r2i forum

GutsyGibbon;421881Sarkar07, SeventhZense,
Great posts. My thoughts:
Most theists and religious people wear their faith and display it with pride. Having known and mingled with such people for decades, even subtly disclosing a belief in reasoning and rational sense can be interpreted to be offensive. In my offline life, I have been a closet atheist, happily enjoying the prasada/prasad as a dessert. For thousands of years - rational line of thought has been a minority sentiment. There is never a talk of offending the atheist. I remember the time when I was asked "when I would do a thread ceremony for my son, as he could be getting too old to listen to us" listen to us - as in heed to the request of doing sandyha vandane & other rituals. My answer was " sorry, I do not believe in such rituals". I was asked several probing follow up questions about the beliefs of spouse, parents, their thoughts, etc. After dodging these questions without getting into details, the person asking me the questions was the one to get offended. Leads me to believe people get offended with anything that does not line up with their thinking/mindset. It is often hard to determine if someone is stating a fact/belief, or is intentionally stiring the pot, trying to hurt a religious sentiment.

Thanks GG. As for the idea of offending an athiest (highlighted by me), does an athiest/you get offended by the concept of Santa Claus and celebration of Christmas? I think your answer will be no. I do not see how someone can "offend" an athiest by displaying their belief in God. A rational thinker is expected to be, well, rational enough to see that everyone can believe whatever they want to and that should not make one uncomfortable or feel offended.

Even I enjoy/participate religious ceremonies/prasads etc. though my family knows I am not a believer. At the same time I do not mind tying a black thread or putting on a ring if it makes my mom/dad/wife happy. Most of the times I don't even bring up the point that I do not believe in all that stuff. After all, we all do so many things just to make our loved ones happy without making a big deal of our dislike for them...same way I do not feel the need to make everyone aware of my lack of belief at all. Let's say, I do not wear my athiesm on my sleeve! As they say, what goes of my father to tie a black thread if it makes someone happy? :)

The only time I draw a line is when people start bringing in religion/caste-based discrimination or do unsavory things justified by religion/customs that compromise people's lives or rights. Also, once in a while I say sentence or two where I make it clear that belief is ok is only to a point and that it is just a belief - just in the hope of that some younger cousin is curious enough to think about his/her beliefs more...:)

As for your last sentence, yes, it is difficult to be clear who is being offensive on an online forum...However, even there, obvious attempts of being offensive or riling up believers by repeated names-calling can be easily identified. But in general, yes, it is not possible to know beforehand what will offend a believer. (That is why I understand and support to an extent this forum's policy of not putting restrictions on posts on religion.)

Sarkar07;421969Thanks GG. As for the idea of offending an athiest (highlighted by me), does an athiest/you get offended by the concept of Santa Claus and celebration of Christmas? .
Let's say, I do not wear my athiesm on my sleeve! As they say, what goes of my father to tie a black thread if it makes someone happy? :)

I dont wear Atheism on my sleeve either, and my parents have requested me to keep such thoughts from reaching our relatives. It has been tough to bite my tongue, all the time, but I have done that. This will sound like hypocrisy, but when we bought our first house they even talked me into wearing a thread and performing a Satya narayana pooja. Its the choice of sticking to what the majority of people/society wants us to do Vs doing what we truly believe in. More than parents being happy about my pooja (with disbelief), it is more to do with sticking to the norms of the society, the pressure of sticking to the delusional practices. In such a personal context, I do get offended.
On the bright side of being agnostic/atheistic, it is comforting to see my kids ask other kids the tough questions about fairies, & stuff taught at chinmaya mission. How can a elephant head fit on a little boy? Ah, the joys of reasoning, the joys of atheistic parenting :), All I teach them is - question everything, seek the proof. Now they talk like Dawkins.
I agree, that practices of faith done by others (santa/fairy etc) can only be senseless, sometimes ridiculous, sometimes rewarding (desserts, food, gifts etc) but never offensive. What do I care if someone is scared of the moon on some fine day, all I care about is the yummy modakas. :)

How perniciously idiotic beliefs perpetuate ?

2 examples..

A child was asked by a relative while he was at mall with his parents, shopping for his Christmas gift…”Do you really believe in Santa “…the child replies “What ?...I am not crazy….but you know what, I just do not want to offend my parents !

A famous scientist had hung a horseshoe outside his house ( believed to keep bad omen out )…a friend asked him….” I know you don’t believe in these superstitions”….the scientist replies “You bet…I am not crazy…..but you know what I have heard that the horse-shoe works even if you don’t believe in it!

