Quantum mechanics + inflation allows the universe to circumvent simple geometry. That's why we have galaxies of many shapes, stars, etc.
Quantum mechanics is acausal, so this eliminates a need for a "first cause" (as the Greek philosophers might say)
Earthlike planets require heavy elements (e.g. copper, gold, uranium, and basically everything else on the periodic table), but we know that Big Bang nucleosynthesis only produced the first six or so elements on the periodic table. However, heavy elements can be created from supernova explosions, and can then be absorbed into second-generation stars (in astrophysics we call them population II stars).
The earth was probably formed from collapsed gas clouds that contained the heavy-element remnants of first-generation (population III) stars.Furthermore, the biologists tell us:

All life on earth evolved from more primative life.
Evolutionary processes require previous life, but it is possible that the proteins required for life also evolved via chemical processes. This has been shown by the Miller-Urey experiment.
The transition from complex chemistry to life could happen via some abiogenic processNow, I'm not going to address the Christian arguments for a 6,000 year old earth, or the arguments against evolution, because they are laughable. However, the above information does more than simply rule out Abrahamic creationism. This provides a means by which life can arise without any intervention from a Creator. After the Big Bang stars began to form. These stars produced more stars, and heavy elements. Those heavy elements could have been incorporated into planets, and could then chemically and biologically evolve into life. After the initial acausal events surrounding the Big Bang, here we have a causal chain that doesn't require us to invoke God. Yes, one could ask where all of the matter (or rather, energy) for the initial Big Bang came from. One could ask how there could be any sort of substratum at all for the universe without God. But ultimately we then have a God who winds up a watch and then walks away. That's basically no God at all.

Cosmology and evolution don't say that there is no God. All they do is allow for the possibility that there is no God. Western creationists casually dismiss the evidence for this model, but that is mostly because they are too poorly educated to understand it. There's real evidence behind these two sciences that can't be so easily ignored.

As Hindus we have an advantage though. To us, God can be experienced. In Christianity God is utterly silent. His existence is taken on faith, and people who talk to God are labelled as heretics. If all I had to go on was philosophical arguments, a Bible littered with contradictions, and ridiculous rock concert worship in church, I probably wouldn't believe in God either, and would resort to scientific atheism. However, we can experience God through yoga, prayer, puja, and meditation. On reading the Bhagavad Gita, we find that God shows himself to us by logic, reason, and experience. Once you've experienced God, then scientific evidence that allows for his non-existence is pointless. Futhermore, the Vedas don't portray God as needing to do specific things in the process of creating the universe, so the scientific model of how the universe was actually created is no threat to the Vedas.


What I'm really interested in is whether God could have made the world in a different way; that is, whether the necessity of logical simplicity leaves any freedom at all.

Interesting question. I suppose the probabilistic nature of our quantum origin suggests that the universe could have been a different way. But I'll have to think about that for awhile.


Scientists are a funny lot. Next to the spiritual ego, certainly the scientific ego must be running a close second in the race to get lost in the world of gridded intellect and maya.

Heh, yes we are a funny lot I suppose. There's this classic image of the disinterested scientist with child-like curiosity, who only cares about getting to the truth. In my experience in science, I've never seen that. Science does give some people an ego. But at the very least, it's an ego that can be backed up with facts. Western religion has done a poor job of offering any correspondance to the truth, so I think that a lot of this is a backlash to centuries of Western religious domination.


Namaste yajvan,

I also think it's pretty ridiculous to say "there is so much scientific data to disprove the existence of a God' , especially when none of that "data" is shown or explained. Maybe there is scientific data and proof to disprove the existence of the Christian God, since we know for a fact that the earth was not created in 7 days and the earth did not experience a giant flood that destroyed nearly all life.

Yes, this is an important point. As I said earlier, when most Western atheists argue against "God," they are arguing against the Christian God (it's sad that they lump Hinduism in with the "religion" that they hate so much). It's not as if Hindus don't have our own problems. In the past decade or so in India, we've seen some universities starting to treat astrology as a real science. This too is dangerous. But these little trifles are nothing compared to the ridiculous and outlandish claims that Christianity makes in the face of overwhelming scientific evidence to the contrary.

But then again, not all Christians interpret the Bible literally and the Christian God and our God could be the same, and it's not my role to judge. Regardless, I think if one to to make such a bold statement they should back it up with facts and data.

yajvan
06 March 2010, 07:03 PM
hariḥ oṁ
~~~~~~

namasté sanjaya,

A very well-thoughtout post - thank you. Let me ask your POV on the information you offer below.


As far as cosmology goes, we know:

The universe is the way it is because of quantum fluctuations that were enlarged due to a period of rapid inflation in the first fraction of a second of the universe's existence. A spherically symmetric distribution of matter has no preferred direction, so it's impossible for the universe to be anything but a spherical distribution of matter. Quantum mechanics + inflation allows the universe to circumvent simple geometry. That's why we have galaxies of many shapes, stars, etc.
Quantum mechanics is acausal, so this eliminates a need for a "first cause" (as the Greek philosophers might say)
Earthlike planets require heavy elements (e.g. copper, gold, uranium, and basically everything else on the periodic table), but we know that Big Bang nucleosynthesis only produced the first six or so elements on the periodic table. However, heavy elements can be created from supernova explosions, and can then be absorbed into second-generation stars (in astrophysics we call them population II stars).
The earth was probably formed from collapsed gas clouds that contained the heavy-element remnants of first-generation (population III) stars.Furthermore, the biologists tell us:

All life on earth evolved from more primative life.
Evolutionary processes require previous life, but it is possible that the proteins required for life also evolved via chemical processes. This has been shown by the Miller-Urey experiment.
The transition from complex chemistry to life could happen via some abiogenic processIn your opinion from where do the rules reside for an orderly expansion of the universe or for the manifestation of life ( some may say the evolution of life, which is just fine with me also). That is, where is the inherent intelligence for all this to occur in a structured way?


praṇām

sanjaya
07 March 2010, 01:40 PM
In your opinion from where do the rules reside for an orderly expansion of the universe or for the manifestation of life ( some may say the evolution of life, which is just fine with me also). That is, where is the inherent intelligence for all this to occur in a structured way?

That's a very interesting question. It's rather metaphysical, but I'll take my best shot at it.

My instinctive response would be twofold. As a scientist I might say that the origin of the universe's physical laws is beyond my ability to deduce by any empirical means. And as a Hindu I might add that I believe God created the laws that govern the universe. But on further reflection, I have to question my own assumption that the origin of physical laws is beyond scientific inquiry. When Sir Issac Newton first deduced his theory of gravity, he was puzzled by the "action at a distance" means by which gravity operated. In Newton's world, all forces were caused by physical contact, so the idea of one body pulling on another without contact was puzzling. At some level he considered it a theological dilemma. In the end, he stated that the origin of gravity was beyond his ability to investigate. Today we know that action at a distance forces are caused by virtual particles (the photon for electromagnetism and the graviton for gravity) which carry momentum. Quantum field theory is indeed a remarkable theory, because it places restrictions on how the universe can and can't operate. In this sense, we're coming very close to learning where the universe's physical laws come from, and all without invoking God.

Now as to the question of the underlying intelligence, I think the question itself arises from man's innate habit of imposing order on seemingly random systems We are, after all, designed to look for patterns, even when there aren't any. The anthropic principle states that of all the ways the universe could be, the only ways that could possibly be observed are the ones in which life has the capacity to evolve. But it's not so certain that there is any order to the universe. A good analogy is the snowflake. It has a certain pattern, and looks like it was created by a higher intelligence. But it only exists because it is the lowest-energy state of nucleation of supercooled water. In the same way, it's possible that the universe appears to have a certain order, but really does not.

However, this doesn't really answer the question. Ultimately there needs to be some context in which the universe exists, and God provides a convenient context. However, we need to beware of the folly of Western religion. In the West people once believed that the earth was created in six days, 6,000 years ago (sadly some people still believe this). However, as science began to deduce the age of the earth and mechanism of its creation, this creation myth was allegoricized. It was then simply assumed that the creation myth was a picture of God's creative power. The West also believed that all human life comes from two progenitors who were specially created. But when it was shown that life evolved from less complex forms, this belief too was allegoricized. Today the West is left with this funny "theistic evolution" belief. It's basically theism without any teeth. Except for a few people (creationists) who deny reality, Western theists are left with a God who takes credit for creation without actually doing anything. God exists only in the gaps of our scientific understanding, and he is ready to disappear altogether.

Fortunately we Hindus don't have such a dilemma. The Vedas don't describe God as a meddler. In fact the Vedas go out of their way to not make any claim as to God's understanding of how the universe came into being. It says this:

He, the first origin of this creation, whether he formed it all or did not form it,
Whose eye controls this world in highest heaven, he verily knows it, or perhaps he knows not.
Thus, I'm hesitant to simply give God credit for doing things that science hasn't yet explained, because chances are that science will one day explain those things. And since I do not know more than the author of the Vedas, I also don't know whether I can definitively say what God's role is in creating the rules by which the universe operates.

Personally I believe that God is responsible for creating our physical laws. I am only saying that I don't think I can know this for certain.

yajvan
07 March 2010, 03:53 PM
hariḥ oṁ
~~~~~~

