The god fallacy

[Yamaka]

Share:

Facebook X (Twitter) WhatsApp Email Share Link

China & Inida: Is the comparison reasonable?

Dear Mr. Sarma: My response in bold letters below.

Shri Yamaka sir,

China is imho, different from India in many aspects. First, India and Bharat (the vast countryside with acute poverty and diseases being rampant) are well connected and all statistics about India will cover both India & Bharat with a good amount of accuracy. In China, the very vast rural countryside is practically cut off from the outside world and the outside world is also cut-off from those vast areas. Whatever statistics the Govt. of China puts out is what it feels is good for the nation's well-being. Even Nationmaster has to go by published statistics only and I very much doubt whether even the CIA worldfact book is capable of giving the true data on China.

There is a massive mis-information about China spread in India... most Indians are very blind as to what's happening in the NE neighbor to their peril. US has very realistic information about the whole of China taken by our spy satellites and other means. Indians can't afford to ignore China for the long term Security reasons.. Beware..... I believe that the Assault and Murder Rate are much higher in India than China.. You need to really worry as to the REAL reason.. you just can't ignore this basic data under the mistaken notion that Crime Reporting is bad in China! I believe the Reporting is nearly the same between both countries... and the corruption in the Police and Judiciary is the same between India and China, IMO.

Secondly, the conclusions which you draw, viz.,Assault and murder rate has to first take the legal definitions of assault in both countries, imo. And, there is no reason in attributing atheism as the panacea for all the ills of this world; even USA was and is very much a god-believing country.

Theism is the ROOT cause for the exploding population growth in India via the Religious FATALISM: "Kadvul giveth more kids.. and Man taketh". This DENOMINATOR effect is very serious to India's growth, believe me.

In most of US, religion is a Cultural Link to the Distant Past... only about 20% are truly religious: the Evangelicals and some Baptists in the Bible Belt of the Red States in the Deep South. This is the situation in 2012. Even the conservative Republican Party is poised to nominate a Morman as their Presidential candidate, because most of the GOP are not that truly religious.

Though this may sound personal, it is not correct to claim that god-belief is the root cause of all problems in life, simply because in your life, fortuitously, you turned to be an atheist while in college and somehow life has been good for you. But Dhirubhai Ambani (to whom, incidentally, even you cannot hold a candle) was a very great believer in God. The Birlas were and are; they built so many Birla Mandirs. Ramnath Goenka who came to India with just only a small "lotta" to wash after defecation, built a newspaper empire and he was a God-believer. Such instances are many.

You should compare Ambanis, Birlas, Goenkas with Carlos Slim, Warren Buffet and Bill & Melinda Gates, Waltons and others. Not with Yamaka, who openly revolted against the Demons of God and Religion and stood his ground against all odds and still smiling! You must ask why your God Country is very poor with $1333 income per year per person? Is your God truly Omnipotent and Merciful?

So, I will very humbly request you to sit back and think over whether what minuscule providence has helped you in your life can or will definitely aid any large population.

You should probably read the story of the "king's barber and his golden drop" from Tenali Raman stories, I will say.

You all should quit reading old stories... and wake up to the persistent questions that dog India in the past 2000 years, at least.

Indians lived in style and flair from 7000 BC till 1500 BC... then the Vedas came, Puranas came, followed by Koran and the Bible.... India's life decidedly took a wrong turn to the worse... an inexorable decline towards the bottom of the pit..... Why? Why?

Religious FATALISM and FANATICISM.......

I request you and others in this Forum to think about tangible Solutions to improve the economic situations of India as a whole: not just the India9%.

India91% is languishing w/o enough food, water and a place to go to bathroom! Why your God is ignoring most of HIS Believers? Even, after getting their Aaradana in the form of prayers, poojas and bhajans?

Because that Merciful All Knowing God is non-existent, believe me!

Peace, Mr. Sarma. Please write about some tangible Solutions!

 

[Nara]

Dear MVS, I was so eagerly waiting for a reply to these questions I posed to you, and what a disappointment it was when you did not favor me with a response. The fact that you are still on this topic, made clear by this post of yours, has made the disappointment all the more glaring.

Quote: "Freewill is a different,

As I have been requesting off and on, please press "Reply with Quote", this will cite the entire post as a quote and provide a link to it for easy access. Then, to break it up into smaller pieces of quotations, end a section with "[" followed "/quote]" without the "s. Each section you want to quote must start with a "[" followed by "quote]" without the "s and any spaces, and must end with "[" followed "/quote]" without the "s. Do a "preview" and make sure the text will appear properly. Edit as needed, then, after you are satisfied with the way the post will appear, then submit it. A few minutes spent on this will help the readers immensely. Please consider this.

Mr. Nara, May I point out that you sound rather 'confused' and 'confounded' in the above-mentioned passage. .......And yet, we have shown immense power of 'love' and 'compassion' to help the millions of victims of 'natural disasters' or 'man-made' calamities! If you concede that much, why, you are already 'en route' to a clearer understanding of 'That', which still remains 'incomprehensible' with all 'contradictions' that defy ordinary 'human understanding'!

It is easy to say I sound confused or confounded if you don't bother to understand what I am saying. I have said this many times in the past in one form or another, that there are forces outside human comprehension by definition means we have no idea, at least at this point. To then go further and make up your own divine and/or anthropomorphic descriptions with human-like powers elevated to the infinite extreme, and assuming these IPU like descriptions care for human condition, expect sycophantic praise from them routinely and in exchange they offer trinkets, whatever they may be, a pass in +2, Computer Science course, curing cancer, marriage for son/daughter, finding a good job, the list is endless -- this fallacy is what is being exposed.