GutsyGibbon;422129I dont wear Atheism on my sleeve either,

I didn't mean to suggest that you do...sorry if it came out like that! :) I meant to say that I do not see the need to bring it up always in my family as most religious things i) give solace/pleasure/happiness to my loved ones and ii) are harmless. However, like I said earlier in instances where I saw that religious practices can do harm to people, I have made no bones about exposing the nonsense that religious beliefs are. Luckily, my immediate family though religious is not orthodox or staunch at all...I have never had to defend my stances even if they went against religious norms...

GutsyGibbon;422129
and my parents have requested me to keep such thoughts from reaching our relatives. It has been tough to bite my tongue, all the time, but I have done that. This will sound like hypocrisy, but when we bought our first house they even talked me into wearing a thread and performing a Satya narayana pooja. Its the choice of sticking to what the majority of people/society wants us to do Vs doing what we truly believe in. More than parents being happy about my pooja (with disbelief), it is more to do with sticking to the norms of the society, the pressure of sticking to the delusional practices. In such a personal context, I do get offended.

I understand what you are saying. Please do not interpret the following as a comment on you or your choices (I truly believe in "To each his own" + understand that everyone's outlook in life is different, not necessarily right or wrong). Think of it as my perspective regarding applying principles:

I thing it won't be wrong to say that most of us make choices after taking into consideration multiple things and not just one, though it is possible that one principle/value overwhelmingly guides the action. In my life, I give equal importance to Perspective and Principles - that is to say that the decision to enforce my principles depend upon the big picture perspective. IF compromising one principle is going to result in larger good for my loved ones and not harm anyone, I willingly do it. Pujas etc. I see as harmless customs that help family/friends come together and thus a positive, though it goes without saying that I know that doing pujas matters zilch to ensuring anyone's well-being. So even if I do a Puja, I know that I am willingly compromising - not being forced by anyone - and hence there is nothing to get offended about. Put another way, no one can offend me without my permission.

That said, if I think something is discriminatory, deprives another human of something, or "wrong" per my moral compass, I have no qualms about outright rejecting following a religious practice. I don't care if it offends anyone, including my immediate family. :)

GutsyGibbon;422129 On the bright side of being agnostic/atheistic, it is comforting to see my kids ask other kids the tough questions about fairies, & stuff taught at chinmaya mission. How can a elephant head fit on a little boy? Ah, the joys of reasoning, the joys of atheistic parenting :), All I teach them is - question everything, seek the proof. Now they talk like Dawkins.
I agree, that practices of faith done by others (santa/fairy etc) can only be senseless, sometimes ridiculous, sometimes rewarding (desserts, food, gifts etc) but never offensive. What do I care if someone is scared of the moon on some fine day, all I care about is the yummy modakas. :)

I am happy for your kids. :) I also hope to raise my kid(s) such that I teach them to question things and think scientifically. No doubt about it. I also hope somehow I am able to give them the perspective to know when and how to apply their principles. In some ways, I want them to know how to pick their battles so that they live a fulfilling life where they happily co-exist with others who will have drastically opposite ways of looking at things.

Thanks for your time GG. I think I have said all that I had to say...It was an interesting discussion. Thanks again! :)

[QUOTE]I truly believe in "To each his own). I also hope to raise my kid(s) such that I teach them to question things and think scientifically. No doubt about it. I also hope somehow I am able to give them the perspective to know when and how to apply their principles. I think I have said all that I had to say...It was an interesting discussion. Thanks again! :)

Sarkar since you are my top 5 favorite posters on this forum (and thats good ok??) let me respond to this with one final perspective. As usual I find your posts very objective, restrained and balanced.
I think framing the discussion of theism vs atheism need not be viewed in the light of rationality (or irrationality) but rather of aptitude. This is only to offer a perspective and is not meant to generate any discussion.

