Random Thoughts
Wednesday, February 21, 2007
Follow Up - An Atheist's Rant
Some time back an innocent search about Desis and sex lead a curious person to my blog. When I read the referrer I wanted to know what else turned up. And I found this link. And that lead me to rant about virginity and the antiquated views about sex in India at "Desi Girls Don't Do It". The whole thing started a stimulating discussion and several people either independently or prompted by the blog wrote about their view points ( Check Delphic's view, Frangipani's Take and Big Sky's view on how loosing it works best for all concerned). Similar views by very different people. We talked about sex and how each person views it, how each person views are colored by religion, society and friends. I also thought that was the end of it.Until I was going through my tracker data today and found that there were lot of people being referred to from this page. Curious, I went to the page and found Melody (yup, from the link that made me rant) writing this.
I had started the blog by saying, "I think that virginity or indulging in sex is a personal choice - and the choice should be made without the burden of society's view. And abstaining because that is what Jesus said, might work for some but not for most, so stop touting that angle."
The italics is important since it points out that the individual should arrive at this conclusion on his own and not based on what society is telling him to. And religion pervades the society's viewpoint. So in most cases, how a particular society thinks about something is more than likely to be dictated by what it's religious belief is.
I had added the Jesus angle because I had come across the "Save Yourself For Jesus" opinion in the previous link. In my viewpoint, religion twists the society to think in a certain way. In this case, it goes against the very grain of animal behaviour - sexuality. When religion preaches constantly that sex is bad, save your virginity or that your natural sexual instincts reflect impure mind- young (heck, even adults) people start associating guilt with what are perfectly normal biological thoughts, ending up with warped views about sexuality. They also end up being uninformed and a lot of time unprotected while indulging in sex. This is dangerous to society as a whole. After that I pretty much talked about why is being virgin so important to Desi culture.. Nothing about go and lose your virginity or don't nothing.. NO PREACHING!!
What I thought was a nice contrast to the other post. My viewpoint expressed in a way that did not tell another to do or not do something.
The original poster thought it to be a personal attack, and she asks, "While I don’t judge anyone else for their views, I always find it amazing how many people judge me for mine. Am I not allowed my personal choice too without being accused of ‘touting an angle’? "
I did not mean it as an attack on her opinion alone but rather to include ALL those who use God to make a point. I am tired of the religious right stuffing their sanctimonious opinions down my throat. It's My life - I can live it the way I want to, as long as it does affect your constitutional rights, I am entitled to do so. If you believe Jesus/ Allah/ Or whatever Hindu god you can put here, asked you to remain pure - it is your choice, don’t go about advocating it. If it is what your God wishes for you to do, I am O.K. with it. When it affects teens who would need the advice to go about sexual practices in a safe way, I am going to take a stance on it. It may in future affect me or someone close to me.
Atheist like me don't take to the pulpit on Sundays and preach to a population what to do. We don't preach our way as being the only way to some "fantastically nice place aka heaven". But I have been constantly told by all religious groups how to lead my life - pray to this God, believe in only him, do this or don't do that, you are going to burn in hell if you don't believe in this, gay living is a sin, abortion is killing, stem cell research is against God's wishes.. and so on...
Constantly voluble are the religious right - Not the atheist group. It is only now that Atheist are speaking up. And we ask only one thing - believe what you want to, don't stand and preach to others that it is the "only" way. Because it is not.
I don't believe in a God who dictates what you do or don't do, who protects some but leaves the most innocent and needy at risk, who discriminates between a man and a woman, who has to threaten dire consequences for you to behave in a humane manner. To me such God is a farce.. and hence all religion an idiocy. I believe that. However, I don't knock on people's door and ask them to give their faith up. Or their beliefs. Or point to them that what ever faith they belong to is not going to bring them nirvana. And yet, I seem to be on the reciprocal end of the religious people. Number of "Accept Jesus As Your Saviour" fliers I got in the past month - about 5. Number I or any other atheist handed out - zero! (Before the other religious groups get all puffed with pride- You are all guilty of similar things. I just happen to live in the Bible Belt - Baptist Country.)
Do I think every religious person preaches, probably not. Most of my friends who are religious accept my atheist beliefs. We have great philosophical discussion on belief systems. But for the most part, religious people always seem to have a very one-sided world view. And for the most part, they think they have it right and are prone to bully the world into their way of thinking.
My hope is that one day we will cast aside these crutches, let the word "God" vanish from the world. Then see the world in a calm, logical sense. Will there be crime, war and other horrendous crimes? Yes! Human nature won't change. But at least we will stop invoking a non- existent being as the perpetrator of the blood shed. May be then, we will have courage to look at ourselves and see what really is behind our jealousy and hatred for fellow human beings....
May be just one day, we will use this life for good, because we can and not because we have to..
May be just one day, we will all be human beings..
Comments:
Links to this post:
<< Home
I will say its a personal choice whether they make it based on individual decision or some faith...but expecting the other person to do the same based on faith is want I don't approve. Religion have always been used to put fear in people.
# posted by 
: February 21, 2007 9:00 PM
: February 21, 2007 9:00 PM
Well I have commented on Melody's blog...and I am doing the same here too.
People come in different shades (and I don't mean physical charateristics wise). As you said people use religion to put fear in others...I could say some people think that pretending or playing an act of a "non-believer"...is kind-da the "in" thing to do these days.
I guess these days its more in fashion to be an "anti" whatever generally things are....
Not that I am trying to say that you too follow the above trend....but there many who do so.
Similary you have certain assholes who think by saying "godly" things...they can reach the top. And sadly there are thousands out there who let them believe so.
See the bottom line is at the end of the day it comes on to an individual...whether to do it or not..whether to be influenced or not..whether to give a shit or not. There is actually not much we bloggers...or are rants can do.
