Saw a biker with a bandanna emblazoned with a NAZI Swastika.
There was a sense of parody in it, an Indian with a Nazi swastika.
But then that is fashion or should I say freedom; the liberty to express with no boundaries. And if there are boundaries, who decides these boundaries or are there certain boundaries here in India and these boundaries are flippant or fitful in another country.
Perhaps in India we can get away with a lot of things or rather some people some time can get away with most things.
Another example is Raj Thackeray who feels that North Indians should leave Bombay.
40 years ago, it was his uncle, Bal Thackeray who felt the same way but against Gujarathis and South Indians.
Well, 40 years ago the law should have done something, but it didn't.
So it set a precedent of not to act. Now its Raj and he has no indictments against him for spreading animosity & communal hatred.
Well, Raj was charged by a fellow politician - Amar Singh. It took Amar Singh 3 hours to file a FIR against Raj Thackeray. As the cops in Bombay asked him to file the FIR in Marathi. It took Raj 4 hours to get a bail.
All in all, nothing actually happened.
Let's rewind, if we had the opportunity to stop Hitler from making his remarks and gain political mileage, would we? Well he sent 6 million Jews to the death. And his speeches and discourses had enough material and evidence to give any reasonable bloke a clear idea that this guy is going to act out all that he is saying and what do we know, Hitler did!
So what are the boundaries, who sets them and when are these boundaries clear enough to take action.
Who decides these boundaries, is it the majority.
So far it has been held sway by a coerced (under necessity) opinion.
The rest have to live with that opinion.
Society does pay the price in the end, there are no free lunches here.
Wednesday, February 27, 2008
Tuesday, February 26, 2008
Is God a sexist?
Bible critiques have often shown that God is a sexist.
They often quote passages from the new testament to make this point.
To be fair, the passages that are often quoted stating the status of women are the sum basis of the prevailing perceptions at that time about women. This is not God's take about women.
The quoted passages need to be taken with the same erudition as when Paul talks about slaves; he is not asserting that slaves is a biblical principle but rather if the existing culture was such of slave and master he was remarking on the rules of engagement in such a case.
What then should be the official stance or is there no safe stance that can be conceded. I think if we look for what God himself quotes, we would appreciate the essence of the God:
"God is not a respecter of persons."
This quote and its essential form has been repeated 8 time in the entire Bible.
Reckon that the essence of what is being said is God does not hold a prejudice on the basis of sex, social standing, caste or are any such strata. God treats everybody the same and looks at everybody in similar light, God does not play favourites.
They often quote passages from the new testament to make this point.
To be fair, the passages that are often quoted stating the status of women are the sum basis of the prevailing perceptions at that time about women. This is not God's take about women.
The quoted passages need to be taken with the same erudition as when Paul talks about slaves; he is not asserting that slaves is a biblical principle but rather if the existing culture was such of slave and master he was remarking on the rules of engagement in such a case.
What then should be the official stance or is there no safe stance that can be conceded. I think if we look for what God himself quotes, we would appreciate the essence of the God:
"God is not a respecter of persons."
This quote and its essential form has been repeated 8 time in the entire Bible.
Reckon that the essence of what is being said is God does not hold a prejudice on the basis of sex, social standing, caste or are any such strata. God treats everybody the same and looks at everybody in similar light, God does not play favourites.
On alms
Mirza Abdur Rahim Khan-e-Khanan, Minister & Governor at Mughal King Akbar's Darbar.
Rahim when giving alms to the poor never looked at his beneficiary but averted his gaze downwards. Goswami Tulsidas, a sanskrit scholar and poet sent Rahim a couplet:
"Sir, why do you bestow gifts like this, where have you learned such ways?
Your hands are raised as high as your eyes drop low"
Rahim understood that Tulsidas was inviting him to say a few words:
"The Giver is someone else, bestowing day and night.
The world gives me credit: so my eyes are cast down"
---
Later in life Mirza Rahim relinquished his position in the Mughal Durbar, renounced his worldly goods and set off as a mendicant.
Rahim when giving alms to the poor never looked at his beneficiary but averted his gaze downwards. Goswami Tulsidas, a sanskrit scholar and poet sent Rahim a couplet:
"Sir, why do you bestow gifts like this, where have you learned such ways?
