Atheism: Encyclopedia entry is the recent blog post by Matt McCormick, Professor of Philosophy at California State University, Sacramento. I'm posting this link here only because this is the most succinct summary of theism v/s atheism arguments I've found up till now. Reading it takes more than an hour. But, for those who're not professional philosophers, this post will greatly enhance their knowledge in classification of various kinds of beliefs and nonbeliefs with regard to existence of God, and also the various philosophical approaches on this issue.
But most importantly, reading this post will be nothing less than a mental workout, which I hope would be enticing for all those visiting my blog (excuse the vanity!), except for of course, if they're seasoned philosophers or logicians themselves.
Hope you enjoy the post!
Friday, June 26, 2009
20 comments:
Well-articulated disagreement would be a very good indicator that I was understood, and would be appreciated more than perfunctory agreement or praise. But of course, you could agree and praise...
Important disclaimer: The views expressed in comments by visitors to this blog do not necessarily enjoy my endorsement. Though I believe, practically, the comments' space of this blog belongs entirely to the readers and that I must not regulate it, I might delete comments that are insulting to other people, or if they are of violent nature.
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Updates from my new Blog
LinkWithin
That was way too long. By the time I read the tenth para, I forgot what is there in the first. Will have to read couple of times before I can draw some meaningful conclusions. Will keep you posted as and when completing that.
ReplyDeleteCheers
Ok - deep breath, I will attempt to read this sometime...but not right now - I'm too stressed out about our strike!
ReplyDeleteI have tried to do what you asked regards the comments and subscribing etc. Did it work?
Saimukundhan,
ReplyDeleteWell I'm a bit suprised you decided to try reading the article. But I thing I shouldn't be as, to think of it, I don't know the reasons for your being atheist! I mean, if I'm remembering correctly, none of your posts have dealt with the issue in somewhat an analytical way. I'm not aware of how much have you read about philosophy (I mean, philosophy as a discipline and not, how we tend to use it loosely in our day-to-day lives), in particular, relating to religion and the existence of God, so it'd be difficult for me to tell how difficult you'd find that particular article.
If you're finding it too challenging, I'd recommend your going through the following articles on Wikipedia:
1. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Existence_of_god
2. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_atheism
3. Atheism
But prior to embarking on that, if you could law your hands on Encyclopaedia Britannica, I'd very strongly suggest you go through article in it by name--'epistemology', which was one of the intellectually most stimulating things I've ever read. If you aren't able to do that, even this is pretty good: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epistemology
Also, you could try reading Matt McCormick's other posts that you'll find in his sidebar, systematically clustering them under the various issues related to atheism. I've read all the above things, and maybe, that's why I found his post to be a mostly a summary of what I'd already known.
Believe me, reading that post and then trying to think of any ways to contradict any (theist or atheist) assertion would be a great exercise in reasoning. Make generous use of a dictionary. If you're not used to reading a lot of stuff by educated people from English speaking nations, you'll realize that their English is too good--something that I'd come to know to my surprise by way of contributing on Wikipedia. I truly started feeling (and still do) that I better improve my English. That their English be good shouldn't come as very surprising, but somehow I'd never been prepared enough to say.
Also, you might enjoy his post better, if you don't try to memorize what he writes and stop counting the paragraphs.
Someday if, if I create enough financial security for myself, I'd like join an academic course on Philosophy outside India (sic).
And please don't lose your enthusiasm with regard to that article. If you trust my taste in fiction, you could trust it for nonfiction, too ;)
TC.
Ketan
ReplyDeleteHonestly I don't want to be identified either as an Atheist or a Theist, because I don't take any sides. I am neither here to prove existence of the god or his absence. To me, in my life, the entire discussion is plain irrelevant (if you can discount the fact that I do peep in those types of writings / discussions every now and then, to keep me entertained)
Back at College, we had a students club by the name "DOE Club" (Debate Oratorical and Elocution Club) wherein we used to meet twice every week and discuss on various issues. I have argued on all the three sides to the discussion - existence of god, its absence and its irrelevance to happiness / peace / success in life, though can't completely remember the points I put forward.