So to cut the crap short...Mel is right in her place and you in yours...
People come in different shades (and I don't mean physical charateristics wise). As you said people use religion to put fear in others...I could say some people think that pretending or playing an act of a "non-believer"...is kind-da the "in" thing to do these days.
I guess these days its more in fashion to be an "anti" whatever generally things are....
Not that I am trying to say that you too follow the above trend....but there many who do so.
Similary you have certain assholes who think by saying "godly" things...they can reach the top. And sadly there are thousands out there who let them believe so.
See the bottom line is at the end of the day it comes on to an individual...whether to do it or not..whether to be influenced or not..whether to give a shit or not. There is actually not much we bloggers...or are rants can do.
So to cut the crap short...Mel is right in her place and you in yours...
Be it religion or sex..they are such individual matters....the trouble is when ppl dont want to make the choice and leave it to others, say society or whtever.
The point is neither do we need to impose or preach anyone about these things nor do we need to seek sanction and approval of others as to what we believe. As simple as that!
:)
The point is neither do we need to impose or preach anyone about these things nor do we need to seek sanction and approval of others as to what we believe. As simple as that!
:)
Real or not, the brand of god exists very strongly in people's minds and hearts.
There are beleivers and atheists. But in any case the concept of GOD evokes strong feelings in both of them.
A rant is arant is a rant. here's one from me too!: http://financexchange.blogspot.com/2007/02/god-case-study-on-branding.html
There are beleivers and atheists. But in any case the concept of GOD evokes strong feelings in both of them.
A rant is arant is a rant. here's one from me too!: http://financexchange.blogspot.com/2007/02/god-case-study-on-branding.html
Hi there, Google led me to your blog a while ago and I've been an interested reader since.
The one major sin you are guilty of indulging in is saying 'loose' when you mean 'lose.' You don't 'loose' your virginity, you 'lose' it. Loose women lose virginity. Factually iffy and non-commutative but grammatically fine.
The one major sin you are guilty of indulging in is saying 'loose' when you mean 'lose.' You don't 'loose' your virginity, you 'lose' it. Loose women lose virginity. Factually iffy and non-commutative but grammatically fine.
# posted by : February 22, 2007 3:02 AM
: February 22, 2007 3:02 AM
As a person working in advertising I have looked at god and religion with respect. Since majority of the humans can be made to believe in such crap, there's hope for us advertisers, if said properly we can make people do anything!
The hands that wipe the tears are holier than the lips that pray, so "Godmen" are holy get kicks off the window.
*The concept of God may vanish in times to come* (highly unlikely)
Concept of belief will never vanish coz thats a part of who we are.
It is belief that u worship and get on with life if there is no belief there is no point praying.
I have a belief and I call it God.
I am alright with different peoples different dentities and ideologies.
Top scientist (also include mathematicians) have been preaching science with an affirmed faith in God.
:)
*The concept of God may vanish in times to come* (highly unlikely)
Concept of belief will never vanish coz thats a part of who we are.
It is belief that u worship and get on with life if there is no belief there is no point praying.
I have a belief and I call it God.
I am alright with different peoples different dentities and ideologies.
Top scientist (also include mathematicians) have been preaching science with an affirmed faith in God.
:)
@Hmm - LOL :)
@Sameera - Yup. My anger is not at people following religion but at making it the only way to do things.
@Sonya - Amen, Sistah!
@the other Saakshi - A lot of Atheist I know started off being religious and then dissatisfied with what was being told. So did I . I am not an atheist to be fashionable. Believe me, it is more easy to fit in when you are not.
I never said Melody was wrong in her beliefs - I point out that she has a right to her personal choice as do I. But she (and I) have been preaching only one side of the story. We need to acknowledge the other.
@Big Sky - I will be all ears when you want to tell.
@Neihal - Yup. That was where my rant steamed from. I don't go aout preaching my views to people - agreed, I mock religion to frequently, but I know that people don't give up beliefs based on my statements. Each to his own. Stop imposing a doctrine on others.
@Ranjan - Actually, God does not ivoke any feeling in Atheists. It is the fundamentals preaching mindless doctrines that irritate me.
@Anon - Point noted and will try my best to be more grammatically correct :)
@SloganMurugan - yep.. That is what faith and sex are good for. Marketing :)
@Tarun - You are entitled to your beliefs Tarun. As long as you don't make it the "right" way to lead life.
The last para was how I hoped the world to be.. I can wish for it with the same fervor that you wish to meet God.
And I think you are alluding to my fav scientist, Einstein. And he was an agnostic. Not a believer in what you call God. And for most scientist that holds true.
@Sameera - Yup. My anger is not at people following religion but at making it the only way to do things.
@Sonya - Amen, Sistah!
@the other Saakshi - A lot of Atheist I know started off being religious and then dissatisfied with what was being told. So did I . I am not an atheist to be fashionable. Believe me, it is more easy to fit in when you are not.
I never said Melody was wrong in her beliefs - I point out that she has a right to her personal choice as do I. But she (and I) have been preaching only one side of the story. We need to acknowledge the other.
@Big Sky - I will be all ears when you want to tell.
@Neihal - Yup. That was where my rant steamed from. I don't go aout preaching my views to people - agreed, I mock religion to frequently, but I know that people don't give up beliefs based on my statements. Each to his own. Stop imposing a doctrine on others.
@Ranjan - Actually, God does not ivoke any feeling in Atheists. It is the fundamentals preaching mindless doctrines that irritate me.
@Anon - Point noted and will try my best to be more grammatically correct :)
@SloganMurugan - yep.. That is what faith and sex are good for. Marketing :)
@Tarun - You are entitled to your beliefs Tarun. As long as you don't make it the "right" way to lead life.