Your hands are raised as high as your eyes drop low"
Rahim understood that Tulsidas was inviting him to say a few words:
"The Giver is someone else, bestowing day and night.
The world gives me credit: so my eyes are cast down"
---
Later in life Mirza Rahim relinquished his position in the Mughal Durbar, renounced his worldly goods and set off as a mendicant.
dal-roti
Zahir-ud-din Muhammad Babar, founder of the Mughal dynasty in India.
His account when he first ate dal-roti in India.
"Ghalla ba ghalla mi khurdam!"
- from his autobiographical Babarnama
"I ate grain with grain!"
His account when he first ate dal-roti in India.
"Ghalla ba ghalla mi khurdam!"
- from his autobiographical Babarnama
"I ate grain with grain!"
the leap
"My victory has proved that athletes with yellow skin can run as fast as those with black and white skin. This is a miracle but I believe a lot more miracles will take place in China (2008)"
- Liu Xiang, the 110meter hurdler on equaling the world record time of 12.91s at Athens 2004
Liu Xiang implies two aspects in her statement.
#1. She has probably been a victim of racial prejudice and she has been able to prove her critiques wrong.
#2. She has given an impetus to fellow athletes in China who probably but erroneously believed the racial stereotyping ergo her claim that 'there will be many more miracles taking place in China 2008' - 4 years after Athens.
- Liu Xiang, the 110meter hurdler on equaling the world record time of 12.91s at Athens 2004
Liu Xiang implies two aspects in her statement.
#1. She has probably been a victim of racial prejudice and she has been able to prove her critiques wrong.
#2. She has given an impetus to fellow athletes in China who probably but erroneously believed the racial stereotyping ergo her claim that 'there will be many more miracles taking place in China 2008' - 4 years after Athens.
Wednesday, February 20, 2008
reservations to 'act white'
Acting white is an epithet applied to blacks, and also within ethnic groups referring to a perceived betraying of one's culture by incorporating the social expectations of mainstream society.
Some research has shown that employers don’t value qualifications or experience of minority groups, which in turn means that the victims rationally invest less in education and work experience, which in turn feeds a statistical discrimination.
This discrimination can have bearing on the minority groups history and geography which could polarize future generation of minority aspirants from not trying at all.
This turns into a self induced spiral, wherein jobs would not be offered because the minority group is uneducated while the minority group claims that jobs weren't being offered inspite of their qualification & education, ergo why should minorities invest in education.
India has a similar problem of ethnic minorities but the ironic fact is that a solution meant to provide an opportunity has actually done more damage.
Reservations emerged as it seemed to be the only manner to address the social divide keeping the caste minority out of the economic prosperity that non-ethnic minorities are a part of. These reservations were brought in account of the encumbrance of geography, cultural & heredity factors and critical thinking posed on the caste minority.
These reservations have led the caste minority to avail admissions into college/schools and professional jobs in the market place.
Upto 50% reservations are held back for the caste minority in graduate and post graduate colleges. Government services and employments hold similar reservations.
However, the real reason why the chances of a minority were lower in an economic market place even with a comparative or better educational background was on account of the employer being ethnically critical. This was the problem that should have been addressed.
In the Indian context to overcome the handicap of screening a critical employer on a caste or ethnic stereotype, reservations was introduced. However reservations does not filter the performing and non-performing ethnic incumbent.
Though reservations have helped the performing minority incumbent into colleges and universities, it has also allowed non-performing minority incumbents into the same college. With 50% reservations probably just half of it would be substantiated by performance, the remaining would have to be filled by the non-performing ethnic minorities.
In effect, non performance has been rewarded.
For the incumbent who does not posses an educational or professional qualification as its presence or absence did not aid his chances in the economic market place will continue to foster this ideal in the presence of reservations. Reservations should have provided a level playing field for the ethnic incumbent however it has provided him reason to stay the way he is which could be under qualified or non professional.
There isn't an economic reason for him to invest in an education or qualification especially when a job falls into his lap without the investment.
In effect this is another self inducing spiral that been created with reservations.
Reservations has further led the non performing minority groups to turn political.
The minority groups have a vested interest to continue with reservations and hold such reservations by joining the political brigade. Since the minorities have a vested interest to continue with reservations, they also hold a sizeable vote bank in politics. Being a sizeable vote bank, they often enjoy political handouts in kind. An area with such a vote bank will show a marked tendency towards violence between competing political factions and decreased economic activity as economic activities cannot continue in disruptive areas where the populace prefers to stay unemployed or resort to violence or remain uneducated and unprofessional.