namasté sanjaya,



That's a very interesting question. It's rather metaphysical, but I'll take my best shot at it.

Personally I believe that God is responsible for creating our physical laws. I am only saying that I don't think I can know this for certain.

Thank you for taking the time to consider the question. My intent was not so much to suggest that God is the architect, but that He (brahman) provides the canvas, the raw materials, even the space for all to exist.
If science finds a way to explain the cosmos from deduction and reasoning and not come to the conclusion that it was God's hand - I am fine with that, but do not think it is the final word on the matter.

Even the intellect that powers the scientific reasoning is part of the total creative package that is offered here. 'Here' suggests creation. And creation for me is an expression of sat, Reality, pure awareness that enjoys expanding and expressing. But expanding and expressing what ? Diversity, as many ways as it can, for this is the general delight of creation. Does there need to be God there? That is not for me to say.

Many 'reason' God as the Divine Being , the architect. This is fine. Yet I still think it is all about essence, Pure Being. So to find 'IT' as if to capture IT in one place , I think it may be fruitless, as it is everywhere , so say the upaniṣad-s. Hence saguṇa brahman ( with attributes) is the ambassotor of the Fullness of Being, and is 100% pure and perfect in every way.

Hence , my point to be made is even if science proves the logic and reasoning behind all of creation ( maybe the Grand Unified Field Theory) it still suggests that Being, Realty is the foundation. In this case Being is nirguṇa brahman ( without qualities). It is the source for all to occur, pure potential that then manifests. That is, science cannot explain away the essence of Reality as if it finally caught how the magician did his trick and say 'see, it was done with wires and pulleys and a trap door'. The essence remains cid-ghana (all- consciousness). Yet if it were put to a formula , that would be delightful , no?

Even the scientist is part of this paradigm , as it is his/her intellect pondering the physical laws behind creation. Yet once creation is transcended, then the physical laws no longer apply and one arrives at Being, Fullness, some wish to call pure awareness. Then the knower and knowing are one.

This is where the scientist is at a disadvantage - as s/he perhaps expects duality to persist there (too) so it can be measured and this cannot occur - so is the dilemma of trying to measure Being/Truth/Reality. Yet I will assume one can get very close to this level of existence by measuring particles and the like.

praṇām

smaranam
08 March 2010, 08:21 AM
praNAm

What a thread.

Is it not amazing , that scientists have made such accurate strides studying Prakrti , and doing a wonderful job.

However, erroneously thinking that the highest magic of Prakruti is supposed to be claimed as Purusha by religion - well , certainly not by SanAtan Dharma.

Whereas, as Yajvanji points out, the Vedas and our ancient Rshis (seers) told us about Existence, Conscious Being as THE CANVAS of reality thousands of yrs ago.

Ishvara is proud of His scientists in one way, despite the BIG mistake they make make by claiming He does not exist. While this is quite amusing to Ishvara, He is happy they have come close to what Veda and Shrimad BhAgvad tell us about creation.

SCIENTISITS' CALCULATION OF AGE OF THE EARTH

4.6 billion earth yrs (Is this right ?)

VEDIC CALCULATION - Shrimad BhAgvatam

1 day of Lord BrahmA = 1 'Kalpa' of 1000 Chaturyugas [14 manwantaras]

1 Chaturyuga = 4 Yugas (Krit, Treta, Dwapar, Kali Yuga)
and lasts for 4,320 million earth yrs

= 4.32 billion earth yrs

** How close is that to the scientists' figure **

So dissolution occurs per ChaturYuga ? SandhyAs included ? Not sure of this, but let's continue....

The day of Lord BrahmA = 1000 * 4.32 = 4320 billion earth yrs
It is followed by an equally long night when creative activity is at a standstill. This night period is Naimittika Pralaya, when all the categories merge back into the VirAt Purusha in their suble aspects. When BrahmA wakes up next morning, all categories with their residual tendencies manifest and further evolutions take place.

1 year of Lord BrahmA = 360 Brahma days

Life of BrahmAji is 100 Brahma yrs.

** At the end of Lord BrahmA's lifetime, the entire material universe gets destroyed.

At the end of Lord BrahmA's lifetime, all the universe created by Him dissolves into the Virat Purusha along with Himself.

When the VirAt Purusha merges back with all categories and worlds into the Supreme Lord (Shri Hari) - Atyantika Pralaya takes place. The Supreme Lord alone remains (in Yoga Nidra) and no one knows when the next creation will take place.

------------------------

Lord BrahmA's life consists of 2 'Parardha-s' , each being 50 Brahma yrs long.

Our present BrahmAji has entered His 51st year - 1st day 1st yr of the 2nd 'Parardha'.

We are in the 7th Manwantara (period of Manu) - half way since there are 14 Manwantaras.

- Ref : "Glory of Krishna" - by Swami ChinmayAnanda Mission

>>PurAna Basics

Shri Hari , MahAvishnu lies in the transcendental 'waters' , hence nArAyana (nara = water/fluid) and
BrahmA is born from His navel in a Lotus. BrahmA is really Lord's creative power, and is assigned the
specific task of creating the Universe.

------------------------------------------------

Scientists , even those who claim to be atheists are indirectly glorifying the Lord with their efforts. He is the one who gifted them with the impetus, curiosity and scientific minds. He (or MA DurgA ) surely must be smiling at the fact that they have made His creation a playground for their scientific curiosity.

If you made pieces of clay and put them on the floor, and your son comes and grabs them, starts solving the "puzzle", wouldn't that make you smile ?

smaranam
08 March 2010, 11:36 AM
....
1. Will this increase the atheistic population ?
Or
2. Will it make atheistic scientists bump into a dead-end wall only to learn a lesson : that the dead-end remains in the realm of Prakruti , telling them that there is Purusha beyond , who cannot be caught. Like Einstein and Newton of the past were wise to admit.

