PDA

View Full Version : Hello fellow travellers



Nara
09 March 2010, 06:11 PM
I am joining this forum to debate Advaitam at the invitation of a respected member. I hope I live up to his trust and expectations.

It is not uncommon for people to introduce themselves in religious terms, but I feel that is too narrow. I would like to call myself just a "human being". I don't mean this in a condescending way at all. To me, any affiliation beyond this builds walls.

Since this forum is a religious forum let me say something about my world-view on this matter. I do not believe in a personal god who listens and answers prayers, like Rama, Krishna, Shiva, Jesus, Allah and the like. As far as an impersonal god a la Spinoza, I am a little ambivalent and could characterize myself as an agnostic. But in a scale of 1 to 10 with 1 being complete belief in a supernatural power that controls everything and 10 being absolute disbelief in such a power, I am definitely in the upper half and a lot closer to 10 than 5. The only reason I am not at 10 is because it is logically unsustainable in as much as a negative cannot be proved.

Politically, I am very progressive, I voted for Ralph Nader this past US Presidential election. I think education, job with decent income, quality health care, worry-free retirement are among the fundamental human rights. All human beings are essentially equal and must be treated so. I loath the karma/reincarnation based varna/caste system.

Hope this explains who I am to some extent. I hope to have decent and civil exchanges, and make some new friends.

Thank you....

Eastern Mind
09 March 2010, 06:48 PM
Vannakkam Nara:

Welcome to the forums. I hope you find your travel here fruitful.

Aum namasivaya

saidevo
09 March 2010, 07:44 PM
namaste Nara and other members.

It is I who invited Prof.Nara to discuss Advaita with us. I happened to know him through a thread in the Tamilbrahmins.com forum where we were discussing Advaita. It was with his queries that I opened the 'How do we counter this argument' thread, which is currently under much discussion and debate. As I considered Prof.Nara's down-to-earth views useful (to find answers to) for Hindus in general and Advaitins in particular, I invited him to partake discussions in that thread and other threads as may see himself fit to discuss them.

Welcome, Prof.Nara! I hope you will find your stay here at HDF useful and make new friends.

kd gupta
10 March 2010, 06:15 AM
I am joining this forum to debate Advaitam at the invitation of a respected member. I hope I live up to his trust and expectations.

It is not uncommon for people to introduce themselves in religious terms, but I feel that is too narrow. I would like to call myself just a "human being". I don't mean this in a condescending way at all. To me, any affiliation beyond this builds walls.

Since this forum is a religious forum let me say something about my world-view on this matter. I do not believe in a personal god who listens and answers prayers, like Rama, Krishna, Shiva, Jesus, Allah and the like. As far as an impersonal god a la Spinoza, I am a little ambivalent and could characterize myself as an agnostic. But in a scale of 1 to 10 with 1 being complete belief in a supernatural power that controls everything and 10 being absolute disbelief in such a power, I am definitely in the upper half and a lot closer to 10 than 5. The only reason I am not at 10 is because it is logically unsustainable in as much as a negative cannot be proved.

Politically, I am very progressive, I voted for Ralph Nader this past US Presidential election. I think education, job with decent income, quality health care, worry-free retirement are among the fundamental human rights. All human beings are essentially equal and must be treated so. I loath the karma/reincarnation based varna/caste system.

Hope this explains who I am to some extent. I hope to have decent and civil exchanges, and make some new friends.

Thank you....
Welcome gentleman
You quoted …I do not believe in a personal god who listens and answers prayers, like Rama, Krishna, Shiva, Jesus, Allah and the like.
Well , You believe in a deaf and dumb god then , is it ?
myself as an agnostic. But in a scale of 1 to 10 with 1 being complete belief in a supernatural power that controls everything and 10 being absolute disbelief in such a power .
So who is that …1…is it Buddha or else ?
Thanks

Ganeshprasad
10 March 2010, 07:19 AM
Yes the journey begins when we ask who am i where am i going?

Pranam Nara

Welcome to, in my opinion a great Forum hosted by Satay ji, you will find most here are very civil.

Like you I also do not like any tags, for the same reason as I would not like to be boxed in and not be able to think outside of it.

So why Hindu you may ask? Precisely for the same reason because it does not stop me from asking questions or requires me to submit to any one path but it is well grounded in eternal Vedas.

But as belief goes, we could not be different regards personal God or karma and reincarnation and by default varna system, but let that not be a hindrance in any form, as they say variety is a spice of life.

So once again welcome.

Jai Shree Krishna

grames
10 March 2010, 07:19 AM
Welcome to the Forum!

Faith and belief are dangerous twins as if you are on the wrong side or unintelligent to accept the Truth or accept something purely rational as the final, then you will be mislead.

You out rightly denied your faith in personal God as well as having very little idea and faith about Super natural power if i understood your message properly. Do you mind if we interact about this with some fundamental points cleared. I do not want to bargain lot of your time if you are already 'busy' dealing with Advaita etc.

If you are rational, (Prof. title indicates just some aspects of it) and also open enough to admit certain rational points then i think i will be very much interested to have a discussion with you to know why you deny "personal" God and also what makes you "Agnostic" rather then just an "Atheist"?

Also i would like to state about myself for profit of knowing the other side. I am hard core rationalist and also have room for certain aspects of nature which are beyond just logic and any mind/intellect based deduction. I do disagree with impersonal 'form' as God or in better words God as some pure energy entity which is intrinsically of consciousness, knowledge and bliss etc. My belief or faith gives me scientific, logical and rational direction towards God, who is very much Personal though not on any material terms of conception etc. with sacred attributes in abundance and also a greatest will power to create, maintain and destroy anything and everything using/utilizing His power and as per His will (ShakthiMaan and Shakthi).

You said:
All human beings are essentially equal and must be treated so.

This is very tricky thing if you in fact start to think what happens to this world if we consider all are "equal" and also "treat" all as equal. This sentence require a lot more conditional criteria to become valid for the words "equal" and "treated" ( like integral with limits enforced). You cannot treat some random girl as your wife etc. and can you convince your wife that you are treating all girls with "equality"? (Please take this example as a joke..nothing serious :) ). This is where the beginning of "differentiation" takes its practical reality and also the crux of troubles and simultaneously the intelligence to go beyond this "bondage". (Do you like maths?)

You said:
I loath the karma/reincarnation based varna/caste system.

They are four different things :). Karma != reincarnation. Varna != Caste. But, i am sure there are millions who for their selfish purpose abused a natural system of classification and nature's justice system thinking they can Rule over it. And sadly, there are another set of millions who put their faith in such abused idea of artificial parity system.

You can ignore this message if you wish with a friendly note.

Welcome again for the friendship!

sanjaya
10 March 2010, 11:14 AM
Hello Prof. Nara, glad to meet you. Though I do believe in a personal God, I have never found an agnostic stance by itself to be particularly offensive, and I think that there is room in Hinduism for this viewpoint as well. I look forward to reading your posts.

satay
10 March 2010, 02:13 PM
namaskar,

Well, I find that 'agnostic' is a very interesting position to be in. Who among us can say for 'sure' what Truth is? Can anyone? We can talk, discuss, believe, have faith etc. etc. until the cows come hoem but until there is a trace of 'doubt', isn't it perfectly okay to be called 'agnostic' if one doesn't want the lable 'hindu'?

Just my 2 cents.

Welcome to HDF prof. nara. Good to have you here.

Nara
10 March 2010, 07:46 PM
Hello folks, thank you for the warm welcome I am receiving, I really appreciate it. I would like to respond to this one in particular for two reaons (i) he has taken the trouble to prepare a long welcome, and (ii) I like the humor in his (or is it her?) post.


Welcome to the Forum!
If you are rational, (Prof. title indicates just some aspects of it)


Ha! here is your first mistake, just because somebody hired me as a professor do not assume I have any claim to rationality :). But, at the same time, I appreciate your generosity of according me at least an a priori status of being a rational being.


...why you deny "personal" God and also what makes you "Agnostic" rather then just an "Atheist"?I deny "personal" god because there is no evidence for it. It is not logical for a compassionate personal god, or an incompassionate one for that matter, to hide behind anything. I don't buy the argument that you have to have faith to see god, if anything god has an obligation to show himself or herself or itself up to the unfaithful. Parent metaphor is often invoked with respect to personal god, and I just can't think of a more uncaring parent than the personal gods bandied about.

Now, my agnosticism is only about a supernatural power that cares little about humans. Even here, I classify myself as an agnostic only because being a total non-believer is illogically in as much as a negative cannot be proved. So, for all intents and purposes I don't believe even in an impersonal but non-physical power that has its hands on the levers of the universal constants.

From all the evidences that are available and verified by the only process that is not based on handed down wisdom that cannot be questioned, namely science, we can say that it is very unlikely that human existence has any purpose other than a society of genes to survive and replicate itself. The self, or soul, or consciousness one experiences is nothing but a state of brain chemicals and neuron activities. When we die nothing is lost, for there is nothing left. If we have children, then they carry a part of us. Memories of us live after us, we can call this memes if you like. These memes also die except for those who make an indelible mark like Ambedkar for good, or Hitler for bad.



You said:
All human beings are essentially equal and must be treated so.

You cannot treat some random girl as your wife etc. and can you convince your wife that you are treating all girls with "equality"? (Please take this example as a joke..nothing serious :) ).
This is what I meant earlier about your humor. Nicely done, I had a good laugh :)

What I mean to say is, all humans are equal in essence -- that is no one is superior or inferior in any way. Differentiation comes only with action. I like to be friends with a kind person, a witty person, et al., but not with a rude person, a prudish person etc. Also, being honest and faithful is not inconsistent with treating all with equal kindness.

BTW, I am not a math major, but I would like to think of myself as more quantitative than touchy feely.




They are four different things :). Karma != reincarnation. Varna != Caste.IMHO, karma and reincarnation form the the intellectual basis for varna/caste system that I consider pernicious. While varna is not identical to caste, they are related. Karma is not reincarnation, but it is supposed to be karma that results in a new birth. If one has annihilated all karma, then there is no rebirth. All this is pure mumbo jumbo to me.


Welcome again for the friendship!I appreciate your friendly welcome. Hope we can learn from each other.

Cheers!

sanjaya
10 March 2010, 09:37 PM
Hello Nara. I hope you don't mind if I intrude on this conversation.


Ha! here is your first mistake, just because somebody hired me as a professor do not assume I have any claim to rationality :). But, at the same time, I appreciate your generosity of according me at least an a priori status of being a rational being.

It's not entirely undeserved. Like you I also work in an academic community, and I think that people like ourselves are subject to social pressures that cause us to think rationally. The way I talk about rationality and criticize superstition, many people often mistake me for an atheist. Perhaps it's not entirely undeserved either; it's not every day you find a Hindu who doesn't believe in astrology or auspicious days.


I deny "personal" god because there is no evidence for it. It is not logical for a compassionate personal god, or an incompassionate one for that matter, to hide behind anything. I don't buy the argument that you have to have faith to see god, if anything god has an obligation to show himself or herself or itself up to the unfaithful.