Tim Harford, in his book - The Logic of Life illustrates a parallel example, where minorities will overcome majorities simply because the cost per capita for a majority is far less than the cost per capita for the minority.
Imagine 'no reservations', this will cause the minority dearly, so they will fight this tooth and nail. On the other hand the presence of reservations will cost a couple of people from the majority; maybe a manufacturing business in the area, maybe students entering college this year, etc.
The problem that needed to be addressed was the employer who was ethnically critical, but we have created a new problem as well as subverted minorities from 'acting white'; thanks to with reservations.
I thought reservations should have encouraged the minorities from acting white, but empirical experience shows us it won't and it doesn't.
Some research has shown that employers don’t value qualifications or experience of minority groups, which in turn means that the victims rationally invest less in education and work experience, which in turn feeds a statistical discrimination.
This discrimination can have bearing on the minority groups history and geography which could polarize future generation of minority aspirants from not trying at all.
This turns into a self induced spiral, wherein jobs would not be offered because the minority group is uneducated while the minority group claims that jobs weren't being offered inspite of their qualification & education, ergo why should minorities invest in education.
India has a similar problem of ethnic minorities but the ironic fact is that a solution meant to provide an opportunity has actually done more damage.
Reservations emerged as it seemed to be the only manner to address the social divide keeping the caste minority out of the economic prosperity that non-ethnic minorities are a part of. These reservations were brought in account of the encumbrance of geography, cultural & heredity factors and critical thinking posed on the caste minority.
These reservations have led the caste minority to avail admissions into college/schools and professional jobs in the market place.
Upto 50% reservations are held back for the caste minority in graduate and post graduate colleges. Government services and employments hold similar reservations.
However, the real reason why the chances of a minority were lower in an economic market place even with a comparative or better educational background was on account of the employer being ethnically critical. This was the problem that should have been addressed.
In the Indian context to overcome the handicap of screening a critical employer on a caste or ethnic stereotype, reservations was introduced. However reservations does not filter the performing and non-performing ethnic incumbent.
Though reservations have helped the performing minority incumbent into colleges and universities, it has also allowed non-performing minority incumbents into the same college. With 50% reservations probably just half of it would be substantiated by performance, the remaining would have to be filled by the non-performing ethnic minorities.
In effect, non performance has been rewarded.
For the incumbent who does not posses an educational or professional qualification as its presence or absence did not aid his chances in the economic market place will continue to foster this ideal in the presence of reservations. Reservations should have provided a level playing field for the ethnic incumbent however it has provided him reason to stay the way he is which could be under qualified or non professional.
There isn't an economic reason for him to invest in an education or qualification especially when a job falls into his lap without the investment.
In effect this is another self inducing spiral that been created with reservations.
Reservations has further led the non performing minority groups to turn political.
The minority groups have a vested interest to continue with reservations and hold such reservations by joining the political brigade. Since the minorities have a vested interest to continue with reservations, they also hold a sizeable vote bank in politics. Being a sizeable vote bank, they often enjoy political handouts in kind. An area with such a vote bank will show a marked tendency towards violence between competing political factions and decreased economic activity as economic activities cannot continue in disruptive areas where the populace prefers to stay unemployed or resort to violence or remain uneducated and unprofessional.
Tim Harford, in his book - The Logic of Life illustrates a parallel example, where minorities will overcome majorities simply because the cost per capita for a majority is far less than the cost per capita for the minority.
Imagine 'no reservations', this will cause the minority dearly, so they will fight this tooth and nail. On the other hand the presence of reservations will cost a couple of people from the majority; maybe a manufacturing business in the area, maybe students entering college this year, etc.
The problem that needed to be addressed was the employer who was ethnically critical, but we have created a new problem as well as subverted minorities from 'acting white'; thanks to with reservations.
I thought reservations should have encouraged the minorities from acting white, but empirical experience shows us it won't and it doesn't.
Tuesday, February 19, 2008
the end with whatever means
Just came across a recent graffiti by a political party of Uttar Pardesh.
The graffiti went something like:
"Our ultimate aim is to stake claim on the Prime Minister-ship of India."
