Ok, for a moment I'll try to be unprejudiced and completely rational, for I agree that just like sunily and chachi look prejudiced to me and satti, the reverse is also probably true. I'll also leave dawkins out of the equation, as I havent read him
Now , I recall seeing a poster of Albert Einstein in Sunily's room which said
“He who joyfully marches to music in rank and file has already earned my contempt. He has been given a large brain by mistake, since for him the spinal cord would surely suffice."
Let us , for a moment forget the present debate, that is preventing satti from going to office, and will very soon will result in chachi being thrown out of USC, and try to analyse this statement. Let us also assume (ASSUME, so please dont flame, chachi and sunily) that Einstein was "God", and what he said is to be mandatorily respected by all of us, the only degree of freedom being in the way we interpret his statement . The reader may recognize a very familiar pattern emerging. This is exactly how religions operate.
Now, given all this, let us analyse the statement. Sunily and Chachi, if I am not mistaken, would interpret this statement in the following manner:
a) Killing other people is stupid
b)A large part of being a soldier involves Killing other people.
c)Even if you are averse to killing other people, you will be forced to , the justification provided to you being that it benefits your nation.
d)Justifying anything by saying it benefits the nation is stupid.
Now let us note that there are considerable plusses in this interpretation. What is a country, after all? Its a contrived set of people, which has no physical basis. People on the other hand, are not contrived, and Killing them has a very tangible aspect to it. So, what would you rather do? Would you destroy a physical entity grounded in reality for the benefits(genuine or contrived) of a concept of dubious origin and basis?
Me and satti, in our efforts to interpret the statement with which we started, would probably not question points a) to c) stated above.
Not even point c), because we would agree that even if I do not want to kill a man just because he lives across an artificial border, there would be fanatics who would probably force me to.
What we would not agree to subscribe to however , I think , is statement d) with its tremendously scary scope. It is noteworthy that points a) through c) are things we can directly experience, as in we can give proper physical evidence justifying these. However point d) is at a level of detachment from any tangible consequence that it allows us the freedom of accepting it or rejecting it. Either way, it has no "visible" effects.
We would say, that okay, somebody forcing you to kill for the love of you nation is wrong , because KILLING IN THE NAME OF ANYTHING IS WRONG. The only part of the expression "Killing in the name of your country" we would find anything wrong with is "Killing". We would not see anything wrong with "in the name of your country". Is loving my nation a sign of my mental weakness ? Just because some fanatic misuses it? That way as Satti has pointed out, our overwhelming desire to know more about the world will probably be our undoing, so does that lead us to question the viability of Science as a practice?
Just because I cannot show you what exactly I mean by "my nation", is it a sign of my irrationality to show love for my nation? The rigid man made rules of logic can never allow us to comprehend love, how can we expect to rationalize love, be it for for nation or for kin ?
Heck, I can even love the air I breathe, draw strength from believing that I am loved back with the same intensity with which I have loved. Is THAT a sign of my mental weakness? Who decides if its right or wrong, or if there is a better alternate? There are no better alternatives in matters of the heart
I think by now you can see what I am trying to indicate about your views on religion and its supposed lack of viability and the various disadvantages we face by allowing religions to flourish. I would be very pleased if that two of you at least try not to make fools of yourselves by posting irrelevent comments, if indeed you are intent on having a serious discussion. If not, tell the rset of us, and we'll all participate in some playful bantering and frolic.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
36 comments:
headache again, I'd simply quote one line Dawkin's book,
"how can there be a perversion of faith, if faith, lacking
objective justification, doesn't have any demonstrable standard to
pervert?"
bottomline : read the book, live in peace - it has most of the answers, we'd discuss when we are more knowledgable.
