WEEKEND THOUGHTS # 4

CHAKRA

Hi.. ORNETTERS: 

This "Weekend Thoughts" will have two parts to it.
The first part is a response to the ATHEISM topic of last weekend.
The second part will follow this part. The second part is a new
topic altogether.

The following contribution is made by Raikanta Sahu. Before
introducing him formally, I would like to state that the response to
Somdutt's article on ATHEISM is very much on line with the ongoing
discussion in the ORNET. Prasanna Babu's "Minimalist Believer" topic
is something worth grilling your brain about. Is it Brahma Satya or
is it actually Bhrama Satya. I don't know if Jagat is Mithya. I am
not an extremely materialistic person anyway. Many of you might
think that Jagat is Satya. A person with this belief is also an
intellectual as promoted by Prasanna Mishra. However, a person with
the opposite thought is Bruddha (old). Well, Old is Gold and there
is no question about that. I would tend to stick with Bruddha deb
rather than Buddhi Deb. Anyway, this is a debatable topic and as
rightfully said by Kabi Upendra Bhanja and quoted by Prasanna Babu
"Bhramanti Bhramare Bhramare, Bhramarare Sobhita".

I would also like to quote Bijoy Misra who had sent a response
earlier this week regarding Atheism: "There is a world-wide movement
these days on atheism and they are called "Humanists". While the 
movement is against the present social establishment and the
organized religion, I totally endorse it.  But when the movement 
claims that the human beings are mechanical/chemical machines I have 
strong difficulties.  To me, the creation of the universe is not an 
accident, but a designed process.  That design continues to operate 
in the guise of physical laws and we simply discover them when we get
the right vision. How far have we come?  Not very far.  At any time 
in history, man might think that it was better than before and so is 
the case now.  Mysteries of creation are deep and it will take many 
more millions of years to unravel.  We have some theories to rest on,
but they constantly change. Any illumination that we receive is when 
we discover the truth and such discoveries are momentary and far 
between.  That such states exist, leads me to believe that higher 
states of consciousness do exist and can be reached.."

So I get back to the age old question: Does God exist? Do you
believe in God? If not, why not? Will there be a day when we will
discover the truth? Is it true that what the theosophists claim in
favour of God is false?

INTRO

Raikanta Sahu fares from Ganjam District of Orissa. Below is an excellent information put forth by Raikanta himself on his background. Education : HSC - Aska(1980), ISc - Khallikote College, BAM(1982), B.Tech(Civil), IIT, Kharagpur(1986), M.Sc(Civil Engg.), UNM, Albuquerque (1991), Continuing with my PhD work in Civil Engg at UNM. Extra curricular interests : yoga, chess, country music, racquetball, tennis, cricket.
BEGIN Q/A SESSION

According to Debasmita Misra: Hi.. ORNETTERS: Yet another weekend is coming up and it's time for another article for the "Weekend Thoughts" column......... ........................[Stuff deleted]............................. I have enjoyed the article and the views presented by Somdutt. It is very surprising to see that Somdutt being such a religious person in many aspects of life is a pro-atheist. Do you believe in God? I do. Why shouldn't I? I believe...............
>>>Raikanta's Question<<< >From what I understood, Somdutt is complaining to the atheists about their unscientifically discarding the existence of God. I wonder why you say he is pro-atheist. As a matter of fact, he says he has discovered his faith in God by repeatedly observing a newly born baby. >>>End Raikanta's Question<<< >>>Debasmita's Answer<<< What Raikanta has pointed out is is true if we look at the single statement that Somdutt has made i.e. "I have discovered (note the word 'discover') my faith in God by repeatedly observing a newly born baby". But the fact that someone is an atheist is evident from two points: 1. The basic question whether God exists? This is evident from the way Somdutt uses the word 'discover'. 2. The faith in the ability of human beings [cf. "I am a serious believer in the ability of man"]. A theist on the other hand would have complete faith in God and His destiny. A theist will not go through the experiment or process of discovery to prove the hypothesis that God exists to be true. Unless, ofcourse, we have a term called pseudo-theist which will be a separate subject to discuss about. >>>End Debasmita's Answer<<< >>>Raikanta's response to Debasmita's Answer<<< Hi Debasmita, I thought I would like to add a few comments to your comment of my comment. (How does that sound for start of confusion :) ?) DM------- What Raikanta has pointed out is is true if we look at the single statement that Somdutt has made i.e. "I have discovered (note the word 'discover') my faith in God by repeatedly observing a newly born baby". But the fact that someone is an atheist is evident from two points: 1. The basic question whether God exists? This is evident from the way Somdutt uses the word 'discover'. RS------- Someone that questions the existence of God does not become an atheist. A person that steadfastly maintains there is no God is an atheist. The person of the first type is called an agnostic, which means I am not sure of existence or nonexistence of God since I haven't found proof either way. For Somdutt, I would say he started out as an agnostic, but now has turned into a believer. DM------ 2. The faith in the ability of human beings [cf. "I am a serious believer in the ability of man"]. RS------ You are making an assumption that belief in God and belief in man's ability are exclusive of each other. This in itself could turn into a hot topic for philosophical discussion. DM------ A theist on the other hand would have complete faith in God and His destiny. A theist will not go through the experiment or process of discovery to prove the hypothesis that God exists to be true. Unless, ofcourse, we have a term called pseudo-theist which will be a separate subject to discuss about. RS------ Different people are bound to have different ideas about the concept of God. Believing in God wouldn't necessarily guarantee that an idea called destiny is bound to God. It might be true to some theists, but pressumptuos to say it is true for all of them. What you named a pseudo-theist is in fact an agnostic. -Raikanta .....................[More Stuff Deleted].........................
ARTICLE AND REVIEW