Makes you wonder with a claim like that, the means to achieve the PM' position is not important, just the end.
Our present PM is an alumnus from Cambridge and Oxford, he is not politician himself, he is more of an economist & he does have the credentials to take an onerous task of PM.
Am of the opinion that one should be political without letting the other fellow know that you are political. Politics fail when they come to the fore, politics is best when subtle and implicit.
The graffiti went something like:
"Our ultimate aim is to stake claim on the Prime Minister-ship of India."
Makes you wonder with a claim like that, the means to achieve the PM' position is not important, just the end.
Our present PM is an alumnus from Cambridge and Oxford, he is not politician himself, he is more of an economist & he does have the credentials to take an onerous task of PM.
Am of the opinion that one should be political without letting the other fellow know that you are political. Politics fail when they come to the fore, politics is best when subtle and implicit.
psycho.. profile
At a recent visit to the doctor's for a bad cold, I was given a psychological evaluation.
Well it seems that doctors would like to prescribe medication only after knowing what type of an individual you are! Essentially they want to know about your childhood, your emotional response to circumstances, your interpersonal relations with your friends and relatives, etc.
If you are not prepared, most of these questions get you in a fix.
Q:How ambitious are you?
I started gesturing with my thumb and index figure trying to qualify ambition in terms of size.
Q:What do you want to do in life?
I think what I am doing now, if it wasn't I wouldn't be doing it, right.
Q:When was the last time you got angry and how angry did you get?
Eh, let me check...
Q:Are you an emotional person?
Yes I am but what you need to ask is how emotional I get.
Q:How do you feel, when you don't get what you wanted?
Great, how do you feel if you lose a million.
I can't say how many of the questions were relevant, but I came for a prognosis on one ailment and I got a diagnosis on another. Any which way somewhere down the line, I thought they've got me mistaken for another patient which is when they explained what the questions were for; anyway I think the young doctor had a field day with the questions.
I am just wondering, this was just a cold what would about the bloke who turns up at the doctors for a knee ache, and they probe his head.
I guess they would admit him, right away.
Forget you knee old chap, you can live without a knee but not without your head!!
Well it seems that doctors would like to prescribe medication only after knowing what type of an individual you are! Essentially they want to know about your childhood, your emotional response to circumstances, your interpersonal relations with your friends and relatives, etc.
If you are not prepared, most of these questions get you in a fix.
Q:How ambitious are you?
I started gesturing with my thumb and index figure trying to qualify ambition in terms of size.
Q:What do you want to do in life?
I think what I am doing now, if it wasn't I wouldn't be doing it, right.
Q:When was the last time you got angry and how angry did you get?
Eh, let me check...
Q:Are you an emotional person?
Yes I am but what you need to ask is how emotional I get.
Q:How do you feel, when you don't get what you wanted?
Great, how do you feel if you lose a million.
I can't say how many of the questions were relevant, but I came for a prognosis on one ailment and I got a diagnosis on another. Any which way somewhere down the line, I thought they've got me mistaken for another patient which is when they explained what the questions were for; anyway I think the young doctor had a field day with the questions.
I am just wondering, this was just a cold what would about the bloke who turns up at the doctors for a knee ache, and they probe his head.
I guess they would admit him, right away.
Forget you knee old chap, you can live without a knee but not without your head!!
when to call on a Doctor?
1. We get stricken by an infirmity and we call on a doctor.
2. We are not recovering from an infirmity or for some reason the infirmity has prolonged that we call on a doctor.
The former believes that all infirmities require a doctors attention.
The latter believes only those his body can't handle require the attention of a doctor.
The former is not presumptuous about anything.
The latter is presumptuous about most things.
2. We are not recovering from an infirmity or for some reason the infirmity has prolonged that we call on a doctor.
The former believes that all infirmities require a doctors attention.
The latter believes only those his body can't handle require the attention of a doctor.
The former is not presumptuous about anything.
The latter is presumptuous about most things.
Saturday, February 16, 2008
negativism rogered the economy
Is that really true?
One reason what is coming up repeatedly is a war that has gone bad and this has led to a lot of negative publicity for US forces & this negativism has projected itself onto the world economy.
2 words to those who ascribe to this theory - absolute humbug!
Paul Krugman states: In the late 1960s America had a terrific, full-employment economy; it also had a deeply unpopular war, a crime wave, an explosion in the welfare rolls, and a general sense that the country was on the wrong track.
