God, Religion and Blasphemy: Interesting conversation

Interesting Conversation / Blasphemy

Question was raised:

----- Original Message -----

From: Shah

To: mgims@yahoogroups.com

Sent: Tuesday, October 23, 2012 10:25 AM

Subject: Re: [MGIMS] This will leave you speechless

 

Dear DDM and Ashok Bhaskar I am still awaiting your verdict. To remind you:
I have made two statements
1. There is only one God
2. The earth revolves around the sun
Do you think both these are blasphemous, or neither one is or only one is,
then which one?
And no! These are not frivolous questions. They have a serious background. I
shall discuss them in detail after your responses.

Kishore Shah 1974

Response:

----- Original Message -----

From: dr.parag

To: mgims@yahoogroups.com

Sent: Tuesday, October 23, 2012 11:21 AM

Subject: Re: [MGIMS] This will leave you speechless

There is a world, Planet, Universe and the beyond.

There is a body, mind, psyche and beyond

What science knows today can be explained as rational and facts,

What science does not know today, because of its own limitations, does not mean that it does not exist or is wrong.

When Jainism said do not eat green leafy vegetables in the Monsoon period it was religion.

When Microscope said that there are flourishing microbes in green leafy vegetables, which were till then not visible, it became science.

Jesus, Mohamed, Ram, Krishna, Buddha never said that they were GODs.

They were messengers of God.

It is their followers who made them Gods, the ultimate and nothing beyond.

Answering your questions:

1.       One God, No God, Many God’s is an individual follower’s interpretation.

I say Jesus, Mohamed, Ram, Krishna, Buddha never said that they were GODs

So if I believe in them than there must be someone above them who could be God.

2.       Till Science proved otherwise SUN was revolving around the Earth.

Followers of a Religion castrated people who said otherwise.

It was these followers and their interpretation which was faulty, not the religion.

When I wish somebody a Happy Birthday, I do not remind them THE FACT that thanks to The Sex that their parents had, I have the opportunity to wish them a Birthday.

It hurts sentiments and emotions both words still not fully explained by science.

If somebody does that THAT’S BLASPHEMOUS,

Rest as they say is History. A story written by the winning side

The period between 1847 till 1950 is common for both India and Pakistan,

All events and facts are the same

Yet

The History text books of India and Pakistan are different,

Facts do not make history or Religion

It is how you interpret them and then twist them to your own benefit that makes History and 'Religion'.

Parag

1980

P.S: I am neither a Theist nor an Atheist; but a believer in the virtues of Human dignity and the beyond that is unknown today.

----- Original Message -----
From: Shah
To: mgims@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Tuesday, October 23, 2012 4:10 PM
Subject: Re: [MGIMS] This will leave you speechless

Exactly Dr Parag. I entirely agree with you. But I am waiting for DDM's view
before I make my comments.

BTW if you are neither a theist nor an atheist, then what are you? I am
confused. Or are you?

Kishore Shah 1974

----- Original Message -----

From: dr.parag

To: mgims@yahoogroups.com

Sent: Tuesday, October 23, 2012 4:48 PM

Subject: Re: [MGIMS] This will leave you speechless

 

I am neither a Theist nor an Atheist; but a believer in the

virtues of Human dignity and

am in search of the beyond that is unknown today.

Further reading:

1. http://andrewsullivan.thedailybeast.com/2012/05/why-choose-agnostic-ctd.html

Dawkins and Tyson seem to be playing to a popular audience with their distinction between atheism and agnosticism - a distinction which cannot really be upheld in the scientific worldview. The default position for a scientist is to not believe something unless there is a compelling reason to do so - the default is not to be neutral until the weight of evidence tips things one way or the other. For example, if you ask a scientist if s/he believes in unicorns or alien abductions, the answer would be no - not "I don't know". Of course the "no" is not absolute and unchangeable; if compelling evidence is brought forth, then positions can and will change. But if a hypothesis currently fails to be persuasive, then the answer is "no".

This holds for the god question as well. While minds must be open to persuasion, the unpersuaded mind responds "no - I do not believe in god", not "who knows?". Since all scientific knowledge, both positive and negative, is always conditional, relative to evidence, the "who knows" is everpresent in the background. Atheism and agnosticism are synonymous in the scientific worldview.