The last para was how I hoped the world to be.. I can wish for it with the same fervor that you wish to meet God.
And I think you are alluding to my fav scientist, Einstein. And he was an agnostic. Not a believer in what you call God. And for most scientist that holds true.
i'll talk about god. i dont believe in that, but i do believe in the fact that thr is something, that is beyond control and that thing can be termed as fate/luck or even God's divine intervention.
lets take an ex. i take an exam, but whether i make thru it or not, depends upon my hardwork, knowledge and sadly on luck as well.as much as i hate to have that, i cant deny its existance. no one can.and i go one step ahead. i feel thrs a mathematical formula to derive success or anything, which might require a million variables and a huge data, of which we, humans are not aware of, at this particular stage. may be, with mathematical advancements in another illio year, we may be able to predict the result with certain amount of accuracy.
in few fields we are able to do it, even now, like stock analysis and various others with certain percentage of accuracy. just we need to take this whole thing to next, may be very high level.
this is GOD for me. watever i cant explain right now with the science is god. and daily men keep on finding new "miracles" of god, and keep on giving scientific funda for few previously known ones.
its just bollena for me. everything can be explained either by science or by god.
i can write a lot about it. but space is a constraint
lets take an ex. i take an exam, but whether i make thru it or not, depends upon my hardwork, knowledge and sadly on luck as well.as much as i hate to have that, i cant deny its existance. no one can.and i go one step ahead. i feel thrs a mathematical formula to derive success or anything, which might require a million variables and a huge data, of which we, humans are not aware of, at this particular stage. may be, with mathematical advancements in another illio year, we may be able to predict the result with certain amount of accuracy.
in few fields we are able to do it, even now, like stock analysis and various others with certain percentage of accuracy. just we need to take this whole thing to next, may be very high level.
this is GOD for me. watever i cant explain right now with the science is god. and daily men keep on finding new "miracles" of god, and keep on giving scientific funda for few previously known ones.
its just bollena for me. everything can be explained either by science or by god.
i can write a lot about it. but space is a constraint
All ears huh..careful what you ask for.. My take on religion is to each his own. For some reason, innate or otherwise, humans as a whole have needed to look to a higher power to help explain what they think and what they see and what they feel. Even in this age of technology, enlightenment and knowledge, faith based religions are alive and well. For me and my feelings, I honestly don't know what controls what. I kinda think of it all from a Deist point of view that someone/something/God established the rules, set in all in motion and moved on to go play golf or something. All I do know is that the sun comes up every day with out fault and goes down every evening. It never makes a mistake. So for me or anyone else to say with 100% accuracy that they know it all is pure arrogance. Humans make mistakes all the time... I have always felt that its safest to play some where in the middle. That way, if there is a judgment day, me and JC will be kicking back beers for eternity. If there is not, I have not lost anything.
As for atheists, they preach and try to indoctrinate just as much as the religious bible thumpers do. They just do it on a smaller scale because they have smaller numbers to work with. And I guess my biggest problem with them is that, as you have admitted yourself and I have witnessed countless times, they mock and insult and yes, bully everyone that believes other than they do. They try to turn that which others believe so strongly in into a parody (FSM), they try to use their intellectually superior mind to tell other how stupid and ignorant they are (SHIFT). Now while at worst, a preacher might tell you you are going to hell (which you don't believe in the first place), they don't try to belittle you or purposely make you feel stupid. Its kind of like when I bring up my opinions of what a waste of time most science is and those I bring it up to go ballistic. Not very plesant now is it?
On the whole saving yourself issue that started this….if someone is not ready and they feel that they need to believe in higher power to help justify it, so be it. We all use faith in some manner to help pull us through the tough spots. Be it God that wants me to stay a virgin or I am suffering through the hell of grad school because I know when I get out, I will have the life I want….both are relying on some sort of faith to give them the strength to pull them through it.
Something else that those who don’t believe in religion do that is very myopic in my opinion is that they tend to pick and choose their arguments against it. Like the no sex thing, or the religious wars thing or the (fill in the blank) thing. Thats not fair either when attacking something. Either attack it as a whole or don't. What about when someones house burns down and a church comes together and gives them clothes, food and a place to stay? I can’t find any references to the Secular Progressives doing that. Or when a sick or dying person is in the hospital and the preacher goes and sits with them for hours, where are the atheists then…And where is the local chapter of the Atheist Salvation Army that helps feed and clothe the homeless? And what is the local address for the atheist battered womens sanctuary? My point is that religious groups do a heck of a lot of good for a heck of a lot of people, usually asking for nothing in return while those that constantly attack them do little and or nothing.
But that’s just my perspective…….
As for atheists, they preach and try to indoctrinate just as much as the religious bible thumpers do. They just do it on a smaller scale because they have smaller numbers to work with. And I guess my biggest problem with them is that, as you have admitted yourself and I have witnessed countless times, they mock and insult and yes, bully everyone that believes other than they do. They try to turn that which others believe so strongly in into a parody (FSM), they try to use their intellectually superior mind to tell other how stupid and ignorant they are (SHIFT). Now while at worst, a preacher might tell you you are going to hell (which you don't believe in the first place), they don't try to belittle you or purposely make you feel stupid. Its kind of like when I bring up my opinions of what a waste of time most science is and those I bring it up to go ballistic. Not very plesant now is it?
On the whole saving yourself issue that started this….if someone is not ready and they feel that they need to believe in higher power to help justify it, so be it. We all use faith in some manner to help pull us through the tough spots. Be it God that wants me to stay a virgin or I am suffering through the hell of grad school because I know when I get out, I will have the life I want….both are relying on some sort of faith to give them the strength to pull them through it.
