I sometimes play the inconoclast and pen lines to manicure the morbid. I have an addendum to these lines. I wrote these lines when
I was more melancholic than I usually am. So there is some clarification
needed. Although I think I have lived only half my life I think I have arrived
at some conclusions which I think are reasonably informative. Actually quite
important I feel. This is regarding the status of the teacher who teaches us
about life. I have taken lessons in mantras, performance of rituals, theistic
perceptions, religious diet (a lot), sensory restraint and similar topics from a
few teachers and I have found that these lessons do invigorate our existential
possibilities i.e. life’s quotient. While the spiritual teacher does help us
walk the road to reality, he also does warn us about the possible mistakes
along the way. This is where I tended to ignore the warnings of my teachers and
marched unperturbed into modes of behavior which made me face daunting
situations thinking that these techniques that enhanced my capabilities would
allow me to come through, without being broken hearted. But through a bit of a trial
of, and by, but not for… error, I have
been able to see that while the spiritual teacher tells us about the great possibilities
that life offers, he DOES emphasize that progress is systematic, and
practical. His warnings ought to be heeded with veneration. Life is too good a
commodity to leave at the mercy of chance behavior. In all the cultures of the
world the veneration of the teacher is considered a very advanced mode of behavior,
a gesture of great value, and a exalted principle to live by. And just as the
encouragement of the teacher is priceless, so is his discouragement worthy.
Having ignored these values I encountered a few blows in life which left me a
little breathless. Actually it was the wisdom of the wise confirming their
injunctions. So the feelings of malnutrition are more to do with my sledging
heart which confirms that life is priceless,… so the kidney should stay in place…and the
liver… maybe because the Giver has given them to us not to chance them but to
lead a charmed life.
Monday, 5 March 2018
Tuesday, 26 December 2017
Terrorizing the
terrorists...
This article is a response to what a journalist had to
say about some comments that the current Pope made regarding recent terrorist
attacks, and how to deal with them. The comments of both the Pope and the
journalist are on a website... http://www.catholic.org/news/hf/faith/story.php?id=70197
The reader, if he so chooses can see the details of what
the Pope had to say in order to correlate better. Of course I do try to mention
a few of the correlations myself. The setting of the article is that the Pope
has made his comments on recent terrorist attacks, especially one that killed an
aged priest, and the journalist has also gestured, albeit with a bite of
discontent. I try to respond in defense of what the Pope had to say. Please
read on in if you so please....
The satire of what the Pope has to say is quite sweet but
the satirist seems to lack the leverage to conceive of some important concepts.
The satirist seems to object that the Pope’s solution to “Islamic” terrorism is
not to try and be violently proactive, but to be just so defenseless due to
compassion that one would simply not be able to protect oneself or one’s
community against religious hate. What the Pope did point out, quite
importantly, is that the nature of terrorism is an indigenous affair and if
people just have more to look forward to, in life, as a result of honest work opportunity
or EMPLOYMENT they might avoid things like drugs, pedophilia, burglary and
also... terrorism. The clever Samaritan indicates that murder of various
kinds, wars, lack of medical cure or nutrition, abortions etc. claim a whole
lot more lives, in any part of the world, than terrorism. Terrorism is the
fallout, but man’s illegitimate attire is the fall.
The Pope pointed out that ideals of humanity have been
let be, by even the erudite. Thus even a low class man, if he is willing to be
religious, can feel not too stupid about violating the pride of a gentleman of
a higher class because the man standing way up is squeezing the life out of
society to boost his expensive morale. If, say, the president of a country has
boasted of gang rape, or say, we express that in God we trust and yet millions
of, to be Catholics, or to be protestants, are aborted, or after a certain age persons
cannot decide whether they can stay within the premises of their own homes and
be coerced into confined congregations..., or women are humiliated as a ritual,
or there is no kindness among people of even the same faith, or tonnes of food
is thrown into the seas to keep up inflation rates ..... and we do this all the
while keeping the faith that in God we Trust.... so what kind of God we trust
in, our neighbors might want to verify.
A modern leader is infamous if he doesn’t gloat about
genocide... just keeping the population genetics upto date...mate...
A child that is
moving in the womb is a blank slate on which we can very soon start writing,
and pretty well too, if we choose to, with all the understandings that we have
about social development and behavior molding or character modelling etc.
There is so much data on what it takes to make a productive, flourishing
persona, but we choose to reduce millions of such possibilities to mere
carcasses using biological definitions of when a child can claim to be living
and a solvent that dissolves tissue.
Religion equates age with wisdom but the matter-of- fact activist with utility, productivity, efficiency and cost-effectiveness... and as always,
the latter do better.
As women shed their religion imposed shackles they also
shed their outfits, and not just in private. The correlation can be tested...
just ask a young, able bodied woman, to wear a meager outfit to office and ask the
men around her how they felt about her and then ask her to dress a little more
cordially and then repeat the same questionnaire. Oh, I see... the tunic plays
mind games. By the way, the games are of value albeit a little moody.
And if we char moving fetuses, convict the aged, is it
that much of an antithesis to knowingly let masses of children, men, women,
starve... heh heh Mr. maverick ... the
jokes on you.
Scarlet Daddy: Hey God, what the hell is going on?
God: Well ...you are in Hell...
Moral on the wall: If we induce hell into our existence, where the hell
do we expect to be?
Heterosexuality is advocated in even the Bible..., in fact God
destroyed entire societies to reprimand homosexuality (yup GOD of the Bible...sodomy
comes from Sodom which is a city (along with Gomorrah) condemned by God because
of the prevailing sin of homosexuality and other immoral traits...also read
Genesis 19:4, Leviticus 18:22). Just like devout Christians would still like to
be able to revere Christ, Muslim men may want to protect their underwear from catholic
homosexuals and their women from being a burial ground for sexual haste and
distaste.