Parag

1980

 ----- Original Message -----

From: Dr. Ashok Sinha

To: mgims@yahoogroups.com

Sent: Wednesday, October 24, 2012 7:46 PM

Subject: Re: [MGIMS] Happy dassera

 

I have a feeling that there is no difference between a believer and a non believer. Both have a certain "belief", either positive or negative towards an idea of god. In science belief apparently has no value. You either know or you do not know. The methods of science cannot be applied to confirm a belief. If a belief leads you to faith in things good and makes you lead a fruitful good life, welcome. If a belief in the non-existence of that entity, leads you to a good life, welcome that too.Buddhists do not believe in God, yet they lead a life of religion. The Communists believe that " Marxism is omnipotent, because it is true", that's also a belief, not science.
In Hinduism, Atheist and Believers are different from those in the west. Some of the Indian Philosophical schools
are Astik, while others are Nastik.

Āstika ( ; "it exists") and Nāstika (, ; "it doesn't exist") are technical terms in Hinduism used to classify philosophical schools and persons, according to whether they accept the authority of the Vedas as supreme revealed scriptures, or not, respectively. By this definition,Vaisesika, Samkhya, Yoga, Mimangsa and Vedanta are
classified as āstika schools; and some schools like Carvaka, Jainism and Biddhism are
considered nāstika.
You notice that Samkhya school of Philosophy has been taken as astika, but Sankhya does not believe in God. It says "Ishwarasiddhe" God is not proved. Yet it is an astika darshana.
Where does that leave us?

Ashok Sinha

----- Original Message -----
From: Shah
To: mgims@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Wednesday, October 24, 2012 7:03 PM
Subject: [MGIMS] Blasphemy

What exactly is blasphemy? That is a very difficult question. You cannot
answer it with a blanket answer saying that anything that annoys or insults
your religion. At various times in history various people have been annoyed
by various things. That is why DDM is reluctant to answer such a simple
question and Ashok wants more clarification.
I have mentioned just two instances.
The first is that there is one GOD. Today, no one takes offence to that
statement. However, when the Greco-Roman culture was at its peak, the
popular belief was that there were many Gods with different departments
allotted to them, much like governments. So there was a God of War and a God
of Water and a God of Thunder and so on. When more than 2000 years ago,
Jesus enunciated this belief for the first time, he paid with his life.

Similarly, as Parag has rightly mentioned, that just saying that the earth
revolves around the sun earned you a castration. In fact, Galileo first
discovered this truth, but he was jailed for blasphemy. He had to apologize
and declare that he was mistaken before he was released. Fortunately he came
out with his nuts intact.

Thus we see that blasphemy is a pretty vague term. It all depends on the
thinness of the audience's skin. Sometimes simple truths can be termed
blasphemy. Recently Malala was very nearly assassinated for saying that
girls had a right to education. Later the Taliban clarified that they wanted
to kill her for calling Barack Obama a good man. I don't like Obama in
particular, but I think killing somebody because she likes him is a bit
ridiculous.

So you can see that actually the definition of blasphemy is that which is
against the current popular belief. You may say the truth or what you say
may be logical, but if it is not popular, it is labeled blasphemy. In fact,
in many villages of India, and the world, petty family feuds are settled by
calling somebody a witch and burning them and their family.

Here is one statement a clear cut case of blasphemy. I quote: God has
experimented with asexual reproduction and parthenogenesis and then chosen
the alliance of both the children Males and the females. Unquote.
No religious book says this. In fact, every religion clearly states that man
was created directly by God, and there was no experimentation involved. This
sentence, I may remind you, is a direct quote from DD Mittal's letter,
defending blasphemy.

In fact the Bible clearly states that man was created about 4,600 years ago.
Charles Darwin latter proved all religious theories wrong and showed that
evolution was how man happened.

Whenever any religious theory is scientifically disproved, religion always
takes refuge of some vaguely worded passages and says that it meant this and
not what was claimed previously.