Most people, through their daily experiences, don't see any reason to believe in a personal God. Indeed, when someone prays to God and hears no audible response, it's hard to believe that he exists. However, God has incarnated himself in various avatars throughout the years. In ancient times God came to us in forms such as Krishna, Narasimha, etc. In more recent times, God has become incarnate in forms such as Sri Guru and Shirdi Sai Baba (the latter lived just over a hundred years ago!). Now, why would God become incarnate in these forms and only communicate with a small number of people living in local geographic regions? That, I don't know. I'm not a theologian (I'm not even all that well-versed in Hindu Scripture), and I can't answer questions of theodicy very well. But I think we may be going a bit far to say that there is no evidence for a personal God.


Parent metaphor is often invoked with respect to personal god, and I just can't think of a more uncaring parent than the personal gods bandied about.

I find this metaphor to not be stressed as often in Hinduism. There are a few instances of God being portrayed as a father or mother figure. But Hinduism emphasizes that our first duty is to our actual mother and father, not God.


Now, my agnosticism is only about a supernatural power that cares little about humans. Even here, I classify myself as an agnostic only because being a total non-believer is illogically in as much as a negative cannot be proved. So, for all intents and purposes I don't believe even in an impersonal but non-physical power that has its hands on the levers of the universal constants.

Can't argue with this one. Fine-tuning arguments are academically very poor, especially when we consider the anthropic principle. But again, a person who has seen God in the flesh will likely not be concerned with cosmological arguments for God.


From all the evidences that are available and verified by the only process that is not based on handed down wisdom that cannot be questioned, namely science, we can say that it is very unlikely that human existence has any purpose other than a society of genes to survive and replicate itself. The self, or soul, or consciousness one experiences is nothing but a state of brain chemicals and neuron activities. When we die nothing is lost, for there is nothing left. If we have children, then they carry a part of us. Memories of us live after us, we can call this memes if you like. These memes also die except for those who make an indelible mark like Ambedkar for good, or Hitler for bad.

I sense that your underlying assumption is that Hinduism cannot be questioned. But Hinduism is not like Western religion, where dissent is punishable by death. As I said earlier, I myself question some of the Hindu superstitions myself, and no one has ever called me a heretic or threatened to kick me out of the temple. By all means question Hinduism and reject any part of it that you can't justify with your own reason. But certain parts of Hinduism can be confirmed by sensory experience, as can be attested to by those who practice yoga and meditation seriously. When these spiritual truths can be confirmed experientially, I don't think that we can dismiss them so easily.


BTW, I am not a math major, but I would like to think of myself as more quantitative than touchy feely.

Heh, I was a math major. Feel free to discard any touchy feeliness in our conversations. :)



IMHO, karma and reincarnation form the the intellectual basis for varna/caste system that I consider pernicious. While varna is not identical to caste, they are related. Karma is not reincarnation, but it is supposed to be karma that results in a new birth. If one has annihilated all karma, then there is no rebirth. All this is pure mumbo jumbo to me.

Yes, karma and reincarnation are important ideas and are connected to varna. However it has to be stressed that Scripturally-speaking, varna is not an inherited trait. The inheritance of varna is a later addition made by human beings. Bhagavad Gita says that God created the four varnas. But varna is based on one's occupation, which doesn't depend on birth. For example, I am a brahmin by birth, but I am not a priest. Going by Hindu Scripture, I should not be considered a brahmin at all. While this could very well be related to my karma, God did not intend for the varna system to be what it sadly is today.

saidevo
10 March 2010, 10:32 PM
namaste Nara.

Rarely if ever, a post of introduction has generated such a string of posts in HDF. You have made yourself a VIP!

You said (post 9):
Now, my agnosticism is only about a supernatural power that cares little about humans. Even here, I classify myself as an agnostic only because being a total non-believer is illogically in as much as a negative cannot be proved. So, for all intents and purposes I don't believe even in an impersonal but non-physical power that has its hands on the levers of the universal constants.

A "non-physical" but not "impersonal" power that runs the universe? Since there is no "non-physical personal" power for you, what is the nature of this non-physical power? Does it have intelligence, consciousness? And what are the 'universal constants'?

You said (post 9):
The self, or soul, or consciousness one experiences is nothing but a state of brain chemicals and neuron activities. When we die nothing is lost, for there is nothing left. If we have children, then they carry a part of us. Memories of us live after us, we can call this memes if you like. These memes also die except for those who make an indelible mark like Ambedkar for good, or Hitler for bad.

Memes, my foot! Viral transmissions of cultural ideas and practices across generations or in the community by aping it up and down and left and right--fantastical indeed! I am not surprised that flights of fancy (which are themselves memes in nature) are touted as postulations and hypotheses in Science.

Here is a far more rational, logical and holistic explanation from the UpaniShads--I have used my own fanciful terms for the two absolutes below:

• Science is going in the right direction, when its findings are towards an absolute physical reality. Since this can only be of the form of energy and not matter, we have given it a name here in HDF--APE. Behind this APE is an absolute metaphysical energy, whose nature is pure consciousness: ACE--absolutely conscious energy. UpaniShads talk of the connection between these two absolutes as the AUM, the praNava mantra.

• Thus, AUM is the absolute creative power that manifests APE out of ACE and the physical metaphysical forms required in the creation of the universe from a combination of both. This AUM is the state of NirguNa Brahman before he manifests as SaguNa Brahman.

• AUM is the seed of prANa--life forece, and vAk--speech. Human mind is a modification of this prANa by the vAsanAs--impressions (this is like your memes) carried over across births. Thus the channel of transmission of knowledge is AUM-prANa-manas-vAk-kAyam. Just as any vibrational force gets modified when it is resisted by matter, the knowledge of AUM is corrupted and reduced when it is transmitted through this channel. The English word 'speak' has its origin in the Latin 'spargere', meaning to 'strew'--scatter by words. This is the reason behind the proverb "Speech is silver, but silence is golden". Thus, Truth is realized in the silent meditation of the teachings of UpaniShads, and not in the speech or memes of Science.

BRhadAraNyaka UpaniShad deals extensively with speech.

Ramakrishna
10 March 2010, 10:32 PM
Namaste and welcome to HDF! We have many of the same political beliefs.

Nara
11 March 2010, 08:15 AM
Hello dear brother Saidevo, Greetings!


namaste Nara.
Rarely if ever, a post of introduction has generated such a string of posts in HDF. You have made yourself a VIP!

If this is true I think it is because of my controversial views that may even seem outlandish to the deeply faithful. It won't be long before I become VUIP :).



A "non-physical" but not "impersonal" power that runs the universe?My opinion is -- and it is only an opinion formed from ideas put forth by the likes of Richard Dawkins, Steven Pinker, and Daniel Dennete -- the universe does not need any external power to "run" it. It just is. We are here just observing. Our brains are wired through evolution to seek pattern, a critical skill for survival. One side effect of this pattern-seeking ability is to seek pattern out of chaos and in my opinion, that is source of god and religion. This is my view and I am ready to change this view if new and verifiable evidence is presented. Until such time I would like to stick to this position that requires the least number of assumptions.



Memes, my foot! Viral transmissions of cultural ideas and practices across generations or in the community by aping it up and down and left and right--fantastical indeed!Well, Saidevo, religious practices are themselves memes. You may like some memes and may abhor others. It takes a critical mass of people to like a meme or find it useful, for one reason or another, for it to survive, mutate, replicate, or whatever. There is no value judgment associated with this concept.



• Thus, AUM is the absolute creative power that manifests APE out of ACE and the physical metaphysical forms required in the creation of the universe Sorry brother Saidevo, I don't find anything rational in AUM and its connection to APE or ACE. The explanations behind AUM is just religious doctrine. Upanishadic verses are speculations by some very bright people that needs validation and revision, and I know that there is no chance of that because, well, it is aupuresheya and inerrant.

Science is a self-correcting process, unencumbered by the need to remain faithful to past thinking even if they are shown to be false. Science does not claim to know everything. In fact it is lack of knowledge that excites scientists to probe and find out more. Where there is complete knowledge, the task passes on to others like engineers to figure out something useful with it. Some use it for good and some for bad. Yet, it is science that is at the bottom of all the advancements to human condition. Religious doctrine, in the most part, has served only to divide us as human beings.

Cheers!

saidevo
11 March 2010, 11:21 AM
namaste Nara.



My opinion is -- and it is only an opinion formed from ideas put forth by the likes of Richard Dawkins, Steven Pinker, and Daniel Dennete -- the universe does not need any external power to "run" it. It just is. We are here just observing. Our brains are wired through evolution to seek pattern, a critical skill for survival. One side effect of this pattern-seeking ability is to seek pattern out of chaos and in my opinion, that is source of god and religion. This is my view and I am ready to change this view if new and verifiable evidence is presented. Until such time I would like to stick to this position that requires the least number of assumptions.


I don't know about Pinker or Dennete, but such ideas give rise to simple, fundamental questions, which I wonder, how can escape a rationalist like you:

• If the universe "just is", why can't we too be "just are"? What is the meaning of that word "just" in a supposed postulation of Science? Is it (not) there because the why of the universe being "just is" can't be decided by physical science?

• "We are here just observing." Observing what? A spectra of red shifts and violet shifts, energy surges and changes, etc.--using giant, brainless telescopes and other apparatuses --with which Science kids us all into thinking that it is infallible about the expansion, contraction, explosion, change, and sustenance of this massive universe, all by its own impersonal, physical power?

• "Our brains are wired through evolution to seek pattern, a critical skill for survival." How much and how long do the brains survive? Why aren't the brains of all humans the same in their power and capability to think? What determines that some brains are more efficient in surviving while many are not, and some are not even normal? Does the impersonal power of the universe determines this? Or would you say this about those less fortunate brains: they just are?

• If the source of god and religion is just the brain's "pattern-seeking ability", what is the source of Science? Doesn't the same brain in the name of Science seek similar patterns in the apparent chaos of the universe?

• If the universe is fundamentally chaos, why should the scientists differ much about their postulations of its origin? What for is the scientific effort towards a unifying theory of matter, force and energy? When the mind and intellect are only illusions of the activities of brain and its accessories, how can the scientific discoveries of that mind and intellect be infallible and final?

• Whatever happened to all those psychology, psychiatry, psychoanalysis, pyshokinetics, hypnotism, psychopathology, and so on branches of Science? Are they not as relevant today in the brainwork studies of Science? Or all those ideas take a new avatars with mumbo jumbo names in changed forms under the Noetics and related Sciences?

• How long can Science pull on with this mumbo jumbo of names and ideas? Why is that there is no holistic science like holistic medicine? Why don't we hear much about any efforts towards holistic science? Is it because of the massive amount of chaotic opinions and pattern-seeking postulations in the branches of Science that can hardly commensurate with each other?

You see, it is just easy to ask questions. The point is why the rationalist is not asking them. I shall discuss your reply about the memes in another post.

nirotu
11 March 2010, 01:12 PM
Dear Prof. Nara:

Welcome and consider me as a member of your fan club too. You have raised very thought provoking questions, at least to Advaitins. Perhaps, being on the sidelines I can learn a lot from your exchanges.