Something else that those who don’t believe in religion do that is very myopic in my opinion is that they tend to pick and choose their arguments against it. Like the no sex thing, or the religious wars thing or the (fill in the blank) thing. Thats not fair either when attacking something. Either attack it as a whole or don't. What about when someones house burns down and a church comes together and gives them clothes, food and a place to stay? I can’t find any references to the Secular Progressives doing that. Or when a sick or dying person is in the hospital and the preacher goes and sits with them for hours, where are the atheists then…And where is the local chapter of the Atheist Salvation Army that helps feed and clothe the homeless? And what is the local address for the atheist battered womens sanctuary? My point is that religious groups do a heck of a lot of good for a heck of a lot of people, usually asking for nothing in return while those that constantly attack them do little and or nothing.
But that’s just my perspective…….
I think you're not quite understanding the difference between God and Religion. The two are not inseparable. You don't have to stick to all of Christian / Islam / Hindu / other religion's doctrine in order to be a believer in God. Thus, you are making a very grave mistake in wishing for a world without the word "God". You can believe in a secular God; you can believe in Jesus and not believe that sex is a sin; essentially Sakshi, you are fitting God into the role you see being preached around you. Unfortunately, it is the fundamentalists who find most reason to preach, and thus are the people who are most heard (if not listened to).
Like the other Saakshi said, it is a question of individual beliefs, and certainly the farcical God you described, who protects some but leves the most innocent and needy at risk, etc. etc. is exactly that - a farce. Just because some people believe in it and try to spread it around, it doesn't mean that that is what God actually is.
It is not simply a religious thing to be trying to spread your innermost belief. It is a human thing. Just like you tolerate that publication which holds that absurd view about TGF-Beta or something like that, the people who go around trying to spread their view of Jesus or Allah are to be tolerated - it is their fundamental right to free speech. Unless, of course, they pull a 9/11 on you!
You know I'm an agnost myself, but it is not hypocrisy for me to be talking about God because here I'm just trying to open your mind. There is a use for being the Devil's Advocate in many situations :)
Like the other Saakshi said, it is a question of individual beliefs, and certainly the farcical God you described, who protects some but leves the most innocent and needy at risk, etc. etc. is exactly that - a farce. Just because some people believe in it and try to spread it around, it doesn't mean that that is what God actually is.
It is not simply a religious thing to be trying to spread your innermost belief. It is a human thing. Just like you tolerate that publication which holds that absurd view about TGF-Beta or something like that, the people who go around trying to spread their view of Jesus or Allah are to be tolerated - it is their fundamental right to free speech. Unless, of course, they pull a 9/11 on you!
You know I'm an agnost myself, but it is not hypocrisy for me to be talking about God because here I'm just trying to open your mind. There is a use for being the Devil's Advocate in many situations :)
@ Anshul - From what we talked, you view of God is dynamic and definetly a model that few people will accept. But if they do, we all will be a much enriched lot.
@ bee- Thank you :)
@Big Sky - Atheist in my opinion don't go and "preach atheism". I agree that I am guilty of mocking religion and other social norms. I don't think all atheist do it - the more aggressive or the right wingnuts (;)) do.
" My point is that religious groups do a heck of a lot of good for a heck of a lot of people, usually asking for nothing in return while those that constantly attack them do little and or nothing."
I disagree. Those who attack faith based groups are also invovled in lot many charitable events. The sad thing is that it is now that Atheist organization are being formed and agendas planned. Give them time they will be as active as "religious" organization.
I can speak for myself - I attack all right winged nuts mainly because they tend to encourage discrimination at many levels. If they stop that, I won't have anything to complain, will I?
@Prashanth - The post was aimed at my anger at the fundies. Not the normal faith belivers (I have issues with them, but they don't normally drive me to rant).
So the post is directed at people who are literal believers of the gospels.
And I am not irritated by papers published that don't support my hypothesis. Because Science sorts itself out. Faith never does. Since Logic is never bought into the equation.
And you can play Devil's advocate anytime ;)
@ bee- Thank you :)
@Big Sky - Atheist in my opinion don't go and "preach atheism". I agree that I am guilty of mocking religion and other social norms. I don't think all atheist do it - the more aggressive or the right wingnuts (;)) do.
" My point is that religious groups do a heck of a lot of good for a heck of a lot of people, usually asking for nothing in return while those that constantly attack them do little and or nothing."
I disagree. Those who attack faith based groups are also invovled in lot many charitable events. The sad thing is that it is now that Atheist organization are being formed and agendas planned. Give them time they will be as active as "religious" organization.
I can speak for myself - I attack all right winged nuts mainly because they tend to encourage discrimination at many levels. If they stop that, I won't have anything to complain, will I?
@Prashanth - The post was aimed at my anger at the fundies. Not the normal faith belivers (I have issues with them, but they don't normally drive me to rant).
So the post is directed at people who are literal believers of the gospels.
And I am not irritated by papers published that don't support my hypothesis. Because Science sorts itself out. Faith never does. Since Logic is never bought into the equation.
And you can play Devil's advocate anytime ;)
I get immensely bugged whenever someone introduces the "Einstein believed in God" argument. Firstly, whether he did or did not, is quite irrelevant to the issue at hand. Considering it relevant would be commiting the fallacy of appeal to authority.
And secondly, he did not believe in god. He was not an avowed atheist but neither was a believer. He has clarified this himself.
And about the "where is the atheist salvation army?" question. Atheists are not an organised group. There are no atheist churches, and so obviously there are no "atheist" organizations doing charity. But there are several organizations and individuals involved in charity without the excuse of religion and salvation. I dont think Medicins Sans Frontieres has anything to do with religion.