The fact that the Lord is smiling, tells us there is hope for the latter to happen.
Perhaps it will serve to convert more atheists into theists, but with a more and more scientific backing.

sanjaya
09 March 2010, 12:10 AM
....
1. Will this increase the atheistic population ?
Or
2. Will it make atheistic scientists bump into a dead-end wall only to learn a lesson : that the dead-end remains in the realm of Prakruti , telling them that there is Purusha beyond , who cannot be caught. Like Einstein and Newton of the past were wise to admit.

The fact that the Lord is smiling, tells us there is hope for the latter to happen.
Perhaps it will serve to convert more atheists into theists, but with a more and more scientific backing.

Perhaps it will. Here in the West people are rapidly abandoning "religion" in favor of science. Sadly they categorize all theism as "religion" because they are not familiar with Eastern religion. Hopefully these spiritually-hungry people will see the wisdom of Hinduism and reap the blessings of God through devotion to him.

Einherjar
10 March 2010, 06:26 PM
...and the earth did not experience a giant flood that destroyed nearly all life.


While the story in the Old Testament is likely drastically exaggerated, there is scientific evidence for massive floods occurring shortly after the last ice age (along with several other theories of potential massive flooding varying from tsunamis created by earthquakes to ones created by the impact of an asteroid or comet with the Earth). There are also many stories dating from similar periods that also speak of massive floods causing mayhem and destruction in ancient civilizations.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deluge_myth

sanjaya
10 March 2010, 09:17 PM
While the story in the Old Testament is likely drastically exaggerated, there is scientific evidence for massive floods occurring shortly after the last ice age (along with several other theories of potential massive flooding varying from tsunamis created by earthquakes to ones created by the impact of an asteroid or comet with the Earth). There are also many stories dating from similar periods that also speak of massive floods causing mayhem and destruction in ancient civilizations.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deluge_myth


Yes this is true. There is indeed evidence of greater than average flooding throughout various parts of the world, and it's possible that the world's flood myths derive from this historical truth. But to attribute any historicity to the Bible on this basis would be quite illogical. First, flood myths equally validate other religions, including Hinduism. Secondly, there's no evidence for a flood which destroyed all life on earth. There is great evidence to show that life on earth arose from biological evolution, and this process requires hundreds of millions of years. The floods, however, are dated to somewhere on the order of tens of thousands of years ago, and thus could not destroy all life on earth. I'm thankful that we Hindus don't have some "Scriptural inerrency" doctrine which states that our Scriptures must be either literally true, or utterly false.

You and I are probably in agreement here, but I just wanted to mention this so that an outside reader doesn't get the impression that flood myths validate the Bible.

Einherjar
11 March 2010, 04:33 PM
Yes this is true. There is indeed evidence of greater than average flooding throughout various parts of the world, and it's possible that the world's flood myths derive from this historical truth. But to attribute any historicity to the Bible on this basis would be quite illogical. First, flood myths equally validate other religions, including Hinduism. Secondly, there's no evidence for a flood which destroyed all life on earth. There is great evidence to show that life on earth arose from biological evolution, and this process requires hundreds of millions of years. The floods, however, are dated to somewhere on the order of tens of thousands of years ago, and thus could not destroy all life on earth. I'm thankful that we Hindus don't have some "Scriptural inerrency" doctrine which states that our Scriptures must be either literally true, or utterly false.

You and I are probably in agreement here, but I just wanted to mention this so that an outside reader doesn't get the impression that flood myths validate the Bible.

Yeah, that's definitely understandable. You also need to take into consideration that when those myths were written down people had a much smaller understanding of the world, and if all the animals fled and moved out of the immediate area where the people spent most of their time, it's understandable they would wrongly assume that most life on Earth was destroyed. Just some food for thought.

ScottMalaysia
12 March 2010, 07:32 AM
I personally like the way that American Creationist Kent Hovind explained it to a young boy who said "There is no God."

Hovind: Do you know everything?
Boy: No.
Hovind: Do you know half of everything?
Boy: No.
Hovind: Well, let's say you did know half of everything, could it be possible that God is in the other half that you don't know about?

sanjaya
12 March 2010, 04:26 PM
I personally like the way that American Creationist Kent Hovind explained it to a young boy who said "There is no God."

Hovind: Do you know everything?
Boy: No.
Hovind: Do you know half of everything?
Boy: No.
Hovind: Well, let's say you did know half of everything, could it be possible that God is in the other half that you don't know about?

Hi Scott. I don't mean to jump on this or anything, but I don't know how much people abroad know about American evangelicals, so I feel a need to say this whenever Kent Hovind is brought up.

Kent Hovind is an American conservative evangelical, i.e. he's part of the crowd that's out to convert Hindus. He has a fake doctoral degree from a diploma mill called "Patriot University," and falsely calls himself "Dr. Kent Hovind." Like most evangelicals, he's also a Christian hypocrite. He's currently serving a prison sentence for tax evasion, because he claimed that he shouldn't pay taxes for doing the Lord's work.

I agree with you that atheism is sometimes the result of arrogance. But I just thought I should mention this.

Nara
12 March 2010, 07:49 PM
.... I agree with you that atheism is sometimes the result of arrogance.

Dear sanjaya, greetings!

Well, you have hedged with the prefix "sometimes", so what can I say.

I am new to this forum. But when I read the postings in general, it seems many of them are declarations. Here, take it, this is "the" truth -- what arrogance!

From my limited experience, the true atheists are the ones who are really humble. They don't have a dogma or doctrine to peddle. They just love life, because, well, just because.

regards...

sanjaya
12 March 2010, 10:16 PM
Dear sanjaya, greetings!

Well, you have hedged with the prefix "sometimes", so what can I say.

I am new to this forum. But when I read the postings in general, it seems many of them are declarations. Here, take it, this is "the" truth -- what arrogance!

From my limited experience, the true atheists are the ones who are really humble. They don't have a dogma or doctrine to peddle. They just love life, because, well, just because.

regards...

Hello Prof. Nara.

My usage of the word "sometimes" was intentional. I know many atheists who do not appear to be atheists due to any arrogant posture. And some of the most arrogant people I know believe in God. Granted, all of these people are evangelical Christians, so I don't know if that counts.

There are many possibilities we need to consider here. Today in the West, we have the so-called "New Atheism" movement. These are the atheists whose spokespeople are Richard Dawkins, Christopher Hitchins, Sam Harris, etc. These individuals do precisely what you've objected to. They declare "the truth" that there is no God, and vilify those who don't share their views. On the other side of the spectrum we have religious people who do precisely the same thing, except that the truth they peddle is different. I don't know any Hindus who do this, but I'll grant that such people exist.

As people who believe in logic and reason, we have to accept the idea that there is such a thing as objective truth. However, this truth is difficult to discern, especially with regard to spiritual matters. So it's important that we not impose some absolute truth on others unless we can back up that imposition with convincing evidence. In Hinduism, spiritual experiences with God are usually specific to the individual, so this proof is hard to convey to others. That may be why Hindus tend to be more tolerant of other religious views. We Hindus tend not to be quite so tolerant of atheism. However, I can only speak for myself, and say that I do understand why some people do not believe in God. The evidence for his existence (besides personal religious experiences) is somewhat wanting. I don't think I could prove the existence of God via any scientific procedure.

If I may ask, with what religion do you have the most interaction? The sorts of things you say about religion typify certain other religions I'm familiar with, but not Hinduism. Again, I'm sure these types of Hindus exist, and that I've just never met them. But I would be interested to know what religion primarily shapes your view of theism.