Will certain read your recommendations.
Cheers
Sai,
ReplyDeleteSorry for terming you an atheist on various occasions, more so if it hurt you in anyway.
This is what your belief is :).
Now look at the above article's description and try to answer one question--how accurately does it describe your stance and feelings on the issue? Since this is not a real time dialogue between you and me, I'm taking the liberty in assuming that if you were to award percentage of accuracy to the description, it'd be more than 90 %. I'm not trying to say (right now) that you're an atheist by that definition, but to draw your attention to the beauty of the human mind that can think and organize ideas. Just think for a moment--none of the dead philosophers have ever talked to you, and yet they know of all the possible thoughts that could cross your mind ever on the issue of existence of God. That's what I love about philosophy, science, economics, sociology, psychology, etc. The (intellectual cream of) human race has progressed so much from stone wielding savages to this level where they've so systematically classified various ideas, hypotheses, emotions, personalities, tendencies etc. I just love learning about all that. And whenever I find something beautiful, the first thing I wish to do is to make others who might enjoy it as much, aware of that thing. That was mostly the purpose of pointing out this post.
If you look at an imposing structure--say, a magnificient temple--you're bound to say, "wow!". It'll make you think of the ingenuity of the architects, the adroit skill with which sculptors would've made the statues and the engravings, and how generation after generation--the temple would improve in its grandeur, and every generation thinks that the temple can't be made anymore beautiful, yet there comes someone with an ingenious idea and something gets added to the grand scheme, which in turn becomes even grander.
Same is the case with human knowledge in any field. And Matt McCormick's article is an example of one such superstructure of human knowledge...
I'm an atheist, and though one might get an impression I think a lot about is--I hardly think, because I've already thought a lot on these issues.
ReplyDeleteI was very suprised and happy to know that I had very concrete idea of how my view on God had evolved from (1) 'nature is God--as in--the God and the Universe are one thing and that the Universe has a fixed intent and also the intellect to effect all phenomena' to (2) 'God just created the Universe and then stopped influencing it in any way, so praying is pointless. And the only role God played was to create the Universe otherwise owing to its complexity Universe couldn't have been created' to (3) 'science is capable of explaining everything--except for one thing--the PURPOSE of Universe's existence. At this point I believed God to be hypothesis that couldn't be falsified, but then, it was not adding anything to my understanding of the Universe except for giving it a purpose' to (4) 'there's absolutely no reason to believe that God exists, so why believe? It's just one of the unfalsifiable hypotheses of the many, but then we need to believe in only those things that have an explanatory power or 'application'' to (5) 'There are absolute and strong reasons to believe God is not there'.
Mind you, I've not yet reached stage 5, but that's the next stage in this series, though I'm unlikely to reach it, and anyway, reaching that level is NOT going to make any difference to how I view life.
What I wanted to point out is even when I'd moved on from one stage to the next, I was totally unaware that in my very own mind I had created a classification system of religious beliefs and nonbeliefs. It's just later in life I realized that all this had already been thought out by philosophers of the yore!
BTW, not sure if you know the names for above beliefs, I'll anyway enlist them.
(1)--Pantheism
(2)--Deism
(3)--Agnosticism (actually, agnosticism implies that one inherently cannot answer the question--like say, guessing if you'll find a marble in closed any just by looking at it)
(4)--Weak/negative atheism--this stage's reached when you feel you've considered enough arguments for existence of God, but none of them convince you. But since in daily life it's the positive existence of something that needs to be proven, and not its nonexistence--not encountering arguments/reasons is enough to not accept the assertion that God exists...
(5)--Strong/positive atheism--in the same article I found some convincing reasons to believe that if something's existence can't be proven then it becomes obligatory to state that it does not exist.