Parag has mentioned : "It was these followers and their interpretation which
was faulty, not the religion." That is like saying that it is Vadra who is
corrupt, and Sonia who is scheming, and Manmohan who is quiet and all the
others who are sycophants. However the Congress party is clean and pure.

I have seen on this forum that people who believe take a very adversarial
position and a combatant stand whenever they have to defend their views.
That need not be so.

I personally believe that the following happened. First man was a primitive
being surviving in a cave and hunting for his food. Gradually civilization
happened. At that time there was no science. But people had good observation
powers. So they observed that if you kept yourself clean, it prevented
disease. Just telling people to stay clean did not help, so religion was
born which gave a certain set of rules.

Thus, not stealing and behaving honestly helped society, so that was
included in religion. Some religions observed that eating certain food gave
a person indigestion, so they had dietary rules incorporated in their
religions. Thus, and I quote Parag here, "Jainism said do not eat green
leafy vegetables in the Monsoon period it was religion". Agreed Parag.
However, like all religious minded people, Parag quietly glosses over the
fact that some dietary restrictions are bad for the human being. For
example, Jainism clearly forbids eating Onions or Garlic or Potatoes. Thus a
great source of nutrients and anti oxidants is lost. Also the vegetarian
diet of a Jain makes him deficient in vitamin B12. This is a scientific fact
and Parag knows this.

So what we can conclude is that many observations in religion were correct,
but some were biased. In fact some religious practices have only recently
come. For example, the Vedas clearly mention that Brahmins were donated cows
and buffaloes to eat. It is only later that eating cows became anathema to
the Hindus. Historically Hindus were beef eaters. Later, probably during a
shortage of milch cattle, somebody proscribed eating cows which got
translated into religion.

Thus we see that Religion was not an enemy of science. In fact it was the
first step that man took in the direction of science. What is science except
the art of observation and conclusions? Religion did the same things in a
primitive way. Religion is actually the father of science. Science refined
religion.

The only difference between religion and science that I can see now is the
stubbornness. In science if somebody gets up and says that you have got it
all wrong, and here is proof and something better, others do not boo the
person off. There is a natural initial resistance to any new idea, but if it
is conclusively proved, science accepts the fact that it was wrong and
corrects itself. However, religion is just the opposite. It has become a
dogma. If somebody questions religious beliefs, the person is labeled as
blasphemous and ostracized or worse killed.

Here I am reminded of a patient of an Orthpaedic surgeon of mine. The
patient had been in a severe accident and injured both his legs. He was
confined to a wheel chair for nearly a year. After that when the doctor told
him to use crutches he refused. He said that they gave him pain. The doctor
explained to him that unless he took pains, he could never become strong,
but despite many attempts the patient gave up. As a result of stiffness, the
patient could never actually walk.

Religion is like that wheel chair or the crutches. We need them for a short
while. But take some pain and throw away your crutches. Walking free can be
such an exhilarating experience.

How many people am I going to convert with this letter? Being an optimist I
expect everyone to at least start questioning long held beliefs. But as a
realist, I know that no one is going to change. Now it is up to you. Make me
an optimist.

-Kishore Shah 1974

----- Original Message -----

From: Bharat Sharma

To: mgims

Sent: Thursday, October 25, 2012 8:25 PM

Subject: Re: [MGIMS] Blasphemy

 

It is interesting to see people discussing blasphemy. One meaning of blasphemy is a contemptuous or profane act, utterance or writing against God or a sacred entity. Most often the entity blasphemy is directed against does not pay much attention to this act. It is the followers, mostly lacking the comprehension to understand the seriousness of the irreverent act and perceive the issue in accordance with their pattern of thinking, who create trouble with their uncontrolled and unwarranted response.

Bharat

----- Original Message -----

From: Balwinder Rana

To: mgims@yahoogroups.com

Sent: Thursday, October 25, 2012 11:19 PM

Subject: Re: [MGIMS] Blasphemy/Unfortunate Attempts

 

I am an ATHEIST. I believe God was invented by clever men who knew that it would be the best possible way to control the majority of humanity. All religions appear to have histories which entail inventing and depicting various
rituals, rules and methodologies to make the mankind pursue the greater aim of the early religious leaders...so called Gods.