And the economy was going great.
So what happened now!
Erroneous Federal Reserve policies, the US debt, the asian surplus feeding the US debt and it required just one thing to unwind. Usually its like all the erroneous policies clog onto a small hole and the errors keep piling up till it finally gives way.
This time the unwinder was the housing sector.
Actually we are pretty selfish species, people die, people don't have proper housing or clothing and people have wars, but for those economies that can carry ahead will.
For those of us who know where to make money will even in times of war, peril and famine.
One reason what is coming up repeatedly is a war that has gone bad and this has led to a lot of negative publicity for US forces & this negativism has projected itself onto the world economy.
2 words to those who ascribe to this theory - absolute humbug!
Paul Krugman states: In the late 1960s America had a terrific, full-employment economy; it also had a deeply unpopular war, a crime wave, an explosion in the welfare rolls, and a general sense that the country was on the wrong track.
And the economy was going great.
So what happened now!
Erroneous Federal Reserve policies, the US debt, the asian surplus feeding the US debt and it required just one thing to unwind. Usually its like all the erroneous policies clog onto a small hole and the errors keep piling up till it finally gives way.
This time the unwinder was the housing sector.
Actually we are pretty selfish species, people die, people don't have proper housing or clothing and people have wars, but for those economies that can carry ahead will.
For those of us who know where to make money will even in times of war, peril and famine.
toddler manic behaviour
Most of my friends now fear going out.
I think its been sometime since they have stepped out in a social gathering.
The reason 'toddlers'; they are apprehensive on how the toddler would be in a social gathering like a restaurant or mall.
the toddler meltdown — that moment in a store, restaurant or airplane when a once-happy child loses it. He screams, cries and flails as his embarrassed parents desperately try to calm him.
I am sure no parent want to be in this situation, frankly because the response is bad parent(ignorant to say the least) or crazy kids (got to have something from the mom or dad or both) , I have often concluded so.
But then there aren't any other options or are there?
I think its been sometime since they have stepped out in a social gathering.
The reason 'toddlers'; they are apprehensive on how the toddler would be in a social gathering like a restaurant or mall.
the toddler meltdown — that moment in a store, restaurant or airplane when a once-happy child loses it. He screams, cries and flails as his embarrassed parents desperately try to calm him.
I am sure no parent want to be in this situation, frankly because the response is bad parent(ignorant to say the least) or crazy kids (got to have something from the mom or dad or both) , I have often concluded so.
But then there aren't any other options or are there?
music on the go
A surprisingly large number of people now listen to music on the go.
A large part of the 'surprisingly large number of people' consists of teenagers.
Teens listen to an average of 2.5 hours of music a day.
Frankly the last time I yearned for music I like must have been 7 years ago.
There was a time when I felt I should have a large collection of music in my personal stable, actually I do, but I have not looked at since some while now.
Today the once yearned for music collection does not matter.
What happened to the days of 2.5 hours of music a day.
Frankly I don't know, i guess I found more interesting things to do, but then what are these more interesting things, I still don't know.
When I was younger, I always wondered how come my folks don't listen to music, well I know now, but at the same time I don't know why?
A large part of the 'surprisingly large number of people' consists of teenagers.
Teens listen to an average of 2.5 hours of music a day.
Frankly the last time I yearned for music I like must have been 7 years ago.
There was a time when I felt I should have a large collection of music in my personal stable, actually I do, but I have not looked at since some while now.
Today the once yearned for music collection does not matter.
What happened to the days of 2.5 hours of music a day.
Frankly I don't know, i guess I found more interesting things to do, but then what are these more interesting things, I still don't know.
When I was younger, I always wondered how come my folks don't listen to music, well I know now, but at the same time I don't know why?
the no-God prognosis
What does the absence of a God mean?
Fellow Atheists and Agnostics resort to feverish pitches to make you and I believe what they themselves believe.
The end of God also means the end of hope and faith.
The end of hope and faith also precludes the inclusiveness of randomness.
The inclusiveness of randomness in life precludes an indeterminate fate and destiny.
First things first, hope and faith. In the absence of God what would one hope for and have faith on. These words and emotions cease to have meaning.
I hope in myself and have faith in myself. I decide what happens next as I have faith in myself, in a sense yes you do, but also you don't because you still don't know what happens next.