Eastern Mind
13 March 2010, 07:02 AM
But when I read the postings in general, it seems many of them are declarations. Here, take it, this is "the" truth -- what arrogance!



Yes, this happens, and we discuss it, sometimes at length. When a person has a strong belief, sometimes they just lack tact and say it directly, without prefacing it with IMO, or from my POV. Still most of us understand it as POV, whether the other person knows it or not.

I wonder if you could relate 2 or 3 key experiences in your life that aroused your mind enough for you to draw your conclusions.

For example, I know a fellow here who I believe lost his father at a young age which was a key event in his loss of faith. People coming out of wars may be other examples.

For me, I have always felt (Imagined or real, I really don't know, from my POV it's 99.9% real) mystical presence in certain swamis, in nature, in old temples. I have also had some visions that made no sense other that 'God did that'.

Aum Namasivaya

Nara
13 March 2010, 12:42 PM
Dear sanjaya, Greetings!



.... "New Atheism" [...] Richard Dawkins, Christopher Hitchins, Sam Harris, etc. [...] They declare "the truth" that there is no God, and vilify those who don't share their views.


First, about neo-atheists being in your face, here is a quote from Ingersoll about 150 years ago.
"The man who does not do his own thinking is a slave, and is a traitor to himself and his fellow men."
More than 2300 years ago there was Epicuris in Greece. Roughly about the same time there was Charvaka/Lokayata in India, who said things like, if you can feed your dear parents living in the sky by feeding some one here, why not feed somebody in the ground floor for someone who is hungry in the second floor. They also ridiculed the concept of heaven, if sacrificed goat will go to heaven, why not sacrifice your parents, let them also go to heaven.

Well, the point is, these kinds of intense debates have been going on forever. Mostly, it is the atheists who have been on the receiving end. In 1987, Papa Bush had this to say about atheists,
"No, I don't know that atheists should be considered as citizens, nor should they be considered patriots".
None of the atheists you mentioned above take a stand as strident as these, well, may be Hitchins does sometimes, but he is a political commentator with a proclivity for provocative statements.

From what I have heard and read of all these people, they are questioning some pretty ridiculous and untenable beliefs. Their scorn is for people who want to bring creationism as science, keep evolution out, young-earthers, and the like, who want to impose their religious belief upon the rest.

But with serious people of faith, their arguments with are always civil, measured, well articulated, and free of any sort of ridicule.


.... That may be why Hindus tend to be more tolerant of other religious views.I am not quite sanguine about this. Tolerance includes respect. Hindus were tolerant, if they were, only to the extent that they did not care. Christians and Muslims want to convert everyone to their faith because they sincerely believe that their's is the only way people can get saved. If Hindus wanted to convert people to Hinduism, first and foremost, they would have had to find a place for them in caste system, where there is room only at the bottom. Who will get persuaded by a promise, convert and we will treat you worse than a chandala, not a very good sales pitch.

These days, there is freedom for anyone to profess to be Hindu, but still they won't be allowed into some temples in India, In Sri Rangam and Madurai, if you are visibly a non-hindu, like a white person, you can only enter the outer circle, not allowed any further inside.

Also, the revival of Hinduism was not achieved without the use of the sword. So, we need to be little less proud of our tolerance. Perhaps, don't care is more apt.



If I may ask, with what religion do you have the most interaction?Ha! my identity. This is Richard Dawkins' pet peeve. As Rushdie says in Midnights Children -- children are the vessels into which the parents pour their poison. A large part of our identities are shaped by the religion of the family into which we are born. Most Advaitins are advaitins because they were born into families that have traditionally believed in it. The two sects of Sri Vaishnavas fight with each other all the time because they were born into their respective families and raised with the respective beliefs. Same is the case with any other religion. We need to realize this, and not let religion define who we are.

To answer your question directly, I was born into a Hindu family and I am most familiar with Sri Vaishnavam.

Thank you....

Nara
13 March 2010, 12:54 PM
....I wonder if you could relate 2 or 3 key experiences in your life that aroused your mind enough for you to draw your conclusions.


Dear Eastern Mind, my present world-view was shaped over a long period of reading and reflection, not through any series of traumatic or other types of experiences. Because of my Tamil background I became enamored with the poetry of Azhvars. This took me deep into Sri Vaishnavam. My family belongs to Sri vaishnavam as well, and that allowed me to get deep into Sri Vaishnavam rather easily.

However, I did not shut myself off from reading other POVs. Some 3 or 4 years back I read "The Selfish Gene" by Richard Dawkins. This opened up my mind to atheistic POV. I started reading this stuff and at one point I could not get enough of it. This is the story of my present situation. Hope I didn't bore you or others too much.

Cheers!

Eastern Mind
13 March 2010, 01:15 PM
Vannakkam Nara:

Thank you for your direct answer. Interesting to hear you say 'present world view' which implies you might be still subject to change. I suppose we all are. As you may have guessed, I am a western adoptive enamored with Tamil culture myself, but more of the Saiva variety. The fellow I was referring to before actually comes to temple, but for some reason doesn't seem to get why the rest of us are worshiping. I used to find it odd, yet now I'm used to it. Yet he still comes, stands with his hands crossed, denies God's existence to the point of at least agnostic leaning towards atheism. He worked for the common good when we built our temple though.

Here's hoping you'll have an overwhelming God given experience that changes your world view ... lol. Of course I jest as it is to each his own. The existence or non-existence of God has nothing to do with what we think anyway.

Aum Namasivaya

smaranam
13 March 2010, 03:03 PM
I am new to this forum. But when I read the postings in general, it seems many of them are declarations. Here, take it, this is "the" truth -- what arrogance!


Namaste Prof. Nara

Eastern Mind has put it very well.
Since we have special folders and sub folders for each philosophy, paramparA , path and topic , we tend to rattle off our POVs tainted with personal experiences, guru vAkya and specific shAstra. Assuming - since these are all friends here - that they will know, its obvious. However, it may not be obvious for a new reader or an external outside reader just popping in.

Funny - those who so diligently use these polite words (IMHO, POV etc.) were at one point criticized by a few in a thread, for giving opinions instead of straight shAstra.

So we have both kinds here - the tactless ones who get away with it and the nice ones who on occasion get criticized by some :) I think this is the beauty of Brahman. sarvam idam khalvidam Brahman.

If my posts unintentionally sounded annoying or arrogant , including the lines which were my version of humor, i beg forgiveness from all readers. Who is this 'my' ? For all vyAvahAric practical purposes its the user called smaranam.

I know i have been too much of a chatterbox in the past few days much to my own disgust. Many here know that i will be one of the last to impose my belief on anyone. So talking advaita in the posts precisely because it includes all POVs becomes an oxymoron then :)
Such is embodied existence. So a reminder to 'myself' : "Nistraiguna bhavArjunah !"

I deeply respect scientists - a toddler can see what they have done for the world.

I also do not think it is so bad if someone does not believe there is a God. That's their POV, and i respect it - Why , Krshna Himself respects it by giving free will.
All i would say to them is - its wonderful to be with God, whether you call Him Krshna(All attractive-all oppulent), Shiva( Pure Being), or simply Existence-Consciousness (Brahman). And to hang on to Him like a kitten least bothered about what the Cat is going to do with her next (Shri Vaishnavism type 1) or a monkey who makes conscious effort to stay with Mother (Shri Vaishnavism type 2).

praNAm

Nara
13 March 2010, 07:17 PM
Dear smaranam,greetings!

You have nothing to apologize for, I did not mean anyone in particular, just that religious people have a tendency to be very sure of their own faith.