*instead of racking my brains and getting a headache again, reads the first line :)
This is getting compulsive :(
The point is that faith leaves you vulnerable, because you have parted with your beloved reason. If you believe one crappy thing, you are likelier to believe in another crappy thing, which might be "killing for my religion is good". Another point, if I may make, is that many religious people actually believe in what they say they believe, unlike you people, for whom god is a useful concept when u're afraid and the likes. That is why it is neccessary to elimate faith rather than just "extremist" faith.
And porny my friend, when you fall in love with an ugly girl and say that she's the prettiest, or a bitchy one and say that she's the most virtuous, I'd be the first one to slap you and bring you to your senses.
Read page 306 of the book. Or better still, entire chapters 8 and 9
Well now that we're all crystal clear it seems you have no objection to theoretical aspects of religion, and neither do I.
What is harmful, though, is mass organized religion that seeks to subdue an individual's will and add him to an ever growing collective consciousness. It leaves no room for the individual to question or innovate. Imposing a religion on someone right from childhood acts as a means of conditioning. It creates a mental block that doesnt allow them to grow out of the religion's boundaries. I and (hopefully) chachi too were defining religion as it exists today in the from I just described (and not as a way of life) which according to the morgoth argument, is bad.
"There are no better alternatives in matters of the heart" : Yes, precisely. Religion suppresses not just reason but emotion too. Is it right to deny your emotions and reason and perform some elaborate ritual in quest of false hope ?
The fact that religion has led to countless wars is a by product of the fact that human beings are very very mean and at times sadistic. Its like the guns don't kill people, people kill people argument.
Sandman, for someone with no idea what the debate was about, this blog post is a bunch of incoherent/disconnected facts. Pardon my interjection, but you asked me to read it. Ergo this is my preliminary report :-)
Two days gone and you keep repeating your point. I feel you are building associations (which are easy to form, hard to deny) and are not able to discern among different issues. You are talking about too many things at a time that just don't deserve such a gross generalization and have opened just too many fronts. For an example, this is the first time I'm using the word 'faith'.
Religion is all that is illogical, devoid of reasoning, and which should be eliminated. Whatever your logic is, I hate the approach for its inutility. And if I ever posted was to discuss the utility of anything.
i have been following this debate since the beginning.
i wrote somthing which in the end i didnt post here
for everyone, first of all no need to get personal about anything
as far as i see it, its the objection over men not resorting to thinking and taking others commandments for granted.
since einstein popped up, i would say i would respect his thoughts only as far as physics is concerned.
as far as religion is concerned or any subjective issue, you may consider his opinion only for information and follow if it fits your case and if you cant think of a better alternative.
the problem is more of flexibility, which religions lose over time.
but if that be the question... what are we first of all debating about ?
do we want a religion that governs our social behaviour or is it only for spiritual purposes?
if you want to live as a social being you have to follow the society's rules. you try doing that and you ll be labelled a heretic.
the state owns your life , go and protest against it.
maybe i havent understood what you guys are debating about :P
ahem
satti
yeh comment kiske liye tha?
look, satti, you're free to form a committee, which raves its head for a thousand years and comes to the conclusion that religion is good/bad. Or you can read a few things by people who have done that hard work for you, and if you're still not sure, dig deeper, go experience things for yourself, become the mahatma and then come back after a hundred years to tell us what you found out.
I am repeating the points because you are not getting it. You don't even view religion the same way as I and sunily do, you are at all times beating drums about your own personal notion of god, which you have thought is the notion for all people. We're not even arguing on the same things.
One thing that is clear to all of us that this is a very big issue to be discussed in a few pages. That's why I am always attacking at its core. Belief. Faith. (They are the same thing, and I did not introduce it today.). You are not even sure if belief is the core of religion. According to you, millions of people don't actually believe in god, they just play with the idea. First get that correct and then try to understand my points.
You told me yesterday, that if religion wasn't there, something else would be there in its place, and people would still be killing. True, very true. If you read sunily's reply, even he said that. Except for one little point that you choose to miss. Religion as it exists today for most people, is blind faith - I know you don't agree with me on this point, and I don't see much point in argument if you don't agree with me on this. Blind faith is the easiest thing to manipulate, and has for centuries, been manipulated.