ReplyDeleteTalking of the relevance of the issue--on a societal level and at level of politics, economics, health, global peace--I won't be exaggerating if I say, it's the MOST IMPORTANT ISSUE. For the issue doesn't exist in isoltation. It stands for choosing between rationalism and irrationality. Though it might sound symbolic, it eventually will decide if gene technology will be accepted in the mainstream or not, whether people will vaccinate their kids or not, whether they'll use birth control or not, whether they'll indulge in religious riots and 'holy wars' or not, whether they'll decide what others should wear or watch in cinema halls. So at that level the implications are far too many to say that this issue is irrelevant. But then honestly, I'm not even trying to make a difference at that level! My blog doesn't get any appreciable traffic, and (if) once it starts getting, believe me, I'll delete this blog--'cuz I'll actually be quite frightened of the possible consequences. This is another sphere in which religious dogmatism affects us--by curbing our freedom of speech and action.
But let me talk of the personal relevance.
Think of a residential complex. All the houses are two to three storey high. And there's one building you've watched being built day by day, brick upon brick, built over 5 years with lot of hardwork and ingenuity. You're one of the workers to have worked on it. It's 20 storey high, where eventually it was planned that everyone living in scattered houses would live in much more organized manner. You think it to be magnificient, imposing and something to be proud of. Suddenly, one day you hear a rumor that there's a 100 storey building. Everyone instantly stops thinking of the 20 storey building as great. They say it's 'nothing' compared to the 100 storey building. They make fun of the 20 storey building. Now it's (dis)respected only as much as the other smaller houses. They start abandoning their own homes as well as your building. And you know that the 100 storey building rumor had been created with a specific purpose of duping the common people.
What are those buildings? The two to three storey buildings are what humans and all other animals do--eat, drink, sleep, excrete, reproduce and die...
The 20 storey building is the sun total of all human accomplishments--agriculture, civillization, even the designing of religion, language, arts, sciences, all forms of knowledge and skills. Just because of rumor called 100 storey building people look at all these things in the same way as eating, drinking, sleeping etc.
ReplyDeleteYou ask any common man what they think of Newton, Darwin or Edison. They'll say they were great people. But on some prodding you'll come to know--they're just a 20 storey building! Nothing compared to a 100 storey building! And to carry on this insanity--they're nothing as compared to an 80 storey building! 80 storey buildings are the 'dhongi babas', religious charlatans. And that pains me immensely. You could ask me why'd I be bothered about what 2-3 storey people think about myself or about the 20 storey building, and I won't be able to answer it. I won't be really bothered about what people think about me, but it pains me no end to see great ideas being insulted or not getting their due 'cuz that represents something gone grossly wrong with the human species.
And you might even ask me to overlook this attitude--and that's precisely what I do day in and day out. But even that overlooking comes with a certain degree of fatigability, and a vent is required once in a while.
I'm sorry, I'm not much knowledgeable about economics and political sciences, hence my such examples will come from natural sciences. Newton's idea of every object attracting another physical object is one of the greatest ideas produced by any human--not just in terms of its application (you're reading this only because of Newton who made launching of satellites possible), but also because of the nature of lateral thinking it required. Same's the case with Darwin's survival of the fittest--a theory propounded when nothing was known about genetics--it sounds counterintuitive, but is true. It's so revolutionary, even today people are not ready to believe it! It pains me to hear that these men were merely pawn of God's hands. One sentence--the very essence of human existence extinguished--to observe, think, conclude. It's this kind of attitude that had lead me to name what I named my blog...
Coming to issue of your thinking of the question of God as unworthy of debate--I agree if you're talking of debating it with someone entirely closed minded about it.