Please read and understand the arguments I have presented, please. While you are at it, please address the arguments presented, if you can. Start with Epicurus's challenge and the discussion we have had so far, please give your response to this.

.... come on be a 'Nara' to all the Krishna, Jesus, Mohammed, Buddha, and the like, who propounded their views -- to to be analysed and argued over to reach a conclusion whether you have got it right! Otherwise, you are not the 'light' that you imagine yourself to be! Just one of those 'mirrors' that reflect the views of others without any substance to show for all these years lived!

Is that what my imagination is, LOL, I never knew? You exhibiting this supernatural skill of imagination-reading surely makes you imminently suitable to be included in the list of names you have cited above than I do LOL.

In any case, dear MVS, I have stated what my views are many many times, it is what I would like to call agnostic in a technical sense due to the limitation non-existence cannot be proved conclusively, and a confirmed atheist in practical everyday life.

Humans have tamed a whole slew of nature's awesome power for his own benefit, the theists who deride science included. There is lot more out there that the humans are yet to make sense of. The theists have always receded to this area that lies beyond human knowledge to peddle their theistic wares. That space may never shrink to zero is what is going for the theists. This god is a god of gaps in human knowledge. These theists thrive where there is ignorance, but can't survive a moment in the space already won over by human knowledge. Your god can exist only in ignorance, not in knowledge.

Cheers!

 

[Nara]

Leslie Stephen

Leslie Stephen is another one made to resign from his academic position because of the views he held, needless to say rejecting the dominant theistic views of his time and place. His biography says he was once an ordained priest, and upon reading philosophical works including that of Mill, Comte, and Kant, with an open and rational mind, relinquished his holy orders and became a confirmed Agnostic. Here is someone who was deeply religious yet overcame its oppresive weight.

I provide excerpts from Leslie Stephen's An Agnostic Apology:

"The Agnostic is one who asserts -- what no one denies -- that there are limits to the sphere of human intelligence. He asserts, further, what many theologians have expressly maintained, that those limits are such as to exclude .... "metempirical" knowledge. But he goes further, and asserts, in opposition to theologians, that theology lies within this forbidden sphere.

[...]

Trust your reason, we have been told till we are tired of the phrase, and you will become Atheists or Agnostics. We take you at your word: we become Agnostics. What right have you to turn round and rate us for being a degree more logical than yourselves?

[...]

Your Gnosticism tells us that an almighty benevolence is watching over everything, and bringing good out of all evil. Whence, then, comes the evil? By free-will; that is, by chance! It is an exception, an exception which covers, say, half the phenomena, and includes all that puzzles us.

[...]

But the revelation shows God to be just. Now, if the free-will hypothesis be rejected -- and it is rejected, not only by infidels, but by the most consistent theologians -- this question cannot arise at all. [...] there cannot be a question of justice between man and God. The creature has no rights against his Creator. .... [is] justice a word applicable to the dealings between the potter and the pot?
​

 

[saidevo]

namaste shrI KRS and all others.

My impressions on the BBC link you have given in your post #112 are as below:

• All that the neuro-scientists go gaga about their findings of religiocity and spirituality in brain areas and term it temporal lobe epilepsy (TLE), which is a disorder condition of the brain, appear to be only localized phenomenon--the results of somthing caused in a larger, probably unified, infinite, energy field.

• The article states, "temporal lobes of the brain ... are near your ears". Interestingly, this is where we Hindus consciously stimulate, striking gently with our knuckles, when we start with the shloka shuklAm-baradharaM viShNum. Probably we are all suffering from TLE!

• The final answers that science can find might probably come from the unified Quantum Vacuum Field Energy (QVFE), (even that) as the area of manifestation of basal universal consciousness--not from the study of the human brain, which as a receiver-antenna could only be a local field of manifestation of effects caused on the background.

• Prof Ramachandran strikes the right note when he "denies that finding out how the brain reacts to religion negates the value of belief. He feels that brain circuitry like that Persinger and Newberg have identified, could amount to an antenna to make us receptive to god."

• When even a commonplace phenomenon like a lightbulb burning when connected to a battery is the result of energy transfer from QVFE as this animation illustrates:
Animation : Electra Energy AG

how could the neurobiological manifestations of human thought be anything more than localized effects of a cause that exists in the basal consciousness of the QVFE?

• Another article by Prof. John Searle also seeks to explain how

Consciousness is a biological phenomenon like any other. It consists of inner qualitative subjective states of perceiving, feeling and thinking. Its essential feature is unified, qualitative subjectivity. Conscious states are caused by neurobiological processes in the brain, and they are realized in the structure of the brain.
Akram Vignan for Scientists

but I think this is again mistaking the how for the why--effects as the cause.

 

[sarang]

We are giving too long a rope to 'claimed' atheists, to quote from obscure sources. it is common sense that we perceive and understand certain things with our god given senses, and augment our area of perception with god given brain and tools we build (telescope, spectroscope etc.). There is no disagreement that we will know more about nature, have a better understanding of 'natural' phenomena, in future. Everyday I get a picture in my desktop, a nasa image of a spiral galaxy or a star cluster - I accept for the present that it looks the way nasa has shown, despite the small print that the image is computer generated, colour corrected and digitally enhanced from various inputs received by nasa from its hubble telescope, satellite, transducers and the skill of the programmer-scientist; i will hold on to this till nasa or another respectable organisation collects more data and uses different tools to present a different image of spiral galaxy.

My understanding of god does not in any way makes me reject so called scientific pursuits in fields other than my direct involvement; I do not off hand reject nasa's spiral galaxy even though I have neither seen or visualised it with my senses and brain.