And to hang on to Him like a kitten least bothered about what the Cat is going to do with her next (Shri Vaishnavism type 1) or a monkey who makes conscious effort to stay with Mother (Shri Vaishnavism type 2).

Dear smaranam, this marjara and markata nyayam is a caricature of the position of the two sects of Sri vaishnavam. Both sects believe in Sriman Narayana being the ultimate upaya, and both sects believe saranagati/prapatti as a prerequisite for the siddopaya, i.e. Sriman Narayana to take effect. The difference is only in what constitutes prapatti.

Cheers!

Eastern Mind
13 March 2010, 07:38 PM
I did not mean anyone in particular, just that religious people have a tendency to be very sure of their own faith.



I can't imagine a world where we weren't very sure. We'd be converting hither thither, jumping from one path to the next to the next. (Some people do just that.) My belief is that once you find one that really fits you, its time to buy in.

But if one doesn't think his way is the best way (for him) he very well better select the better way.

If you really don't like Delhi, and think Bangalore is a better place, then move.

Aum Namasivaya

Nara
13 March 2010, 08:11 PM
....My belief is that once you find one that really fits you, its time to buy in.


Yes, I agree, one must believe in a set of principles, right or wrong.

Here i would like to remind that all this started with the suggestion that some atheists are arrogant, as though that was something unique to be noted. I was only pointing out that preponderance of arrogance is no less among the theists.

Cheers!

sanjaya
16 March 2010, 02:38 AM
Hello Nara.


First, about neo-atheists being in your face, here is a quote from Ingersoll about 150 years ago.

"The man who does not do his own thinking is a slave, and is a traitor to himself and his fellow men."
More than 2300 years ago there was Epicuris in Greece. Roughly about the same time there was Charvaka/Lokayata in India, who said things like, if you can feed your dear parents living in the sky by feeding some one here, why not feed somebody in the ground floor for someone who is hungry in the second floor. They also ridiculed the concept of heaven, if sacrificed goat will go to heaven, why not sacrifice your parents, let them also go to heaven.

Don't misunderstand me. I think it's both acceptable and healthy to question the existence of God. I am quite proud of Hinduism's long heritage of tolerating dissent. However, there's no virtue in asking questions for their own sake. Ultimately we have to seek answers to these questions, including the question of God. Personally I agree with the saying commonly attributed to the Buddha: that a person should not necessarily believe what other people say about God, but should find out for himself. This would simply be another phrasing of your Ingersoll quote. You may not have any particular reason to believe in God, which is why I do not begrudge you due to your agnostic stance on the issue of God's existence.

However, consider that one of your charges against Hinduism is that we hand down theological truths, and expect the masses to believe them on account of their antiquity. Again, do not mistake my statement as confrontational, but this sounds very similar to your appeal to atheism's long history as a justification for the New Atheists that I mentioned. The New Atheists' imposition of their viewpoint on others isn't justified simply because people are have been doing it for centuries. I would still like to know why the New Atheists maintain an aristocratic position with respect to theists, when they have no argument to conclusively validate this position. I am aware of Dawkins' "teacup atheist" argument, also known as the "invisible pink unicorn" argument against God's existence. Again, Dawkins is speaking in a Christian context, and this is a fine argument against Christianity. But it does nothing to discredit Hindu theism. I've never known any Hindu to have visions of pink unicorns, nor do I know any Hindus who've met such creatures. I do know of Hindus who have experienced God and have met living incarnations of God.



Well, the point is, these kinds of intense debates have been going on forever. Mostly, it is the atheists who have been on the receiving end. In 1987, Papa Bush had this to say about atheists,
"No, I don't know that atheists should be considered as citizens, nor should they be considered patriots".
None of the atheists you mentioned above take a stand as strident as these, well, may be Hitchins does sometimes, but he is a political commentator with a proclivity for provocative statements.

Again I must question why Hindus are being imputed with the bad behavior of Christians. I've heard of this statement by President Bush. However, President Bush is an evangelical Christian, and I think you'll agree with me that evangelicals are by nature hypocritical and arrogant. Why does their behavior characterize all theists? Why are we, as Hindus, blamed for Christian treatment of atheists?


From what I have heard and read of all these people, they are questioning some pretty ridiculous and untenable beliefs. Their scorn is for people who want to bring creationism as science, keep evolution out, young-earthers, and the like, who want to impose their religious belief upon the rest.

But with serious people of faith, their arguments with are always civil, measured, well articulated, and free of any sort of ridicule.

I suppose it may just be that I've never heard these people debate non-Christian theists. However, I know many people who subscribe to the views of the New Atheists, and they usually level the same charges against Jews as they do against Christians. Given that Jews are just as tolerant and peaceful as Hindus, this behavior surprises me and suggests to me that the New Atheists are as arrogant as I think they are. But perhaps I shouldn't generalize based on my less-than-random sample of militant atheists.


I am not quite sanguine about this. Tolerance includes respect. Hindus were tolerant, if they were, only to the extent that they did not care. Christians and Muslims want to convert everyone to their faith because they sincerely believe that their's is the only way people can get saved. If Hindus wanted to convert people to Hinduism, first and foremost, they would have had to find a place for them in caste system, where there is room only at the bottom. Who will get persuaded by a promise, convert and we will treat you worse than a chandala, not a very good sales pitch.

There are a couple independent points I want to address here. First, I disagree with the claim that tolerance includes respect. Take Western culture as an example. I tolerate many Western behaviors that I find immoral, such as rampant sexual promiscuity and divorce, homosexuality, evangelical Christianity, the degradation of family values, etc. Tolerance requires me to not stand in the way of people who wish to live in these ways. But it doesn't require me to respect them. I have my own set of values, and I find no moral reason to alter these values because other people have different opinions. This isn't an issue of mere semantics, because you're implying that Hindu appearances of religious tolerance are really just expressions of apathy. This isn't true, because it's well known that when (atheistic) Buddhism first appeared in India, Hindus responded to it. We did not respond with threats of violence, but with formal debate. Through debate, Buddhism was virtually eradicated in India, though it florished elsewhere. It is a testament to Hindu tolerance that today the Dalai Lama resides in India and is free to practice and propagate his religion however he wishes. It's easy to tolerate things that we agree with. The true virtue, I believe, resides in tolerating what we disagree with.

Secondly, I believe that your portrayal of the Hindu varna system is not accurate. It is true that Sri Krishna tells us that he created the four varnas. However, he does not say that varna is an inherited trait, as it is in the modern caste system. You'll find that even the detested Scrolls of Manu do not depict varna as inherited, but as fluid. If a person were to convert to Hinduism, his varna ought to be determined by his occupation. Sadly this is not how the modern caste system works. But I believe this has more to do with British influence on Indian culture than with Hinduism at its core.


These days, there is freedom for anyone to profess to be Hindu, but still they won't be allowed into some temples in India, In Sri Rangam and Madurai, if you are visibly a non-hindu, like a white person, you can only enter the outer circle, not allowed any further inside.

This is true. While temples do this in order to keep Christians out, I still object to the practice. However, even this bad practice is not racially motivated. Eastern Mind has described that he is allowed into Indian temples because he has legally adopted an Indian name, and can produce his passport to demonstrate this.

Should Hindu converts have to change their names to enter God's temples? No, I do not believe this should be a requirement. But it would be illogical to judge Hinduism on the basis of how a few Hindus behave.


Also, the revival of Hinduism was not achieved without the use of the sword. So, we need to be little less proud of our tolerance. Perhaps, don't care is more apt.

