[ I was browsing through sulekha's pages last night, and i stumbled upon a blog by "enchanted world" titled "There is no God" its my own way of a tribute to all those who believe in god's existence, and also to those who are non-believers] What is GOD? What do we mean by god? An imaginary krishna or the allah, or buddha? A power which been made invincible by our forefathers and their fathers? A power which has weakened us from the roots, a power which has robbed us of our belief of infinte potential we possess. The idea has been spoon fed incessantly into ur moulding minds from the day we were born, that there is a power in the sky up there... who watches us constantly, HE who is the architect of this universe.
I still have some distant memories of this blind passion, and my childhood. A very common question for my mom was " So what did you ask from HIM today?" and like an obidient boy i used to answer " shatbuddhi, shatshahosh aar monerjor" (a good mind, courage and will power).
Now, the question is...why did i ask for all these things?
I was hardly 5 yrs of age at that point of time.. i neither had the mental maturity to understand god...nor the brains to understand what actually these things mean.
The answer is in front of your eyes. I was taught to ask these things. Now the reason is: I am just a face in the crowd. Scores of children like me got the same spoon feeding.
We have been so influenced by the presence of this invincible power that we have started using it as a crutch. the concept of GOD has made us disabled in this walk of life.My first contradiction of the concept of GOD is1. GOD is relative. When you take an electric bulb to a very distant village in somalia(say) where technology is something unheard of... the very wide reach of science has never even dared to trod into the forbidden land, the people term it as a supernatural power, uncanny, god or the devil. or something very close!! There are somethings which science hasnt been able to prove till date, Now every one of us who are enlightend by the light of civilisation and technology can idenify between uncanny supernatuality and an electric bulb. My next question arises in the same respect. In our hindu scriptures and epics we have seen innumerable tales of supernatural powers being possessed by sages. But strangely for reasons unknown to me.. this innumerable instances of the display of supernaturality has decreased tenfolds in the 21st century.
With the scientific proliferations, holding the hands of technology. Every attempt of supernaturality has been proven wrong by science. Sealed into its coffin even before confusion rose. As in childhood tales i have been been fed some very strange(at that time it was interesting though) tales of enlightened saints walking effortlessly in midocean. There has been absolutely no documented proof of any such activities atleast till now.
2. GOD is definately not the supreme architect of he universe For people who has the blind faith in the infinite power called god his strongest arguement can be the
watchmaker arguement:"In crossing a heath, suppose I pitched my foot against a stone, and were asked how the stone came to be there; I might possibly answer, that, for anything I knew to the contrary, it had lain there forever: nor would it perhaps be very easy to show the absurdity of this answer. But suppose I had found a watch upon the ground, and it should be inquired how the watch happened to be in that place; I should hardly think of the answer I had before given, that for anything I knew, the watch might have always been there"
The counter arguement here is that suppose you take in to the fact that there exists a watchmaker for this watch in the middle of nowwhere. Further down if i pitch my foot on a shoe, in accordance with my previous answer there must be a shoemaker? Therefore, according to the analogy, created life must have a lifemaker, the sun a sunmaker and snowflakes a snowmaker. This implies that there are several creators in the world, responsible for all kinds of creation. Now if there was a shoemaker and the watchmaker there must have been their respective fathers. i.e, GOD has a father. This leads us a complex series of of the root of god's existence.
The contradiction goes a step further to state that, since the watch is a complex structure, a true watchmaker has foresight: he designs his cogs and springs, and plans their interconnections, with a future purpose in his mind's eye. Natural selection, the blind, unconscious, automatic process which Darwin discovered, and which we now know is the explanation for the existence and apparently purposeful form of all life, has no purpose in mind. It has no mind and no mind's eye. It does not plan for the future. It has no vision, no foresight, no sight at all.
If it can be said to play the role of watchmaker in nature, it is the blind watchmaker. Natural selection is the blind watchmaker.3.
What do you believe in GOD? I asked my 18yr old cousin brother this question. His reply was prompt. " I believe that god does everything you see around you, everything that you do, without HIM, we cant even do our everyday chores." I was a bit shaken by the promptness and the confidence in his answer. I reconfirmed his reply.. "so you mean to say that if god wasn't there we cant even perform our daily activities..." He settled my shock by saying "yes indeed it is god who gives us the power, the divine power bestows upon us the fire within" Such is the level of passion, behind godliness of the belief, such strong has the roots gone, its a point of no return. You wouldnt dare to touch the concept, leave aside the change, the metamorphosis of my cousin's and many others' belief.
The basic problem lies elsewhere.