I am an Atheist, still my home has a corner for the temple. I do not speak against God/religion in derogatory terms and do not joke on this with believers because that is uncalled for. I respect the right for every human to follow what they believe is right. 

Disclaimer: These are personal views and not intended to hurt the religious/non religious feelings of anybody.

Balvinder Rana 87

----- Original Message -----

From: dr.parag

To: mgims@yahoogroups.com

Sent: Thursday, October 25, 2012 9:32 AM

Subject: Re: [MGIMS] Blasphemy

 

Dear Kishor my Apologies for the delayed reply to your elaborate and well thought of response.
Actually the fault is not entirely mine,
I was caught in a 'Non moving traffic' for five hours yesterday evening because
Ma Durga, Lord Ravana and the goats of Bakri ID all teamed up against me and decided to celebrate, consuming the Public property.
It would now be logical based on Facts and eye witness to blame Religion for all the malaise and the mess.
But was it religion, which advised private celebration in Public property,
No
This were Revelers who wanted an excuse to celebrate,
If religion would not have provided that excuse something else would have,
But why in Public places?
But then where else?
The revelers work in public places, sleep in public places and defecate in public places!!!
Till Society crates Humane condition for people to live in dignity, we the intellectuals (?) have to suffer the inconveniences in our Aircon Sedans.

Author of Communist Manifesto, Karl Marx once said and I quote:
"Religion is the Opium of the Masses"
Now what is this Opium,
Under proper medical supervision and appropriate conditions it is a Medicine
But with dispensing by Drug Peddlers it becomes an addicting, abusive substance with disastrous consequences to self and society.
Same is true with any belief and Religion.
God and Religion are abstract concepts which evoke emotions and sentiments.
A women may be sexy, smart, cunning.. Whatever
But when she is a Mother the feelings about here change instantaneously, she becomes Compassionate, Caring and Sacrificing
same is a reaction about a child, it invokes innocence and vulnerability.

 Since we have started the tradition of asking questions to generate a debate,
Let me ask a question.
What is the difference between India and the European Union (E.U)?
Or is there a difference?

E.U has Germany, France, Spain, Italy...... different language different culture.
India has Gujarat, Maharashtra, Punjab, Kerala.... different language different culture.
E.U has the North South divide, rich north poor south; India too has the 'Punjabi' 'Madrasi 'divide.
E.U has its PIIGS (Portugal, Ireland, Italy, Greece,Spain) who hog on the rest.
India too has its BIMARUO (Bihar, Madhya Pradesh, Rajasthan, U.P, Orissa).

So,
What is the difference between India and the European Union (E.U)?
Or is there a difference?
Except that EU is a developed economy and India is developing

Awaiting a wider participation,

Parag

1980

A Fellow Researching 'Humanities'

----- Original Message -----

From: dr.parag

To: mgims@yahoogroups.com

Sent: Friday, October 26, 2012 4:39 PM

Subject: Fw: [MGIMS] Blasphemy

Following the dictum:

" A fool can ask more than the most intellegent person can answer"

I hereby take the onus on me to answer my own question.

The question was:

What is the difference between India and the European Union (E.U)?

Or is there a difference?

E.U has Germany, France, Spain, Italy...... different language different culture.

India has Gujarat, Maharashtra, Punjab, Kerala.... different language different culture.

E.U has the North South divide, rich north poor south; India too has the ‘Punjabi’ ‘Madrasi ‘divide.

E.U has its PIIGS (Portugal, Ireland, Italy, Greece,Spain) who hog on the rest.

India too has its BIMARUO (Bihar, Madhya Pradesh, Rajasthan, U.P, Orissa) .

So,

What is the difference between India and the European Union (E.U)?

Or is there a difference?

Except that EU is a developed economy and India is developing

According to me there is a big difference, appreciable only at abstract level of Understanding.

India has ‘Bharat Mata’

E.U does not have a ‘Matrae Euro’ , neither a ‘Patrae Euro’.

That is the reason that Germany ‘Bails out’ Greece and Spain.