What was interesting to me was your - agnostic persuasion. As I know in general, there are two kinds of agnostics. There is the “ordinary” agnostic who says he doesn’t know anything for sure, and then there is the “ornery” agnostic who says he can’t know anything for sure. BTW, just out of my curiosity, what kind you belong to? Perhaps, that might be of interest for others to chat with you.

Blessings,

Nara
11 March 2010, 04:37 PM
BTW, just out of my curiosity, what kind you belong to? Perhaps, that might be of interest for others to chat with you.


Thank you for your kind remarks.

There are many words tossed about in relation to god and religion and they are often used interchangeably even though they may have entirely different meaning than what was intended.

For example, nAstikan (opposite of asthikan), just means you do not follow the vedas, this is not the same as atheist.

Theist is one who believes in a deity, one who punishes transgressors and provides redemption/salvation. Then, atheist is one who does not believe in such an entity.

Then there are those who believe in a superior power that keeps order in the universe, whatever that is, but then not interfere in human affairs. These are deists.

Then there are those who do not believe in any supernatural entity. There is no soul, no ghost in the machine, stuff like that. I fall into this category. I think it is extremely unlikely that there is anything called soul that can possibly have a disembodied existence. The reason I used the word agnostic is only because there is no way to prove the non-existence of something. For example, if someone asks me to prove that there is not a teapot orbiting the sun between earth and mars, aka Russell's celestial teapot, there is no way this can be proved. But I am pretty sure there isn't one. I am an agnostic only in this sense. For all intents and purposes, I am a non-believer in every sense of the word.

Cheers!

Eastern Mind
11 March 2010, 04:56 PM
Vannakkamm:

So what you are basically saying is that Sri Ramakrishna, Sri Aurobindo, Ramana Maharshi, Vivekenanda, another thousand or so saints, another billion or so people are all wrong. There is no soul, and therefore no reincarnation. Interesting. So you are the wise one? I realise there are a few more out there that have the same belief as you. So meaning is derived from some inherent genetic attitude of altruism?

I hope you at least acknowledge that we have the right to differ.

Aum Namasivaya

Nara
11 March 2010, 05:49 PM
Dear brother Saidevo,

You talk as though science is some entity that is acting in an anthropomorphic sense. Science is only a process of inquiry to understand and make some sense of the world around us. They do not have all the answers, they may never have all the answers. Science sometimes gets things wrong, but the process allows for these mistakes to be detected and corrected in due course of time.

Science has never claimed it is infallible, that is the province of religion. Religion thrives in what is unknown at any given point in time and makes tall claims. Even if a peripheral similarity is found between religious doctrine and any scientific discovery or even just an unproven scientific theory, the religious are quick to take credit and then go off on a tangent and lay claim to the authenticity of their entire program.

Take for instance Darwin's theory of evolution, which is a well developed concept of random mutation and natural selection. Our Hindu theists point to dasavataharam as consistent with this scientific theory, and then extrapolate from there.

They grandly declare, absence of evidence is not evidence of absence and then act as though that statement itself is equal to the presence of evidence for whatever religious doctrine they wish to promote.

Religion is quick to fill the space science has not resolved yet. There are questions science is unable to answer right now and perhaps there are some that are just unanswerable. For instance, science cannot say why the universe exists. But that does not mean answers conjured up by religion must be accepted as correct. Religious doctrines, such as the Vedas, are no more than magnificent speculations of the intelligentsia some 3 to 4 millennia ago.

Religion and religious texts represent handed down doctrine and unverified speculations. Perhaps, sometimes, science may confirm some religious beliefs here and there. If so, they are so only when science verifies them and they are no more frequent than statistical random chance. Some take this to claim authenticity for the entirety of their preferred religious doctrine as a whole.



You see, it is just easy to ask questions. The point is why the rationalist is not asking them. Dear brother, science does not belong to any person. It is a process of finding the truth as much as possible. For that, asking questions is the first step. Sometimes they find answers, at which point all of us benefit, and sometime the answers they find set us back, and sometime there are no answers yet.

But religion starts with answers. All the answers are to be found in their religious texts. Hindus claim that there is no knowledge outside the Vedas. All the answers for all the questions that have been asked and can be asked are to be found in the Vedas. So, there you go, such confidence all based on faith!!!

Thanks brother saidevo, best regards....

Nara
11 March 2010, 06:10 PM
.... So what you are basically saying is that Sri Ramakrishna, Sri Aurobindo, Ramana Maharshi, Vivekenanda, another thousand or so saints, another billion or so people are all wrong...... So you are the wise one?


Dear Eastern Mind, all these people are great no doubt, but denial of god is not a new concept I just conjured up. There were some Vedic schools that did not accept god, in other words there were Asthika Atheists. There were Charvakas who did not believe in a soul. This system was supposed to have been established by Brahaspati. Then there is Gauthama Buddha who denied the reality of everything.

So, let us not be judgmental. I am not claiming to be any wiser than the next person who is going to post anywhere in this forum.

Cheers!

Eastern Mind
11 March 2010, 06:24 PM
Vannakkam Nara:

Oh please do not get me wrong. I am not being judgmental. My apologies if it came across that way. My own father was atheistic leaning to agnostic. I tolerated (quite different than 'accept) his views as I do yours. My belief is mostly from experience, and as a projection of that, I also believe that most people's beliefs are from that individual's experience. If you have no experience that would lead you to believe in God, then so be it. As long as we can politely respect that, I have no problem. Just don't call me a fool because I happen to have had several experiences leading me to a belief in Siva, the manifest, unmanifest, brother, father, giver of life and much more.

Perhaps it is an error to project any belief we gain onto others.

Aum Namasivaya

vcindiana
11 March 2010, 08:44 PM
Dear Nara:

Thank you for being boldly honest in what you believe.
Many times I struggle in understanding God. Always the purpose of “theistic” God comes to my mind whenever I see the disease, despair, natural disaster etc... Where is this powerful and merciful God when a disaster strikes?

I have come to my own conclusion, it is all about risk taking. I borrow Pascal’s wager in explaining this. Blaise Pascal, the French mathematician and a philosopher is considered the father of risk analysis. Probably as you already know this brilliant man spent much of his life in trying to construct a workable mathematical formula for quantifying probabilities , came up with his own Best/ worst analysis ( Pascal Wager) I am not suggesting everyone has to believe this wager but it has helped me.
Let us look at the 4 scenarios. If there is God and you believe in Him you know the best is yet to come. If there is God and you do not believe then the eternal risk is incalculable. If there is no God and you believe in Him, the worst can happen is to spend life with some increased endorphins thinking about good things. If there is no God you do not believe in Him there is no serious consequence either way.

I believe like Pascal when I sit down and think it makes a lot more sense to put faith in God than not to, there is much more to lose if you are wrong and he does exist than if you are wrong and he does not exist. Not believing in God does not make one a bad person just believing in God does not make me good person. So we all have choice. I lean on towards taking the risk of faith and hope for the best consequence. Privilege of having a personal God is to get wisdom and guidance to help me deal with the risks I face in the dangerous world. Also I can show my gratitude to “some God entity” however indescribable. But sure, it does enrich my life.


Love …… VC

atanu
12 March 2010, 02:53 AM
Then there are those who do not believe in any supernatural entity. There is no soul, no ghost in the machine, stuff like that. I fall into this category. I think it is extremely unlikely that there is anything called soul that can possibly have a disembodied existence. The reason I used the word agnostic is only because there is no way to prove the non-existence of something. ---- For all intents and purposes, I am a non-believer in every sense of the word.

Cheers!

Dear Nara,

Pardon me for a late entry into your massive fan club. Like you, I perhaps would have voted Ralph Nader and also very strongly believe in equality -- in terms of treatment meted out at least and as far as possible.

Your logic no doubt is always strong. But If there is no way to prove non-existence, there is no way to negate the existence and the intelligence and the joy, which forms the bulwark and the common factor for all the flux of this Universe.

I intuit that you ascribe to Buddhism, perhaps in a free thinkers way. I may be wrong. But I also intuit that you will become an Advaitist, when what you yet do not know about Buddha's teaching comes to you.

Regards

Om Namah Shivaya

Nara
12 March 2010, 07:23 AM
I borrow Pascal’s wager in explaining this.
Dear vcindiana, there are several problems with Pascal's wager. There are many gods bandied about. Some say you have to take Jesus as your personal savior, or else you will burn in hell for ever. Islam says you have to live according to its code and on judgment day you will know. There is a host of other claims and counter claims. Which god are you going to put your "money" down on? If you bet on the wrong god, are you even worse off than not betting on any god at all?

Further, if you are betting on a god, wouldn't god know you are just hedging and your faith is not sincere? Would it then count?

Why would a compassionate god not value good conduct unless it comes with faith in him/her? Looks like this god has huge big ego.



Let us look at the 4 scenarios.
Let me suggest 4 different scenarios. Actually this was suggested by Epicurus some 2300 years ago in ancient Greece.

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

Our society and culture give us a security blanket when grow up and we are told this blanket will give you peace of mind, happiness, and enrich our lives. But it turns out it is just a blanket and it is our thoughts and ideas that we ourselves project on to this blanket.

I threw away this blanket and I must say, my life has become richer for it.

Cheers!

Nara
12 March 2010, 07:37 AM
Dear Atanu, Greetings!


... But If there is no way to prove non-existence, there is no way to negate the existence and the intelligence and the joy, which forms the bulwark and the common factor for all the flux of this Universe.

I am not sure what you mean by the above. While rejecting even a remote possibility of a supernatural entity is logically unsustainable, ascribing to a positive belief requires definite proof.



I intuit that you ascribe to Buddhism, perhaps in a free thinkers way.I think you are deducing this from the profile picture I am using. I have a lot of respect for Budda and Dr. Ambedkar. I am not that familiar with Buddism, but I know Budda stood for equality and justice. So did Ambedkar.

This picture has Budda on top slowly transforming into Ambedkar as you go down. The minute I saw this picture for the first time I knew this will be my profile picture. That is all.

Thank you Antanu, best regards...

vcindiana
12 March 2010, 10:54 AM
Dear vcindiana, there are several problems with Pascal's wager. ....



Our society and culture give us a security blanket when grow up and we are told this blanket will give you peace of mind, happiness, and enrich our lives. But it turns out it is just a blanket and it is our thoughts and ideas that we ourselves project on to this blanket.

I threw away this blanket and I must say, my life has become richer for it.

Cheers!


Dear Nara:

I do respect your thoughts. As I posted earlier I do struggle in understanding God. Many times I feel at least this theistic God is created in our image. As human beings evolved as you strongly believe self awareness seemed to become very dominant unlike in animals. This awareness is very traumatic and I guess we humans had to find a “blanket” as you put it. As Karl Marks said the religion is the opium for people. Some will find comfort in God, some a little drug or alcohol etc..hoping to put the uncertainty under the blanket. Whatever the comfort they seek it is their personal experience and I am the last one to criticize or condemn. Correct me if I am wrong uncertainty is also a problem for an atheist and I commend him for his strength, courage and self sufficiency.