I'm not familiar with this. Could you tell me when Hindus have wrongly used violence to revive our faith?


Ha! my identity. This is Richard Dawkins' pet peeve. As Rushdie says in Midnights Children -- children are the vessels into which the parents pour their poison.

Forgive me, I think you may have misunderstood my intent. I am not trying to deduce your identity, but rather I'm trying to determine how you formulate your ideas on theism. One thing I've noticed from reading the New Atheists is that virtually all of their arguments against "religion" are really just arguments against Christianity. Since I already don't believe in Christianity, I don't find their arguments compelling. I assume that they speak and write this way simply because the only religion they know is Christianity, and they project Christian worldviews onto all other religions. Your arguments seemed very similar, so I was wondering if you too were getting your ideas about religion from Christianity.


A large part of our identities are shaped by the religion of the family into which we are born. Most Advaitins are advaitins because they were born into families that have traditionally believed in it. The two sects of Sri Vaishnavas fight with each other all the time because they were born into their respective families and raised with the respective beliefs. Same is the case with any other religion. We need to realize this, and not let religion define who we are.

To answer your question directly, I was born into a Hindu family and I am most familiar with Sri Vaishnavam.

I agree with your presupposition. If I were born in a Muslim family I would likely be Muslim. The only reason I am Hindu is because the rest of my family is Hindu. In fact, even if I were an atheist I would likely continue to practice Hinduism as part of my Indian culture. Which brings me to the last thing you said. Why should the origin of our identities lead us to not be defined, in part, by religion? Hinduism is inextricably bound to Indian culture. Our Scriptures and stories shape the very foundation of India, and we would be very different (and I believe poorer) without it. Again, I find that this argument comes out of a Christian culture. If you believe that all non-Christians are going to hell, then the connection between religion and culture presents a problem for Christian theodicy (it's the old, "why would God send someone to hell for being born Muslim?" question). But if you believe that salvation comes by surrendering to God and not by religious practice, and if you believe that this is equally accessible to people of all religions, then it presents no problem at all.

What you have said fits perfectly with the Hindu idea of dharma, and with Sri Krishna's teaching that it's better for a person to do his own duty poorly than to do another person's duty. I feel no need to convert a person of another religion, because I feel that he can reach God within his own religion. God has not specifically chosen to reveal himselt to Hindus and to abandon the rest of the world, but reveals himself to everyone. Thus, I see no reason to not define myself as Hindu simply by virtue of being Indian.

Having said all of this, it is interesting to know that you are born into a Hindu family. Do you not consider yourself Hindu as well? I do not believe that such an identification is dependent on your religious beliefs at all.

Nara
17 March 2010, 09:32 AM
Dear sanjaya, Greetings!

Thank you for your response. Let me give my clarifications and then some responses. I apologize, it is long.

The reason I cited Charvaka and others from the past was not to claim authenticity from the past, only to show that the friction you noted between theists and atheists existed all along, and there is no reason to think that the fresh crop of atheists like Hitchins is any more or any less confrontational compared to the past going all the way back to the time of early thinkers.

But, I do accept your point that there is no need to be confrontational. No reasoned debate is possible without civility. What I do not agree is that the recent crop of atheists is imposing their POV on anyone. I was a dried in the wool theist at one time, performing tri-kala sandhyavandhanams, and salagrama aradhanai everyday without fail. I never eat anything that was not prasadam. Yet, I did not feel Dawkins, Harris, et al. imposed anything on me. They made me think. Even the most aggressive of the lot, Hitchins, debated his own brother and the crackpot Dinesh D’souza, and not once did he lose his temper or impose anything on anybody.

Having said that, many do think the so-called The Four Horsemen (:)) Dawkins, Dennett, Harris & Hitchens are too confrontational. Some fellow atheists like Tyson have said that. They think changing the mind of theists takes a more gentle approach.

I think these criticisms are not valid. Theists have forced the atheists to stay in the closet for far too long. It is time to come out and flaunt a little. It will settle down. Once the atheists are free of fear of social stigma, when it is accepted as a natural state, then even the few atheists who are belligerent will no longer feel the need to be confrontational. Early in the LGBT movement, some the openly homosexuals flaunted their homosexuality mainly for this reason – rebellion against a prudish society. These days, they have become as boring as the rest of us.

BTW, have you seen Jonathan Miller’s three-part BBC series entitled “A Brief History of Disbelief? He is ever so gentle. Even the much criticized four horsemen ridicule only the extreme beliefs of the fundamentalist types, primarily Christian and Muslim -- but Hinduism is not free of this type of kooks.


However, consider that one of your charges against Hinduism is that we hand down theological truths, and expect the masses to believe them on account of their antiquity…… but this sounds very similar to your appeal to atheism's long history as a justification for the New Atheists that I mentioned.
I don’t think authenticity of the claims of theist is derived from just their antiquity, but from the claim that they were revealed by the only true god, their god, and therefore inerrant. Further, questioning the validity of these claims is blasphemy. The flock is kept in line with the threat of eternal damnation, as in the case of Christianity and Islam, and at least a sojourn in hell and a polluting rebirth in the case of Hinduism. All religions have their way of imposing faith in handed down wisdom.

This is certainly not the case with atheists. Atheism is a return to normal state when a thinking person finds out that theism is just handed down doctrine. This realization comes not from simply believing another handed down and inerrant doctrine of say, Charvaka, or Budda, or Ingersoll, or even Dawkins, but from a critical analysis of the arguments these people present. Only if they persuade you by their logic and evidence, then you return to your original state that others call atheist. But for an infinitesimal few, parents and the larger society don’t permit children to develop naturally, they drill their handed down religious beliefs into them. Bombarded with theism from all sides, children get corrupted early on.


…..Again, Dawkins is speaking in a Christian context, and this is a fine argument against Christianity. But it does nothing to discredit Hindu theism. I've never known any Hindu to have visions of pink unicorns, nor do I know any Hindus who've met such creatures. I do know of Hindus who have experienced God and have met living incarnations of God.
Now we are entering the deep crevasses of theism. In this realm, I don’t know how you can say Hinduism does not have its own versions of the IPU, the Invisible Pink Unicorn. Please permit me to give some examples of Hindu IPUs, no scorn is intended. Ithihasa puranas are full of IPUs. Shiva is supposed to be half man, half woman, with water sprouting from his head, with a sliver of a moon that never waxes or wanes. Vishnu is supposed to lie on a snake bed in an ocean of milk, with a stem coming out of his belly button that supports a four-faced Brahmma, actually he once had five faces, but shiva cut one off. You see, Hinduism is not free of its own set of IPUs.

Perhaps you are referring to the philosophical angle of Hinduism as presented in the Upanishads. Even here, we run into IPUs with the elaborate descriptions of creation and the 24, 25, or 26 tatvas and so on.
I am not denying that the main target of The Four Horsemen is indeed Christianity. That is because they live in that culture. But their opposition to religion is not limited to Christianity alone. There are enough atheists in India taking on the IPUs of Hinduism.


…. New Atheists, […] usually level the same charges against Jews as they do against Christians. Given that Jews are just as tolerant and peaceful as Hindus, this behavior surprises me and suggests to me that the New Atheists are as arrogant as I think they are.No sanjaya, it is not the peacefulness they question, but faith in a god, a god, if their bible is to be believed, who is not above acting like a genocidal maniac.

In any case, whether somebody is arrogant or not is often a judgment call. So, if you find atheists arrogant, all I can say is I don’t find them so :).