For those outcomes that you are not aware of, your decision will at best be an after thought once the event has taken place.
What a faith and hope in oneself means is I can guarantee my future. I don't think there is any individual living that can guarantee anything about oneself leave alone the future.
Faith and Hope in oneself is meaningless, so most probably it would be directed to the outside. The atheists claim faith & hope in science and the agnostics need proof for faith and hope in something.
For the agnostic faith and hope should cease to exist when you need proof.
Faith and hope does not exist on proof, they are intangible.
For the Atheist who rests on science & believes on the finite ability of science accepts that science till date is limited to the knowledge of today, however he hopes against hope (though it is implausible and he shouldn't as I mentioned above) that tomorrow there would be a efficient theory on the explanation about life and everything, but suffice to say for an Atheist that is the way, the knowledge of today is sufficient for one to exist today because tomorrow by all means science will be better equipped to answer questions of today and yesterday but will answer them tomorrow.
This is absurd but then this is the scientists claim of the no God prognosis.
There are those who say that we would have an ultimate theory in this or the next decade that would explain life and everything.
But given that knowledge will always be finite, if it does get infinite then you will be able to figure out the future and if you do figure out the future, you do make an indeterminate random event determinate, but then it cannot be determinate because if it is determinate then there is a God. Oh sorry, it will always be finite knowledge and indeterminate future. So you will always be limited to the today of tomorrow that is. Thats how knowledge is and that is the implicit attribute about knowledge.
Life is random because things just came to be out of nothing, and are so now and will continue so for a billion or so of years and what is the point of all this, I don't know the atheists claims there is no God ask him what is the point!!!.
The next is the inclusiveness of randomness in a life devoid of hope and faith. It would be impossible to hope and have faith in pions, kaons, and B-mesons, the very particles we are composed of, our planets are composed of and everything that we see. It would be giving the pions, kaons and B-mesons too much credit. I mean do they really care, which species live and which species dies, but they continue to exist, but then how did they come to be.
Maybe their creation or existence was a no-point random event.
As things just came to be and happen to be and lead to life.
We all just live for our life span and hand the baton to the next in line. Maybe as a race or species we would be wiped out in the far future just like many species were wiped out before us. So what is the point of the probabilistic event called life, actually it is nothing - according to the atheists.
What is the point of all the knowledge, a knowledge that still keeps life random, that can't explain everything.
It would amount to nothing.
So we have a limited life as a species, we will have a limit on the knowledge we will acquire, so what do we do:
To such a one as this, it is live and be merry for tomorrow we all die.
In a random world, there is no fate & no destiny.
There is no determinate path & there is no purpose.
You just are because you are.
How can one have a fate & destiny in a no-point random life.
Creation is a random event, you are a random creation, your existence is random so what are you doing here.....
The point of this is, that the argument made is not one against God, but one against faith, hope, determinism, destiny and a purpose placed on each of our lives.
If people are convinced on randomness, God automatically will get ruled out.
However, that is not so!
There is too much information out there in the world, sometimes we get hoodwinked into believing the lie.
The information in itself is too cluttered for us to remove the noise.
Fellow Atheists and Agnostics resort to feverish pitches to make you and I believe what they themselves believe.
The end of God also means the end of hope and faith.
The end of hope and faith also precludes the inclusiveness of randomness.
The inclusiveness of randomness in life precludes an indeterminate fate and destiny.
First things first, hope and faith. In the absence of God what would one hope for and have faith on. These words and emotions cease to have meaning.
I hope in myself and have faith in myself. I decide what happens next as I have faith in myself, in a sense yes you do, but also you don't because you still don't know what happens next.
For those outcomes that you are not aware of, your decision will at best be an after thought once the event has taken place.
What a faith and hope in oneself means is I can guarantee my future. I don't think there is any individual living that can guarantee anything about oneself leave alone the future.
Faith and Hope in oneself is meaningless, so most probably it would be directed to the outside. The atheists claim faith & hope in science and the agnostics need proof for faith and hope in something.
For the agnostic faith and hope should cease to exist when you need proof.
Faith and hope does not exist on proof, they are intangible.