Another conjecture made, was that the Pope expects
Christians to let live Muslims, but at the same time hopes the former will look
down upon the latter as an inferior breed. I wonder if the Pope actually did
say that. If I like my mother, then that is natural and expected,... but if
another loves his own mother that is also natural and wanted. The Pope just
points out that man’s relation with God is sacred and one means of appreciating
that tryst is just as good as another. If I can like my soccer star and you can
fall in love with yours, is it so very inconsiderate to let both of us co-exist?
Love thy neighbor as thyself.....tough isn’t it... but maybe the endeavor to
thus endure, is better than prefer sodomy and wonder where the thrust is?
I wonder if the
buried priest would disagree... had he lived....
Monday, 14 August 2017
Violent Religions
.....................................
Observant people often claim that religion has motivated so much violence needlessly. Fueling this debate were the theories of Freud who encouraged sexual “liberation” . So religion was bad because it asked you to be violent and asked you to have little, or no sex.
Sometimes civilizations become very aggressive and are very willing to blow each other up and have world wars. Sometimes they want to just languish with narcotics as a stance. Sometimes they want to shoplift and hide the irony with humor.
Point is, religion says that everything has its use; that there is “A time to kill and a time to heal; A time to tear down and a time to build up” (Old Testament). Something similar is stated in the Gita which says that one who is disciplined in his activities of recreation, work, eating, and sleeping can overcome grief. Religion does not insist on total abstinence from sex for everyone. Religion does not insist on subjecting every non believer to the sword.
If you say that a certain section of the people want to murder the Chief Minister, then, naturally, if a force is deployed to combat them, the violence incurred is not needless or heedless. The police sometimes subdue mob fury with teargas or lathi charge. This violence is considered hygienic and legal. Just as a Chief Minister is a necessary piece of civilization, so are religion and things connected to it. Even in atheistic regimes, if someone would criticize the Dictator or Party Incharge, they could be tortured or killed or both. This is a science which can be validated. Anyone can see on the street how people get angry if we abuse their elders. They honour their elders and if someone dishonours them(the elders), the relevant individual feels demotivated due to the insult. If I do not honour the Caliph or Pope, I will honour a football player or a sleaze star. It is difficult to take away from individuals the tendency to honour. Besides, it could be easier to honour Christ than Boris Becker. The latter also contributes to some form of social welfare, but hey… Millions of people all over the world derive solace and billions already have derived solace from honouring Christ, especially in situations where Boris’ memory wouldn’t do too well.
As far as religion causing war is concerned, the picture needs to be considered in its entirety. In fact, war is actually caused by lust, anger, envy, pride, illusion, and greed – the symbols of irreligion, not religion. There is violence because of adultery, because of excessive anger, because of unnecessary hate, because of too much conceit, because of not having the right perspective and of course because of GREED. World war I, World War II, the Korean war, the Gulf war, the Vietnam war,(even the Cold war) – these were all due to greed, to a great degree, aided of course by the other passions. When the lower passions are sublimated to the status of greed, then there is the bent of philanthropy to the intent of war. “In the service of the millions of our country men, lets mow down so and so community… we will experience political and economical vindication.”… This and similar modes of thought encourage our warring leaders.
In the past people fought over SEEMINGLY religious reasons because people were religious (more than their present day counterparts) and their immediate neighbours were either more, or less religious. Thus they hated and fought due to intolerance, greed etc induced by these relativities. Such relativities have always existed and continue to exist and thus violence is spurred on. There has been untamed, relentless violence due to relativities in the economical situation. The relativities that exist between a man and his neighbor affect how the man feels about life. So if I am religious, but my neighbor is more so, it is the discontinuity of fortune that inspires my hate rather than my spiritual status. Communities have fought even over football matches….Whatever is the cultural symptom of status,… people are inclined to quarrel over. Even during the partition of India, the Hindus and Muslims killed each other more due to hate simply because they developed distaste for each other than due to religious sentiments. He wears a topi on his head and I have a turban. So if he is alright then I must be odd, and if I am normal then the other man must be off. The man with a topi and the man with a turban keep scoffing at each other and thus cultivating mutual distaste without even knowing why they should do so. So many people cannot speak more than a few words to explain, why they wear a topi or a turban. People like to form groups and fight each other … this is the psychology of pallid humans, not saints.
Inspired rhetoric doesn’t take away the fact that religion does inspire man to love his neighbor, his superiors and even strangers. Only will, a very superficial understanding of a religion reveal a tendency to advocate disconsolate violence. For example, the Gita is spoken to inspire a warrior to wield his weapons. However this war was a war that needed to be undertaken for the moral upkeep of society. The recipient of the knowledge, Arjuna was willing to resign himself to his fate and retire from active politics because of not desiring to combat his foes who were in many cases his own relatives. However his charioteer inspires him with the thought that a battle ought to be fought, or justice ought to be meted out not simply based on whether the person on the receiving end is his relative or not. Deeds ought to be carried out as a result of a dutiful mindset …. And waging war is one of them. A society that doesn’t prepare itself for its foes is a society that is doomed. Similarly a society that is cruel, is condemned. Religion discourages both approaches.
Another important point that needs to be made, is that reckless atheism has also contributed to violence. The propounder of evolution, Darwin, writes in the book, The Descent of Man, that he expected the better endowed races of human beings to physically exterminate by actual elimination processes the weaker sections of society so that they ceased to exist and what remained would be a strong, homogenous race of pristine men. It is according to this theory that eugenics or population control was devised. Hitler wanted to accordingly breed a race of “Aryans” who were one in blood, views and colour.