ReplyDeleteBut when I see someone pray, "God, please give me first rank"--it indicates something rotten about that person--"God please, please, please, give me first rank irrespective of whether I deserve it or not, irrespective of whether someone else deserves it or not. And if you had some other plan for this exam, please change it only for me because I am *praying* to you." Some people have more sophisticated prayers--"God, please give me the strength to perform well in the exam". Now that sounds nice enough but its corollary is--"Please give me the strength only because I'm praying to you, and take away strength from others even if they pray to you. God, please be arbitrary only for me!". And if you try to explain that possibly there's no God, the reply would be--"What's the harm in trying? Anything that can get me the first rank is good enough." But, I'll accept that maybe 12 years back, even I used to be like that. Tell me, what's the meaning of 'cheating' in an exam? Writing those answers that the candidate doesn't know. How in that sense are reproducing something memorized any different from copying? All these are products of the same mentality of trying 'anything' to get the first rank.
And I'm sure from the kind of posts that you've written that you'll start seeing a pattern in what kind of means what kind of people are likely to employ to succeed in life (provided someone tries explaining to them the possibility of God's nonexistence). But more important, what does this indicate about a person ready to 'worship' (submit) such a narcissistic God? What kind of persons is he likely to revere and look upto in real life. How are they going to view their lives as anymore in their control than a dried lead hanging from a tree branch at the mercy of wind that's NOT blowing?
Now look at the definition of God. All pervasive, all powerful, all knowing and infinitely good (moral and benevolent) that has already determined your fate. If you say that the existence of such an entity is not worthy of consideration, then you've implicitly declared that you don't think such attributes, and hence, such an entity exists. If a weather report says that tomorrow a cyclone, which can potentially kill 1000 people will hit the Tamil Nadu coast, will you pay attention or not? Will you move out of your house or not? I believe, you will believe and not move out. And even if you do, that would be with a spirit of adventure. But if I tell you, tomorrow a giant dragon will emerge from the Bay of Bengal and will eat 1000 people, will you pay any attention? No, you will not 'cuz you know dragons don't exist.
ReplyDeleteNow I'll try to clarify the concept of agnosticism. Imagine, you'd lost a water bottle and two books--'A' and 'B' at the same time. Now if I show you a closed room, and ask you standing outside if your books and bottle are inside--you'd be quite justified in saying 'I don't know'. But if after searching the room for 30 min if you don't find anything, and if I ask you the same question, you may answer--"it's not there", "it's unlikely to be there", "it could be there" or "it has to be there. The first one would be more justified response if the room is entirely empty. The second one is possibly the most appropriate response. The third one is an overly optimistic response. And well the fourth one is insane. Now of course to support third and fourth responses one could say--okay, let's break open the walls. It's a matthematically finite possibility to find your books and bottle there, but still it amounts to overstretching one's imagination...
Let's assume you find your bottle and the room is heavily furnished--in that case your being optimistic about finding the two books is justified. If you find your book A, then being optimistic about finding the other book would be even more justified. And once if all the three articles are found, it'd be totally insane to claim that the room doesn't have those articles, or that they are unlikely to be there.
ReplyDeleteWhat I'm trying to say is that one's entitled to that answer "I don't know" only till they're outside the door. But once inside, at each stage with passage of time, your answer is bound to be from strongest denial ('just not there') to thumping assertion ('definitely there'), and each stage you'll be inclined towards 'less likely' and 'more likely'. Only one situation--standing outside a closed door justifies 'not knowing'. Entering and searching the room corresponds to living our life and forming impressions about veracity of various assertions--like, electricity can make a light bulb glow or HIV causes AIDS or if prices of diesel increase, prices of all the commodities increase or Tamil Nadu exists or you exist or God exists. All have one or the other practical answer. Yes, but if you've not been to Nigeria and someone asks you if there's a village 'X' there? You can be agnostic about it. But if you live in a three storey building and someone comes and tells you they live on the fifth floor of the same building, you can't be agnostic about it! For simple reason that both you and them have had same set of data to draw conclusions from, viz., living in that building ;) just like how you've lived on the same Earth with comparable experiences as both atheists and theists.