You mentioned about different Gods and the host of claims and disclaims. Again what I observe is all these are about their different personal experiences and understandings and I do not want to criticize other beliefs.
I strongly believe the core of any religion is full freedom through which we can experience love with no fear. I find the words “evaadhikar” in BG ch2 47 are the most powerful secular words ever spoken. God I see is an experience of freedom.


Personally I need God (call it my delusion) I need to lean on knowing that

1. I am not self sufficient
2. To get rid of my ego
3. I have to thank in gratitude the person who created this world I enjoy.


Cheers and Love……………….VC

nirotu
12 March 2010, 11:12 AM
Dear Prof. Nara:

Thank you very much for responding to me. I admire your uncanny ability to stay calm and answer every one. It is understandable if the debate is between a Dvaitin and an Advaitin, but coming from an agnostic makes it even more interesting, at least to me. I do appreciate your taking time to patiently answer each of your critiques.

From your response to me it was not clear if you are an atheist or an agnostic with atheistic tendency. Your reference to Richard Dawkins clearly points in that direction. However, given the benefit of the doubt, I still like to consider you an agnostic although not sure what type. I would very much like to know if you consider yourself;


some one who says, he doesn’t know anything for sure, or
some one who says, he can’t know everything for sure.
Based on ideas you present here it suggest you fall in 2nd class. Please, correct me if you do not think so. Why do I want to know? Let me make a few things clear to you.

I would like to believe in rational thinking. I like to believe in a faith that is rational. What I mean is a faith that is tempered with reason is rational to me. The consequences of faith un tempered with reason are disastrous. You can see the evidence of that among the minds of terrorist, killers, and downright evildoers who take unique pleasure in inflicting pain to others. These too have a faith but that is blind and irrational.

I would like to at least make some headway in to our discussion regarding the faith in theistic God that is rational, that is, if you are a willing listener with an open mind. I believe you will do that if you are an agnostic of first kind. However, your responses are leaning more towards the second kind, which makes it hard to penetrate.

Blessings,

Nara
12 March 2010, 12:50 PM
some one who says, he doesn’t know anything for sure, or
some one who says, he can’t know everything for sure.Dear nirotu,
I am a little uncomfortable with #2 because of the tone of finality, but at the same time, I am not satisfied with #1, sounds too pathetic. My position is that it is indeed very unlikely, almost certainly unlikely, that there is an original cause, an intelligent designer, a supernatural power that keeps everything in order. But, I will be open to that remote, ever so remote, possibility. So, in summary, for all intents and purposes I am a strong athiest, but if I am pressed to be logically precise, then I have to say I am an agnostic. Here is what Bertrand Russell says about this question: (http://www.luminary.us/russell/atheist_agnostic.html)

"I never know whether I should say "Agnostic" or whether I should say "Atheist". It is a very difficult question and I daresay that some of you have been troubled by it. As a philosopher, if I were speaking to a purely philosophic audience I should say that I ought to describe myself as an Agnostic, because I do not think that there is a conclusive argument by which one prove that there is not a God."

"On the other hand, if I am to convey the right impression to the ordinary man in the street I think I ought to say that I am an Atheist, because when I say that I cannot prove that there is not a God, I ought to add equally that I cannot prove that there are not the Homeric gods."

"None of us would seriously consider the possibility that all the gods of homer really exist, and yet if you were to set to work to give a logical demonstration that Zeus, Hera, Poseidon, and the rest of them did not exist you would find it an awful job. You could not get such proof. "

.....I would like to at least make some headway in to our discussion regarding the faith in theistic God that is rational, ....There in lies the difficulty. You define a scope based on faith and then build logical arguments inside it. This is like building a second story on top of a non-existsent first floor. But I am open to it, at least as a theoretical exercise. This may illustrate whether rationality can exist within faith.

I am open to any reasonable arguments, but often when people ask me to be open minded, what they want me to do is accept some unverified or unverifiable premise. I submit, demanding this from me in not fair.

Cheers!

Nara
12 March 2010, 12:55 PM
Personally I need God (call it my delusion) I need to lean on knowing that

1. I am not self sufficient
2. To get rid of my ego
3. I have to thank in gratitude the person who created this world I enjoy.


Dear vcindiana, this is just fine, from the way you sign off, I know you have love in your heart, that is what is important in the ultimate.

love to you too my friend...

coolbodhi
13 March 2010, 03:23 PM
Hello Mr. Nara,
What do you think of practical mystical experience of people? Do you value people's mystical/spiritual experiences?

Nara
13 March 2010, 05:58 PM
What do you think of practical mystical experience of people? Do you value people's mystical/spiritual experiences?


Dear coolbodhi, Love is a mystical experience, how can I not value it? I respect such experiences, I don't think such experiences are fake, however, I think there are physical explanations for them.

Mystical experiences have given us some wonderful poetry and music. The Azhvar poetry is full of mystical experiences. If you listen to the Gadya Thraiyam of Bhagavat Ramanuja one can loose oneself in its beauty. Swami Alavandhar's Sththra Ratnam is indeed a gem the brilliance of which has not been surpassed by anyone.

I hope I answered your question. Thank you and warm regards....

kd gupta
13 March 2010, 11:40 PM
Dear Atanu, Greetings!



I am not sure what you mean by the above. While rejecting even a remote possibility of a supernatural entity is logically unsustainable, ascribing to a positive belief requires definite proof.

I think you are deducing this from the profile picture I am using. I have a lot of respect for Budda and Dr. Ambedkar. I am not that familiar with Buddism, but I know Budda stood for equality and justice. So did Ambedkar.

This picture has Budda on top slowly transforming into Ambedkar as you go down. The minute I saw this picture for the first time I knew this will be my profile picture. That is all.

Thank you Antanu, best regards...
No , Buddha stood for non-voilence , which is not very clear till today . Shankara stood for equality and justice in religion specially . I do not know about Ambedkar in this matter .

nirotu
14 March 2010, 06:03 PM
So, in summary, for all intents and purposes I am a strong athiest, but if I am pressed to be logically precise, then I have to say I am an agnostic.

Thank you, Prof.Nara.

Your comments are well taken. It seems to me that you find it hard to defend the position of an atheist completely with logic. However, I will take that you are an atheist at core unless driven to think otherwise. Again, I thank you for chatting with me.

I am open to any reasonable arguments, but often when people ask me to be open minded, what they want me to do is accept some unverified or unverifiable premise. I submit, demanding this from me in not fair.
I am happy that you are open to reasonable arguments. I will not have you accept anything that is unverifiable or hypothetical. But, I hope sound reasoning will prevail in our discussion.

.....I would like to at least make some headway in to our discussion regarding the faith in theistic God that is rational, ....

There in lies the difficulty. You define a scope based on faith and then build logical arguments inside it. This is like building a second story on top of a non-existent first floor. But I am open to it, at least as a theoretical exercise. This may illustrate whether rationality can exist within faith.

Wait a minute! What is wrong in establishing philosophical ideas with faith as foundation? Just as I am asserting truth in the existence of God with faith as my foundation, are you also not using some sort of faith to disbelieve it? Isn’t the negation also an affirmation that is based on a belief or faith? While I cannot show you God, my rational thinking based on available information and knowledge is sufficient to convince me about the existence of God. We use induction to investigate God the same way we use to investigate other things we cannot see – by observing their effects.

I would like to think that the fervent faith that I rely on to believe in God is the same faith (be it on a different set of beliefs) that an atheist or a skeptic relies on. What one forgets is that even skeptics have faith. They have faith that skepticism is true. Agnostics have faith that agnosticism is true. There are no neutral positions when it comes to beliefs. I could not have said it any better than Phillip Johnson, “One who claims to be a skeptic of one set of beliefs is actually a true believer in another set of beliefs.”

Looking over your responses to others, I could not help but notice these:

I don't buy the argument that you have to have faith to see god, if anything god has an obligation to show himself or herself or itself up to the unfaithful. Parent metaphor is often invoked with respect to personal god, and I just can't think of a more uncaring parent than the personal gods bandied about.
God has provided enough evidence in this life to convince anyone willing to believe, yet will not overwhelm the free-will of man to prove His mighty hand involved in every act of this universe and its inhabitants. I do believe that when atheists dream up hypothetical theories that are not supported by any evidence- and in fact are actually impossible- they have left the realm of reason and rationality and entered into the realm of blind faith.

From all the evidences that are available and verified by the only process that is not based on handed down wisdom that cannot be questioned, namely science, . . . . . .

Perhaps, the following well established scientific facts might be bit irritating to an atheist;

1. Laws of thermodynamics.
2. Expanding Universe
3. Radiation from the Big Bang. Explosion.
4. Great galaxy seeds – findings of COBE Cosmic Background explorer.
5. Einstein’s theory of general relativity.

Taken all together, you will find that the evidence for the existence of God is impressive. Using logic and rational arguments, one can safely say;

1. Everything that had a beginning had a cause.
2. The Universe had a beginning.
3. Therefore the Universe had a cause.
4. Every design had a designer.
5. The Universe has highly complex design.
6. Therefore, the Universe had a designer.

I am sorry that believing without observation is exactly what atheists accuse “religious” people of doing. But, ironically, it’s the atheists who are pushing a religion of blind faith, nevertheless faith.

Blessings,

Nara
15 March 2010, 01:39 PM
Dear nirotu,


Just as I am asserting truth in the existence of God with faith as my foundation, are you also not using some sort of faith to disbelieve it? Isn’t the negation also an affirmation that is based on a belief or faith? While I cannot show you God, To assert something you need positive proof. If you say God exists, then I ask you to provide verifiable empirical proof, not just some experience that can be genuine or concocted.

Negation is a sort of assertion if I am trying to negate something that seems to exist, but not really -- like the Advaitins, they try to negate jagat that we all perceive and accept as real. So, just being a human without believing in any supernatural power is not a assertive negation of anything, just a natural state.


... One who claims to be a skeptic of one set of beliefs is actually
a true believer in another set of beliefs.Is this Prof. Phillip Johnson of ID fame? ID has been thoroughly discredited, it is nothing but a blatant attempt by evangelical Christians to bring their god into science curriculum. The Dover, PA case exposed their agenda for all to see.

Be that as it may, but what Prof. Johnson says about skeptics is a caricature. Skepticism is not a state of being like thietic, or atheistic. Skepticism is a process of being skeptical of claims that are taken for granted. Skeptics only postpone a firm conclusion until sufficient evidence is provided for each claim. Once that is done, they either agree, or disagree, or remain unsatisfied and await further evidence.



God has provided enough evidence ....See, it is this type of unsubstantiated claims that skeptics won't accept. That is not blind faith.




1. Everything that had a beginning had a cause.
2. The Universe had a beginning.
3. Therefore the Universe had a cause.
4. Every design had a designer.
5. The Universe has highly complex design.
6. Therefore, the Universe had a designer.
This looks like a cut and paste job from ID proponents. Anyway, Richard Dawkins has already answered these questions in his book The Blind Watchmaker.

If you think universe had a cause, what is the cause of that cause? If there was a designer, who designed the designer? We quickly get into an infinite regress.

Also, it is a big a leap to go from an yet-unidentified primordial cause, that may not even be intelligent even if it exists, to Rama, Krishna, and Jesus. It is the Atheists who hold a logical position admitting an answer to this question is not known at this point in time. They don't just jump to the theistic conclusion that initial cause is god without realizing the infinite regression fallacy they are getting into.