Removing religion from the equation still leaves us to struggle with our basic instincts which relentlessly stone our sense of composure. In other words if we just throw out of the window the bible, will we be a happier race individually and collectively.... ?
I quote a little heedlessly, another list of conflicts, wars or conquests which were inspired more by cultural degredations or pride than by religion.
Eighty years war
Hundred years war
American Revolution
French revolution
Russian Revolution
Spanish obliteration of South American Indians and European obliteration of North Americans to seek converts to Christianity, but may be, the GOLD also.( Perchance, if you are seeking to convert, you must let the person live).
At one point of time the sun never set on the British Empire. Now it rises and sets on the English isles. Of course Websters is still a best seller.
Simply put, we need a reason to fight and religion is one of them..., a bit like nationality or lineage.
It is a little bit pointless to relentessly point out how at different points of time religious pontiffs raised warcries preceded by sacred praise. If one is honest he will find that in every religious tradition there is a concept of knowing a religious man not by his robes or form of articulation of prayers exclusively, but also by whether he is following the injunctions of the scriptures, by judging whether he is selfless, or free from greed or charitable and so on and so forth. Non-violence is one such virtue mentioned with great heed in every parable. The blame thus should not be on religion but on the PSEUDO-religious (or politely... not as religious as they may look). I don’t love repeating, but conflicts between societies are instigated with religion as a spark and pontiff’s as the flag bearers more due to cultural inequities, mutual hate, economical dissatisfaction, rather than having anything to do with religion. If you look at the private lives of many of these pontiffs you might notice that they are not that religious at all... even about their own religions.
The solution can be... not to disregard all the pontiffs but to encourage them to be genuinely religious. The genuinely religious have singlehandedly moved humanity.... the instances are many.
Below I quote from Wikipedia as regards the French revolution which is famously symbolized by the guillotine. Please read on for a closer look:
Hanson notes, "The guillotine stands as the principal symbol of the Terror in the French Revolution." Invented by a physician during the Revolution as a quicker, more efficient and more distinctive form of execution, the guillotine became a part of popular culture and historic memory. It was celebrated on the left as the people's avenger and cursed as the symbol of the Reign of Terror by the right. Its operation became a popular entertainment that attracted great crowds of spectators. Vendors sold programmes listing the names of those scheduled to die. Many people came day after day and vied for the best locations from which to observe the proceedings; knitting women (tricoteuses) formed a cadre of hardcore regulars, inciting the crowd. Parents often brought their children. By the end of the Terror, the crowds had thinned drastically. Repetition had staled even this most grisly of entertainments, and audiences grew bored.
End of quote.
There are plenty of examples of they who held fast to their atheistic dogmas (familiar word) and who made the earth wretched with the blood of cruel gore. Again we turn to Wikipedia
What it is that horrifies people changes over time. Doyle comments:
Even the unique horror of the guillotine has been dwarfed by the gas chambers of the Holocaust, the organized brutality of the gulag, the mass intimidation of Mao's cultural revolution, or the killing fields of Cambodia.[158]
Stalin, Mao, Polpot, to name a few, were staunch flagbearers of atheism. They felt inclined to the sword because they were convinced that morality is a fuitile prospect, that compassion moved the robustly stupid and that victory at the end was worth the cruel intervention. They firmly believed that there is no one out there watching over what we do and how we do it and why we do so. They also compelled others to believe the same. They were competently irreligious... were they not violent?
The lives of all the prophets (yes... read again... ALL) exhibited exemplary behaviour between man and his neighbours which included not just human beings. Men wonder why their guardian angels don’t talk to them,... but they are loath to be compassionate to their own environment. Beasts are burnt alive for the banquet because burnt flesh tastes better if the victim has endured the flames which eat into his fat as it screams helplessly. On the same earth there are entire communities who meet the needs of the flesh with minimal cruelty and are substantially well endowed. There are performers in many different fields of activity who avoid cruelty to inferior beings and yet they maintian the vigour for victory. It may be that a certain modicum of cruelty is necessary for a specific kind of bodily stamina or build but that is only a certain portion of the diet. Any sane man can reduce his meat intake by at least 5-10 percent. If an entire population does it, the results will be remarkable. People don’t even observe whether they are liking the meat that they are chewing. Anyone can see that an occasional shift to a meatless diet for a day or even a meal appears quite pleasant. The excessive demand for meat products depletes the economy, the environment and our existential previleges, like equanimity, humility etc.
Once the animals have all become extinct, and the rivers have all become sewers, and the trees have all been felled, and we are all Darwin’s blue eyed men and women, then further evolution could be interesting to observe. Somethings in life could be simple, but maybe we tend to complicate them?
.....................................
Observant people often claim that religion has motivated so much violence needlessly. Fueling this debate were the theories of Freud who encouraged sexual “liberation” . So religion was bad because it asked you to be violent and asked you to have little, or no sex.
Sometimes civilizations become very aggressive and are very willing to blow each other up and have world wars. Sometimes they want to just languish with narcotics as a stance. Sometimes they want to shoplift and hide the irony with humor.
Point is, religion says that everything has its use; that there is “A time to kill and a time to heal; A time to tear down and a time to build up” (Old Testament). Something similar is stated in the Gita which says that one who is disciplined in his activities of recreation, work, eating, and sleeping can overcome grief. Religion does not insist on total abstinence from sex for everyone. Religion does not insist on subjecting every non believer to the sword.