When I say 'can' or 'cannot' in this regard, it's only in terms of logical positions one can assume and not me trying to exert my opinion on you. :)
Well, this comment has been bigger than my average post. Hope you read it in entirety, and not get bored in between. And never mind, I might expand on it to actually make a blog post of it ;)
TC.
wow !that comment was longer than the post...LOL..btw, thanks for the link. Will check it out although I am not sure if I will find anything new.
ReplyDeletebtw, is that you upside down?
Yes Nitwit, that's me, and because of hanging upside down for so long, some more hair have given into the gravitational pull. :)
ReplyDeleteDid you read my comment by any chance?
Depending upon what all you've read, you may or may not find too many new ideas. But for me, the case was that I'd read all the aspects of the arguments in an isolated and scattered manner, so this was a good organized summary of all that.
Plus, it made the position of positive atheism a lot more appealing than I'd thought before. As of now, I identify myself as negative atheist. Because the latter position amounts to giving too much leeway to the God-hypothesis as compared to any other fantastic fairy tale we hear in our daily life.
If I tell you, there's an elevator in the center of Mumbai, which reaches upto the Pole star, would you believe me? And as you start expressing skepticism about its existence 'cuz no one can see it, I start telling you about how it's visibility is password protected, and you can see it only by two ways--Rs. 10000 check or the same amount paid through PayPal! Now only for theoretical logic sake you might say that such a pole 'could exist', however in your mind you'd have drawn a conclusion that I'm just a shrewd businessman trying to 'show you the stars', and for all practical purposes, the pole 'does not exist'. The latter is positive atheism.
But if not that particular post, on the whole you'll find his other posts very interesting.
TC.
Man, that was longer than the entire post and rest of the comments put together.
ReplyDeleteYou calling me an Atheist - It didn't hurt me by any measure (I know I am repeating this stuff), even though I prefer not to be identified in that manner.
As to whether I am an Apatheist? I think - Yes.
But for Agnoticism, I never knew of the remaining words or ideas.
Ketan, don't you think that despite all those endless discussions about Theist vs. Atheist, despite the fact that most of heads of nation, and people at deciding authority being pure and staunch theists, Science has grown? Prospered would be an appropriate term. Even if they bring out legislations banning whole lot of research and its implementation, do you think any sane (read rational) being will keep quite. He may not oppose, but he will also not quit his pursuit. I, for one, certainly believe in this quality in humans.
Despite all the hue and cry and the mindless / insane opposition to reasoning, don't you think that world per se is slowly coming out of its slumber. Even though we might not be alive to see the entire world acting rationally (which I honestly doubt if it will ever happen).
Is it really necessary to address the issue of Atheism vs Theism for any progress in science or as a human race as such?
[BTW, I remember reading somewhere Einstein was a Theist by his own admission! Though I have to confess I do not know anything about Newton or Darwin, i.e. about their spiritual / religious beliefs]
ReplyDeleteOn a Slightly Different Note: Right from my schooldays, I have often wondered, why is that scientists always look out for water to decide / conclude on existence or its absence of life on other planets. I used to question my teacher, my seniors that can't there be life without water and air? None of them ever answered properly, until couple of months before, my research friend (of whom I had mentioned earlier) said that he has discovered some 22 genes which are responsible for plants to grow with almost nil or very less water. If he can crack that, he feels that it will be of immense help to tropical and African countries. (He is a very firm believer in God). The main point being, can’t both these ideas co–exist (life with water and without water; theism and atheism for progress of science / people). My answer is YES.
Back to the issue - Supposing that it is proven, without anybody raising any issu, that God is not there, next is what? Will it make any difference to the work we are doing? Will it make any difference to our objects and purpose? Does our life and object depend upon Theists converting into Atheists? No.
Despite all those hulla bulla about people discarding God and Religion, to the extent I see, things have only been getting better for human race.