Some of us talk about God based on what we have learnt from our scriptures, acharyas, parents and religious leaders. They had special training, knowledge, involvement, tapasic practice to see more than we are capable of. We are yet to graduate to 'feeling' or 'realising' god by evolving suitably. Let bombastic atheists work on proof that god does not exist. I am sure they will never succeed.

 

[Mayuram V.Sankaran]

Dear MSV, pardon me, but this statement makes no sense at all, do you really think the "Godless" as you put it, made the world what it is now? The "Godly" did not have any role at all? If you want to credit the Godless with making the world what it is like now, then, are you not implictely admitting the God in whom the Godly believe did not make this world like it is now?

The second part of your statement is even more self-contradictory, why would the "Godless" blame God, the entity whose existence they deny? For us this is not a blame game, there is no blame to go around in the first place. It is what it is, the world we have now is what we all made it out to be. Ours is only a sincere attempt to understand reality in as rational a way as humanly possible.

Perhaps you are frustrated with all this "no God" talk and want to express it. If so, I understand, go ahead and unburden.

Cheers!

Shri Nara, As you have noted elsewhere, I have not returned to these pages for sometime as I was otherwise preoccupied. Sorry for the same.

Let me clarify myself over the 'cryptic' sentence of mine that you have quoted which has raised a number of questions in your mind as expressed in the quote.

You see, I have often come across the 'blame game', as you call it, from the atheists' end, when they note the 'utter poverty' that reigns in some parts of the world, the many wars, the disorder, the pestilence, the disasters, the death, destruction and devastation that is wrought either by 'Nature' or are 'man-made', to pose the rhetorical question: 'Where is God?'; or the question: "If your God is almighty and benevolent, then why is 'He' allowing for all these 'evils' to happen? Why did 'He' not make the world 'good, better and best' instead of also 'bad, worse and worst'? And sometimes they go on to assert that if only they had the 'power of God' as attributed to 'Him', then they would certainly make the world a 'better', if not the 'best' place for not just the human beings, but all other living things on this earth.

You see, while posing all these questions, rhetorically or otherwise, the atheists just do not stop to ask themselves the question that you have adverted to elsewhere in these pages: "Now, if I do not believe in a 'God', why would I then want to 'blame' a 'God' at all for all these miseries or the miserable state of existence that we witness?; I would only blame 'Nature' itself or just we, the 'human beings', for all these and nothing more".

You see, in spite of all the advances that we, human beings, have made in the realm of 'Science, Engineering and Technology', we are not able to explain the 'contradictions' in ourselves -- why is it that we are capable of so much 'logical reasoning' and 'creativity' as to have transformed the face of the world over the last few centuries, but at the same time capable of so much sheer 'cruelty, callousness and indifference' and such a degree of 'violence' that we tend to destroy everything that we have created for just a 'semblance of dominance' for the moment? Was it not this contradiction that has led to 'World Wars' and 'genocide' by the millions? And at the same time the many, many beneficial 'discoveries and inventions' that have promoted the general welfare of mankind and other living things?

If we cannot understand the presence of both 'good' and 'evil' in us, how are we then going to understand the 'contradictions' and the 'pairs of opposites' present in the 'natural phenomena'? How are we going to understand the 'purpose' or 'goal' of an incomprehensible larger 'force' governing our lives? Do you doubt it? Are we not a part of this 'Nature' that we understand little about? Can we be 'sentient' ourselves without 'Nature' itself that nourishes us being 'sentient' in a way not comprehensible to us?

You see, elsewhere, you have characterized this 'mysterious zone', that is beyond human comprehension as of now, as the 'grey area' in which all the 'theists' and the organized 'religions' of the world have played such a 'larger than life' role and held people to ransom with their projections of what it is! However, you must remember that human history shows the 'positive' role
played by the religions of the world in bringing various groups of people together and binding them to a 'common belief' in certain values and a 'way of life' acceptable to most. The 'negative' roles are there for everyone to see, but then we return to the 'contradictions' again that is part of 'Nature' and part of 'human existence'. There are both the drives of 'good' and 'evil' in us and likewise, in the larger reality also, both co-exist. You cannot find the one without the other -- that is the 'drama' of ever present 'creation, preservation and destruction'! You and others may 'negate, mock and deride' any such notions of a larger 'force' or 'reality', but the same makes no difference to it just as you say that 'prayers, pujas and bhajans' make no difference to it!

 

[sravna]

Fallacy of God & Religion and Majority Principle:

Historians have said clearly that some MEN created the Gods & Religions for the purpose of controlling or exploiting the Society: Vedic People and the Puranic Authors created Hinduism, the followers of Jesus created Christianity and the followers of Muhammed created Islam. These religions from the beginning created by MEN as a cut-throat competition to the other existing religion(s). Hence, they are not brothers, but enemies in all sense of the word.

Talk to the Islamist of Al Qaeda: they want to destroy Christianity and the West. Talk to the Sang Parivar: they want to kill and bury the Islamist in India.

Therefore, if 4.5 billion people in the world are religious and worshiping SOME God of different Ideology, this does not mean this MAJORITY is good over the 2.5 billion solid non-worshiping, non-Believing people around the world.

Yes, Majority Principle is good and is used in electing a Political Party to govern the State as in Democracy.

Can the same Majority Principle be good in legitimizing Religious FATALISM and the consequent poverty, ignorance and superstition?

Please see the small minorities of the richest countries in the world in the order of decreasing per capita income per year (per capita GDP times 0.8 gives the per capita income per year) :

Norway $43K per capita income per year
Switzerland
USA
Japan
Denmark
Sweden
UK
Finland
Germany
Austria $23K per capita income per year. (For comparison, India sports a per capita income of $1.3K a year)

These countries have hardly 10% of the population of the world of 7 billion people.