....But, ironically, it’s the atheists who are pushing a religion of blind faith, nevertheless faith.This is just a lazy statement, not an argument. Atheists ask for evidence before believing, that is all, why is that faith?

Alright, got to go.

Ganeshprasad
15 March 2010, 04:14 PM
Pranam Nara hello again


. Atheists ask for evidence before believing, that is all, why is that faith?



Faith! can you do without it?

Do we ask our mother for evidence who our father is?

faith is a prerequisite ingredient in any endeavor be it spiritual or material.
good luck to you if you think this life is a chance, somehow came together and in due course of time will end.

i like to put my faith in Krishna when he says,

Whatever is done without faith; whether it is sacrifice, charity, austerity, or any other act; is called Asat. It has no value here or hereafter, O Arjuna. (17.28)

Jai Shree Krishna

nirotu
15 March 2010, 09:44 PM
To assert something you need positive proof. If you say God exists, then I ask you to provide verifiable empirical proof, not just some experience that can be genuine or concocted.

Dear Prof.Nara:

I had hoped to have given you proof through a few notable scientific accounts and yet, you ask for proof. For an atheist, it is a safe bet to be skeptical of everything. Then again, I would certainly extend you the benefit of the doubt due to your vacillation between atheistic and agnostic tendencies. I hope you will, at least, be logical, scientifically objective in your appraisal of these points.

Perhaps, I should revisit what I said, in case you overlooked causing you to demand more proof.

1. Laws of thermodynamics.
The laws have stood the test of time and valid under any circumstances. The first law states - the total energy of the universe is constant. The universe had only the finite (fixed) amount of energy to begin with. Now the second law states that the energy is continuously being used and every instant the nature tends bring things to disorder (law of entropy). It is like having a flashlight with batteries with full energy has been left on for the night. The next morning the flashlight will only have dim lit light. Since the universe still has some battery life left, it cannot be eternal. It must have had a beginning. Otherwise, one would argue, it still lights up with same energy from eternity defying 2nd law. Thus, the universe had a beginning.

2. The universe is expanding:
The correct way of presenting is that the universe is not expanding into empty space but the space itself is expanding. Although, general relativity predicted expanding space, it wasn’t until legendary astronomer Edwin Hubble looking through his telescope more than a decade later that scientists finally confirmed that the universe is expanding from a single point. How does expanding universe prove its beginning? Think about it this way: if we could watch a video recording of the history on the universe in reverse, we would see all matter in the universe collapse back to a point, mathematically and logically to a point that is actually nothing! Chronologically, there was no “before” the big bang because there is no “befores” without time, and there was no time until the big bang. Thus, space, time and matter came into existence at the big bang.

3. Big bang did indeed take place.
Although, we were not witness to the big bang, we certainly see the trail left behind big bang. Penzias and Wilson had detected the cosmic background radiation pointing to the occurrence of the big ban.

The COBE satellite actually launched by NASA in 1989 did bring some awesome information confirming the big bang.

4. General Relativity:
From general relativity, scientists predicted and then found the expanding universe, the radiation afterglow, and great galaxy seeds from COBE. When you add these observations to 2nd law of thermodynamics, would you agree we have powerful scientific evidence that the universe had a beginning?

If the universe came into existence at the beginning of time and with such precision that required sun, earth, moon and all planets to be functioning precisely, the air we breath with precisely 21% oxygen and 78% nitrogen and many more …. It could not have occurred by random chance – somehow over the years self adjusted itself through trial and error – no, it must have been through a supernatural force – which we come to accept as God. Otherwise, something so orderly coming out of nothing cannot be adequately explained. Again, I do believe, by appealing to a creator God does not in any way nullify the scientific method at all. The belief in a creator God who works through secondary causes did not harm science. In fact, this belief helped to inspire great thinkers and to advance science significantly.

So, just being a human without believing in any supernatural power is not a assertive negation of anything, just a natural state.
Here is what a famous atheist Sir Arthur Eddington had to say about “supernatural”, “ “The beginning seems to present insuperable difficulties unless we agree to look on it as frankly supernatural.” (Expanding Universe by Arthur Eddington – New York, Macmillan, 1933 page 178). This was just based on scientific evidences pointed in 1 and 2. It is interesting to see how many atheists have turned around to be theists than the other way, again, convinced by undisputed scientific evidences.

Be that as it may, but what Prof. Johnson says about skeptics is a caricature. Skepticism is not a state of being like theistic, or atheistic. Skepticism is a process of being skeptical of claims that are taken for granted. Skeptics only postpone a firm conclusion until sufficient evidence is provided for each claim. Once that is done, they either agree, or disagree, or remain unsatisfied and await further evidence.Despite the conclusive evidence, I find that a skeptic still makes that a matter of “will” and not of “mind”. Unless one is open to reasonable ideas, it would be impossible to penetrate the mind of a skeptic. It is safe for a skeptic to ignore the best of evidences than to accept a few and get caught in self-defeating arguments.

If you think universe had a cause, what is the cause of that cause? If there was a designer, who designed the designer? We quickly get into an infinite regress.This is a classic blunder that atheists make in assuming every thing needs a cause, then God needs a cause too. The atheist’s contention misunderstands the law of causality. The principle of causality does not affirm that everything needs a cause but rather that finite things do. It says everything that comes to be needs a cause. God did not come to be. No one made God. He is unmade, eternal and did not have a beginning and, therefore, did not need a cause. An infinite being must have always existed and is, therefore, uncaused.

Atheists ask for evidence before believing, that is all, why is that faith?Again, I reiterate that the faith that I have is rational one based on deduction principle. There is no possible explanation for the anthropic principle other than a cosmic designer. Physicist Paul Davis said it so aptly, “ one may find it easier to believe in an infinite array of universes than in an infinite Deity, but such a belief must rest on faith rather than observation.” (Quoted in Fred Heeran, Show me God, Vol 1 – Wheeling, Ill, 2009; 239)

Blessings,

Ref:
Hugh Ross, “Why I believe in divine creation.”
Unshakable foundations, Norm Geisler and Peter Bocchino, 2001, Bethany House.
Debate between William Craig and Peter Atkins, Georgia, April 1989.
I don’t have enough faith to be an atheist: Norman Geisler and Frank Turek, 2004, Crossword Books.

sanjaya
16 March 2010, 01:50 AM
1. Laws of thermodynamics.
The laws have stood the test of time and valid under any circumstances. The first law states - the total energy of the universe is constant. The universe had only the finite (fixed) amount of energy to begin with. Now the second law states that the energy is continuously being used and every instant the nature tends bring things to disorder (law of entropy). It is like having a flashlight with batteries with full energy has been left on for the night. The next morning the flashlight will only have dim lit light. Since the universe still has some battery life left, it cannot be eternal. It must have had a beginning. Otherwise, one would argue, it still lights up with same energy from eternity defying 2nd law. Thus, the universe had a beginning.

Nirotu, I don't mean to get in the way of your discussion, but I feel the need to point out that the laws of thermodynamics are being seriously misapplied here. First of all, entropy isn't quite the same thing as disorder. It's defined as the total numer of accessible microstates in a system (or rather, the natural logarithm thereof). Systems that we perceive as disordered tend to have more accessible microstates, which is why we make the association with disorder, but there is a difference. Secondly, entropy doesn't always increase in any system, but only in closed and isolated systems. Even if we stipulate that the universe had a creator, this doesn't imply that the world we know was specially created. In nature, we see many examples of self-assembly. A snowflake is an example of a highly ordered system that isn't created by anyone. The earth is another example. It arose via stellar and biological processes, without any need for intervention (there might have been intervention, but we have no evidence of that). Since the energy that was input into the earth came from elsewhere, the total entropy can decrease, as it has through biological processes.

Just as a sidenote, I'd avoid quoting any evangelical Christian author in matters of science. Evangelical creationism is a laughingstock in science. No one even takes it seriously, largely because creationists continue to employ arguments that have been refuted, and to accuse dissenters of being blinded by Satan. In science, promulgating creationist myths is a good way to get kicked out. Don't take this the wrong way, but I doubt that anyone as ever gone evangelical because of the overwhelming scientific evidence.

atanu
16 March 2010, 11:16 AM
Dear Atanu, Greetings!

I am not sure what you mean by the above. While rejecting even a remote possibility of a supernatural entity is logically unsustainable, ascribing to a positive belief requires definite proof.

I think you are deducing this from the profile picture I am using. I have a lot of respect for Budda and Dr. Ambedkar. I am not that familiar with Buddism, but I know Budda stood for equality and justice. So did Ambedkar.

This picture has Budda on top slowly transforming into Ambedkar as you go down. The minute I saw this picture for the first time I knew this will be my profile picture. That is all.

Thank you Antanu, best regards...

Namaste nara,

I have read some posts of yours and being a scientist myself agree to most of what you say. However, I can only point out my experiential understanding and you can chew on that. The following two statements of yours I have chosen to comment upon.


Science is only a process of inquiry to understand and make some sense of the world around us.

Then there is Gauthama Buddha who denied the reality of everything.

The first statement assumes an intelligent enquirer. But how the enquirer knows the enquirer, without imposing concepts of what an enquirer is? For example, every enquirer knows himself from a distance of one centimetere (through own eyes) or from a distance of meters (in a mirror or through other eyes). What then is the centre of this enquirer?

The second statement about Buddha is not correct. Buddha taught an unborn stable reality, without which his taught way would be meaningless. Most Buddhists do not see that teaching.

I agree to your statement "--ascribing to a positive belief requires definite proof". The existence of an intelligent enquirer is itself a self existing proof. It does not require a second proof as a control. and this intelligent existence has never vanished.

The practicality of belief in a loving personal God alleviates many pains. In the same vain, it also causes a lot of misery, in the form of violence etc. It is the same way with all natural phenomenon. In Vedas Isha is one who has mastered or is the master of this two way knife of nature.

These are my understandings and surely not universally true, except my statement regarding Buddha, which is factual and can be shown to everyone.

Om Namah Shivaya

nirotu
16 March 2010, 02:36 PM
Just as a sidenote, I'd avoid quoting any evangelical Christian author in matters of science. Evangelical creationism is a laughingstock in science. No one even takes it seriously, largely because creationists continue to employ arguments that have been refuted, and to accuse dissenters of being blinded by Satan. In science, promulgating creationist myths is a good way to get kicked out. Don't take this the wrong way, but I doubt that anyone as ever gone evangelical because of the overwhelming scientific evidence.

Dear Sanjaya:

First, I am bit irritated by your constant reference to evangelical doctrine whenever you discuss Christianity. I take exception to that. BTW, evangelicals do not represent core Christianity just as the Advaitins do not represent entire Vedas. Every other sentence in your postings on Christianity refers to Evangelical thinking. I do not subscribe to that nor do I dismiss them completely. There are good evangelists also. Therefore, if you want to have meaningful dialogue with me, please refrain from generalizing Christian thought by quoting evangelicals.

Also, just because Evangelicals rely on established facts based on science to prove a point does not make science invalid!