If you say that a certain section of the people want to murder the Chief Minister, then, naturally, if a force is deployed to combat them, the violence incurred is not needless or heedless. The police sometimes subdue mob fury with teargas or lathi charge. This violence is considered hygienic and legal. Just as a Chief Minister is a necessary piece of civilization, so are religion and things connected to it. Even in atheistic regimes, if someone would criticize the Dictator or Party Incharge, they could be tortured or killed or both. This is a science which can be validated. Anyone can see on the street how people get angry if we abuse their elders. They honour their elders and if someone dishonours them(the elders), the relevant individual feels demotivated due to the insult. If I do not honour the Caliph or Pope, I will honour a football player or a sleaze star. It is difficult to take away from individuals the tendency to honour. Besides, it could be easier to honour Christ than Boris Becker. The latter also contributes to some form of social welfare, but hey… Millions of people all over the world derive solace and billions already have derived solace from honouring Christ, especially in situations where Boris’ memory wouldn’t do too well.
As far as religion causing war is concerned, the picture needs to be considered in its entirety. In fact, war is actually caused by lust, anger, envy, pride, illusion, and greed – the symbols of irreligion, not religion. There is violence because of adultery, because of excessive anger, because of unnecessary hate, because of too much conceit, because of not having the right perspective and of course because of GREED. World war I, World War II, the Korean war, the Gulf war, the Vietnam war,(even the Cold war) – these were all due to greed, to a great degree, aided of course by the other passions. When the lower passions are sublimated to the status of greed, then there is the bent of philanthropy to the intent of war. “In the service of the millions of our country men, lets mow down so and so community… we will experience political and economical vindication.”… This and similar modes of thought encourage our warring leaders.
In the past people fought over SEEMINGLY religious reasons because people were religious (more than their present day counterparts) and their immediate neighbours were either more, or less religious. Thus they hated and fought due to intolerance, greed etc induced by these relativities. Such relativities have always existed and continue to exist and thus violence is spurred on. There has been untamed, relentless violence due to relativities in the economical situation. The relativities that exist between a man and his neighbor affect how the man feels about life. So if I am religious, but my neighbor is more so, it is the discontinuity of fortune that inspires my hate rather than my spiritual status. Communities have fought even over football matches….Whatever is the cultural symptom of status,… people are inclined to quarrel over. Even during the partition of India, the Hindus and Muslims killed each other more due to hate simply because they developed distaste for each other than due to religious sentiments. He wears a topi on his head and I have a turban. So if he is alright then I must be odd, and if I am normal then the other man must be off. The man with a topi and the man with a turban keep scoffing at each other and thus cultivating mutual distaste without even knowing why they should do so. So many people cannot speak more than a few words to explain, why they wear a topi or a turban. People like to form groups and fight each other … this is the psychology of pallid humans, not saints.
Inspired rhetoric doesn’t take away the fact that religion does inspire man to love his neighbor, his superiors and even strangers. Only will, a very superficial understanding of a religion reveal a tendency to advocate disconsolate violence. For example, the Gita is spoken to inspire a warrior to wield his weapons. However this war was a war that needed to be undertaken for the moral upkeep of society. The recipient of the knowledge, Arjuna was willing to resign himself to his fate and retire from active politics because of not desiring to combat his foes who were in many cases his own relatives. However his charioteer inspires him with the thought that a battle ought to be fought, or justice ought to be meted out not simply based on whether the person on the receiving end is his relative or not. Deeds ought to be carried out as a result of a dutiful mindset …. And waging war is one of them. A society that doesn’t prepare itself for its foes is a society that is doomed. Similarly a society that is cruel, is condemned. Religion discourages both approaches.
Another important point that needs to be made, is that reckless atheism has also contributed to violence. The propounder of evolution, Darwin, writes in the book, The Descent of Man, that he expected the better endowed races of human beings to physically exterminate by actual elimination processes the weaker sections of society so that they ceased to exist and what remained would be a strong, homogenous race of pristine men. It is according to this theory that eugenics or population control was devised. Hitler wanted to accordingly breed a race of “Aryans” who were one in blood, views and colour.
Removing religion from the equation still leaves us to struggle with our basic instincts which relentlessly stone our sense of composure. In other words if we just throw out of the window the bible, will we be a happier race individually and collectively.... ?
I quote a little heedlessly, another list of conflicts, wars or conquests which were inspired more by cultural degredations or pride than by religion.
Eighty years war
Hundred years war
American Revolution
French revolution
Russian Revolution
Spanish obliteration of South American Indians and European obliteration of North Americans to seek converts to Christianity, but may be, the GOLD also.( Perchance, if you are seeking to convert, you must let the person live).
At one point of time the sun never set on the British Empire. Now it rises and sets on the English isles. Of course Websters is still a best seller.
Simply put, we need a reason to fight and religion is one of them..., a bit like nationality or lineage.
It is a little bit pointless to relentessly point out how at different points of time religious pontiffs raised warcries preceded by sacred praise. If one is honest he will find that in every religious tradition there is a concept of knowing a religious man not by his robes or form of articulation of prayers exclusively, but also by whether he is following the injunctions of the scriptures, by judging whether he is selfless, or free from greed or charitable and so on and so forth. Non-violence is one such virtue mentioned with great heed in every parable. The blame thus should not be on religion but on the PSEUDO-religious (or politely... not as religious as they may look). I don’t love repeating, but conflicts between societies are instigated with religion as a spark and pontiff’s as the flag bearers more due to cultural inequities, mutual hate, economical dissatisfaction, rather than having anything to do with religion. If you look at the private lives of many of these pontiffs you might notice that they are not that religious at all... even about their own religions.
The solution can be... not to disregard all the pontiffs but to encourage them to be genuinely religious. The genuinely religious have singlehandedly moved humanity.... the instances are many.