"What is harmful, though, is mass organized religion that seeks to subdue an individual's will and add him to an ever growing collective consciousness. It leaves no room for the individual to question or innovate. Imposing a religion on someone right from childhood acts as a means of conditioning. It creates a mental block that doesnt allow them to grow out of the religion's boundaries."
Tell me which part of this you do not agree with, and tell me if you can conclude that religion is faith for these people from this?
well, no comments
chachi, i dont think you merit any unless you stop quoting and getting all tangled up in sentences
what we have been stating is as simple and crystal clear to us as you claim what you are quoting is to you. Only, I doubt it, because you are quoting
satti, i suggest you let chachi cool off...pata chala itna excited ho gaya ki he leaves for USA without his luggage
:D
All in all, I think we should change the topic of discussion here...I think we are undergoing a rather alarmingly rapid transition from egoist to egotist
Okay, I'd say don't presuppose my thoughts, and pay attention to the words. If you can't answer me, don't. Answer sunily then. But please don't escape.
Porny, comment was meant for chachi.
Chahi, you are so not attacking at the core. You have failed to describe what you mean by faith and yet you are sure that it is the core of religion. I did not say millions of people don't believe in God. You didn't get me then or you've forgotten? Oh and you know how they all believe in God?
People can have blind faith in anything. If they start killing for it, it's the problem with those people.
And I didn't say that my notion is everybody else's notion too. In fact, I've said quite the opposite. It's you who's generalizing (ah, beating your drums).
"People can have blind faith in anything. If they start killing for it, it's the problem with those people."
Oh, it's so not. The problem is with blind faith itself. Because its BLIND faith. You don't see reason. Yes, you do need a leader to manipulate you before you start killing. And blind faith makes it so much easier.
Chachi, I just understood your first quote.
Let me recall it again
"how can there be a perversion of faith, if faith, lacking
objective justification, doesn't have any demonstrable standard to
pervert"
You are questioning Faith on the basis that its not being falsifiable, arent you? Like a Scientific Theory. Ahem.
I see no way this debate can rage on if you dont see what separates a Scientific Theory from a Theoretical contruct based on faith alone
And another thing, You may draw a parallel even here, as I may have pointed outs some 10000 times. A Scientific theory is strictly representational. Its a toy, with certain "internal" parts, and certain "external" parts of it mimic our world in a purely representaational way.
And you wanna know what? I'll tell you the precise definition of falsifiability. A theory is said to be "Scientific" if it takes a finite subset of these "World Data", (which, you may recall, is what the "External" parts are supposed to mimic, fixes ALL "internal parts" with this set, and now this toy mimics all the world we can see.
Now what if we choose to have a totally different toy model? We can fix ITS parts using a finite subset of "world data" too, isnt it?
So what makes us so vehemently defend what is , in fact one of an infinite set of scientific Theories that describes whatever portion of the world we see?
Some may choose to call it "Faith"
dude, you're talking about things that we all already know.
Teapot, razors and all those kinds of things, you know that. You also know probabilities. So why are you telling us this?
btw, to satti :
I do realise that religion is important..it has become a part of my identity, and for a large no. of people this is true, and all the good things that we say about religion are also true. But read about Algeria, for instance, and how religious teaching has changed the youth there. Maybe most of the things don't apply to India, but the world is bigger than that. Just like I can't choose to ignore the good things about religion, you can't choose to ignore the bad things.
dont cry yourself hoarse chachi...You sound very shrill
I am telling you this as you seem to think that the machinery of religion is somehow different than the machinery of science and other "rational" pursuits, and therefore, you can question the "viability" of religion without casting an aspersion on science
All i am saying is that the difference is merely quantitative and not qualitative, so questioning one without questioning the other is stupid, and in fact questioning ANY ONE of the two is very very stupid
(Good lord...you guys are still at it :D)
@sandman,chachi : What I've tried to imply by my definitions so far follows, its my fault for not having done this earlier :
To clarify, thinking newton's laws are the 'truth' and represent 'reason' of some sort because your textbook and your professor says so is an example of religion. Contemplating nature and arriving at a framework for understanding the world based on the existence of a greater being is an example of science.