There are a couple independent points I want to address here. First, I disagree with the claim that tolerance includes respect.Perhaps the word respect goes a little too far, but what I meant was something like this dictionary definition of tolerance:
“a fair, objective, and permissive attitude toward those whose opinions, practices, race, religion, nationality, etc., differ from one's own; freedom from bigotry”
I think Hindus fall short on most counts of this definition. It is not apathy, it is contempt. As you go higher up in the ladder of varna/caste among Hindus, the level contempt rises in a non-linear fashion. Neither Buddisim nor Jainism was eradicated through debate alone. There are verses in the Azhvar poems in which violence against Buddas and Jainas is extolled as righteous acts. There is a specific mention in the hagiography of Sri Vaishnava acharayas of an instance when Ramanuja, having defeated his Jain opponents in the present daya Karnataka, won over the king and had all the defeated Jains put to death in a horrifying way. Ramanuja himself was hounded out of sri Rangam on religious grounds, and the eyes of his aged acharya and at least one disciple were gouged out. The acharya died immediately.

And then there was Raja Raja, and Rejendra Chola. They expanded their Hindu empire across East Asia by sword. Though not to the extent of Christians and Muslims, Hindus also are guilty of expansionist wars far beyond their natural borders..



Secondly, I believe that your portrayal of the Hindu varna system is not accurate.It is here that I think I am on most firm ground. The Moguls are not to blame. The English are not to blame. Hindus, and the upper caste in particular, have to stand up and take responsibility and make amends.

Lord Sri Krishna in Srimat BG, with what he said and what he did not say, clearly indicates Varna is inherited by birth. Among Arjuna’s fears was that the war will result in the women being unprotected and consequently get raped, which will then result in Varna sangraha. Arjuna cites clan elders as the source of his views.

So, this was the prevalent thinking at that time, namely, if women get raped, varna sangharaha will result. This can be so only if Varna results from birth. In the succeeding 17 chapters, Lord Sri Krishna gives answers to many of Arjuna’s questions, never once does he dissuade him of this view. But Lord Sri Krishna goes even further. In chapter 9, he says, even the ones of sinful birth, such as vaishya, sudra and women, can attain moksham by surrendering to him, so surely Arjuna of punya birth certainly can. So, Lord Sri Krishna clearly teaches that Varna results from birth which itself is determined by punya and papa.

So, if BG is to be believed, then for Lord Sri Krishna, varana is birth based. If you visit kamakoti.org, there is a full chapter on this question affirming that varna/jati is based strictly on birth. This is a core value of the Vedic religion that we call Hinduism today.

If you look at scientific evidence gleaned from archeology, DNA, etc. it is clear that there is no pure varna, everything is mixed up. As you say, there have been movements across the varna lines. But that is science. Religious doctrine requires birth based Varna purity and an elaborate scheme of punishments are stipulated for transgressors. Further, the present day keepers of Brahmin orthodoxy still maintain they can trace their pure genealogy back to the vedic rishees. What this shows, I leave it to you.



Should Hindu converts have to change their names to enter God's temples? No, I do not believe this should be a requirement. But it would be illogical to judge Hinduism on the basis of how a few Hindus behave.It is not few Hindus. The gatekeepers refuse to permit non-hindus not because they are bigoted people, perhaps they are, perhaps they are not. They do so because that is the official policy of the temple. Small temples do not bother because they welcome any little income that may come their way. But the official polic is not to let non-hindus in. Until just a few decades ago dalits were kept out by Hindu darma. Even today there are upper caste hindus who go to extreme lengths to keep dalits away, let alone non-hindus. These are dalits who want to remain Hindu. Then, when they convert to Christianity or Islam, there is huge big hue and cry.


Forgive me, I think you may have misunderstood my intent.This shows your graceful character. Not you my friend, it is I who should beg for forgiveness. I reread your post and it is clear to me I over-reached, sorry.


What you have said fits perfectly with the Hindu idea of dharma, and with Sri Krishna's teaching that it's better for a person to do his own duty poorly than to do another person's duty. I feel no need to convert a person of another religion, because I feel that he can reach God within his own religion.But, Sri Krishna was talking about duties of Varnas. If you are kshatriya, then it is better to do kshatriya darma even poorly than brahmana darma perfectly. This is the source for some to think a toilet cleaner must remain a toilet cleaner, because that is his darma. Further, his children also must remain toilet cleaners. The punishment for not following your own darma is hell and a degraded or polluted rebirth. Sorry, this Hindu darma is no more attractive to me than the darma of other religions, particularly Abrahamic religions that I find completely devoid of logic.


Having said all of this, it is interesting to know that you are born into a Hindu family. Do you not consider yourself Hindu as well? I do not believe that such an identification is dependent on your religious beliefs at all.I think “Hindu” is primarily a religious identity, and that is why I shun it. I love the benign parts of our culture like, food, music, poetry, history, study of religious traditions and on and on. In fact, I am teaching a theistic friend of mine to recite parts of Dhivya Praghandam of Azhavrs.

Dear sanjaya, it is lovely to exchange views with you, hope to continue…

smaranam
17 March 2010, 01:42 PM
But, Sri Krishna was talking about duties of Varnas. If you are kshatriya, then it is better to do kshatriya darma even poorly than brahmana darma perfectly....

If you are kshatriya, then it is better to do kshatriya darma even poorly than brahmana darma perfectly...... so that in the next birth you may get to be a brahman who knows ?

Also, going by the esoteric 2-3 folded msgs in the PuraNas, in this case also, KRSNa is probably talking about dharma as duties in general , not just in the context of varNa.

Gita talks about staying in the dharma for that particular birth, and good or nishkAm karma acc. to sva-dharma in this birth might bring a birth with a more sought after dharma (or varna). Since vAsanA of this birth shapes next.

Lord is very kind.



. I love the benign parts of our culture like, food, music, poetry, history, study of religious traditions and on and on.


I agree , its a very rich heritage. Hinduism is basically a heritage i would think.

praNAm

smaranam
17 March 2010, 06:24 PM
Namaste

One more time, sorry to intrude in your conversation, but i agree with Prof. Nara that Pink Unicorns are not just about Christianity :) However....


Please permit me to give some examples of Hindu IPUs, no scorn is intended. Ithihasa puranas are full of IPUs. Shiva is supposed to be half man, half woman, with water sprouting from his head, with a sliver of a moon that never waxes or wanes. Vishnu is supposed to lie on a snake bed in an ocean of milk, with a stem coming out of his belly button that supports a four-faced Brahmma, actually he once had five faces, but shiva cut one off. You see, Hinduism is not free of its own set of IPUs.

We are not supposed to take the invisible pink unicorns literally, rather philosophically , poetically, esoterically, their essence and so on. Moreover, who says they are invisible ? Devotees have seen them , if not with the eye, with the mind's eye anointed with kajal of Love. I am sure you appreciate the IPUs even today , as did the Azvar poet saints :)


In chapter 9, he says, even the ones of sinful birth, such as vaishya, sudra and women, can attain moksham by surrendering to him, so surely Arjuna of punya birth certainly can.

I was going to mention this , then found that you had mentioned it already.
So, isn't KRSNa really cutting across all varNa system to say mameka sharanam vraja ? (surrender unto Me, don't worry about these worldly systems and ways)

Another thing to note is that perhaps KRSNa was just playing the part of Arjun's cousin, friend and setting an example of following the elders with respect, not transgressing the path they have laid.

Otherwise, from His personal side, KRSNa played with gwalas, shared their food, asked the gopis to feed Him, straightened KubjA , and said "I only see the AtmA within, never the person outside".