Below I quote from Wikipedia as regards the French revolution which is famously symbolized by the guillotine. Please read on for a closer look:
Hanson notes, "The guillotine stands as the principal symbol of the Terror in the French Revolution." Invented by a physician during the Revolution as a quicker, more efficient and more distinctive form of execution, the guillotine became a part of popular culture and historic memory. It was celebrated on the left as the people's avenger and cursed as the symbol of the Reign of Terror by the right. Its operation became a popular entertainment that attracted great crowds of spectators. Vendors sold programmes listing the names of those scheduled to die. Many people came day after day and vied for the best locations from which to observe the proceedings; knitting women (tricoteuses) formed a cadre of hardcore regulars, inciting the crowd. Parents often brought their children. By the end of the Terror, the crowds had thinned drastically. Repetition had staled even this most grisly of entertainments, and audiences grew bored.
End of quote.
There are plenty of examples of they who held fast to their atheistic dogmas (familiar word) and who made the earth wretched with the blood of cruel gore. Again we turn to Wikipedia
What it is that horrifies people changes over time. Doyle comments:
Even the unique horror of the guillotine has been dwarfed by the gas chambers of the Holocaust, the organized brutality of the gulag, the mass intimidation of Mao's cultural revolution, or the killing fields of Cambodia.[158]
Stalin, Mao, Polpot, to name a few, were staunch flagbearers of atheism. They felt inclined to the sword because they were convinced that morality is a fuitile prospect, that compassion moved the robustly stupid and that victory at the end was worth the cruel intervention. They firmly believed that there is no one out there watching over what we do and how we do it and why we do so. They also compelled others to believe the same. They were competently irreligious... were they not violent?
The lives of all the prophets (yes... read again... ALL) exhibited exemplary behaviour between man and his neighbours which included not just human beings. Men wonder why their guardian angels don’t talk to them,... but they are loath to be compassionate to their own environment. Beasts are burnt alive for the banquet because burnt flesh tastes better if the victim has endured the flames which eat into his fat as it screams helplessly. On the same earth there are entire communities who meet the needs of the flesh with minimal cruelty and are substantially well endowed. There are performers in many different fields of activity who avoid cruelty to inferior beings and yet they maintian the vigour for victory. It may be that a certain modicum of cruelty is necessary for a specific kind of bodily stamina or build but that is only a certain portion of the diet. Any sane man can reduce his meat intake by at least 5-10 percent. If an entire population does it, the results will be remarkable. People don’t even observe whether they are liking the meat that they are chewing. Anyone can see that an occasional shift to a meatless diet for a day or even a meal appears quite pleasant. The excessive demand for meat products depletes the economy, the environment and our existential previleges, like equanimity, humility etc.
Once the animals have all become extinct, and the rivers have all become sewers, and the trees have all been felled, and we are all Darwin’s blue eyed men and women, then further evolution could be interesting to observe. Somethings in life could be simple, but maybe we tend to complicate them?
Tuesday, 30 May 2017
I came across this quote today and decided that I had to comment on it. It's by a famous cartoonist.
The surest sign that intelligent life exists elsewhere in the universe is that it has never tried to contact us.
Bill Watterson
No, the surest sign... is that it has and there is plenty of evidence for it. But you cannot see it, blinded as you are by your unyielding, pathetic skepticism. Only a consummate ass would say that the Prime Minister doesn’t exist because the latter hasn’t bothered to get in touch with the former. Turn on the T.V. set and you’ll be convinced of the existence of the Prime Minister. Similarly, take your radar out, start the E.T. search, free from overbearing and obnoxious pessimism and after some period of systematic searching one can conclude. The author of the quote is a cartoonist, like many others, but there are scientists who have earned their credibility through rigorous scientific discipline such as mathematicians, Nobel prize winning physicists, biologists etc. who have been inquisitive about extra-terrestrial life. Even hard nosed atheists of the category of Richard Dawkins believe enthusiastically in the possibility of extra-terrestrial life. Just because a civilization doesn't douse our flame with one gulp, in one terror ridden heave, it cannot exist... this kind of reasoning is the symptom of arrogant stupidity.
To abate satire without fire, the surest sign that a man is a fool is that he realizes it every day, but still doesn’t want to admit it. And even if he does, his wife disagrees. Whoever said that must be rather fearful of his wife....
The surest sign that intelligent life exists elsewhere in the universe is that it has never tried to contact us.
Bill Watterson
No, the surest sign... is that it has and there is plenty of evidence for it. But you cannot see it, blinded as you are by your unyielding, pathetic skepticism. Only a consummate ass would say that the Prime Minister doesn’t exist because the latter hasn’t bothered to get in touch with the former. Turn on the T.V. set and you’ll be convinced of the existence of the Prime Minister. Similarly, take your radar out, start the E.T. search, free from overbearing and obnoxious pessimism and after some period of systematic searching one can conclude. The author of the quote is a cartoonist, like many others, but there are scientists who have earned their credibility through rigorous scientific discipline such as mathematicians, Nobel prize winning physicists, biologists etc. who have been inquisitive about extra-terrestrial life. Even hard nosed atheists of the category of Richard Dawkins believe enthusiastically in the possibility of extra-terrestrial life. Just because a civilization doesn't douse our flame with one gulp, in one terror ridden heave, it cannot exist... this kind of reasoning is the symptom of arrogant stupidity.
To abate satire without fire, the surest sign that a man is a fool is that he realizes it every day, but still doesn’t want to admit it. And even if he does, his wife disagrees. Whoever said that must be rather fearful of his wife....
Sunday, 11 December 2016
Sweet Sirens
I cherish the reader's kindness in viewing my blog. The word "blog" somehow conveys the lack of fervour as in something sloppy. Yet these very "blogs" are sometimes precious means to revitalize oneself by connecting oneself to an audience. Whenever I check my blog and see that someone has viewed it, the heart feels relieved of shame. So I present before the reader another unworthy, literary contribution.