What's striking is, Industrial Revolution started and flourished in all these countries, and Science Engineering & Technology is in the front seat and God & Religiosity is at the back!

Most other countries are in the death-grip of Religious FATALISM as in India, Africa, Central and South America.

China, the most populace country in the world, is breaking the mold and galloping towards prosperity by discarding the man-made God & Religion.

Therefore, please do not use Majority Principle to patronize poverty, ignorance and superstition.

Innum varum....

Dear Shri Yamaka,

Peace is what everyone seeks. Therefore the ability to maintain inner peace and to be at peace with others are very important. The two statistics that suggests how successful a group is at these are the suicide rate and the homicide rate of the group.

There are very few if none among the western countries which score low on both the counts. America, the seat of S & T performs poorly too compared to some of the so called developing countries including India.

Looks like the high per capita income of these S & T countries happened somewhat by selling their peace too

I am not against S & T per se. But you have to accept that you are not too big enough or smart enough to do away with God. If you start thinking like that you are sowing the seeds of self destruction.

 

[Nara]

We are giving too long a rope to 'claimed' atheists, to quote from obscure sources.

My dear brother sarang, why do you even bother to read what I post? You called me bullheaded and when I asked you for clarification you simply ignored me, see here for more details. Now you say you are giving me a long rope and calling me bombastic, is this the way to have a reasonable discussion? The sources I am citing may be obscure to you, but, does that really make any difference to the weight of the arguments?

If you don't like what I am saying I see two reasonable courses of action, (i) talk to me about it, or (ii) if you think I am beneath talking to, ignore me. You are choosing a third course of action, constant sniping hiding behind the proverbial bush, do you think this is right?

Also, if I am beneath talking to, surely I am beneath you bothering to read what I write, no?

There are many people in this forum who totally disagree with what I am writing, take for instance, KRS, sravna, Saidevo. So, it is not impossible to talk to me free of the "kola veri" you seem to exhibit towards me.

My dear brother, please ask KRS or Saidevo, they will tell you I am not a bad person, they may think I am cooky , but not bad.

My understanding of god does not in any way makes me reject so called scientific pursuits in fields other than my direct involvement; I do not off hand reject nasa's spiral galaxy even though I have neither seen or visualised it with my senses and brain.

Through long years of hard work and accomplishments NASA has earned the trust it enjoys.They will lose this trust in an instant if any false claims on their part is exposed. They don't put out anything without impeccable evidence.

Let bombastic atheists work on proof that god does not exist. I am sure they will never succeed.

BTW, Hitchins, one of the really bombastic atheist, gave his characteristically witty and apt reply to this canard of a question about proving god does not exist, "What can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence." Nice ha?

Have a great evening my dear brother ...

 

[Nara]

....Let me clarify myself over the 'cryptic' sentence of mine that you have quoted which has raised a number of questions in your mind as expressed in the quote.

Dear MVS, thanks for your long reply, but I am afraid you have not addressed the questions I posed.

Cheers!

 

[Yamaka]

Take God, Spirits and Religion to the back seat: Why not bring SET to the forefront?

Dear Shri Yamaka,

Peace is what everyone seeks. Therefore the ability to maintain inner peace and to be at peace with others are very important. The two statistics that suggests how successful a group is at these are the suicide rate and the homicide rate of the group.

There are very few if none among the western countries which score low on both the counts. America, the seat of S & T performs poorly too compared to some of the so called developing countries including India.

Looks like the high per capita income of these S & T countries happened somewhat by selling their peace too

I am not against S & T per se. But you have to accept that you are not too big enough or smart enough to do away with God. If you start thinking like that you are sowing the seeds of self destruction.

Dear Sravna:

Nice hearing from you.

I am happy to know that you are not against SET... a real progress towards Salvation, IMO.

Please provide the list of homicide and suicide rate for developed and developing countries and show the pattern emerging from there.

From your last para I understand you don't know me much.. I am big enough to bring changes in MY life: I walked away from the Gods, Spirits and Religion when I was 21/22, and I never prayed for anything from any God of Abraham or Vedas or Puranas in the last 41 years! And, I raised my wonderful kids (now 27, 23) in totally a Secular household. We are one very happy and peaceful family.

My point is, the CHANGES happen at each and every family level. And it is happening albeit at a much slower rate.

In fact, many of India9% have moved away from the religiosity.. some of them have a dual conscience: Because of Tradition and/or Fear, they stick to their God, Spirit and Religion, and at the same time enjoy the fruits of SET and like what SET (which gives a rational approach to practical life) has to offer intellectually.

I am really worried about India91%... who are suffering w/o enough food, water and a place to go for defecation.. and their Gods have forsaken them. (if they are there!).

I just want to remind you the fact God is just an IDEA implanted in the Society by some men who wrote the Vedas, Puranas, Koran and Bible.. Nothing more!

By rejecting such old, apparently useless IDEA, no destruction would come... I am saying at least push it to the back seat as the West has done so successfully in the past 50 years, at least.

Innum varum.

 

[saidevo]

namaste Nara and all others.

Nara's post #100:
Karma theory is an explanation that is conjured up to explain all the suffering.

This seems to be a simplistic statement to me. Here is something that seems to me a rational and non-religious view of the law of karma and the karmic equation:

• All causes and effects at the microlevel, both physical and biological, involve transfer of engergy. Science has now found that microphysical phenomena such as a lightbulb getting energized from a battery--apparantly by the flow of electrons--is the result of energy transfer from QVFE (quantum vacuum free energy).
Animation : Electra Energy AG

• Possibly, microbiological phenomena such as the neural fireworks too ultimately get resolved into the (presently invisible) QVFE, which supplies the energy transfer required for the ebbs and tides of visible energy levels in the universe.