As to people effectively ridiculing the geniuses such as Darwin and Newton, should we worry about that? If people run behind that 100 Storey Building promised by some 80 storey person, thereby neglecting the 20 storey accomplishment, who is to be blamed? The Godmen or the followers? Worse still, they after being incited by the 80 Storey Godmen, demolish the 20 Storey Building, what now? I say, the purest and incorrigible Evil–Theists (meaning, those who find God in destruction), are generally couple of hundred years behind. They will demolish the 20 Storey Building, only after the rational geniuses have already moved onto some 30 storey stuff. (On a different note, did the geniuses really care for people’s acceptance overnight?)
I am reminded of what my senior once told me - If you want to be a pig, go ahead be one, for it is your choice, and I cannot and will not stop you (on my playfulness before examinations) As you had yourself pointed out, blind faith is a curse. But how do you correct that? I would rather keep quite than try to teach anything, for I believe in these matters, experience is the best teacher.
Let them get hit, once, twice, ten times or even one hundred times, then they will realize, and revert to what is good. We have come across people who would just take one shot to understand or remember an idea, while for a few others, it might take ten times. For some, despite all their efforts, it will take eternity. I guess, we would be better off by doing what we think is correct, than trying to change the entire world. I believe, we have company. Good Company I would say, in matters of application of science and working towards human progress.
Even assuming the differences in this Theist Vs. Atheist is resolved peacefully at both ends, humans being humans, will find another idea to dispute or fight each other (probably Vegetarians vs. Non Vegetarians, or Englishwalas vs Non–Englishwalas or, Working in Night vs Working in Day). [Even as I say, Humans, I don’t mean that they are bad, and therefore they will find a reason to pick a fight, but because WE ARE DIFFERENT from one another, and there is this possibility of we sticking to a absolutely correct point, and countering another, CORRECT POINT]
I have tried my hand at a long response for the first time. Was undecided yesterday, as to post it as a comment (Vanity – for public would see it!), or communicate through mail (Discreetness). Vain mind wins.
Cheers
Sai, Thanks to vanity of your mind for making your fingers type and reply!
ReplyDeleteIt's often quoted that Einstein was theist. But he was a pantheist--who had found the 'laws of nature' beautiful and awe-inspiring. I'm not sure if he'd attributed intentionality to the laws of nature, which would basically determine if he was theist or atheist. In that sense scientists, whether identifying themselves as theists or atheists, are the last people to NOT find patterns and laws of nature beautiful. But, there's one small thing about Einstein that many people don't know--he didn't believe in quantum physics (which posits that certain events--especially at atomic and subatomic levels can't be determined with precision), and he had famously made a statement--"God doesn't throw a dice"--meaning, there IS a God, so things can NEVER be uncertain. And you know what, for last 20 years of his life, a person of his caliber couldn't make a single meaningful contribution to science. It's not that his (probable) theism prevented him from doing that, his dogmatism did.
The issue with theism and atheism is not so much about whether God exists or not, but about the bases on which we should draw our conclusions. The fundamental difference is this--'is truth what can be derived, can be proven, and can be applied?' OR 'is truth what sounds good, and gives us quick answers and/or relief?'. That's the issue.
Yes, science is making progress despite irrationality, but then sometimes the status of things is viewed in terms of 'potential' for growth rather than absolute accomplishment.
I repeat, my irritation is not against God (who doesn't exist as far as I can see), but against blind faith in face of contradictory evidence.
With regard to water and origin, let me point out that God's existence and nonexistence are mutually exclusive events (a person can't be both dead and alive; you can't be both absent and present in a classroom), but life originating with aid of water or without are not two mutually exclusive events (a baby can be born and survive in both affluent family as well as extremely poor one). Water just increases the chances of ORIGIN of life as against mere MAINTENANCE of life.
I don't know if you've read my post--'Communalism'. It actually doesn't deal with God at all. It simply deals with certain kind of irrationality and hypocrisy, and yet it'd sound like the post is against religion! That strong is association between the two!
TC. More later...
Sai,
ReplyDeleteBack...