I cherish the reader's kindness in viewing my blog. The word "blog" somehow conveys the lack of fervour as in something sloppy. Yet these very "blogs" are sometimes precious means to revitalize oneself by connecting oneself to an audience. Whenever I check my blog and see that someone has viewed it, the heart feels relieved of shame. So I present before the reader another unworthy, literary contribution.
When the clouds seem to slowly choose
And the wolves do prowl a little loose
Hanging on to a noisy conversation
A witty siren rushing through my station
If I could dance just one more time
Choosing between You and cordial lime
Singing to the
tune of a biting night
Anyone can fight and anyone can write
I’m sitting in a room blooming with gloom
Afraid of Truth and sanity’s doom
Do You feel handsomely about the day?
You suffered me in a mellow way
Is there might in choices few
Not much to drink but plenty to chew
Is there something about the sultry moon
Which seems better than a better boon
Oh the fallacies of a false legacy
I’m turning without seeing, really, You see?
The losses incurred from breaking a fence
Persisting again with yesterday’s lense
Is there no point in being honest & right
Yes, though not too much, says Mrs night
What is the best time to heed a parrot
That will talk of You and live on a carrot
I will dig into a trench and reveal the wise
Who hid themselves, to avoid the lies
Just shades of truths that betook themselves
To be woven onto the shirts of primordial elves
The sweetness of an enduring, startling agony
Trying to be heartbroken… for that’s the way to be
Do You think I can wonder about Time and Love
The curtains revealed a parodied, frozen dove
He condemned when I asked "how shall I not envy?"
with.., "Primordial cycles of time need to let you be!"
Curtailing my tastes like treating insanity
Running to where I can drink herbal tea
Thursday, 20 October 2016
Namaste.
I haven't blogged for a long time. So I sheepishly take up the reins again. No one was looking at my blog, so I thought that I will let Time look at it. In the meantime I was leading a confused life. Then I got confused about the confusion. The confusion lost its charm ...a bit. I do feel it can harm. Of course, if you are confused about consuming cocaine, then that confusion probably is welcome, it ought not wane, though I am not fully cognizant about the graces of the graceful. Cocaine seems inane but in today's technocrazed world, smelling is believing. Can't do that.
I have some verses written and some exciting tales to tell. If you read them I hope you will be inspired to wish me well.
The poem below is not as well knit with wit as it ought to be. I do intend to try and improve the presentations. I thought about again getting going in the blogging department and decided the second come first service.
Blue Nest
Wisps of definite and crimson grey
Unsound darlings of beasts of prey
O we vicious sons of the mighty gods
Embracing charming and penitent broads
Is there yield in passions wild
If only to be an innocent child
Cut my hand and bleed me blue
Why this strangeness between me and You
Breach of trust and howling lies
The still falcon as it flies
Replete with doubts, cries of shame
Playing to win a shallow game
More and more, words of greed
Why not sit with the silent creed
Do you know to be a cynical fool
Writing on the wall rule after rule
The idiot smiled like a shameless it
O lass of frenzied,
rhythmical wit
O men who cried in their hour of need
As the fruit so
was the seed
We do know a little although
About the need, for reap and sow
Yet we do handsomely
whine
When we ought to rise and shine
The man who spoke with a golden tongue
Who knew not how to heal the lung
Desdemona why lie to me
Desdemona why condemn He
They who danced while it rained
They who ran while soundly chained
Man is born free then shackles himself
Putting the scripture back on the shelf
Is it true that we can dance and sing
Why try to fly on a turtle wing
If all you need is a winsome glance
Why not try for a second chance
We shall close now with a rarish song
About something that wont go wrong
Why do I run when I need to hide
O charming One my grief hasn’t died
Saturday, 19 December 2015
This article was written nearly over a year ago. I just discovered it, and decided to post it. Please ignore the time frames referred to. Any quote taken from the internet which you doubt, just Google a line or two of it and you are likely to find it.
On atheism, morality, and the rest......
Recently a professional counselor (a lady) was describing to me how it has been established by science that a person’s inclination to morality has nothing to do with whether that person is a theist or an atheist. I thought I knew a bit about how science is supposed to ‘progress’ by thesis, antithesis and synthesis. Thus I looked up the internet about this matter. I am dutifully, documenting what little I could discover on this topic. Every now and then I comment a bit about what I’ve documented. But before that I would like to narrate the kind of turn the conversation with the lady counselor took. The lady acknowledged that God could be considered to be a father and we his sons. However, somehow (I do not know how) God is indifferent to the fact whether his son acknowledges his divine Father ( His Grace, His Bounty and feels love and gratitude for Him) or whether another son, just ignores Him, says He has no existence and often even insults Him. She tried to convince me with great fervor that the destiny of a person is not affected whether he adores his Creator or just ignores His existence. I tried to explain how every single theistic religion affirms that God’s love is extended to the surrendered soul and His displeasure is, meted out to those otherwise inclined. This time she couldn’t come up with yet another scientific claim, and just pointed out how that is another question indicating maybe that God’s bounty or His displeasure are debatable points. What I did not manage to tell her, I would like to point out now. If there is God, and if there are laws of karma (as you sow so you reap) then they will be there whether we accept them or not. So if God does exercise love and wrath then we could become affected by such things irrespective of our scientific pedigrees. So maybe it makes sense to dissect religion a bit just like one would dissect a dead frog to understand the details. Even more so because people like Newton, Maxwell, Einstein, Pasteur, Kelvin etc all believed in the glory of God. It’s true that it appears great to party with meat, sex and alcohol. Yet frequent party goers complain of PPS (post party syndrome). So juuuuust maybe, it could make sense to try out our ancient knowledge which claims to be able to confer peace on the sincere enquirer. Now, over to the internet.