• Since karma is a law of causes and effects which manifest in indeterminate ways, the following seems to be a rational explanation of the karmic equation to me (although you may not agree with the 'lifetimes' part of the article:

Volume 4: Karma
This volume is concerned with Karma or the Human Experience.
http://www.uppertriad.org/Chapters/4_TOP_41.pdf

The karmic equation is an abstract representation of the karma (causes and consequences) of an individual or group. It may be used as a focal point of tension for the study of karma.

• Since karma is such an exceedingly complex energy (even for the evolved individual), the equation must necessarily be symbolic and abstract, with an indeterminate series of many-dimensional terms. The reason for this is quite simple; karma is a superposition of inputs (causes) and outputs (effects or consequences) and their interactions, over a diverse continuity and fabric of time, space, and consciousness.

The inputs to the karmic equation are the vast sea of causes (physical, emotional, and mental behaviors and motives) which spans past moments and lifetimes.

• All of the past actions have been entered as causes, and new causes are added continuously as the individual lives, thinks, feels, and otherwise experiences. The relationships of an individual to other persons are often major (potent) inputs.

• The output of the equation is the continuous (weighted) sum total of external forces and influences on the individual or the group. A further complexity is introduced by the superposition of individual, family, group, racial, national, and planetary karma. Much of the karmic equation concerns the relationships (superpositions and transformations) between causes and effects.

• Since the effects are continuously responsive to the causes and relationships, the effects constitute a feedback mechanism (the response of the individual creates new causes which in turn modify somewhat the new effects).

• Each equation is continuously changing, though the changes may be quite small when compared to the output or yield. In general, a large number of causes are superimposed (and distributed in time) and transformed to produce timely and appropriate effects.

The study of karma is the study of experience and evolution, for the purpose of karma is always to encourage evolution by providing the various lessons, experiences, and opportunities needed (earned).

• Karma can only be fulfilled as the lessons are learned, consciously or otherwise. No real external interference is possible. Under certain conditions, karma can be changed in time and space; and with accelerated learning and the creation of new causes, the karmic effects can be modified.

• But karma cannot be circumvented, lessened, or modified without ultimate fulfillment. The lessons must be learned, one way or another, or the individual will suffer incompletion.

All karma is earned (anticipated). Talents, qualities, experiences, and opportunities are all earned, just as pain, suffering, and the various forms of limitation are earned, whether from carelessness, ignorance, unconscious action, or deliberate action.

• No karma is arbitrary. Karma is infinite wisdom, for the effects are conditioned not only from the (literal) causes but also from the state of consciousness, the motives, and the circumstances at the time the cause is created as well as at the time the effects are produced. All conditions are taken into account automatically, for the greater good.

The conscious study of causes, effects, and their relationships (both in a practical sense and in an abstract sense) tends to enhance and expand the capacity of the student for understanding.

• Efforts to find relationships (through meditation) and the partial understanding that results lead to progress (light and love). With understanding comes greater abilities and insight, and progress along the path is made more rapidly, more easily, and more constructively. Karma in the individual sense is eventually fulfilled, enabling the student to deal with group (human, planetary, and solar) karmic forces.

Some scientists researching on 'A Quantum-mechanical paradigm of Creation and Existence', came up with equations of karma, which article I have posted here:
http://www.tamilbrahmins.com/general-discussions/6836-seekers-questions-11.html#post97781

 

[Nara]

Nara's post #100:
Karma theory is an explanation that is conjured up to explain all the suffering.

This seems to be a simplistic statement to me.

Dear Saidevo, one's karmas, as in our choices and actions, do have an impact on our lives. However, there are enough empirical evidence to conclude that this impact is not a precise one, i.e. there is no assurance that a bad act will necessarily result in a bad effect. In other words, there is a statsitical cause and effect relationship, not a mathematical one, between the choices and actions at one stage of life, and the pleasure and suffering we experience at a later stage.

But, that is not what we are talking about. The question was about a different kind of karma -- the karma theory that is built on the faith that (i) there is a jeeva, (ii) this jeeva goes through cycles of birth and rebirth, (iii) over all these lives the jeeva accumulates karma according to a set of defined varna-based rules of papa and punya, and (iv) the good/evil and pleasure/suffering that flow from this accumulated karma. I don't buy any of this and I don't think that is simplistic .

Be that as it may, all this is completely unnecessary for the main point that we were discussing in posts 99 and 100. Your claim was that with knowledge of this Karma theory the riddle of Epicurus can be asnwered. You said, in post #99, "Epicurus probably did not know about the karma theory, which explains his blaming God in his famous quote." This is not the case. Even with this Karma theory riddle of Epicurus stands. Here is what I said in my response in post #100:

"Even under the karma theory, Epicurian challenge remains unanswered. God being all powerful, he must have the power to wipe away all the karma of all people in one fell sweep and thus eradicate all suffering and evil. If he is capable of this, but does not do it because of his proclivity for leela, then he is malevolent. If he wants to, but karma is too powerful for him to wipe away, then he is not omnipotent. If he is both capable of wiping them away and wishes to do so as well, why has he not done it yet, why is there still suffering that you are having to attribute to this karma theory? If he is neither capable of wiping it away nor wanting to do, well then he is not god."


​

Also, please note, Epicurus was not blaming God for anything, the point is, the God conjecture is a logical fallacy. So, Epicurus could not blame a God that was not real for him.

Cheers!