For the Atheist who rests on science & believes on the finite ability of science accepts that science till date is limited to the knowledge of today, however he hopes against hope (though it is implausible and he shouldn't as I mentioned above) that tomorrow there would be a efficient theory on the explanation about life and everything, but suffice to say for an Atheist that is the way, the knowledge of today is sufficient for one to exist today because tomorrow by all means science will be better equipped to answer questions of today and yesterday but will answer them tomorrow.
This is absurd but then this is the scientists claim of the no God prognosis.
There are those who say that we would have an ultimate theory in this or the next decade that would explain life and everything.
But given that knowledge will always be finite, if it does get infinite then you will be able to figure out the future and if you do figure out the future, you do make an indeterminate random event determinate, but then it cannot be determinate because if it is determinate then there is a God. Oh sorry, it will always be finite knowledge and indeterminate future. So you will always be limited to the today of tomorrow that is. Thats how knowledge is and that is the implicit attribute about knowledge.
Life is random because things just came to be out of nothing, and are so now and will continue so for a billion or so of years and what is the point of all this, I don't know the atheists claims there is no God ask him what is the point!!!.
The next is the inclusiveness of randomness in a life devoid of hope and faith. It would be impossible to hope and have faith in pions, kaons, and B-mesons, the very particles we are composed of, our planets are composed of and everything that we see. It would be giving the pions, kaons and B-mesons too much credit. I mean do they really care, which species live and which species dies, but they continue to exist, but then how did they come to be.
Maybe their creation or existence was a no-point random event.
As things just came to be and happen to be and lead to life.
We all just live for our life span and hand the baton to the next in line. Maybe as a race or species we would be wiped out in the far future just like many species were wiped out before us. So what is the point of the probabilistic event called life, actually it is nothing - according to the atheists.
What is the point of all the knowledge, a knowledge that still keeps life random, that can't explain everything.
It would amount to nothing.
So we have a limited life as a species, we will have a limit on the knowledge we will acquire, so what do we do:
To such a one as this, it is live and be merry for tomorrow we all die.
In a random world, there is no fate & no destiny.
There is no determinate path & there is no purpose.
You just are because you are.
How can one have a fate & destiny in a no-point random life.
Creation is a random event, you are a random creation, your existence is random so what are you doing here.....
The point of this is, that the argument made is not one against God, but one against faith, hope, determinism, destiny and a purpose placed on each of our lives.
If people are convinced on randomness, God automatically will get ruled out.
However, that is not so!
There is too much information out there in the world, sometimes we get hoodwinked into believing the lie.
The information in itself is too cluttered for us to remove the noise.
Friday, February 15, 2008
Religion akin to Science
Religion is all about interpretation.
And religion gives one the freedom to 'interpret' it the way one deems fit.
I guess the rise of fanaticism and fundamentalism is on account of this 'mis-interpretation'.
I am not given to condemning humans of a particular religious group on the basis of the misinterpretation of a few from the very same group.
It would be akin to saying we should not be using nuclear fission as it yielded nuclear bomb. But nuclear fission also yields power as in electric power generation.
So religion like science can be misused as well as properly used.
Given this, Dawkins in his book 'The God Delusion' is merely looking at converting people from one religion to another. His afore critique and work being that of converting one from Christianity to that of science.
How does it really help? I don't know, somehow maybe they will be more peace loving or less animosity among fellow humans, but the history of science especially that of nuclear fission does not say so. So in retro affect Dawkins is merely converting humans from one religion to another.
He claims his religion to be one that of science.
But frankly he is back at square one.
No religion is also a religion.
We can't condemn humans based on religious misinterpretation.
Beware of the fanatic. The religious or the scientific.
When he is so sure he is right, he is evidently wrong.
So what would be way ahead, well evidently let free-will take its course.
It is amazing to note that the US is based on a secular constitution however there are more Christians in US than in UK, where in stark contrast the constitution is actually Christian.
Maybe that is what we call 'providence'.
And religion gives one the freedom to 'interpret' it the way one deems fit.
I guess the rise of fanaticism and fundamentalism is on account of this 'mis-interpretation'.
I am not given to condemning humans of a particular religious group on the basis of the misinterpretation of a few from the very same group.
It would be akin to saying we should not be using nuclear fission as it yielded nuclear bomb. But nuclear fission also yields power as in electric power generation.
So religion like science can be misused as well as properly used.
Given this, Dawkins in his book 'The God Delusion' is merely looking at converting people from one religion to another. His afore critique and work being that of converting one from Christianity to that of science.