I’m starting with a quote by a famous person, Stephen Jay Gould. This is what I found on him:
Stephen Jay Gould (/ɡuːld/; September 10, 1941 – May 20, 2002) was an American paleontologist, evolutionary biologist and historian of science. He was also one of the most influential and widely read writers of popular science of his generation. Gould spent most of his career teaching at Harvard University and working at the American Museum of Natural History in New York. In the later years of his life, Gould also taught biology and evolution at New York University.
This is what he said:
Harvard University's staunch evolutionist Stephen Jay Gould stated, "Biological arguments for racism may have been common before 1859, but they increased by orders of magnitude following the acceptance of evolutionary theory."
Stephen Gould also admitted the following about the atheist Ernst Haeckel:
Haeckel was the chief apostle of evolution in Germany.... His evolutionary racism; his call to the German people for racial purity and unflinching devotion to a "just" state; his belief that harsh, inexorable laws of evolution ruled human civilization and nature alike, conferring upon favored races the right to dominate others; the irrational mysticism that had always stood in strange communion with his brave words about objective science - all contributed to the rise of Nazism. - Stephen J. Gould, "Ontogeny and Phylogeny," Belknap Press: Cambridge MA, 1977, pp.77-78).
Leading Nazis, and early 1900 influential German biologists, revealed in their writings that Darwin’s theory and publications had a major influence upon Nazi race policies. Hitler believed that the human gene pool could be improved by using selective breeding similar to how farmers breed superior cattle strains. In the formulation of their racial policies, Hitler’s government relied heavily upon Darwinism, especially the elaborations by Spencer and Haeckel. As a result, a central policy of Hitler’s administration was the development and implementation of policies designed to protect the ‘superior race’. This required at the very least preventing the ‘inferior races’ from mixing with those judged superior, in order to reduce contamination of the latter’s gene pool. The ‘superior race’ belief was based on the theory of group inequality within each species, a major presumption and requirement of Darwin’s original ‘survival of the fittest’ theory. This philosophy culminated in the ‘final solution’, the extermination of approximately six million Jews and four million other people who belonged to what German scientists judged as ‘inferior races’.
Hickman adds that it is no coincidence that Hitler:
‘ … was a firm believer and preacher of evolution. Whatever the deeper, profound, complexities of his psychosis, it is certain that [the concept of struggle was important because] … his book, Mein Kampf, clearly set forth a number of evolutionary ideas, particularly those emphasizing struggle, survival of the fittest and the extermination of the weak to produce a better society.’
While it is true that persecution of the Jews has a very long history in Europe, it is also true that science in the twentieth century revived and absolutized persecution by giving it a fresh rationale — Jewishness was not religious or cultural, but genetic. Therefore no appeal could be made against the brute fact of a Jewish grandparent.
As the history of eugenics proves, science at the highest levels is no reliable corrective to the influence of cultural prejudice but is in fact profoundly vulnerable to it.
“Faith is one of the world’s great evils, comparable to the smallpox virus but harder to eradicate.”
—Richard Dawkins
“What’s to prevent us from saying Hitler wasn’t right? I mean, that is a genuinely difficult question."
- Richard Dawkins
Just in case you still don’t have a clue who Mr. Dawkins is I will recommend that you look up the internet on him. I do apologize for being unassiduous.
Darwin himself was a racist and white supremacist. He predicted mass genocide from his theory, claiming:
At some future period not very distant as measured by centuries, the civilised races of man will almost certainly exterminate and replace the savage races throughout the world. At the same time the anthropomorphous apes...will no doubt be exterminated. The break between man and his nearest Allies will then be wider, for it will intervene between man in a more civilised state, as we may hope, even than the Caucasian, and some ape as low as the baboon, instead of as now between the Negro or Australian and the gorilla.
Likewise he compared native populations to animals:
“ The difference between a Tierra del Fuegian and a European is greater than between a Tierra del Fuegian and a beast”
To sum the above facts up I would like to say that atheism means regarding life not as something sacred but as a mere conglomerate of chemicals just driven by the urge to win and survive. This mindset has resulted in facism and other forms of cruelty.
http://fore.research.yale.edu/publications/statements/preserve/
At the above link is a beautiful statement issued by a body of scientists regarding how human beings can benefit from considering the environment, the earth and each other as sacred. While the above quotations inform us of the downside of atheistic thought and horrible culminations as their inevitable outcome, the above statement, by very good men of science lends credibility to the act of seeing through a theologically sound pair of lenses.
I will get back to the lady in a couple of weeks time armed with this article. She is trying to convince me how I cannot contribute to the spiritual upliftment of humanity without being able to earn my living. And she has succeeded. And that is another story.
On atheism, morality, and the rest......