And one of the greatest philanthropists I have known was the famous marathi author Pu La Deshpande. He was an atheist, but donated most of his earnings to charity, setting up hospitals, orphanages and drug rehab centres. Lived a very simple life.
And secondly, he did not believe in god. He was not an avowed atheist but neither was a believer. He has clarified this himself.
And about the "where is the atheist salvation army?" question. Atheists are not an organised group. There are no atheist churches, and so obviously there are no "atheist" organizations doing charity. But there are several organizations and individuals involved in charity without the excuse of religion and salvation. I dont think Medicins Sans Frontieres has anything to do with religion.
And one of the greatest philanthropists I have known was the famous marathi author Pu La Deshpande. He was an atheist, but donated most of his earnings to charity, setting up hospitals, orphanages and drug rehab centres. Lived a very simple life.
I don't believe in a God who dictates what you do or don't do, who protects some but leaves the most innocent and needy at risk, who discriminates between a man and a woman, who has to threaten dire consequences for you to behave in a humane manner. To me such God is a farce.. and hence all religion an idiocy.
Marry me! :)
Marry me! :)
"I agree that I am guilty of mocking religion and other social norms. I don't think all atheist do it - the more aggressive or the right wingnuts (;)) do." " can speak for myself - I attack all right winged nuts " "The post was aimed at my anger at the fundies. "
Followed by...Logic is never bought into the equation.
If you are acting on emotions, you are not using logic. Plus the "fundies/wing nuts" proves my point.
To gaurav..."There are no atheist churches, and so obviously there are no "atheist" organizations doing charity.
Obviously there are no atheist churches (a oxymoron if ever I heard one) but there are tons of organizations out there. (google anyone?) The point was that if you look at any website out there promoted by atheist, 99% of it is satire, parody and a mocking of someone else's beliefs. They can't understand how anyone could actually think that they could possibily believe in something greater than themselves...
I will take arrogance for $200 Alex....
And for the record, I haven't attended a church or been a practicing Christian since i was about 6 years old.
Followed by...Logic is never bought into the equation.
If you are acting on emotions, you are not using logic. Plus the "fundies/wing nuts" proves my point.
To gaurav..."There are no atheist churches, and so obviously there are no "atheist" organizations doing charity.
Obviously there are no atheist churches (a oxymoron if ever I heard one) but there are tons of organizations out there. (google anyone?) The point was that if you look at any website out there promoted by atheist, 99% of it is satire, parody and a mocking of someone else's beliefs. They can't understand how anyone could actually think that they could possibily believe in something greater than themselves...
I will take arrogance for $200 Alex....
And for the record, I haven't attended a church or been a practicing Christian since i was about 6 years old.
@ Gaurav
I find your dismissal of the 'appeal to authority' as a logical fallacy to be extremely uni-dimensional. Appeal to authority is often a proper argument, and becomes a logical fallacy only if used improperly. For eg., in a debate on the issue of 'does Murali chuck?', an argument of 'Michael Holding believes he doesn't chuck' would be perfectly valid as one of several arguments arguing Murali's case. The underlying chain is very obvious - 'chucking is something that bowlers ought to know about, Michael Holding was a supremely qualified bowler and hence his beliefs ought to have more weightage than those of two kids arguing in a coffee shop'. Similiarly the reason why many believers bring up Einstein, is this - 'Traditionally, religion has sought to explain the universe, and so has science, albeit in different ways. Increased scientific knowledge should imply a more explained universe, and hence less need for religion and/or a god. Einstein is the epitome of all things rational and scientific, definitley knew more about science than you or I ever will, and hence if atheism was indeed so conjoined with rationality, he should have been a atheist. However, he was not, and was perhaps a believer, ergo.' I personally do not consider this argument valid, but I do not find it 'irrelevant', and would definitely not dismiss it because technically, (or according to wikipedia) it is a logical fallacy. If you would allow me a moment of recursive indulgence, I can claim that your dismissal of this argument(or indeed, anyone's dismissal of any argument) as the logical falacy of 'appeal to authority', is itself a logical fallacy of appeal to authority, for you are only appealing to the authority of the person(s) who first thought/proposed that appeal to authority is incorrect logic and should be considered a logical fallacy (assuming that the person is not you of course, ;) ). Just as the person in question needs to explain why he/she finds the Einstein argument clinching, you need to explain why it is irrelevant.
As for your second point, it is true that Einstein was a fence-sitter when it came to belief in the divine, and is assumed to be a believer perhaps because he said 'God doesn't play dice', which admittedly, was a layman way of presenting his reluctance to accept quantum mechanics, and has little to do with his religious beliefs. He has said that he believed in an impersonal god, or in 'god as nature' (Spinoza's God, as wikipedia informs me).
The reason I find a call to Einstein to be invalid is this - a question along the lines of 'does god exist' (or indeed most philosophical questions that don't derive from science) hardly requires a vast body of specific knowledge. Anyone with the faculties of advanced observation, thought and abstraction (and of course, some exposure to both organised religion and modern science) may articulately develop and propound views that Kant, Nietzsche or Einstein may have held about god, even if he/she has never heard of these luminaries. Hence, bringing Einstein into the equation doesn't really change anything. I may accept or reject the existence of God, and Einstein won't come into the equation at any point.
To summarise, I find the 'Einstein believed in God' argument to be tangential, however I understand why people tend to use it, and don't find it irrelevant, atleast not because it is a 'logical fallacy'.