Granted, He says , "I have set up the chaturvarNiya system" (Ishwar/Brahman). He also shows a way out of it.

Also agree that VarNA system cannot be applied today. This was also predicted will happen in KaliYuga.


Jai Sri KRSNa

Ganeshprasad
17 March 2010, 07:17 PM
Pranam Nara
Please allow me to intrude in your conversation with sanjaya.

You have made some damming accusation, I must say some off it has pained me no ends, how far what you say about Ramanujacharya is true I don’t know, I must say I am relatively ignorant about south Indian history.



Dear sanjaya, Greetings!

The flock is kept in line with the threat of eternal damnation, as in the case of Christianity and Islam, and at least a sojourn in hell and a polluting rebirth in the case of Hinduism. All religions have their way of imposing faith in handed down wisdom.

Nice try to lump hindus in the same brackets with abramhamic religion. Weather you like it or not children will always be influenced by the parents, that would include religion as well as all the rest, behaviour and all.
Tree would be judged by the fruit it provide, as we say in Guajarati, Bap jevo beto ane Vad jevo teto.

If you plant certain brand of seeds you will expect similar brand to sprout out.

Off course in your case I can not expect you to understand the concept of reincarnation and the karma since you as an atheist, cease to exists after you die, so what else to do, except a great struggle for survival, and that is all there is to it. lord Krishna describes this state in chapter 16 in Gita.



This is certainly not the case with atheists. Atheism is a return to normal state when a thinking person finds out that theism is just handed down doctrine. This realization comes not from simply believing another handed down and inerrant doctrine of say, Charvaka, or Budda, or Ingersoll, or even Dawkins, but from a critical analysis of the arguments these people present. Only if they persuade you by their logic and evidence, then you return to your original state that others call atheist. But for an infinitesimal few, parents and the larger society don’t permit children to develop naturally, they drill their handed down religious beliefs into them. Bombarded with theism from all sides, children get corrupted early on.

What is this original state or normal state?

What would you prefer a state where there is no rules and no one to answer to?

Or on a dharmic rules where karma is at the heart off it, you take responsibility off your actions?

Nothing would make sense if the concept of Karma is missed. A child would naturally pick up from where it left off that is why it would take birth in a particular circumstance.


What would be natural development for a child you ask?

It will always be influenced by the circumstance it is placed in, be it in a slum of Mumbai or Brixton in London, or in somewhere posh in an affluent family.
 
 



I think Hindus fall short on most counts of this definition. It is not apathy, it is contempt. As you go higher up in the ladder of varna/caste among Hindus, the level contempt rises in a non-linear fashion.

I think you have been greatly corrupted and influenced by British, they used all the tricks in the books to discredit the varna system because it worked perfectly.
A great responsibility is placed on a Brahmin he had vigorous training given from a very early age, his quality is exemplary or else he is Brahmin in name only same goes for kshatriya his is to uphold the dharma. Brits succeeded in driving a wedge in varna system and you guys are simply parroting same all propaganda. Now the system is in shambles because everyone has a view on it looking at the shambles.

Or else even up to three hundred years ago under the subjugation of foreign rule this is what was observed and I quote

Break her backbone


It was February 1835, a time when the British were striving to take control of the whole of India. Lord Macaulay, a historian and a politician, made a historical speech in the British Parliament, commonly referred to as The Minutes, which struck a blow at the centuries old system of Indian education.

His words were to this effect: I have travelled across the length and breadth of India and I have not seen one person who is a beggar, who is a thief. Such wealth I have seen in this country, such high moral values, people of such calibre, that I do not think we would ever conquer this country, unless we break the very backbone of this nation, which is her spiritual and cultural heritage, and, therefore, I propose that we replace her old and ancient education system, her culture, for if the Indians think that all that is foreign and English is good and greater than their own, they will lose their self-esteem, their native self-culture and they will become what we want them, a truly dominated nation.



Neither Buddisim nor Jainism was eradicated through debate alone. There are verses in the Azhvar poems in which violence against Buddas and Jainas is extolled as righteous acts. There is a specific mention in the hagiography of Sri Vaishnava acharayas of an instance when Ramanuja, having defeated his Jain opponents in the present daya Karnataka, won over the king and had all the defeated Jains put to death in a horrifying way. Ramanuja himself was hounded out of sri Rangam on religious grounds, and the eyes of his aged acharya and at least one disciple were gouged out. The acharya died immediately.

This indeed is shocking news to me, is this historical facts or here say?

I must say Gujarat where I come from such violence are not known to me.
Besides it is not Hindu dharma because non-violence is one of the pillar of it, so you can not tarnish the dharma if the followers do not adhere by it.



And then there was Raja Raja, and Rejendra Chola. They expanded their Hindu empire across East Asia by sword. Though not to the extent of Christians and Muslims, Hindus also are guilty of expansionist wars far beyond their natural borders..

Here again was it a Hindu doctrine or a command by Hindu religion or was it simply a kings desires to expand its territory?
Krishna clearly says in Gita do not speak this to a non believer so where is the question of forcible conversion?
 


But, Sri Krishna was talking about duties of Varnas. If you are kshatriya, then it is better to do kshatriya darma even poorly than brahmana darma perfectly. This is the source for some to think a toilet cleaner must remain a toilet cleaner, because that is his darma. Further, his children also must remain toilet cleaners.

I make no apology for varna system, nor do I condone those who misuse it for their personal gain or pride.

You make it sound as if the toilet cleaner is some horrible job, and it does sound like it because most off us would not choose such a job. Yet if we sit down and ponder a bit, who is the best toilet cleaner? Mother who is selflessly cleaning toilets of her offspring’s and maintaining the house doing all kind off jobs which we take it for granted.

Everyone is equal in grand scheme of things yet not everyone has same role, my head, hands, belly and legs perform different roles. If my karma placed me in certain circumstance, I simply have to accept it and if I don’t like it again I have to strive for some thing new until I succeed . but the goal of varnashram is ultimately mosksa.

Unlike you who consider birth has no reason or rime, if by chance you were born not so intelligent and had to do toilet cleaning job that would be it, by your atheist logic only one life and make the most off it and don’t tell me outside of Hindu dharma such condition do not prevail.

Jai Shree Krishna

devotee
17 March 2010, 09:35 PM
Namaste all,

Hindus have a long history of getting stabbed in the back. And I am having similar feeling here again. :(

Nara was greeted here like an esteemed guest when he came. However, seeing him indulging him in spewing venom against Hindu Dharma & our respectable Acharyas tends me to believe that he has some other agenda in mind.

The distorted history of Hinduism he wants to present is product of such misguided people who have all along been enemies of Hindus.

He is proud of all those English men who gave them the distorted history of India and the Hindus. He even claims that our great Achryaas were busy in such fruitless discussions on Saguna/Nirguna Brahman ... the so called dalits were toiling hard to feed them ! He doesn't even know a bit that the so-called dalits were not the farmers or the merchants .... who support the society with their economic activities .... the dalits were paid for their services and it was not for free. We don't consider dalits separate from Hindus and we alone have given them reservations in almost all walks of life. What have these so-called atheists like Nara did for them ? Create and spread hatred within so-called dalits and the higher castes & watch the resulting destruction of Hindus with a smile ??

Thank you Nara for going out of India and also for becoming an atheist. India and the Hindus don't need you.

Moderator may like to delete this post ... but I can't stop expressing my anger against this Nara's habit of spewing his venom all over.

OM

satay
17 March 2010, 10:48 PM
Admin Note

Thread under review.