C-da,
I wish you would leave the issue of religion to those who believe in God.
Atheists talking about God and religion is like a lifelong vegetarian talking
about benefits or lack thereof of eating meat.
Regards.
Umesh
Chan Mahanta <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Re: [Assam] IIT Chief: Ram, science
and religious belief Dr. Indiresan spent a lot of time pretending to be
singing the praises of scientific pursuits of the truth and rational thinking.
But really he bares in this article, filled with inane arguments , his own
inability to reconcile rational thinking expected of a man of his stature as a
technocrat and educationist, supposedly excelling in inculcating an ethos of
learning with a critical and analytical approach required of
technical/scientific studies, with irrational dogmas camouflaged as a defence
of Hindu 'sentiments' from an unfair and/or selective challenges to the
irrationalities of the faith's myriad myths. Dr. Indiresan is attempting to
have it both ways, sporting the aura of a rational technocrat while spouting
irrational arguments in defense of 'feelings' and 'sentiments'.
Allow me to explain:
>The same holds good in the case of Ram too; there is no proof that he
>existed; neither is there any >scientific proof that he did not exist. That
>is where rational scientists drift outside the scientific path. >They make
>assertions about matters of faith, forgetting their own principles. They can
>say, at the most, >there is no proof that Ram was a real person. They cannot
>proceed further and assert that Ram was >not a real person.
*** Fair enough. Rationalists cannot prove or assert Lord Ram was NOT a real
person. But what does that have to do with the issue at hand: Whether Ram-sethu
was built by Ram or his minions? Should the likes of Dr. Indiresan , no doubt
someone endowed with wisdoms that shallow rationalists are deprived of , NOT
pursue the question to its logical end? Or would it amount to attacking a
soft-target, thus out of bounds for the wise rationalist?
*** Furthermore, a rational scientist /technocrat would NOT stop at that. She
would also dig deeper to look at the REAL issue: Whether destroying the
geological features of the sea-bed referred to as the Ram-sethu in Indian
folklore is a prudent thing to do, considering its many ramifications that
could be examined scientifically. Is he doing that? Is he showing any
inclination to do that?
>But why not tolerate the dogma of scientists when no objections are raised
>about religious dogma?
*** Scientific dogma is an oxymoron. While I am acutely aware of Indians'
proclivity for misusing English words and phrases, often because it is a
foreign language, but many times willfully in pursuit of less than noble ends;
one would have expected someone of the stature of Dr. Indiresan to be a tad bit
more careful. But it is a well worn tactic to devalue and demonize objects of
one's dislike with clever use of words and phrases when one is dealing with a
paucity of reason.
>In the Indian context, rationalists become dangerous, because they attack
>selectively. All religions >survive on myths. Rationalists would have been on
>more solid ground if they had attacked myths of all >religions.
***This is Dr. Indiresan's coup-de-grace in his devaluing of rational
thinking on the matter. Or so one might think unless one is careful to analyze
it.
Faith, even Dr. Indiresan would agree, is a very PERSONAL thing. One does not
have to be rational about it, like he tells us. If so, it ought not to be an
issue to be injected into matters of state, that affects ALL, regardless of
their faith/s; particularly to a state that is as vastly diverse in its faiths
as India is.
Furthermore, it is one thing to be analytical about ones own faith; to
question its beliefs, its myths, its dogmas; but quite another to do so about
somebody else's. One would have expected Dr. Indiresan to be mindful of such
nuances of ordinary propriety and courtesy that he implies others of lacking.
It is NOT unbecoming of a Hindu, even a nominal one, to questions Hindu myths
or superstitions or prejudices. For he is the one who is being affected by
them. But it is uncouth to go questioning others' faiths. The Hindu, widely
bandied to be tolerant, has no business meddling in
somebody else's faith, UNLESS, they are meddling in his lifestyle or
well-being by imposing their will on matters of state, which affect everyone.
That is the subtle but critical difference that Dr. Indiresan fails to note.
That is why his big argument against the 'rationalists' in 'the Indian context'
is little more than yet another foray into that twilight zone of foggy logic
where ordinary meanings of words and phrases no longer operate, as in special
Indian meanings to "secularism", "democracy", "rationalist" and so forth.
What Dr. Indiresan tells us here is that in spite of his implied approval of
rational thinking in general, he is unable to accept it when it is not applied
'fairly' to ALL religions 'in the Indian context' , as if it would somehow rid
Hinduism of its irrational burdens or absolve the Ram-sethu issue of its
irrationality. What he demonstrates is his personal insecurity over his own
faith, unable to reconcile the dichotomy imposed by injection of faith in
affairs of state.