I find your dismissal of the 'appeal to authority' as a logical fallacy to be extremely uni-dimensional. Appeal to authority is often a proper argument, and becomes a logical fallacy only if used improperly. For eg., in a debate on the issue of 'does Murali chuck?', an argument of 'Michael Holding believes he doesn't chuck' would be perfectly valid as one of several arguments arguing Murali's case. The underlying chain is very obvious - 'chucking is something that bowlers ought to know about, Michael Holding was a supremely qualified bowler and hence his beliefs ought to have more weightage than those of two kids arguing in a coffee shop'. Similiarly the reason why many believers bring up Einstein, is this - 'Traditionally, religion has sought to explain the universe, and so has science, albeit in different ways. Increased scientific knowledge should imply a more explained universe, and hence less need for religion and/or a god. Einstein is the epitome of all things rational and scientific, definitley knew more about science than you or I ever will, and hence if atheism was indeed so conjoined with rationality, he should have been a atheist. However, he was not, and was perhaps a believer, ergo.' I personally do not consider this argument valid, but I do not find it 'irrelevant', and would definitely not dismiss it because technically, (or according to wikipedia) it is a logical fallacy. If you would allow me a moment of recursive indulgence, I can claim that your dismissal of this argument(or indeed, anyone's dismissal of any argument) as the logical falacy of 'appeal to authority', is itself a logical fallacy of appeal to authority, for you are only appealing to the authority of the person(s) who first thought/proposed that appeal to authority is incorrect logic and should be considered a logical fallacy (assuming that the person is not you of course, ;) ). Just as the person in question needs to explain why he/she finds the Einstein argument clinching, you need to explain why it is irrelevant.
As for your second point, it is true that Einstein was a fence-sitter when it came to belief in the divine, and is assumed to be a believer perhaps because he said 'God doesn't play dice', which admittedly, was a layman way of presenting his reluctance to accept quantum mechanics, and has little to do with his religious beliefs. He has said that he believed in an impersonal god, or in 'god as nature' (Spinoza's God, as wikipedia informs me).
The reason I find a call to Einstein to be invalid is this - a question along the lines of 'does god exist' (or indeed most philosophical questions that don't derive from science) hardly requires a vast body of specific knowledge. Anyone with the faculties of advanced observation, thought and abstraction (and of course, some exposure to both organised religion and modern science) may articulately develop and propound views that Kant, Nietzsche or Einstein may have held about god, even if he/she has never heard of these luminaries. Hence, bringing Einstein into the equation doesn't really change anything. I may accept or reject the existence of God, and Einstein won't come into the equation at any point.
To summarise, I find the 'Einstein believed in God' argument to be tangential, however I understand why people tend to use it, and don't find it irrelevant, atleast not because it is a 'logical fallacy'.
What if i choose to preach to people, How is my choice different from yours which says you should not to preach.
As Richard Dawkins has said, the "God" which Einstein believed in was simply an allusion to the mysteries of the Universe. When most of the people who believe God say so, they usually mean a personal God who grants wishes, keeps them from harm's way, and generally intereferes with their daily life. The two "Gods" are completely different.
Also, to say that most scientists are "agnostic" is again deviating from a central point- that most scientists who say they are agnostic do so only from a literal point of view; because you cannot strictly DISPROVE the existence of God. Again, there are many things which we cannot disprove, including teapots in the Andromeda galaxy or red-breasted warblers in the center of Jupiter. That does not mean we are "agnostic" about them. So as the word "God" is commonly understood, almost all scientists are atheists and not agnostics. Those few who actually claim to possibly believe in a personal God have a whole lot of explaining to do, which they have never been able to.
Also, to say that most scientists are "agnostic" is again deviating from a central point- that most scientists who say they are agnostic do so only from a literal point of view; because you cannot strictly DISPROVE the existence of God. Again, there are many things which we cannot disprove, including teapots in the Andromeda galaxy or red-breasted warblers in the center of Jupiter. That does not mean we are "agnostic" about them. So as the word "God" is commonly understood, almost all scientists are atheists and not agnostics. Those few who actually claim to possibly believe in a personal God have a whole lot of explaining to do, which they have never been able to.
@Gaurav /Zen babu - You are right, Einstein is immaterial to this argument. The commentor hinted at him coz he know that I am a fan or the guy.
But if he is or any other scientist is or not is completely besides the point.
@Big Sky -Look at from this point. You know me, an antheist. And you know that I am invovled in charities. So individuals are as giving. I agree that there are a lot of web based groups that mock religion. I think the position comes from being in a minority and being told you are wrong, constantly. But for the most part, Atheist leave religious folks alone.
Yes, I lashed out in the rant - I state it's a rant. Not a discourse - a rant. But what the fundies do is never remove emotions from their talk. To them atheist are immoral, neihilistic believers. And I am tired of that.
And there are now active organizations that are being formed for charity. I will keep you informed.
@MadMan- :)
@Spiff - I have no problem with you preaching - I am a believer in first amendment.
But my point is simple - If your path is right, then you really don't need to. I have problem when your preaching makes others who don't follow your way feel threatened or worse ostracized in society. If religion preaches love, why is the love conditional?
But if he is or any other scientist is or not is completely besides the point.
@Big Sky -Look at from this point. You know me, an antheist. And you know that I am invovled in charities. So individuals are as giving. I agree that there are a lot of web based groups that mock religion. I think the position comes from being in a minority and being told you are wrong, constantly. But for the most part, Atheist leave religious folks alone.
Yes, I lashed out in the rant - I state it's a rant. Not a discourse - a rant. But what the fundies do is never remove emotions from their talk. To them atheist are immoral, neihilistic believers. And I am tired of that.
And there are now active organizations that are being formed for charity. I will keep you informed.
@MadMan- :)
@Spiff - I have no problem with you preaching - I am a believer in first amendment.