I searched the net. Newton was a devout religionist. He had firm belief that Christ was born on the same day as quoted by the Bible, and that the Universe was so finely tuned that a God had to be governing it.
Darwin was a Unitarian (believing in a single all-powerful God as against the Holy trinity of the Bible) by birth, and by the time, he turned 50, he had turned agnostic.
Einstein, as I pointed above (now having confirmed from Wikipedia), was a pantheist and did NOT believe in a personal God with an intent, but believed that the laws of nature were such that they always follow a strict pattern.
Now before you point out [ :) ] that Newton despite being so devoutly theist, could still produce such scientifically influential works, I'd like to point out that it's not being religious or irreligious per se that decides how scientific one could be, but rather one's openness to discard old beliefs in light of new evidences. In that regard, Newton was very rational. He'd easily accepted the Heliocentric (The Sun is the center of the Universe) theory, which was in opposition to Church's Geocentric (Earth is the center) as evidence was there for the former. Actually, in Newton's times so little was known about the functioning of the World that hardly any religious beliefs were in conflict with science. His arch rival Leibniz (who receives joint credit for inventing calculus with Newton) was for instance, deist. As a matter of trivia, Newton had written more on religion than on science!
Charles Darwin, born a century later, armed with greater knowledge about the workings of the world, turned agnostic. Einstein, born around 70 years later, turned pantheist--actually, atheist, since he clearly stated that no intelligent designer was required to keep mankind in check through punishment and reward.
The case, in current world is such that, we have SO MUCH knowledge about the workings of the Universe that to embrace religion would require much greater irrational zeal than in the time of Newton...
Well, this is an interesting article showing a trend among scientists with regard to religious beliefs.
ReplyDeleteBut yes, you're very right about people taking varying number of mistakes to learn from them!
And well you see, I don't criticize religion or belief in God ever. Scan my entire blog, and you'll never find that, what I criticize is always the basis (blind faith) for belief in them.
With lesser knowledge of how Universe works, belief in a God controlling all that was actually a more rational position (sic)! This is another idea you'll find in Matt McCormick's article. ;)
TC.
And one more thing, though I don't believe, religion would be able to actually destroy the 20 storey building we have, it will and is retarding the progress of science, ethics and morality. A 30 storey building will have to be built upon the existing 20 storey one. ;)
ReplyDeleteI've never criticized the 80 storey buildings. In fact, I admire them in a way. A good robber is one who commits robberies well, seriously! That way I admire them for their good knowledge of human psychology, conviction in themselves as not subordinate to any 100 storey building (they themselves created the rumor, right?), having good oratorial and networking skills and being professional in duping people. I've always criticized the 2 to 3 storey people for believing without bases in 80 and 100 storey buildings despite so may evidences to the contrary, and applying double standards when in matters of God vis-a-vis other matters of daily experience.
Have you noticed people don't take any mental effort in concluding some girl to be of 'loose character' if found merely talking to a boy, but very same people believe in God's existence despite all the evidences to the contrary.
In case of the said girl, they don't want to make any allowances, and want to trust their own senses (eyes), and however many evidences you might give to the girl possessing a character--like courtesy, helpfulness, being good friends with the boy, maybe actually liking the boy, they wouldn't accept them. However, in matter of God, the very same people without single, tangible evidence of God, fervently believe in him.
But I totally agree that I or for even that matter, others cannot necessarilly change anyone's mind, but what posts like these do is promote a sense of enquiry. Remember, religion and irrationality run in a vicious cycle--both promote each other--"belief without evidence or even despite it."
I don't want to assume a morally very upright stance because to be honest, I'm not doing enough to the cause of promoting rationality, but there's a dire need to promote it, and fast, otherwise such things will gobble up at least a part of our future; and to remind you yet again, above link is just like a firecracker as compared to figurative as well as literary atom bombs being prepared elsewhere.
TC.
And to think of it Saimukundhan, I'm arguing more with you as compared to any typical theist! ;)
ReplyDelete