Second, wait for my response to rest of your posting.

Blessings,

grames
17 March 2010, 01:49 AM
Dear Sir,

I am interested in knowing some of your thoughts. After going through some of your messages i realize you are in fact a 'disbeliever" and i know the reason why the labels Atheist, agnostic etc. wont suite you.

I stopped myself on the other thread as i do not see you engaging yourself in seeing the "rational" aspect of what we are first before we expand our quest on knowing the possibility of what is around and beyond. Its like the situation of the "Cat keeping its eyes closed and assuming the world is dark".

So my questions are only about..

1. What is 'evidence' and how they become proof? and what is the limits of those which you think are "Evidence" with respect to you as a human.
2. Are you aware of body-anti body, theory of relativity and scope of absoluteness? If your answer is yes, what kind of proof made you believe in those principles?
3. What is the position of a "Witness" when you seek evidence?
4. What is the limitation of verifying truth behind certain things in this world?
5. The famous, doesn't know doesn't mean no existence? What is your stand on that.?

Thanks

nirotu
17 March 2010, 12:43 PM
Nirotu, I don't mean to get in the way of your discussion, but I feel the need to point out that the laws of thermodynamics are being seriously misapplied here. First of all, entropy isn't quite the same thing as disorder.
I beg to differ in our definition. The second law of thermodynamics can be stated in several ways:
1. It is not possible to convert one form of energy to another with 100% efficiency.
2. Heat will not flow spontaneously from a cold to hot body.
3. Every isolated system becomes more disordered with time.
4. The entropy of an isolated system remains constant or increases.

What about our universe?
Unlike our earth, the Universe is an isolated system since no matter or energy can enter or exit through. Unless of course, you think there is another universe coursing parallel.

From a personal experience, I see the results of entropy playing havoc in my own life from #3 above: no matter how hard I try to keep my desk clean, it seems to revert back to chaos right before my own eyes ( I am bit clumsy too). Therefore, I take it that the entropy can be defined as the degree of disorder in a system.


It's defined as the total number of accessible microstates in a system (or rather, the natural logarithm thereof). Systems that we perceive as disordered tend to have more accessible microstates, which is why we make the association with disorder, but there is a difference. Secondly, entropy doesn't always increase in any system, but only in closed and isolated systems. Even if we stipulate that the universe had a creator, this doesn't imply that the world we know was specially created. In nature, we see many examples of self-assembly. A snowflake is an example of a highly ordered system that isn't created by anyone.BTW, it is also agreed that on a microscopic scale, the more precise way is to say is that it is a measure of the multiplicity with the state of the objects. For example, glass of water has more entropy than a glass of ice due to free movement of water molecules.

Your description of snowflake is an example at a microscopic level. Do not confuse the occurence of order at a microscopic or local level with the global level. In an isolated system the decrease in entropy has to have occurred at the expense of change (increase) in entropy somewhere else. Individual parts of a system, even an isolated one, can decrease their own entropy at the expense of a larger increase somewhere else within the system. The front of a refrigerator is cold and ordered but the back of the refrigerator is chaotic due to heat that exits. However, the decrease in entropy is never equal to an increase in entropy. That is possible only if the engine is 100% efficient. Therefore, at best entropy remains same or increases as per definition #4.

You fall into same trap as evolutionists fall into by extrapolating local occurrence of order using snowflake phenomenon to justify macroscopic phenomenon of entropy, which is no different than Darwinist extrapolating microscopic evolution to justify macroscopic evolution.

The earth is another example. It arose via stellar and biological processes, without any need for intervention (there might have been intervention, but we have no evidence of that). Since the energy that was input into the earth came from elsewhere, the total entropy can decrease, as it has through biological processes.Is there any evidence that the entropy of the universe is decreasing? The fact that the arrow of time only moves forward is a direct result of 2 nd law. Because, any process in which entropy increases is irreversible. In other words, I can never see shattered bulbs reassembling spontaneously. While I appreciate your conclusion, I do not necessarily agree with it. I am of the opinion that the big bang theory, laws of thermodynamics, COBE clearly point to the creator force that is behind it. I would be interested in hearing arguments otherwise.

Blessings,

sanjaya
17 March 2010, 08:50 PM
Dear Sanjaya:

First, I am bit irritated by your constant reference to evangelical doctrine whenever you discuss Christianity. I take exception to that. BTW, evangelicals do not represent core Christianity just as the Advaitins do not represent entire Vedas.

Forgive me if you feel that my comments about evangelical Christianity are meant to be an indictment against you. I do not know if if you are an evangelical or not, though since you take exception I assume the latter. I am aware that Christianity is very diverse. Perhaps it is the most diverse religion in the world, since most churches have lists of heretical denominations, and these lists are all different. Alas, whatever I may think of the contradictory claims of the various Christian denominations, I do try not to paint all Christians with the same brush. This is precisely why I make my complaints specifically against evangelical Christianity, so as not to target other forms of Christianity. If you're not an evangelical, you can be assured that I am not addressing you or your beliefs via my comments about Christianity. Again, this is why I specifically discuss evangelical Christianity instead of generalizing to all forms of Christianity.


Every other sentence in your postings on Christianity refers to Evangelical thinking.

Well, I would hope that only my posts that pertain to Christianity include comments on evangelical thinking. The topic of Christianity comes up fairly often on this forum, and it's of particular importance in discussions of science, because Christianity often finds itself at odds with science. Indeed, the centuries-old "science vs. religion" debate ought to be called a science vs. Christianity debate. One must admit that there is good reason to mention Christianity so often on a thread about science and atheism.


I do not subscribe to that nor do I dismiss them completely. There are good evangelists also. Therefore, if you want to have meaningful dialogue with me, please refrain from generalizing Christian thought by quoting evangelicals.

May I inquire about your usage of the word "evangelists?" From the Greek, this word refers to any person who brings good news. That's why the authors of the four gospels (gospel means "good news") are referred to as evangelists. Are you referring to evangelicals? If so, I've never seen what you would term "good evangelicals." I know many well-behaved people who happen to be evangelical Christians. I'll even grant that evangelicl Christianity causes people to do good things. But it also leads people to have a superiority complex, and to do things that, according to Hindu dharma, would be bad. It isn't for nothing that I make these comments about evangelical Christianity. But this is really for another thread.


Also, just because Evangelicals rely on established facts based on science to prove a point does not make science invalid!

Well the proble here is that the evangelicals always get the science wrong. For example, science says that the theory of evolution is true. It's one of the most well-grounded theories in all of science, but it's heresy in evangelical Christianity. It's not the science that's wrong. It's the evangelical revisions of science that are wrong. The reason people criticize so-called "evangelical science" so often is because evangelicals need to rewrite science in order to make it agree with their interpretation of the Bible.

On another sidenote, here we're running into one of the biggest difficulties with Christianity (here I am referring to all denominations). The problem with the Christian word of God is that no one is sure what exactly it says. There is always a Catholic interpretation, an Orthodox interpretation, an Ethiopian Orthodox interpretation (and alternate canon, by the way), and a plethora of Protestant views. Your Bible is regarded as the inspired word of God, but Christians can't agree on what it means. And an independent reading of the Bible doesn't make it clear either. Other religious scriptures can also be interpreted in multiple ways, but most people subordinate scripture to human reason, and this clears up a lot of problems. But in Christianity one is required to adopt a view of scriptural inspiration, and perhaps even infallibility, and must thus subordinate human reason to the scripture. Christian creationists can't even come up with a consistent creationist model of the universe's creation. How, then, can you even begin the task of reconciling the Bible with science?

But anyway, that's probably also a discussion for another thread.

sanjaya
17 March 2010, 09:05 PM
Anyway, allow me to continue our discussion on the scientific issues.


I beg to differ in our definition. The second law of thermodynamics can be stated in several ways:
1. It is not possible to convert one form of energy to another with 100% efficiency.
2. Heat will not flow spontaneously from a cold to hot body.
3. Every isolated system becomes more disordered with time.
4. The entropy of an isolated system remains constant or increases.

Yes, I think what you've said is correct.


What about our universe?
Unlike our earth, the Universe is an isolated system since no matter or energy can enter or exit through. Unless of course, you think there is another universe coursing parallel.

Not at all. I'd agree with you that the universe is an isolated system, and that the entropy of the universe is always increasing.


From a personal experience, I see the results of entropy playing havoc in my own life from #3 above: no matter how hard I try to keep my desk clean, it seems to revert back to chaos right before my own eyes ( I am bit clumsy too). Therefore, I take it that the entropy can be defined as the degree of disorder in a system.

This is not an example of increased entropy. It's a good analogy, and is often used in textbooks (as an analogy, not an actual case of a system with increasing entropy). But a messy desk or room is not entropically favorable to a clean area. The reason the clean room analogy is sometimes used is because the second law is a statistical law. Google "Maxwell's Demon" to see how the classical theory of statistical mechanics regards the second law as a statistical principle rather than a physical principle.


BTW, it is also agreed that on a microscopic scale, the more precise way is to say is that it is a measure of the multiplicity with the state of the objects. For example, glass of water has more entropy than a glass of ice due to free movement of water molecules.

Your description of snowflake is an example at a microscopic level. Do not confuse the occurence of order at a microscopic or local level with the global level. In an isolated system the decrease in entropy has to have occurred at the expense of change (increase) in entropy somewhere else. Individual parts of a system, even an isolated one, can decrease their own entropy at the expense of a larger increase somewhere else within the system. The front of a refrigerator is cold and ordered but the back of the refrigerator is chaotic due to heat that exits. However, the decrease in entropy is never equal to an increase in entropy. That is possible only if the engine is 100% efficient. Therefore, at best entropy remains same or increases as per definition #4.

On the contrary, a snowflake is a macroscopic example. The snowflake is being considered at the classical level, not the quantum level. But the point of the snowflake analogy is this: though an isolated system must increase in entropy, there can be local decreases in entropy. So the entropy of the universe can increase while the entropy on earth can decrease. Just as a snowflake can form without being specially created, the earth can evolve human life without any need for a creator.


You fall into same trap as evolutionists fall into by extrapolating local occurrence of order using snowflake phenomenon to justify macroscopic phenomenon of entropy, which is no different than Darwinist extrapolating microscopic evolution to justify macroscopic evolution.Is there any evidence that the entropy of the universe is decreasing? The fact that the arrow of time only moves forward is a direct result of 2 nd law. Because, any process in which entropy increases is irreversible. In other words, I can never see shattered bulbs reassembling spontaneously. While I appreciate your conclusion, I do not necessarily agree with it. I am of the opinion that the big bang theory, laws of thermodynamics, COBE clearly point to the creator force that is behind it. I would be interested in hearing arguments otherwise.

I'm not entirely certain how this logically follows. I think you're assuming that Darwinism requires the universe's entropy to decrease. But it only requires the entropy on earth to locally decrease. No one here is requiring any violation of the second law of thermodynamics.

As for your Big Bang argument, Stephen Hawking has actually proposed a model in which time turns into space at the beginning of the universe. This means that there is no need for a creator at all, and it poses a severe problem for ex nihilo creation. I would be careful about holding on to the Big Bang as a proof of Christianity's truth.