But my point is simple - If your path is right, then you really don't need to. I have problem when your preaching makes others who don't follow your way feel threatened or worse ostracized in society. If religion preaches love, why is the love conditional?
zenbabu, the way the argument is usually used is "Even Einstein believed in God. you think you are any better?". That is a clear cut case of appeal to authority if there ever was one. No explanation is provided, no argument put forth by him for his beliefs is cited. Einstein became the epitome of rationality because he rationally proved everything he hypothesized. His word was taken as true not because he was Einstein. He became "Einstein" because he proved his words were true through rigor.
On a topic like god, where he did not conduct any rigorous study or research but merely expressed his opinion, it does become the fallacy of appeal to authority.
On a topic like god, where he did not conduct any rigorous study or research but merely expressed his opinion, it does become the fallacy of appeal to authority.
BigSky, most of the atheist groups you find online are reactions. Atheism is under attack from the religious right all the time, and is often equated with immoral behavior. The Church of the FSM itself was a reaction to the Kansas School Board's decision to inject intelligent design into science textbooks. In other words, they(believers) started it.
And I will take parody and logical rebuttals over the kind of vitriolic hatred you see on religious websites any day.
And the thing is, even if churches(or temples or mosques lest you feel I am exclusively a christian basher) are doing some good things, like charity etc, that does not whitewash the evil they do.
And I will take parody and logical rebuttals over the kind of vitriolic hatred you see on religious websites any day.
And the thing is, even if churches(or temples or mosques lest you feel I am exclusively a christian basher) are doing some good things, like charity etc, that does not whitewash the evil they do.
@Confused - never knew denying God would get two men interested in me ;)
Thank you for the compliment :)
Thank you for the compliment :)
But I can cook. ;)
(It wasn't just the denying god thing. I just found myself nodding vigorously at this and the previous related post. Such pizazz!)
(It wasn't just the denying god thing. I just found myself nodding vigorously at this and the previous related post. Such pizazz!)
That's not fair!
Er... so can I, but not as good as madman. Definitely not.
Also, I have different skills. I am good at ironing clothes for one..
Er... so can I, but not as good as madman. Definitely not.
Also, I have different skills. I am good at ironing clothes for one..
@Confused -Ok.. Now I am confused.
I appreciate both skills.
Eenie, meenie, Mo...
Eating Yummy meals Vs.. Wearing neatly ironed clothes.. This is a toughie..
I appreciate both skills.
Eenie, meenie, Mo...
Eating Yummy meals Vs.. Wearing neatly ironed clothes.. This is a toughie..
Baba Raza Bengali: Jai Shri Ram!
Delphic: Hi, there is this female staying in Kentucky who is getting paranoid about religion and god.
BRB: Daro mat putra! Usse hamari safalta se jalan ho rahi hain. Hum abhi apne saath uske bhi posters Mumbai ke local train mein lagaayenge. Fir yeh sab nahi hoga.
So, what have you decided on the nick. Baba Raza Kentucky? Or rather, Baby Raza Kentucky?
P.S. Whatever I had to comment already has been said by people. This comment was the best I could come up with :P
Delphic: Hi, there is this female staying in Kentucky who is getting paranoid about religion and god.
BRB: Daro mat putra! Usse hamari safalta se jalan ho rahi hain. Hum abhi apne saath uske bhi posters Mumbai ke local train mein lagaayenge. Fir yeh sab nahi hoga.
So, what have you decided on the nick. Baba Raza Kentucky? Or rather, Baby Raza Kentucky?
P.S. Whatever I had to comment already has been said by people. This comment was the best I could come up with :P
@Delphic -San Jose Baby :)
Thats my nickname. I am starting a cult. Ab mere posters pure blogsphere mein chhap jayenge :)
PS- In all honesty, I did not think this rant would go anywhere beyond my 15 readers. But have I been proven wrong. And so I have to piont out that I did link y'alls post .. so paisa nikalo, bhailog..Phokat main kuch nahi hota :P
Thats my nickname. I am starting a cult. Ab mere posters pure blogsphere mein chhap jayenge :)
PS- In all honesty, I did not think this rant would go anywhere beyond my 15 readers. But have I been proven wrong. And so I have to piont out that I did link y'alls post .. so paisa nikalo, bhailog..Phokat main kuch nahi hota :P
Confused,
I am good at ironing clothes for one
What about when you have to do it for two? :)
And Sakshi, Confused ko kuch bhi promise karne se pehle mere se recommendation lena mat bhoolna.
I am good at ironing clothes for one
What about when you have to do it for two? :)
And Sakshi, Confused ko kuch bhi promise karne se pehle mere se recommendation lena mat bhoolna.
@ Gaurav
1. Rigorous study on religion and god
Do you think it is possible to conduct a rigorous study on god? More importantly, is it even necessary to conduct an empirical rigorous study? (I add the word empirical because I assume that it is implicit in your definition of rigorous. If it is not, I doubt that there is a single man/woman of advanced intellect who has not done a rigorous study i.e theoretical reasoning and critical evaluation in mind, on god.)Is not the truth of certain basic assumptions - and this includes science, not just religion - ascertained only in terms of 1) intuitive correctness and reasonability of the assumption, and/or 2)the correctness of the predictions that follow from this assumption. Besides, there is a very significant difference between the arguments that the two of us have forwarded for discarding Einstein in a debate on religion and god. You're basically saying that Einstein was no expert on god. I'm saying that everyone can be an expert on god. If you stick to your view, I'll ask you this - will you accept an appeal to St. Thomas Aquinas or Adi Shankaracharya as a valid case of the use of appeal to authority? I presume no, and yet according to your rigorous study definition. they should qualify.
2. On Appeal to authority and Logical fallacies in general
Naive recursive parodies apart, do you really think that the distinction of expert/non-expert to determine the correctness of appeal to authority is valid? How can you determine a binary 'expert - not expert' classification of people in any field, especially if the field pertains to a general non-specific study of the human condition, like say philosophy? Is an argument that peruses a famous physicist's views on chemistry or philosophy, or an acclaimed mathematician's views on physics, or a chemist's views on biology, or a biologist's views on race, flawed?