 

[Nara]

.... But you have to accept that you are not too big enough or smart enough to do away with God. If you start thinking like that you are sowing the seeds of self destruction.

sravna, how are you so sure? Are you smart enough to do this? You have given a warning to Y, and by association to me as well I presume, that he is sowing the seeds of self destruction. Is it possible that your own self confidence (ego/arrogance is what you guys normally say) in your ability to see the sprouts of self destruction in us could be the seeds of your self destruction? Just asking, not saying.

Cheers!

 

[saidevo]

namaste everyone.

Although Nara and Yamaka (and possibly a few others here) dismiss prenatal and post-mortem karma as useless religious prattle, some useful quotes on the concept for the believers:

01. The machanism of karma:
The Science of Karma | The Spiritual Scientist

Why do different actions give reactions after different time durations? To understand this, let’s probe deeper into the mechanism of karma, as is illustrated through an incident from the Mahabharata.

After the bloody Kurukshetra war, Dhritrarashtra asked Krishna, “I had hundred sons and all of them were killed in the war. Why? Krishna replied, “Fifty lifetimes ago, you were a hunter. While hunting, you tried to shoot a male bird, but it flew away. In anger, you ruthlessly slaughtered the hundred baby birds that were there in the nest. The father-bird had to watch in helpless agony. Because you caused that father-bird the pain of seeing the death of his hundreds sons, you too had to bear the pain of your hundred sons dying.

Dhritarastra said, "Ok, but why did I have to wait for fifty lifetimes?" Krishna answered, "You were accumulating punya (pious credits) during the last fifty lifetimes to get a hundred sons because that requires a lot of punya. Then you got the reaction for the papa (sin) that you have done fifty lifetimes ago."

02. Karma is precise, though complex
The Science of Karma | The Spiritual Scientist

Krishna says in the Bhagavad-gita (4.17) gahana karmano gatiH, that the way in which action and reaction works is very complex.

The Srimad Bhagavatam gives the example: if we have a cowshed with thousand calves and if we leave a mother cow there, she will easily find out where her calf is among those thousands. She has this mystical ability. Similarly, our karma will find us among the millions of people on this planet.

03. Why do natural calamities kill thousands of innocent people?
The Science of Karma | The Spiritual Scientist

On the morning of that disaster, just before the tsunami struck, some scuba divers went scuba diving into the ocean to look for jewels. When they went under water, they suddenly felt a force pushing them upwards. They struggled to resist the force till it subsided. Then they went deeper under water, did their work, came back to the surface of the ocean and swam back to the coastline – only to find that there was no coast line! While they were under the water, the tsunami had devastated everything. Just consider, the tsunami killed those who were on the land, but those who were under the water were unharmed! If these Scuba divers had ventured into the ocean a little later or a little earlier, they would have been on the surface when the killer wave hit. But by their karma they were not supposed to die at that time, so although they were closest to the tsunami, they did not die.

Another even more amazing example: During an earthquake in Gujarat, there was a mother who had a small baby sucking on her breast. Suddenly the earthquake struck and a column of the roof fell on the mother. The mother died on the spot. Almost twenty-four hour later, when the rescue workers worked their way down to the debris, they found the mother dead and the infant moving his hands and legs holding on to his mother's breast. The infant is so tender that one small blow can prove fatal for him, yet there it was safe amidst a quake that proved fatal for many healthy adults.

What we learn from incidents like these is that although natural calamities kill in mass, they don't kill blindly. Only those who have the kind of karma for which they have to die at that particular time will be killed. This is an example of mass karma.

04. Is Everything Destined?
http://www.thespiritualscientist.com/2011/12/the-science-of-karma/

In the Mahabharata, Vidura explained to Dhritarastra, “Destiny determines the consequences of our actions, not our actions themselves.” This means that we are not like programmed robots that have no freewill, or no choice. Our past karma does determine what will happen in our life, but it does not determine how we will react to it.

W Somerset Maugham, in his book The Razor's edge writes, "Has it occurred to you that transmigration is at once an explanation and justification of the evil of the world. If the evil we suffer is the result of sins committed in our past lives, we can bear them with resignation and hope that if in this one we strive towards virtue, our future lives will be less afflicted."

 

[saidevo]

namaste Nara and others.

Nara quoting Hitchins in post #133:
"What can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence."

Nara in post #137:
The question was about a different kind of karma -- the karma theory that is built on the faith that (i) there is a jeeva, (ii) this jeeva goes through cycles of birth and rebirth, (iii) over all these lives the jeeva accumulates karma according to a set of defined varna-based rules of papa and punya, and (iv) the good/evil and pleasure/suffering that flow from this accumulated karma. I don't buy any of this and I don't think that is simplistic

Using Hitchins' quote, atheists can be asked the counter questions:
Whether they can prove rationally/conclusively/convincingly that
1. there is NO jIva, discrete in every human being?
2. that the individual soul does NOT go through cycles of birth and rebirth?
3. that people swerving from their svadharma in the name of using their free-will does NOT cause all the problems of suffering in life?

If these things are asserted by the atheists without any evidence and empirical proof--even if they say that the answers are not known yet--their claims can be dismissed using the above quote from Hitchins.

I shall reply to your defence of Epicurus even with the Hindu karma theory in a separate post.

 

[KRS]

Dear Sri Saidevo Ji,

You said in post #129 above:

The article states, "temporal lobes of the brain ... are near your ears". Interestingly, this is where we Hindus consciously stimulate, striking gently with our knuckles, when we start with the shloka shuklAm-baradharaM viShNum. Probably we are all suffering from TLE!