The entire Vedic or religious approach too requires careful and analytical scriptural study - called meemamsa - and hence alone the most important of the auxillary angas or branches of study considered mandatory for a vedic student is tarka. Tarka or reasoning and its related specialty Nyaya or logic provide the axiomatic basis with which one approaches Vedic study - there is a humongous breadth of literature consisting of an analysis of reasoning and logic itself, and what is the ontological framework of logic, and then further moving onto exploring its structure in a very methodical manner. Texts such as Tarka Samgraha (a treatise on logic) written by Annambhatta and of course the classic Tattvachintamani which elaborately explores a framework of sixty four constraints that constitute logic and inference - are examples of how central a role tarka or reasoning plays in serious religious study. These works are very similar in contextual conformity to the classical epistemological works of the ancient Sages of Greece such as Plato Aristotle and of course Socrates - if you read or familiar with the polemic framework of works such as Platos cave, and Meno, as two examples you will perchance get a flavor for this. The focus herein is directed at knowledge itself, at epistemology, at what is existence and what is nonexistence, can existence get created, and if so can it be from a priori nonexistence, what is knowledge, how is one able to know anything, what is certainty of knowledge, what is the origin of doubt, what is ignorance, is it a mere absence of knowledge, or is it a positive entity in its own right, if it is a mere absence how does anything remain unknown, if it is positive how does it go away, ---- these are the broad areas of subject matter for Scriptural study - the ultimate aim being to question the questioner to enquire into the inquirer and unfold the key to knowledge in its purest sense.

Now all this seems a far far cry from the world of pujas and homas and sacred threads etc. And it is. When one enters a field of secular education it begins with A for Apple B for Ball E for Elephant. Why? because for a child those are gross tangible objects he can visualize, touch, perceive, and interact it. You dont teach a child E for Energy - it is too subtle - he will not be able to grasp head or tail of it. Only after many years and when the child is now grown up do you teach him about mass and energy. And how different each is. And finally alone, does the student, if qualified, get taught the esoteric truths of mass energy equivalence. A child may look at a piece of paper saying e = mc2 and laugh because for him e can only mean the letter e - and the letter e can never be equal to anything much less the letter m. Eve for a older child, mass is mass - solid, perceptible and energy is invisible, and impercetible. Any theory talking about nondifference would seem laughable - and illogical. The methodology that religion follows - at least the Vaidika religion is also similar. An alien might peek into the kindergartner's work and go "o my god this species' education is primitive they only learn about apples and elephants. Even he peeked into a classic paper by Einstein he would find it full of gibberish - e, m, c - what is all this? Why? Because he is not grounded in the groundwork that determines the axiomatic framework of that system. Other than starting with the a,b,cs and slowly progressing through THAT systems method of learning there is no other way to guage the internal consistency and external validity of its constructs.

Similarly when we look at a Gajanana or a Shiva what we are dealing with is symbolisms - that people can readily identify with and interact with and pray to and worship. It is because we are all like the prisoners in Platos cave, trapped in the chasms of our own collective ignorance. And these symbols is what religion first presents to people as a kindergarten exercise. When the mind is more mature and capable some more concepts are clarified about the oneness of different Gods, and so on. And finally at the pinnacle of religious thought is unfolded the relationship of the individual soul and the Supreme. You cannot skip through school and directly obtain a PhD degree. So even though things at face value may seem completely irrational and downright superstitious but that may only be due to a lack of understanding of the overall framework in which the system is laid out. And so all of these - pujas, havans, rituals, dharmas, fasts, festivals, etc have their place, provided we appreciate the overall framework. Things like a sacred thread are incidentals - like a doctors lab coat or a Philarmonic conductors baton. The doctor can just as easily talk to the patient without it and wearing pajamas. But it inculcates a certain attitude. If you don a doctors lab coat and report to work as a taxi driver - it may only be make others happy - as you put it - but intrinsically it has no meaning. Also a lot of paraphrenalia like gazing at the moon are not necessarily religious but traditional - achara and not dharma - they are part of whats been handed out as tradition even if not scripturally based and serve to enrich our lives, the way, a fancy dress competition and multiple other activities serve to enrich the life of a school student while not being absolutely essential to the curricular study. It might be prudent to not mistake the peripherals for the principal.

The reason for me to lay all this out is not to make anyone take up religion, much less vedic study. Far from it. In fact my argument would be the exact opposite as I will explain next. The reason for this post is only to grant you a small flavor of how reasoning or rationality or structured analytical thought is not antagonistic to religion but as a matter of fact is very much embedded in and through its framework - what is different is the axiomatic schema.