We, the common man mix religion and spirituality to such extent that in the process we lose track of our own abilities.Its this mixture of two very radically different things that has evolved to such a devil of a belief. I hear people saying, GOD is everywhere, god is the power within us. We pray for our loved ones who are sick, we pray for our friends, we pray for ourselves... sometimes miracles happen, sometimes (say) the prayers are answered, and we say that GOD has listened to our cries... HE is there. HE is the "aantaryami". But yes times do come when our prayers go unanswered. what do we say then? Its fate; or its the result of your previous birth's karma. This series of blind belief is endless. My cousin( as a miniscule example) with such blind and super confident belief about the Infinite Power will pass on this wrong message to his future generations, and the monolgue will continue henceforth. We claim that we are rational beings. But is this a sign of rationality? We are not thinking with our brains, what we are doing is we believe what our forefather's taught us.
We straight out refuse to re- think matters, with the science we have, but our forefathers lacked. Are we being any different from a tribal in a distant village of somalia who has seen an electric bulb for the first time in his life...?
Close
evans,
i like ur definition of fun... was going thru natasha's posts.... interesting...!!
Reply | | Report Abuse
Fun Link: http://www.geocities.com/evansnf/index.html ; )
Reply | | Report Abuse
sup,
all i can say is a biig thanks.. but as it seems this discussion remained incomplete..as nargis told ,me... that she was apprehnesive that it might lead to some serious thought conflicts .... she was wary of penning her beliefs... whatever... it was surely worth it...!!!
cheerio
~me
Reply | | Report Abuse
Sauvik!! STFU!
Reply | | Report Abuse
hi red,
yea the scenario last night was "red hot" ... it went out of any calculations.. watever... coming back to ur point .... yea u r right i was contradicting people's superstitious beliefs about god... the wrong things taught generations after generations... its very sad...
if i was able to inspire to the the very least.. i would be happy....
~regards
me
Reply | | Report Abuse
Reply | | Report Abuse
hey nargis ...
i know ... at the end... it really turned out to be very nasty... with ego clashes and all...i have started having a bit of guilty feeling about the thing i wrote!! really i never intended hurt any body's feelings nor impose my beliefs on anybody(basically i am not even any such position close to).
must be GOD's wishes...;-)
~me
Reply | | Report Abuse
Reply | | Report Abuse
@Sujatha,
thanks for ur comment.... and yes.. i agree, the discussion stared quite healthy at first, as as debates go, it went off the track, and literally became a bit on the nastier side...
for a change ...
~thanks buddy...
for dropping by
~me
Reply | | Report Abuse
VC,
You have accused me of sarcasm but you are yourself indulging in sarcasm when you write that I judge anything by wishful thinking or one paragraph reading. How do you know that? I suggest that you give evidence of your claim. I hope you have not forgotten my criticism of one of Skinner's books recommended by you.
It is your personal opinion that Skinner's theories are as revolutionary as Darwin's. It might be true that a few hundred people hold this opinion. However, as you have yourself suggested this is a minority view. I have studied quite a bit on the western philosophical position on the human mind and came to the conclusion that they do not have a clue to the nature of human mind and associated consciousness. I also found out that modern western philosophical texts dismiss Skinner's theories in one or two lines.
You have asked me to study and summarize Skinner's position on introspection. I am afraid that I do not have any inclination to do so. This is mainly because I lost faith in Mr. Skinner's scholarship after reading his book. However, I will make a comment on Skinner's position, outlined by you, that introspection will not uncover important things on learning because there is no nerve ending in the brain. I would suggest that any debate about introspection should start with one personally introspecting. Only such direct evidence will decide the case and not speculation about it.
I accused you of blind belief in Skinner's obsolete theories because I have seen you in action and not because I am speculating. I see that you keep repeating Skinner's ideas about the human mind as if they are the last word on it even when you admit that very few people accept his ideas. I have never seen you express the slightest doubt about Skinner's theory. It is a fact that no major living western philosopher (Dennet, Chalmers, Penrose and others) of the human mind accepts Skinner's theory. How can you be so sure about the veracity of Skinner's theory given that Skinner's behaviorism (there are other versions like Gilbert Ryle's) is not accepted by most people working in this area in the west? That would suggest that you blindly believe in Skinner's theory even when there is no evidence supporting it. If there were any evidence supporting it then I would expect that Skinner's behaviorism would have become the dominant theory by now. Since you accept Skinner's theory without any compelling evidence, then you must be doing it out of blind belief.
Gangp
Reply | | Report Abuse
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- Next 7»
Displaying 1 - 10 of 76 Blog Comments