In India you do not say that Mumbai bailed out UP, or Bangaluru bailed out Orissa,

While the fact is that

If all the revenue and tax collected from Mumbai was used only for Mumbai,

Singapore, Hong Kong and New York might have aspired to be like Mumbai and not the other way round.

And what is this Bharat Mata.

Was there a Bharat at all, except the one in Religious Mythology,

History taught us of the Cholas, Marathas, Rajputs and the Rajas and Maharajas,

Then came the invaders and then the Colonizers.

Rational facts would dictate that a country cannot be a Mother.

It is thanks to the visionary ‘Spin Doctors’ of Indian Constitution that, what is unscientific and unproven has such emotional and sentimental value that the great visionary western Statesmen Winston Churchill was proved wrong. He is still waiting in his grave, for the ‘Natives’ to disintegrate.

Further reading: India: From Midnight to Millennium, by SHASHI THAROOR, http://www.math.iitb.ac.in/~jkv/readings/india.html.

It is said that ‘Borders” divide people (Sarhad Insan ko Insan see Katae) and the Borders are the reasons for War,

But it is also true that within this abstract border Unity and identity can be created (by appropriate ‘Spin Doctors’).

European Union is a Monetary Union with Common Currency and Common markets,

It is a Scientific Union not a Spiritual Union (Tan ka Milan and not Man ka Milan)

‘Bharat Mata, is a Tan and Man ka Milan, a abstract concept because of which, in spite of the chaos and corruption, it is still worth living in India,

And when a solder goes to the front to sacrifice his life for the unscientific concept of ‘Bharat Mata’ his war cry is not just “Bharat Mata ki Jai” but is followed by “ Har Har Mahadev”,

Along with the Country ‘the Mother’, the God ‘ The Mai Bap’ is also invoked.

Remove this unscientific abstract entity from the minds of the Indians and Winston Churchill will have the last laugh.

The question whether there is one God or many Gods or rather whether there is a god at all is as academic as whether the : Chicken came first or the egg.

I would rather wish that people discuss how to derive a maximum benefit out of a chicken and an egg.

Served in what way will the Society get the maximum benefits?

Forbes can give you a ranking of the richest people quantified based on their Net worth,

It may rank countries based on quantifiable parameters of GDP (gross domestic product)

But according to me ranking of a Society cannot just be based on GDP,

To judge a Society one needs to adopt the GNH (Gross National Happiness) which considers other abstract non quantifiable parameters.

Further reading: The pursuit of Happiness: Jyoti Thottam, TIME, Oct. 22; 2012 http://www.time.com/time/subscriber/article/0,33009,2126639,00.html

I agree with Karl Marx in that “Religion is the Opium of the Masses”

Consumers of the Opium of Religion can sacrifice their life for their Country,

They can also become ‘Suicide Bombers”

It is the “Spin Doctors” the Gurus , the Moulvi, the Political elite who determine how this opium is dispensed. If dispensed by a ‘Doctor’ with appropriate understanding, achieved not only from Text Books but after attending CME’s and reading “Recent Advances”, making the ‘opium’ relevant to contemporary society

And for fostering peace and brotherhood, the original intent of Religion,

The opium of Religion can act as a medicine for the society.

In conclusion what I want to emphasize is:

1.      Nation, God, Religion are abstract non quantifiable entities which may not always appeal to rational thinking. They do not exist in the physical domain but are etched deep in the mind of the society.

2.      God and Religion evoke strong emotional and Sentimental reactions. If you insult this emotions and Sentiments then it is Blasphemy. It is not that Religion does not accept its shortcomings and does not change. Short comings have to be pointed out tactfully without hurting sentiments. Change does happen but is slow. 

3.      God and Religion are dispensed by the ‘Spin Doctors” for the consumption of the Society.

It is these ‘Spin Doctors’ who determine the outcome of the religious dispensation.

I am an Optimist, and also a realist I know that with ‘Appropriate Education’ and ‘Financial self sufficiency’

Society and its Outlook to Religion and Gods will change,

 Whether in my life time is a question.

I rest my case, with”Michami Dukdam"

Parag

1980

* Michhami Dukkdam: Jainism: If I have hurt anybody, knowingly or unknowingly, may I be forgiven. 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Micchami_Dukkadam