I have many such issues with a lot of 'logical fallacies'. A common argument used against the views of many prudes is - 'sex and sexual desire is so natural, so primal, so universal - how can it be wrong? '. I consider this to be a perfectly valid argument, indeed most people consider it a perfectly valid argument, yet technically, it can be considered an example of the naturalistic fallacy. In a court of law, in the absence of other evidence, ceteris paribus, the words of an ex-convict will always hold less weight than those of a person who has never been charged. In essence, is this not similiar to the ad hominem attack?
More generally, I consider the field of logic to be far too general and far too integral to the human nature to allow it to be the preserve of certain experts and certain books. The way I see it, the essence of what a logical fallacy says must be applied in context to the specific matter being discussed, throwing around a particular term is not sufficient.
p.s : I realise that this comment section is perhaps not the proper place for this discussion as we've drifted a lot from the initial issue. However, comments are disabled on your site and I find it awkward to write long mails to people I don't personally know.
1. Rigorous study on religion and god
Do you think it is possible to conduct a rigorous study on god? More importantly, is it even necessary to conduct an empirical rigorous study? (I add the word empirical because I assume that it is implicit in your definition of rigorous. If it is not, I doubt that there is a single man/woman of advanced intellect who has not done a rigorous study i.e theoretical reasoning and critical evaluation in mind, on god.)Is not the truth of certain basic assumptions - and this includes science, not just religion - ascertained only in terms of 1) intuitive correctness and reasonability of the assumption, and/or 2)the correctness of the predictions that follow from this assumption. Besides, there is a very significant difference between the arguments that the two of us have forwarded for discarding Einstein in a debate on religion and god. You're basically saying that Einstein was no expert on god. I'm saying that everyone can be an expert on god. If you stick to your view, I'll ask you this - will you accept an appeal to St. Thomas Aquinas or Adi Shankaracharya as a valid case of the use of appeal to authority? I presume no, and yet according to your rigorous study definition. they should qualify.
2. On Appeal to authority and Logical fallacies in general
Naive recursive parodies apart, do you really think that the distinction of expert/non-expert to determine the correctness of appeal to authority is valid? How can you determine a binary 'expert - not expert' classification of people in any field, especially if the field pertains to a general non-specific study of the human condition, like say philosophy? Is an argument that peruses a famous physicist's views on chemistry or philosophy, or an acclaimed mathematician's views on physics, or a chemist's views on biology, or a biologist's views on race, flawed?
I have many such issues with a lot of 'logical fallacies'. A common argument used against the views of many prudes is - 'sex and sexual desire is so natural, so primal, so universal - how can it be wrong? '. I consider this to be a perfectly valid argument, indeed most people consider it a perfectly valid argument, yet technically, it can be considered an example of the naturalistic fallacy. In a court of law, in the absence of other evidence, ceteris paribus, the words of an ex-convict will always hold less weight than those of a person who has never been charged. In essence, is this not similiar to the ad hominem attack?
More generally, I consider the field of logic to be far too general and far too integral to the human nature to allow it to be the preserve of certain experts and certain books. The way I see it, the essence of what a logical fallacy says must be applied in context to the specific matter being discussed, throwing around a particular term is not sufficient.
p.s : I realise that this comment section is perhaps not the proper place for this discussion as we've drifted a lot from the initial issue. However, comments are disabled on your site and I find it awkward to write long mails to people I don't personally know.
@patrix - as long the clothes he ends up ironing are mine.. I don't care ;)
And apun Bhai se puch ke hi sab karega. Tensin nahi lena ka..
And apun Bhai se puch ke hi sab karega. Tensin nahi lena ka..
Patrix, you bum, this is what I get for helping you out whenever you asked?
If you had any sense of gratitude, you would recommend me. I can even shake great cocktails. I bet Confused can't make 7-course exotic meals. ;)
If you had any sense of gratitude, you would recommend me. I can even shake great cocktails. I bet Confused can't make 7-course exotic meals. ;)
Madman, you are a class apart, re. You don't need no recommendations. Confused secret personality hai...have to double-check, right? Your chef blog is enough to bowl maidens over (don't know about the overs in which sixes are hit..ok ok! bad joke)
@MadMan - The stakes are definetly getting raised.. that meal looks yummmmmmmmmm...
I am so visiting Bangy next time fly to Des..
@Confused - you better now add the clean freak and cooking to your list of "I can", my friend :)
@Patrix- Yep.. Since Confused is an anon in this scenario, he has to be bringing in more than blog visitors :)
Thanks Confused for the numerous hits :)
I am so visiting Bangy next time fly to Des..
@Confused - you better now add the clean freak and cooking to your list of "I can", my friend :)
@Patrix- Yep.. Since Confused is an anon in this scenario, he has to be bringing in more than blog visitors :)
Thanks Confused for the numerous hits :)
I see. While I have been away, I have become a football between Pat and madman.
But for Skashi, I bear it with a smile. And to answer your question Pat, (assumes a martyr pose) I can go around in an unironed shirt. But not Sakshi, of course!
(You are welcome. :))
But for Skashi, I bear it with a smile. And to answer your question Pat, (assumes a martyr pose) I can go around in an unironed shirt. But not Sakshi, of course!
(You are welcome. :))
instead of saying "I did not mean it as an attack on her opinion" you could have said "I did not mean it as an attack on her opinion"
which is the basis for democracy. no?
Post a Comment
which is the basis for democracy. no?
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
Links to this post:
<< Home
Subscribe to Posts [Atom]