Recently a professional counselor (a lady) was describing to me how it has been established by science that a person’s inclination to morality has nothing to do with whether that person is a theist or an atheist. I thought I knew a bit about how science is supposed to ‘progress’ by thesis, antithesis and synthesis. Thus I looked up the internet about this matter. I am dutifully, documenting what little I could discover on this topic. Every now and then I comment a bit about what I’ve documented. But before that I would like to narrate the kind of turn the conversation with the lady counselor took. The lady acknowledged that God could be considered to be a father and we his sons. However, somehow (I do not know how) God is indifferent to the fact whether his son acknowledges his divine Father ( His Grace, His Bounty and feels love and gratitude for Him) or whether another son, just ignores Him, says He has no existence and often even insults Him. She tried to convince me with great fervor that the destiny of a person is not affected whether he adores his Creator or just ignores His existence. I tried to explain how every single theistic religion affirms that God’s love is extended to the surrendered soul and His displeasure is, meted out to those otherwise inclined. This time she couldn’t come up with yet another scientific claim, and just pointed out how that is another question indicating maybe that God’s bounty or His displeasure are debatable points. What I did not manage to tell her, I would like to point out now. If there is God, and if there are laws of karma (as you sow so you reap) then they will be there whether we accept them or not. So if God does exercise love and wrath then we could become affected by such things irrespective of our scientific pedigrees. So maybe it makes sense to dissect religion a bit just like one would dissect a dead frog to understand the details. Even more so because people like Newton, Maxwell, Einstein, Pasteur, Kelvin etc all believed in the glory of God. It’s true that it appears great to party with meat, sex and alcohol. Yet frequent party goers complain of PPS (post party syndrome). So juuuuust maybe, it could make sense to try out our ancient knowledge which claims to be able to confer peace on the sincere enquirer. Now, over to the internet.
I’m starting with a quote by a famous person, Stephen Jay Gould. This is what I found on him:
Stephen Jay Gould (/ɡuːld/; September 10, 1941 – May 20, 2002) was an American paleontologist, evolutionary biologist and historian of science. He was also one of the most influential and widely read writers of popular science of his generation. Gould spent most of his career teaching at Harvard University and working at the American Museum of Natural History in New York. In the later years of his life, Gould also taught biology and evolution at New York University.
This is what he said:
Harvard University's staunch evolutionist Stephen Jay Gould stated, "Biological arguments for racism may have been common before 1859, but they increased by orders of magnitude following the acceptance of evolutionary theory."
Stephen Gould also admitted the following about the atheist Ernst Haeckel:
Haeckel was the chief apostle of evolution in Germany.... His evolutionary racism; his call to the German people for racial purity and unflinching devotion to a "just" state; his belief that harsh, inexorable laws of evolution ruled human civilization and nature alike, conferring upon favored races the right to dominate others; the irrational mysticism that had always stood in strange communion with his brave words about objective science - all contributed to the rise of Nazism. - Stephen J. Gould, "Ontogeny and Phylogeny," Belknap Press: Cambridge MA, 1977, pp.77-78).
Leading Nazis, and early 1900 influential German biologists, revealed in their writings that Darwin’s theory and publications had a major influence upon Nazi race policies. Hitler believed that the human gene pool could be improved by using selective breeding similar to how farmers breed superior cattle strains. In the formulation of their racial policies, Hitler’s government relied heavily upon Darwinism, especially the elaborations by Spencer and Haeckel. As a result, a central policy of Hitler’s administration was the development and implementation of policies designed to protect the ‘superior race’. This required at the very least preventing the ‘inferior races’ from mixing with those judged superior, in order to reduce contamination of the latter’s gene pool. The ‘superior race’ belief was based on the theory of group inequality within each species, a major presumption and requirement of Darwin’s original ‘survival of the fittest’ theory. This philosophy culminated in the ‘final solution’, the extermination of approximately six million Jews and four million other people who belonged to what German scientists judged as ‘inferior races’.
Hickman adds that it is no coincidence that Hitler:
‘ … was a firm believer and preacher of evolution. Whatever the deeper, profound, complexities of his psychosis, it is certain that [the concept of struggle was important because] … his book, Mein Kampf, clearly set forth a number of evolutionary ideas, particularly those emphasizing struggle, survival of the fittest and the extermination of the weak to produce a better society.’
While it is true that persecution of the Jews has a very long history in Europe, it is also true that science in the twentieth century revived and absolutized persecution by giving it a fresh rationale — Jewishness was not religious or cultural, but genetic. Therefore no appeal could be made against the brute fact of a Jewish grandparent.
As the history of eugenics proves, science at the highest levels is no reliable corrective to the influence of cultural prejudice but is in fact profoundly vulnerable to it.
“Faith is one of the world’s great evils, comparable to the smallpox virus but harder to eradicate.”
—Richard Dawkins
“What’s to prevent us from saying Hitler wasn’t right? I mean, that is a genuinely difficult question."
- Richard Dawkins
Just in case you still don’t have a clue who Mr. Dawkins is I will recommend that you look up the internet on him. I do apologize for being unassiduous.
Darwin himself was a racist and white supremacist. He predicted mass genocide from his theory, claiming:
At some future period not very distant as measured by centuries, the civilised races of man will almost certainly exterminate and replace the savage races throughout the world. At the same time the anthropomorphous apes...will no doubt be exterminated. The break between man and his nearest Allies will then be wider, for it will intervene between man in a more civilised state, as we may hope, even than the Caucasian, and some ape as low as the baboon, instead of as now between the Negro or Australian and the gorilla.
Likewise he compared native populations to animals:
“ The difference between a Tierra del Fuegian and a European is greater than between a Tierra del Fuegian and a beast”
To sum the above facts up I would like to say that atheism means regarding life not as something sacred but as a mere conglomerate of chemicals just driven by the urge to win and survive. This mindset has resulted in facism and other forms of cruelty.
http://fore.research.yale.edu/publications/statements/preserve/
At the above link is a beautiful statement issued by a body of scientists regarding how human beings can benefit from considering the environment, the earth and each other as sacred. While the above quotations inform us of the downside of atheistic thought and horrible culminations as their inevitable outcome, the above statement, by very good men of science lends credibility to the act of seeing through a theologically sound pair of lenses.
I will get back to the lady in a couple of weeks time armed with this article. She is trying to convince me how I cannot contribute to the spiritual upliftment of humanity without being able to earn my living. And she has succeeded. And that is another story.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)