Nara
18 March 2010, 03:56 PM
Farewell!

This shall be my last post in this forum. I said to Saidevo earlier, "It won't be long before I become VUIP." and that time has come sooner than even I thought :).

I have been told that the second part of what this forum is about, namely, "the positive presentation of Sanatana Dharma" trumps the first part, which is "constructive discussion on all aspects of Indian culture and traditions". I have been told that almost all my posts are in violation of this objective. I respect the views of the administrators. So, it is now time for me to say, bye, bye.

I wish to thank the warm welcome I received from many members. The brickbats I received are alright too, I don't mind them. Devotee, I don't have any hidden agenda. I was just speaking my mind. Sorry this seems like venom to you.

Ganeshprasad, I am sorry to cause you any pain. I myself consider Bhagavat Ramanuja to be a great reformer and humanitarian, but his biography does have this painful detail. I am not just making this up. If you want evidence, please give me your e-mail by PM.

For the person who sent a note saying sorry by PM, there was absolutely no need for it, I did not feel offended in any way. However, if you thought you offended me in the forum and felt a need to apologize, then you must do so in the forum, not in private. Once again, I don't think there was anything that you needed to apologize for, I am only referring to the principle that if, and that is a big if, you thought there was an offense, then, it being a public offense cannot be absolved by private apology.

sanjaya, I was hoping to have an interesting conversation about faith with you, but not to be.

Finally I want to thank Saidevo for having taken the trouble of inviting me here to have a discussion on Advaitam. Brother Saidevo, you are a gentleman and I am grateful to have you as a friend even though we have opposing views on faith and religion.

I hope I can maintain my membership for a few days so that anyone who wants to continue any discussion in private may contact me by PM.

I hope I will be permitted one parting shot, questions don't get answered by assertions or fiat.

peace and love to all......

sanjaya
18 March 2010, 04:18 PM
Nara, I'm sorry to hear that you're leaving. I too was looking forward to continuing our discussions. While I don't share your stance on the existence of God, I think that you raise very legitimate arguments that (as you say) can't be answered by fiat. Anyway, perhaps we'll see each other another time.

Eastern Mind
18 March 2010, 04:33 PM
Sanjaya:

I believe the professor is still an active member of Tamil Brahmin forums. You could try going over there and checking it out. I am a member there as well, but don't post much as most of it is out of my league.

Aum Namasivaya

smaranam
18 March 2010, 04:33 PM
Namaste Prof. Nara

You were indeed simply being straightforward and speaking your mind.

It was nice knowing you.

your friend

sanjaya
18 March 2010, 06:50 PM
Sanjaya:

I believe the professor is still an active member of Tamil Brahmin forums. You could try going over there and checking it out. I am a member there as well, but don't post much as most of it is out of my league.

It might be out of my league too. Granted, I happen to be a Tamil Brahmin, but most of the ones I know practice a sort of latent elitism, which is why I've always avoided caste-based communities.

But maybe I'll check it out just to get ahold of Nara in the near future. Thanks for letting me know.

devotee
18 March 2010, 09:48 PM
Namaste Nara,



This shall be my last post in this forum. I said to Saidevo earlier, "It won't be long before I become VUIP." and that time has come sooner than even I thought :).

I have been told that the second part of what this forum is about, namely, "the positive presentation of Sanatana Dharma" trumps the first part, which is "constructive discussion on all aspects of Indian culture and traditions". I have been told that almost all my posts are in violation of this objective. I respect the views of the administrators. So, it is now time for me to say, bye, bye.

I wish to thank the warm welcome I received from many members. The brickbats I received are alright too, I don't mind them. Devotee, I don't have any hidden agenda. I was just speaking my mind. Sorry this seems like venom to you.

Ganeshprasad, I am sorry to cause you any pain. I myself consider Bhagavat Ramanuja to be a great reformer and humanitarian, but his biography does have this painful detail. I am not just making this up. If you want evidence, please give me your e-mail by PM.

For the person who sent a note saying sorry by PM, there was absolutely no need for it, I did not feel offended in any way. However, if you thought you offended me in the forum and felt a need to apologize, then you must do so in the forum, not in private. Once again, I don't think there was anything that you needed to apologize for, I am only referring to the principle that if, and that is a big if, you thought there was an offense, then, it being a public offense cannot be absolved by private apology.

sanjaya, I was hoping to have an interesting conversation about faith with you, but not to be.:


Finally I want to thank Saidevo for having taken the trouble of inviting me here to have a discussion on Advaitam. Brother Saidevo, you are a gentleman and I am grateful to have you as a friend even though we have opposing views on faith and religion.

I hope I can maintain my membership for a few days so that anyone who wants to continue any discussion in private may contact me by PM.

I hope I will be permitted one parting shot, questions don't get answered by assertions or fiat.

peace and love to all......

With so much of innocence shown in your above post, I remember one shair :

"Aisi saadagi par kaun na mar jaaye aie khudaa,
karte hain katla aur haath mein talwaar bhi nahi !"

===> O God, who won't like to die for such a simplicity ! They murder and have not even a sword in their hands !

I at least expected you to be honest while saying Good Bye. It is difficult for me to believe your words. May be there is something wrong with me ! However, please do some introspection and answer these questions to yourself :

a) When we were discussing Dharmaa, why did you bring in politics during discussion ? That too a distorted one ??
b) Your admission is that you are an atheist or at best an agnostic. Why are you after the Advaita Vedanta ? What purpose does it serve for you ? I have read your and Sai's posts on Tamilbrahmin forum & you were mercilessly after him .... even when he pleaded that he was not interested in discussing ... why did you keep pestering him ?
c) What was in your mind when you said this :


"To me personally, all this shruti and what it says about Iswara, Jagat etc. did not do any good anyhow for the least among us. The dalit peasant toiled his life away so that the Brahmins could debate whether the jagat is real or unreal. I have no respect for anyone who makes his/her living on the toil of those who they consider unfit to touch."

The peasants were dalits in a Hindu society ? Which history are you reading ? .... and mind it, the Sanyaasis were always considered beyond all castes & lineage ... then why did you lash out at Brahmins as a whole ? Do you think that all joining the Sanyaasa order are Brahmins ?

And by saying it too bluntly ... "I have no respect for anyone" what response did you expect from those who revere those saints ? This is the civilised way to speak out one's mind ??

And who told you that dalits were toling to provide food and clothings to Sanyaasis ? They were neither farmer community nor the merchants.

And BTW, what was the necessity of indulging in selling out your hatred breeding thoughts when you came here to "discuss Advaita Vedanta" ? Now, you are claiming that you had no hidden agenda ? Your simplicity is really admirable !

Do you think that spreading such stories of oppression of Dalits & your cooked up stories of killings on Jains & Buddhists will be good for the society ? Will it bring harmony, peace and prosperity in Hindu Society ? Do you know that there is no history which is not biased by the views of the writer ? Do you know that war of Independence fought against British has been written in quite different ways by the Indians, the Pakistanis and the British ? Whose version is correct ?

You didn't show your respect to even the saints of Bhakti movement who rejected the Caste-by-birth theory and accepted each and everyone without hesitation ? You forgot that it was Shankaracharya who said that even a chaandaal (the lowest in the caste system) was the same Brahman as a Brahmin was, through an anecdote ??

Please accept it whether you like it or not :

India and the Indian so-called dalits don't need people like you who can't do much except rendering lip-service to the so-called dalits. Why are you living a comfortable life in a foreign country ... why don't you come back to India & do something good for those dalits for whom you heart is bleeding so much ? Your earning capability must allow you to support some poor students needing financial assistance ... why don't you do something like this instead of wasting your money on "cheers after cheers" ?

I have seen many who enjoy a very comfortable life by just parroting atrocities against dalits & just fooling them to give their votes to them. They are not sincere in upliftment of those poor people but it is a great business to talk like this. It pays you rich. Just divide people on some issue or the other ... keep striking at the fault lines of the Hindu Society ... so that you would be considered a saviour and in return you could make millions.

You are only trying to divide Hindu society and spread hatred ... is it not spewing venom ?

I pray to God that one day you may be able to see what harm you are doing to Hindu society.

OM

satay
19 March 2010, 12:11 AM
Namaskar,

Prof. Nara, I think that there is some misunderstanding. I never said that all of your posts are in viloation.
I have posted our exchange via PM here http://hindudharmaforums.com/showthread.php?p=41605#post41605

HDF is for positive presentation of Hindu Dharma. But you told me that you will not continue since you don't believe in this myth. Clearly, your agenda is not in alignment with the main theme of the forum. Again, I admit here that there are thousands perhaps a million problems with Hinduism and hindus, however, exposing those problems is not the intent or goal of this forum. If you want to expose problems of Hinduism, this is not the place to do it. If, however, you want to discuss vedanta or even atheism then please continue posting but I will not allow any posts that are against hinduism, hindus, india or indians. There are hundreds of forum on the Net that allow their members to do that. I can personally direct you to some, if you would like.


I respect your views and empathize with you as I was a atheist myself in a previous life. Simply because I reminded you of the theme of the forum doesn't mean that you have become an unimportant member of the forum. I am sure you will find a forum that better fits your needs, goals and agenda or you are welcome to align your goals with the goals of HDF.

Thank you,
Take Care.


Farewell!

This shall be my last post in this forum. I said to Saidevo earlier, "It won't be long before I become VUIP." and that time has come sooner than even I thought :).

I have been told that the second part of what this forum is about, namely, "the positive presentation of Sanatana Dharma" trumps the first part, which is "constructive discussion on all aspects of Indian culture and traditions". I have been told that almost all my posts are in violation of this objective. I respect the views of the administrators. So, it is now time for me to say, bye, bye.
peace and love to all......

sanjaya
19 March 2010, 01:06 AM
To be honest, I never found Nara's comments to be "anti-Hindu." I understand there are a few here who took his posts that way. However, it seems to me that Nara's comments here were largely meant to inspire discussions about problems in Hinduism that should be corrected, and they didn't seem to contain any of the contempt, vitriol, or back-handed insults that anti-Hindus usually inject into their posts (see the posts by evangelicals and Muslims on HDF for examples). Perhaps as a rationalist myself I'm sympathetic to the atheist viewpoint, even if I do not share it it all. But I don't think that reasonable self-criticism is ever a bad thing.

atanu
19 March 2010, 02:36 AM
Farewell!

I hope I will be permitted one parting shot, questions don't get answered by assertions or fiat.

peace and love to all......

Peace and love to you shri nara

Like sanjaya and smaranam, I also believe that you were, more or less fair. Every one is entitled to a view. And your view probably needs another forum.

But I have some comment about your above parting shot. Kindly inspect your own posts and see how definitive they are. To me it appeared that you state your opinion as THE TRUTH without knowing that is your opinion. My perception may be wrong, since you probably hold the same view of my posts.

You felt hurt at certain things, though you said you were above ego. Now, Shankaracharya to me is God. So, any assertion by a common poster, who have had no experience and also probably intellectually not of Shankara's stature that His teachings are wrong, distorted, or incomplete, feels awful to me. I know that we all hurt other people's faith unknowingly (or even knowlingly), before nature alerts us.