And the reason a theist is a theist IMHO is simply a question of aptitude. Its like a aptitude for music. Some people have it. Some dont. The people who have it are not superior to those who dont and vice versa. And whether you love music may have to do with your genetic makeup, your upbringing, formative environment, etc etc. And a music lover can never ever "convert" a non-musically inclined person to like music. It is or it isnt. Similarly a non-musical person can never "convince" a musical person that there is no joy in music. A nonmusical person will find that even a maestro like Shruti Amonkar singing to be some random cacaphony. He could even insist to the musical person that there is simply to method to this madness. Some aaaas and eees randomly strewn about. And only the musical person who has studied this at some depth will know that the system is so systematically construed that even one single wrong note can jar the ears. And not only that a true student of music, especially when he is advanced enough, will find the verisame melody present in his tradition of music, to mellifluously ring through in every other system of music, and can only wonder at how people could lay claim to which music tradition is better and which is worse and even within a system which gharana is superior and why. When I look at some of the elaborate and endless discussions that have happened on this list and elsewhere between atheists and theists - each trying to convince the other - I can only shake my head. To me it is as absurd as a Jasraj trying to explain with a demonstration to a visibly skeptical Bishen Singh Bedi in the din of Churchgate station the intricacies of Raag Malkauns.

Man #5,

Thanks for the kind words and for sharing your thoughts. Deep and interesting thoughts, whose gist I think I understood, but admit that I may not have completely. So pardon me if you find my post below irrelevant or a result of incomplete understanding of your post:

While I am vaguely aware of vedic philosophy and literature related to reasoning and logic, I am no expert to comment on them. What I see around me are religious people most of whom also have no clue about this literature and seem to be blindly following practices without even questioning them. Some of these practices lead to - discriminating, and even killing, people. I reject such practices - period. And I also reject any framework, no matter how rational, that leads to such outcomes.

As for pujas etc, may be there is some reasoning behind them or may be they are the stepping stone to something bigger or may be they are just an insignificant part of a larger, more complex and possibly more meaningful/rational concept. Nevertheless, some of them involve things like worshiping fire, air, etc. as Gods and offering them food etc. in return for some tangible benefits on our lives...Almost all people I have seen are following such practices not because they want to get an understanding of some deeper truth but because they either i) fear that something bad will happen if they don't do it or ii) they want something good to happen to them - both simple, short-term material pursuits. Even if I discount all such people and think of what the "REAL" goal/meaning of a puja is - and may be I am being ignorant or looking at only a snapshot of a larger picture that I have not spent time understanding - but I still find it hard to believe that worshiping imaginary beings or things like fire, air, etc. as Gods is necessary for understanding, or could lead to, some larger, rational framework.

That said, I completely understand if people follow these practices as a stepping stone towards some larger and deeper understanding - some truth that I cannot appreciate or understand. Like I said, to each his own...

I understand your point of aptitude...very unique perspective. The example of Pandit Jasraj and Bedi was also interesting...May be some roads are not meant to meet! :)

Thanks again for your thoughts, Man ji.

Man;422364
The entire Vedic or religious approach too requires careful and analytical scriptural study - called meemamsa - and hence alone the most important of the auxillary angas or branches of study considered mandatory for a vedic student is tarka.

Looking at some historical facts, it is clear (to me) who's tarka got to stay. We cannot deny human, and animal sacrifice and caste-ism in the vedic times. The reasoning for Human well being does not have to come out of 1000 year old books, and scriptures. There are people who try to link what is written in these books, to modern astronomy, medicine, & environmental science. Morals and ethics relevant to modern life can come out of social science, or be hand picked out of ancient books. During the vedic times people like Charvaka were labelled crazy, these days even H Narasinhiah was called Huchh(mad) Narasimhiah. Not to mention what people think of rationalists.

Man;422364
Things like a sacred thread are incidentals - like a doctors lab coat or a Philarmonic conductors baton..

The sacred thread is very different from a lab coat. I am no doc but I am guessing, a lab coat is not what authorizes entry into a hospital/surgery room. While entering the Udupi temple/matha, one is asked to remove the shirt, perhaps to see the existance of the thread. People with the thread get to have special lunch with other brahmins in the kitchen. Others wearing shirt are made to sit outside, and served ordinary lunch. I have seen the same in other temples like Hornadu. The sacred thread is used to identify brahmins, and discriminate others based on this. I do not have any proof, but hanging around people wearing threads and chanting mantras, I have a good idea about the number of people who think they are superior to people without the thread. (in terms of being able to chant sanskrit mantras, spiritual maturity, etc). When they talk about the greatness of gayathri mantha, why not teach it to all the SCs and STs, (if they are interested). Is there a modern tarka that allows for it? It is this feeling of inherent superiority that I am rejecting by not wearing the thread. Doing the sandhya vandanam twice a day, doing a homa, and sending kids to Chimaya mission means nothing if people dont treat others the way they like to be treated. Why the superiority feeling then? Look at all the posts in the Hinduism threads, there is a ton of talk about Hindu/brahmin superiority. No body is talking about the superiority of the Hindu SC who was carrying human waste in a basket on his head. Still happens in my village just a few kms from Mysore. None of us here will see the day when the brahmin in my village will let this SC into his house. Is this not out of superiority/discrimination? I am sure he has some convincing tarka for this.