This is a very interesting hypothesis. Our forefathers in all cultures were very advanced, in my opinion, in observational empirical science. From using natural herbs for medicine, understanding the effects of such plants/fruits on various maladies to understanding both astronomy and astrology in great detail.

J think that Atheism's claim on being based on rationality and logic is based on some underlying wrong assumptions. Let me explain:

1. No such thing as 'God', at least the 'personal one'. If such a God exists, prove that He exists.
Such a claim misses the mark completely. Once one agrees that there is an 'entity' that was the source of creation of the Universe(s), that is beyond space and time (consequently whose attributes can not be 'discovered' by science), then all this discussion about whether there is a 'personal God' or 'impersonal God', is meaningless. Especially meaningless is the Atheists' claim that there IS NO GOD ENTITY. Agnosticism at least can rest on the logic of an impersonal God, but Atheism can not. So to claim that there is no personal God, because one can not 'prove a negative' is also not based on logic. This assumes that if such a God exists, one can employ Science to prove His existence like an object! Because we have already established such an entity is beyond time and space, how do they think such a proof can be established by using Science! That means that one can establish such a claim may be by not using the technologies of current Science (if at all) and that this crowd rejects as anti-scientific! So, we are in an endless regression, which is not tenable. So the best they can say is that they do not know much about the existence of God, but that is not the position they take - they redicule the theists' for their belief. As we have already said, just because the benefits of turmeric was not known to Science till recently, it did not invalidate such benefits in the past.

2. Claims of 'Miracles' can not be true, because they 'violate' the natural laws. Can anyone walk on water; produce endless amounts of fish and bread from a small basket that violate the 'natural laws'?
This more than anything is the generator of skepticism among the non believers. And if only they had taken a moment to think through this logically, they will understand their mistake, not withstanding what Hume said about 'bearing witness'.

Let us assume that we transport a Boeing 747 to merely 200 years ago and fly it. What will the people at that time would say? 'It is a miracle! Such a thing weighing tons flying?'. Why 'Miracle?'. Because at THAT TIME, no existing Science could explain the concepts of Aerodynamics. Today we do, so it is not a 'Miracle' to us. But is this true? Just because Science TODAY figured out the mechanics of ONE aspect of flying (because there may be many others, like Star Trek spaceship etc.) does not mean that 'Miracles' may not be found in the future. Yes, it violates the 'KNOWN PHYSICAL LAWS' for a person to walk on water today. But, does this really mean that a person with the power of knowledge on how to make their body in to a 'boat' that floats, could not have done it? Probability is even on such claims on either way. The point here is, Science as of today, while quite advanced compared to even 100 years ago, is still in it's infancy. It can not still explain many many phenomenon on how they work, ranging from Biology to Physics (again, Science can only explain 'how', not 'why'). I think this sense of 'Miracle' is what is missing from an Atheist's perspective and allows them to make the mistake that if something is claimed that seems to violate the known physical laws, such things CAN NOT exist. Again, instead of taking a neutral position based on the probability, they take a stand of certainty, which is against the scientific temperament.

3. If a personal God exists, why should He be All Merciful and a Man?
Give that the nature of 'God' is beyond our comprehension and given that we are possibly 'hard wired' for spirituality, it stands to reason that the construct of a God in our minds would be through symbols we can recognize and 'know'. This is again very logical and rational.

As far as the 'all merciful' (in other words, 'loving'), is the attribute that is emphasized in all religions, that in my opinion, forms the basis for today's humanism and yes, globalism. So the Atheists' cry against this seems to me is irrational.

Morality must stem out of something bigger than us. Otherwise, we have seen again and again, people who edict their own morality based on Atheism or based on using theism for their own purposes, discarding the moral edicts of their religions very conveniently have acted immorally. Again, in my opinion, Atheists make the mistake of thinking that religions are the reason for all the strife in the world - it is because of the developmental stage of the humans and as Hinduism says, once ignorance goes away, men will start acting according to the divine order suited to modern mores.

Regards,
KRS

 

[saidevo]

namaste Nara.

This has reference to your post #137 defending Epicurus about his paradoxical statement on good and evil.

Let me quote from my post #55:

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

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

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

Epicurus was perceived to be an atheist and I agree that he blamed only the image and idea of god that existed during his time. But why is it typical of atheists to blame the problems of evil and injustice on the God and religious belief of theists and not offer an explanation (if not a solution) within the scope of their own atheistic philosophy (if there is any)?

Your statement, "Even under the karma theory, Epicurian challenge remains unanswered." can be answered as follows:

• I don't consider it a challenge from Epicurus--only passing the buck.

• In the Hindu concept, Ishvara, for all his compassion, is chiefly a god of justice who dispenses fruits of karma as karma-phala-dhAta. That should explain why Ishvara does not wipe away all karma in the world.

• His omniscience--not any proclivity for lIlA--about the greater good in the three worlds is the reason for his apparantly allowing people to suffer unduly in their worldly life.

• His omnipotence lies in grace towards people who deserve it, to lift them out of their sufferings or offer them the wisdom and strength to bear the setbacks in life.

• In the larger scale of life in three worlds, people who appear to suffer in their earthly life is probably for a better afterlife or progress towards liberation, depending on the balance of their negative karma.