Another factor that may not be apparent to others, is your vague background and motivation. You claimed being an atheist, yet complained of Shankara, borrowing arguments from Theists, namely Ramanuja. You were also using some mixed arguments from sources that are critical of advaita -- but not at all from your standpoint. Their criticality is on account of other factors.

If you got to debate against advaita, kindly make your stand clear. One cannot debate with a shadow and one better avoids the shadow fighting. Often some form of grudge becomes a debate.


Best Wishes and Regards

Om Namah Shivaya

atanu
19 March 2010, 02:46 AM
Farewell!

For the person who sent a note saying sorry by PM, there was absolutely no need for it, I did not feel offended in any way. However, if you thought you offended me in the forum and felt a need to apologize, then you must do so in the forum, not in private. Once again, I don't think there was anything that you needed to apologize for, I am only referring to the principle that if, and that is a big if, you thought there was an offense, then, it being a public offense cannot be absolved by private apology.



Namaste nara ji,

Yes. I should have said sorry and I indded said sorry in the thread. The post was removed because it was continuation of another post that was removed. Since my public sorry was removed, so i sent pm to you. I hope that the matter is cleared.

My opinions on unknowingly or knowingly hurting others, shadow debating, and debating from a grudge postion are recorded above.

Best Wishes again.

Om Namah Shivaya

devotee
19 March 2010, 03:09 AM
Dear Sanjaya,


To be honest, I never found Nara's comments to be "anti-Hindu." I understand there are a few here who took his posts that way. However, it seems to me that Nara's comments here were largely meant to inspire discussions about problems in Hinduism that should be corrected, and they didn't seem to contain any of the contempt, vitriol, or back-handed insults that anti-Hindus usually inject into their posts (see the posts by evangelicals and Muslims on HDF for examples). Perhaps as a rationalist myself I'm sympathetic to the atheist viewpoint, even if I do not share it it all. But I don't think that reasonable self-criticism is ever a bad thing.

You can't understand the crisis today Hindu society is facing due to such vitriolic propaganda unleashed by people like Nara. Only an Indian knows .... how dangerous it is to spread such distorted stories.

Being a rationalist is not wrong. I was almost an atheist when I was young. But not showing respect to others' sentiments is egoism/egotism and not rationalism. And it is not only limited to showing disrespect or hurting others' sentiments ... it is presentation of distorted history of the Hindus. There is no race which has 100 % glorious history ... but it is made so to make you proud of it. Everything whatever your parents do is not glorious but you are taught to concentrate on their greatness and not their weaknesses. Keep cursing a child and he will soon become less than a human being ! You should always try to find something to praise your friend and not keep criticising him.You become what you think you are ! That is true for the society too.

If you keep exposing the fault lines ... there would be nothing left as Hindu society or India as a nation. It is not done that way. No.

Please don't get me wrong but you, perhaps, are too young to understand all this.

OM

saidevo
19 March 2010, 06:15 AM
namaste Nara.

Farewell, if you opt it to be such from HDF, but IMO, you will be missing a lot of interaction, specially when, even as an atheist/agnostic you always want to learn something more of the other--spiritual--side of knowledge, to which you are not averse at all. But then HDF is a public forum and you can always be reading its contents.

It is ironical that you already know a lot about Hinduism and VaiShNavam and yet call it all a myth. For a theist, I don't call Science a delusion in its own physical domain, although I tend to severely criticize its efforts of finding physical answers to trans-physical realities.

In addition, you went overboard, with your opinions about the purport of varNa-bheda and the evil of jAti-bheda, venting them as your strong feelings in threads that absolutely had no scope for their discussion, and thus upset the apple cart. The historical atrocities that you spoke of as being committed by Hindu kings against the Jainas and Buddhas defeated in debates in the Tamil kingdoms, to the extent they were true, were IMO, due to human frailties and not due to any teachings in the Hindu religion. They were wrong where they happened, but they were not due to any teachings in the Hindu religion. In the same way, the torture suffered by Saint Appar at the hands of his king and the Bhuddhists pushing out Kumarila BhaTTa from the tower to kill him, were again human frailties. Whereas the fatal aggressions of the Abrahamic religions were done in the name their religion, based on specific teachings in their scriptures and doctrines.

Whatever else is felt lacking in you, within the limited scope of forum friendship you have been a man of courtesy, showing respect to individuals in your interactions and personal tolerance to brickbats. IMGO, for the kind of intellect and knowledge you have, you would rather do better with some willingness to think beyond the physical, but then I know, it is for you to decide, and perhaps you had that willingness at sometime in life but had personal reasons for your present alienation from it. I hope you would find your lasting happiness and peace in the tenets of VaiShNavam that you seem to subscribe to.

We shall remain friends, wherever we are on the Net.

satay
19 March 2010, 08:46 AM
Namaskar,

First, I would like to say to all that Prof. Nara hasn't been banned from HDF. His account is in good standing. This means that he can post on HDF without a problem if he so chooses. However, he has told me that he will not take part in positive promotion of Hinduism as he considers it as a myth. From that it is clear that his goals are not in alignment with the forum goals. Thus I don't think that he will continue to post even though his account is in good standing.

Secondly, I have no problem with self criticism or even criticism of Hinduism. Caste and other "hot topics" have been discussed to death on HDF. In fact, there is a section called "Hot Topics" on HDF! That said, the main goal of HDF is "positive presentation" of Hinduism. If a member's agenda or goal is not in alignment with this main goal of Hinduism then this forum is not a good fit for that member. This is the message I tried to tell Prof. Nara in my PM.

So to conclude, there is nothing personal against Prof. Nara. In fact, I respect him and enjoyed his posts. His account is in good standing and not locked. He can choose to post anytime. But as with other members of HDF, he has to follow the rules of HDF and respect the main theme. Which I think he is doing in his own way i.e. by not posting because he knows that his posts will not be in alignment with the main theme.



To be honest, I never found Nara's comments to be "anti-Hindu." I understand there are a few here who took his posts that way. However, it seems to me that Nara's comments here were largely meant to inspire discussions about problems in Hinduism that should be corrected, and they didn't seem to contain any of the contempt, vitriol, or back-handed insults that anti-Hindus usually inject into their posts (see the posts by evangelicals and Muslims on HDF for examples). Perhaps as a rationalist myself I'm sympathetic to the atheist viewpoint, even if I do not share it it all. But I don't think that reasonable self-criticism is ever a bad thing.

Nara
19 March 2010, 09:15 AM
... However, he has told me that he will not take part in positive promotion of Hinduism as he considers it as a myth.

This post is just one exception to my self imposed moratorium on posting.

I did use the word myth, and my intention was not to say the entirety of Hinduism is a myth, but the emphasis on positive promotion is like promotion of a myth. Perhaps "myth" is a poor choice of word here, but my reluctance to post is a desire on my part not to participate in an objective that I consider to be uncritical propaganda.

Satay is right, there is not a mutual fit. No hard feelings, I will continue to monitor for a few days before going away completely...

satay
19 March 2010, 10:54 AM
namaskar!


I did use the word myth, and my intention was not to say the entirety of Hinduism is a myth, but the emphasis on positive promotion is like promotion of a myth. Perhaps "myth" is a poor choice of word here, but my reluctance to post is a desire on my part not to participate in an objective that I consider to be uncritical propaganda.


Yes, I felt that your use of the word myth was a bit awkward and ambigous. However, thanks for the clarification.



Satay is right, there is not a mutual fit. No hard feelings, I will continue to monitor for a few days before going away completely...

No hard feelings indeed. As I said, your account is in good standing. Please feel free to post whenever...

Cheers!

smaranam
19 March 2010, 11:18 AM
Secondly, I have no problem with self criticism or even criticism of Hinduism......

That said, the main goal of HDF is "positive presentation" of Hinduism.

Namaste

I would like to add something -

The "positive presentation overall" rule makes sense because the goal of HDF should be spiritual progress thru' SanAtana Dharma of Hinduism. For spiritual progress their has to be acceptance first. For acceptance, the spiritual has to be distinguished from material.

Its not my place to judge, but it does not seem like the spiritual truths of our unique Dharma are coming in the way of justice and fair treatment of any particular socio-ecomomic group as of today (history was in the past) . Nor do they seem to impose any blind faith on followers. (This does not mean any current material problems, that exist today, should be brushed aside. However, only if spiritual gets mixed with worldly things, then problems arise, which is why some people stay away from the whole thing.)

The unique bird's eye view that SanAtana Dharma or Hinduism teaches, helps one to go beyond all appearant duality of the material world - and then swoop down like an eagle to live in the very world and help make it better.

sanjaya
19 March 2010, 11:44 AM
You can't understand the crisis today Hindu society is facing due to such vitriolic propaganda unleashed by people like Nara. Only an Indian knows .... how dangerous it is to spread such distorted stories.

Well I am Indian, albeit a very Westernized one. In a way this makes me understan the issue quite well. Being an Indian and a Hindu in the West is difficult when people spread anti-Hindu propaganda. This, I believe, leads to erosion of our culture and conversion to Western religion. The reason I've never felt any threat from Nara's posts is because here, the criticism is coming from an Indian rather than from the West.


Please don't get me wrong but you, perhaps, are too young to understand all this.

And I might be willing to grant that. All I'm saying is that the issues Nara is raising shouldn't be swept under the rug and ignored. The things he brought up about the caste system and Hindu history are issues that I would like to discuss further, partially because I'm somewhat ignorant in these areas. We young people, much like Nara, are very bad at accepting wisdom handed down by elders, and often ask for justification. :)

smaranam
19 March 2010, 12:28 PM
All I'm saying is that the issues Nara is raising shouldn't be swept under the rug and ignored. The things he brought up about the caste system and Hindu history are issues that I would like to discuss further, partially because I'm somewhat ignorant in these areas.

Namaste

Perhaps not on HDF though. Please see my post above, which i hope will help answer why. In short, history is in the past. Plus, spiritual progress requires sorting out spiritual from material, especially if it is not about the present. That was one view.

:)

Jai Sri KRSNa

satay
19 March 2010, 01:36 PM
namaskar,


All I'm saying is that the issues Nara is raising shouldn't be swept under the rug and ignored. The things he brought up about the caste system and Hindu history are issues that I would like to discuss further,

and that's perfectly okay to do on HDF as long as we don't make mockery out of hindus, hinduism, indians and india.

kd gupta
19 March 2010, 11:33 PM
namaskar,



and that's perfectly okay to do on HDF as long as we don't make mockery out of hindus, hinduism, indians and india.
Here stands the point .
Question is not of caste , creed , but it is of I am . It is not of Dvaita or Advaita . The case is same as Arjuna had to face 18 chapters .
Yaavad etaan nireekshe’ham yoddhukaamaan avasthitaan;
Kair mayaa saha yoddhavyam asmin ranasamudyame.

satay
20 March 2010, 11:17 AM
Namaste,
The following is posted on behalf of Prof. Nara.



Dear atanu, I did not see the psot you are referring to. Please accept my apology for jumping to conclusion. I have already made one exception to my self imposed morotorium, so I request satay to post this apology in the forum on my behalf. Take care my friend."