No wonder that so many Indian scientists, technocrats and intellectuals can
cite chapter and verse
of the collective wisdoms of mankind acquired to date, but are unable to apply
them for the well-being of their own.
cm
At 11:54 PM -0700 9/18/07, umesh sharma wrote:
http://www.expressindia.com/latest-news/Ram-science-and-religious-belief/218687/
New Delhi, Spetember 19: A week is a long time in politics and the Ram Setu
controversy may soon die down. But even as it fades away politically, it may
linger intellectually. Everyone is agreed that the battle is between scientific
attitude and faith. As Francis Bacon argued nearly 500 years ago, the
scientific spirit requires that we accept nothing as true unless it can be
verified by experiment. Karl Popper goes on to say that the purpose of
scientific enquiry is to disprove a hypothesis, not buttress it. As Thomas Kuhn
has explained, science re-writes its textbooks all the time. In stark contrast,
religious texts are sacred; they are unalterable. Science holds a hypothesis
untrue if it does not satisfy even one out a hundred conditions. For the
faithful, belief is sanctified even if it comes true only once in a thousand
times. In modern times, the proposition that science will replace faith has
become an attractive one. Much that was a mystery earlier has now been
rationalised through scientific discoveries. Inevitably, many more mysteries
of the present will also get explained in years to come. But science has its
limitations. For example, it can theorise how the universe began with a Big
Bang, but not explain what agency caused it. Scientific theories are also
fickle. Five years ago, hormone replacement therapy was the cure-all idea for
older women. Now, it is anathema. Science propagates knowledge; it does not
necessarily confirm wisdom. That is why stories about mad scientists remain a
recurrent theme in cinema! There is no scientific proof that God exists;
neither is there any proof that God does not exist. The same holds good in the
case of Ram too; there is no proof that he existed; neither is there any
scientific proof that he did not exist. That is where rational scientists
drift outside the scientific path. They make assertions about matters of faith,
forgetting their own principles. They can say, at the most, there is
no proof that Ram was a real person. They cannot proceed further and assert
that Ram was not a real person. The reality is that many people believe in God.
The reality is ideas of God are many and lead to fierce fights, including mass
murder. Admittedly, there is, at any one time, far greater unanimity about
scientific truths, but all those truths are merely hypotheses liable to be
superseded in the future. Rationalists are right in condemning superstition as
dangerous and harmful. They overstep when they assert science has all the
answers. As of today it does not. Nothing becomes a scientist more than
humility. But why not tolerate the dogma of scientists when no objections are
raised about religious dogma? In the Indian context, rationalists become
dangerous, because they attack selectively. All religions survive on myths.
Rationalists would have been on more solid ground if they had attacked myths of
all religions. Unfortunately, Indian rationalists attack only Hindu
myths. This is politically dangerous. This has, in turn, led to a worrisome
development. The attacks have only induced orthodox Hindus to become more
irrational, rather than more rational. Tolerance of diversity has been the
hallmark of Hindu culture. What rationalists are doing is to take advantage of
that tolerance of diversity to destroy the base of that tolerance. Hindu myths
are liable to suffer more than those of other religions because there are so
many more of them. Nevertheless, isolating Hindu myths alone is not rational.
One suspects that Indian rationalists have confined themselves to attacks on
Hindu myths because Hindus are soft targets; others are not. If that is true,
rationalists are cowards. A cowardly soldier is a danger to the army; he can
lose battles. Cowardly intellectuals are even more dangerous; they can destroy
an entire society. Since the days of Jawaharlal Nehru, there has been no
respite from the attacks on Hindu beliefs. That itself would not
have mattered if Hinduism alone had not been isolated for such treatment. As a
result of this bias, orthodox Hindus feel more and more threatened. In their
fear, they are becoming less logical; they are giving up their culture of
tolerance. The long-term risk of all this is not being adequately understood
even by well-meaning intellectuals and media persons. The real issue is not Ram
vs rationality; it is rationality vs selective rationality. (The writer is a
former director of IIT, Chennai)
Umesh Sharma
Washington D.C.
1-202-215-4328 [Cell]
Ed.M. - International Education Policy
Harvard Graduate School of Education,
Harvard University,
Class of 2005
http://www.uknow.gse.harvard.edu/index.html (Edu info)
http://hbswk.hbs.edu/ (Management Info)
www.gse.harvard.edu/iep (where the above 2 are used )
http://jaipurschool.bihu.in/
---------------------------------
Yahoo! Answers - Get better answers from someone who knows. Try it now.
_______________________________________________
assam mailing list
[email protected]
http://assamnet.org/mailman/listinfo/assam_assamnet.org
Umesh Sharma
Washington D.C.
1-202-215-4328 [Cell]
Ed.M. - International Education Policy
Harvard Graduate School of Education,
Harvard University,
Class of 2005
http://www.uknow.gse.harvard.edu/index.html (Edu info)
http://hbswk.hbs.edu/ (Management Info)
www.gse.harvard.edu/iep (where the above 2 are used )
http://jaipurschool.bihu.in/
---------------------------------
Yahoo! Answers - Get better answers from someone who knows. Tryit now._______________________________________________
assam mailing list
[email protected]
http://assamnet.org/mailman/listinfo/assam_assamnet.org