 

[Mayuram V.Sankaran]

Shri Saidevo, Since you have addressed everyone in your post, I think that I can also intervene in the discussion. I hope that you do not mind what I have to say. You see, the believers in the 'karma' theory will believe in it no matter that good things happen (purportedly the result of 'punya' earned) or bad things happen (purportedly the result of 'papa' committed). Unlike the case of Dhritarashtra, who had the benefit of Krishna around to explain to him the reason for his plight in seeing his 'hundred sons' killed in the battle fought at Kurukshetra, these days there seems to be no one the like of Krishna around to explain why some survive a calamity like a 'tsunami' or an earthquake while others do not. The situation seems equivocal. While the believers in the theory of 'Karma' will offer an explanation in the light of their belief-system, others who do not share such a belief-system may rather choose to think that the same had happened as a matter of 'chance'. Neither the non-believer of 'karma' theory can question the believer thereof nor the non-believer in 'chance' happenings can question the believer thereof. Neither side can do anything more than at best quote a text or someone whom they believe to be an authoritative source of their 'belief-system'. This is so because a 'belief' is based on a 'probability' and not based on 'facts' that could be verified. Ultimately it is a matter of personal choice what we choose to believe in. It may be in consonance with one's 'cultural tradition' or it may in consonance with what appeals to our 'common-sense'.

 

[sravna]

sravna, how are you so sure? Are you smart enough to do this? You have given a warning to Y, and by association to me as well I presume, that he is sowing the seeds of self destruction. Is it possible that your own self confidence (ego/arrogance is what you guys normally say) in your ability to see the sprouts of self destruction in us could be the seeds of your self destruction? Just asking, not saying.

Cheers!

Dear Shri N and Y,

Let's face it. It is the ego of a scientist , through the guise of rationality that questions the need for a God because he thinks he is capable of playing God.

If you consider statistics as a science then what are the chances that the present world could exist as the way it does with so much order? Statistically speaking, what are the chances that God created the world?

I am asking this because statistics plays a crucial role in the acceptance of scientific hypotheses and anything with much greater probability than by pure chance has to be taken seriously, even by the rationalists.

 

[sravna]

Dear Shri N and Y,

May be you are aware of this. But I just saw this one:

"Taking the physical variables into account, what is the likelihood of a universe giving us life coming into existence by coincidence? One in billions of billions? Or trillions of trillions of trillions? Or more?


Roger Penrose, a famous British mathematician and a close friend of Stephen Hawking, wondered about this question and tried to calculate the probability. Including what he considered to be all variables required for human beings to exist and live on a planet such as ours, he computed the probability of this environment occurring among all the possible results of the Big Bang.

According to Penrose, the odds against such an occurrence were on the order of 10[SUP]10[SUP]123[/SUP][/SUP] to 1. "



Looks like a certainty to me.

 

[Mayuram V.Sankaran]

Shri Saidevo, Sorry again for intervening, but you have addressed 'Shri Nara and others'. Though I am not a 'veteran' like both of you, may I still point out that the question of adducing sufficient 'proof' in support of a 'hypothesis' will in the ultimate analysis rests upon the one who initially makes a claim, say, for example, that there is such a thing called a 'Jeevatma' and that it undergoes a 'cycle of birth and death' in accordance with its 'karma' through each life until such time when it reaches 'salvation' or 'becomes one or merges with the Paramatma' through one of the recommended pathways for it. Of course, if the claimant does adduce some proof, that is, some pieces of evidence, then the burden shifts like pendulum and it is for the opponent to refute the same with adequate proof. In the end, the claimant's case must be stronger than that of his opponent, in the eyes of an impartial observer or the one who judges, for him to win his case. All this may sound like some jurist's way of looking at things to you, but it is commonly understood that way. In a debate between a 'theist' and an 'atheist', for instance, the 'theist' cannot get away from proving his claim in the 'existence of a God' by simply turning around and calling upon the 'atheist' to bring proof that 'God does not exist'. In my opinion, in matters of belief, in the nature of things, both the claimant and the opponent cannot 'prove' their respective assertions because 'belief' relates to a 'probability' and not a 'fact'. If the existence of a 'God' or, for that matter, that of a 'Jeevatma' and its 'karma' extending through a 'cycle of birth and death' and its eventual 'salvation' or 'oneness with a Paramatma' are 'facts', based on 'evidence' which can be verified, then they would be 'provable'. Otherwise, one has to go by what someone, who is considered as an authority on the subject, says and accept the same as the 'nearest equivalent to truth', which is what most of us tend to do. So quoting Hitchins is not the correct thing to do here.

 

[renuka]

This thread started with poems and now its serious debates..you guys go on debating and I will type poems as a sort of commercial breaks sorts.

God is just behind us when we cry for help,
We feel our prayers might not reach Him,
In our panic we seek the assurance of safety,
In a moment the clouds of gloomy fears are swept away.
My soul,bathed in celestial joy,
The heaven laid bare their blue abyss.
The choicest gifts are showered upon me from all directions,
And I am lost in complete bliss.

(Atharva Veda 19.52.3)

 

[Nara]

....If these things are asserted by the atheists without any evidence and empirical proof--even if they say that the answers are not known yet--their claims can be dismissed using the above quote from Hitchins..

Dear Saidevo, this is the typical schoolyard kind of "you too" trick. Please realize, it is the theists of the Hindu persuasion who make the assertion about Jeeva, Poorva Janma Karma, etc., without evidence, and therefore eminently qualify to be rejected with having to furnish any evidence. To reject this evidence free assertion no fresh evidence is necessary. To say that Hitchens' one-liner applies with equal force in reverse cannot be anything more than funny.

Cheers!

 

[Nara]

Let's face it. It is the ego of a scientist , through the guise of rationality that questions the need for a God because he thinks he is capable of playing God.

Dear sravna, instead of answering the questions I asked you are upping the ante and hurling even more accusations on the basis of what you think we think. Will you please answer the questions I raised directly?

Cheers!

 

[sravna]

Dear Shri Nara,

To directly say what I mean : Ego is the cause of self destruction. How can saying this mean I am egoistic?