Science is seeing the world with your own eyes, religion is to do it through the eyes of a priest, a professor, your parents, or even Newton or Einstein of Laplace or whoever.
This is how I choose to define science and religion, for the purposes below :
again @sandman,chachi : Why not do the opposite and question both ? Why bother if you dont get any answers, or if theres no answer to be got ? Its like two 'flawed' people on the pedestal facing a prosecutor, try as they might to justify themselves based on reason, or textual evidence, faith is at the root of their actions.
But they choose to derive their faith from different sources and by different methods, and that makes all the difference. Science is faith without fear, greed, or the pressure of social convention.
Now coming to reason : reason, as an abstract entity, on paper, is free from faith of any kind. However, the statement that the world can be explained by linking physical phenomena to such abstract reason, IS a matter of faith.
Does that make sense ?
Addendum : Flawed from the viewpoint of reason, which sees faith as a flaw, which if we follow the definitions below, is wrong.
Reason as in the abstract, on paper, reason, plus the faith that the world can be understood by means of reason.
Faith, no idea. How DO you define faith ? Can faith be defined independently of psychology and sociological stuff ?
@sunily
yes you do make sense
what i am saying is at a different level
you are saying that the belief that science can explain everything is a matter of faith
i am saying that every scientific construct can grow by the rational machinery, but the core is always something into which the rational process has not participated
once you have an "irrational" (without all the negative connotations) core, you can go on adding layers using the logical machinery
thats all i am saying
thanx for enlightening us O great Sandman! If it wasn't for your great wisdom we fools would have known nothing.
btw, do re-read your nihilistic take on this i.e. your first post, and my refutation of that i.e. my 2nd post (which you have so blissfully ignored).
And people accuse me of repeating my points, or having no points at all.
btw, the wordplay that you use to get your points : "merely quantitative", huh?
chachi
call it what you like
and I suppose by your fascinatingly ambiguous definition of wordplay, anything I say or argue would qualify.
I never said that my views are not nihilistic. You are questioning A with respect to B. My point is that questioning A without questioning B is just plain weird, so why question anything at all
sunily says that why not question both
so in that way, yeah, you are right. My views are nihilistic. But you are just trying to be "Politically correct"
Why don't the two of you give YOUR definitions of religion and science and faith and stuff. ie: the ones that you've been implying in your posts so far. And it'd be better if you could give practical examples. We'll know if there really is a conflict of ideologies.
PS : Someone post something new and unrelated. eg : get the moosum to.
I don't think ideologically there would be a lot of differences, and we are probably saying the same things in different ways, and there's nothing to be said which we do not already know or understand..so this topic is effectively dead. I'd start a new topic sometime in the afternoon, about girls, asses and the human male that's me - that should satisfy people :D
buy xanax difference between xanax generic alprazolam - xanax xanax cheap pharmacy online
buy valium cheap valium thailand - mixing sleeping pills valium
buy diazepam diazepam 10mg buy online - diazepam 5mg germed ms
generic valium buy valium without no prescription - buy valium diazepam uk
no prescription xanax dava generic xanax - xanax doses
lorazepam mg ativan addiction withdrawal - ativan vertigo
buy ativan online ativan dosage canine - ativan 2 mg uses
buy diazepam buy diazepam cheap online - diazepam dosage status epilepticus
buy ativan online side effects too much ativan - ativan vicodin overdose
buy ambien online drug test for ambien - can you buy ambien over counter
buy ambien online download ambien music online free - ambien 6468
buy somas online carisoprodol opiate - buy somatomax australia
Post a Comment