Your comparison of abstract art/music with delusion makes no sense to me. I agree that I lack that kind of aptitude. Setting people who believe in religion to be superior in terms of aptitude, is the trap that has been used historically, to get the masses to believe in the supernatural. I can start naming several logically inconsistent things from the vedas, & traditions. I am sure the gurus and swamis would figure out a way to somehow fit that into the framework.

Guys with sacred threads : I apologize if I offended anyone.

I also want to add instances of modern theists adding elements of superstition and delusion (in the name of tradition and religion) to their lives and families. For example, a hindu parent noticing a child who wakes up in the morning on the left side, asking the child to go back to sleep and wake up on the right. With the threat that waking up on the left would mess up the entire day. Who are they fooling? Then making the kid look at all the gods in the palm and chant a harmless "Karagre vasudhe lakshmi...." Such things are brushed aside as tradition, and religious practices.
What is hapenning is a systematic programming of delusion. Programming children that someone from up above is watching things as innocent as waking up in the morning, only to drive the supernaturals go nuts and punish by ruining the child's day. It is this control over the way of life, how we wake up, how we eat, what we eat, and how we take a dump, that makes the believers puppets in the hands of religious leaders. Same or worse with other popular religions. The hindutva folks here go the extra way to dig up the delusion of other religions, but do not see that they are no different in systematically programming delusion from childhood. The children of the taliban have similar brainwashing, but with an aggressive violent agenda. With the level of control religion has over life, reasoning takes a back seat, and if these kids end up as jobless teenagers, the controller can easily command them to acts of hatred and intolerance.
I am sure majority of the hindutva folks here are atheist about the Islamic and christian ways of life. As Dawkins says, I am just like you, but I have just gone one religion further.

Man;422364The entire Vedic or religious approach too requires careful and analytical scriptural study - called meemamsa - and hence alone the most important of the auxillary angas or branches of study considered mandatory for a vedic student is tarka. Tarka or reasoning and its related specialty Nyaya or logic provide the axiomatic basis with which one approaches Vedic study - there is a humongous breadth of literature consisting of an analysis of reasoning and logic itself, and what is the ontological framework of logic, and then further moving onto exploring its structure in a very methodical manner.

Man,

I agree that there exists a vast amount of theological framework, that involves a very intricate and sophisticated framework of logical reasoning and many of the brightest minds belonging to both Eastern and Western philosophies have spent considerable amount of time in building this towering structure of deductive logic. It is really fascinating to see the effort of human mind, over the ages, formulate these extremely abstract concepts in a logical manner. And I can appreciate why it requires many years training to gain knowledge of all this.

BUT, if one just steps-outside and takes a look, one can immediately see that this sufferers from a flaw that is intrinsic to deductive logic: The conclusions are only as good as the premise (axioms) on which it is built. Logical arguments only assure you of going from correct assumptions to correct conclusions. One can have a meticulously crafted framework of logic and can still be wrong, if the assumptions turn out to be false.

Now, isn?t one of the the foremost axioms in theology, the existence of Soul and Supreme and everything follows from that? Of course, every field of study involves axioms, but, in the case of religion, the axiom (what is taken for granted) is so profound, that once it is assumed everything else can be explained away without much difficulty. But as we all know, what is at the heart of all this debate of Theism vs Atheism is the truth-value of this assertion which unfortunately involves the supernatural and hence remains un-testable. In that sense, the foundations on which this beautiful and gigantic structure is built are flimsy, at best.

And as we know, belief in the Devine is not limited to theologians only; many of the greatest scientific minds, like Newton and Galileo were believers. While they were the architects of what we know as modern science today, they all believed they were doing God?s work and the idea was that nature and its workings were themselves a sort of divine revelation, meant to compliment the revelation found in scripture. .

On the other hand, I sometimes wonder, the literature and fine- art forms, like music, dance, painting and sculpture that have been gifted to our generation, would have been as beautiful and captivating without the attainment of exalted state of mind of these artists inspired by belief in Divinity.

[QUOTE]

And the reason a theist is a theist IMHO is simply a question of aptitude


I am not clear on your comparing faith to aptitude. Are you alluding to the hypothesis of biological basis for belief?

re post 9.

what a brilliant post..so what can we do to make GGS post more often.....very nice post. :)

RK