How does it really help? I don't know, somehow maybe they will be more peace loving or less animosity among fellow humans, but the history of science especially that of nuclear fission does not say so. So in retro affect Dawkins is merely converting humans from one religion to another.
He claims his religion to be one that of science.
But frankly he is back at square one.
No religion is also a religion.
We can't condemn humans based on religious misinterpretation.
Beware of the fanatic. The religious or the scientific.
When he is so sure he is right, he is evidently wrong.
So what would be way ahead, well evidently let free-will take its course.
It is amazing to note that the US is based on a secular constitution however there are more Christians in US than in UK, where in stark contrast the constitution is actually Christian.
Maybe that is what we call 'providence'.
the sin of Adam and Us...
Most of us wonder how does the sin of Adam get impugned on us.
I mean God being a just God, how does God hold to account one humans actions on another.
Most of us try and substantiate the impunity being descendants however there is more to sin that meets the eye, at least the way we understand it.
Our misunderstanding is largely on account of the limitation of the english language and not what transpired 7000 ago.
Firstly sin does not get impugned because Adam ate of the apple that he was specifically told not to eat. But sin arose on account of doubt or disbelief.
And the disbelief arose in Adam as he began to doubt on what God had instructed him, more specifically whether he would die if he ate of the fruit of the tree in the centre of the garden Eden. He was made to doubt on the word of God and more so on God as if what God says is untrue then God is untrue.
This was Adam's cardinal error.
It is this error that is termed as sin, arising because Adam doubted God and disbelieved God. This is the sin that is impugned on humanity.
There are a lot of us who claim that we would have acted smarter than Adam in that instant. Yes perhaps it can be qualified, but we never know how Satan would have deceived us if we did take on Adams place. In all probability he would have come to deceive us through other means.
The crux of the point the disbelief and doubt arises in all of us.
And all of us are born with this, so was it put in there by the creator, actually what the creator provided was free-will. And free-will qualifies us human to act in belief or disbelief.
But nevertheless it is a choice we make.
How do we want to think, how do we want to act and so on...
Well then God should not have put in Lucifer there, well Lucifer is caught only when he has truly deceived. How does one charge one with a crime that has not been committed. Again that was a choice Lucifer made.
Well we should not have been made with free-will. Well, how would you want to be a slave - who can't think for himself - who has no freedom.
Since all sin is disbelief in God, we are all born with the free-will or rather the propensity to sin.
And it is this propensity to sin that has to be taken away rather when perfection comes that which is imperfect shall be made perfect.
I mean God being a just God, how does God hold to account one humans actions on another.
Most of us try and substantiate the impunity being descendants however there is more to sin that meets the eye, at least the way we understand it.
Our misunderstanding is largely on account of the limitation of the english language and not what transpired 7000 ago.
Firstly sin does not get impugned because Adam ate of the apple that he was specifically told not to eat. But sin arose on account of doubt or disbelief.
And the disbelief arose in Adam as he began to doubt on what God had instructed him, more specifically whether he would die if he ate of the fruit of the tree in the centre of the garden Eden. He was made to doubt on the word of God and more so on God as if what God says is untrue then God is untrue.
This was Adam's cardinal error.
It is this error that is termed as sin, arising because Adam doubted God and disbelieved God. This is the sin that is impugned on humanity.
There are a lot of us who claim that we would have acted smarter than Adam in that instant. Yes perhaps it can be qualified, but we never know how Satan would have deceived us if we did take on Adams place. In all probability he would have come to deceive us through other means.
The crux of the point the disbelief and doubt arises in all of us.
And all of us are born with this, so was it put in there by the creator, actually what the creator provided was free-will. And free-will qualifies us human to act in belief or disbelief.
But nevertheless it is a choice we make.
How do we want to think, how do we want to act and so on...
Well then God should not have put in Lucifer there, well Lucifer is caught only when he has truly deceived. How does one charge one with a crime that has not been committed. Again that was a choice Lucifer made.
Well we should not have been made with free-will. Well, how would you want to be a slave - who can't think for himself - who has no freedom.
Since all sin is disbelief in God, we are all born with the free-will or rather the propensity to sin.
And it is this propensity to sin that has to be taken away rather when perfection comes that which is imperfect shall be made perfect.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