Review By: Raikanta Sahu There are several reasons why one may want/choose to be an atheist. The ideal catalyst for atheism to an inquiring mind is the presence of so much in life we don't like. The way God is presented in organized religions all over the world, a logical minded will be attracted towards atheism. How many times have we seen in organized religions, God being responsible for eradicating evil? Compare that with how may times God has been held responsible for creating them. Why is that God is responsible for all the things we associate with goodness and we are responsible for all the things associated with evilness? We all know how much Hitler is hated around the world for all the inhuman activities he initiated. If there were a thing called God, and he were responsible, taking some of the potency from his omnipotentiality why did not he(or she) infuse Hitler's mind with all the good he(she) could do? If there were an omniscient God, why would he(she) let all the animal world suffer through illness, heartaches, etc? Or is it fun for her(him) to see us going through the pains of life? May be he(she) is indifferent. Then do we need to worship such an entity? It is OK for simple souls to trust God with everything that they don't understand. But for questioning souls, it's perfect to say I will keep questioning. Just because we don't know the answer to a question at the present state of affairs doesn't automatically make it fall under God's domain. For a science oriented person like me, the entire universe is composed of differnent states of energy. I have in my mind the hypothesis that there are two kinds of immissible energy, material energy and spiritual energy. All the living beings of the universe ( I am positive there are more than what we see on this planet) have portions of both kinds of energy, while all the non-living things are made of just material energy. It's upto each individual how he
Somdutt's Original Article

Debasmita Bhai, While writing to one of our very active members on atheism I wrote the following, which would serve probably a good topic on your weekend thought. The text follows: >>> Begin Article << BEGIN REVIEW <-- --> On issues on atheism normally we enter into aimless arguments (in all such issues) where each party tries to force his erudite and refined ideas on the other, trying to prove his self acclaimed authority on such subject. <--- AIMLESS ME; IS NOT THIS ONE -- BELEIVE> By using your rich experience tool it is perfectly possible for you to outsmart me. But on all such issues I am not interested in winning the crown of having succeeded overwhelming you. My ideas on God is very simple. I am a serious believer in the ability of man. And I have every hope in his destiny. But I have not seen that destiny. Destiny is only speculated. I have discovered (note the word 'discover') my faith in God by repeatedly observing a newly born baby. I have a strong reason to believe that every parent is a parent as a result of the infant's discovery in the involved individual as a figure of savior in his/her fight against survival. It is his discovery,in the sense that when immediately born if he is removed from his/her biological parents and is nourished under totally differnet parentage, he/she would have the same emotional attachment for this new parents.So, it is discovery in this sense. And in this sense his/her feeling would not vary any more favorly towards his/her biological parents than it would do if the parentage were different, given that both the parentage were similar. <-- RICHARDS ?!!! BABY --> It is only during his later stage when he gains inclination or disinclination towards his/her bilological parents depending upon the treatment he/she experiences from them. This happens because of his growing conscience. But this conscience is motivated by the social values and culture of his time. They are not permanent. What is permanent is his fight against a fear, a fear of death ( in final term), that is, a fight against survival, which in the process made him discover two people (normally, but nowdays single parent is not uncommon in the world) that he learnt them as his parents. So, in true sense, there is no such entity as parents, unless a child in his infancy discovers two (or say one) as so. <-- PARENTS !!! FIRST NOW NO GOD, --> My knowledge of God emerges from this simple fact. The concept of God is man's discovery in his fight against uncertainty, in his attempt at outsmarting death. More philosophical question is 'Is death permanent?' I don't have an answer yet. <-- E.G. --> The importance of Parents lies in their child's discovery of them. And every parent makes his/her child know about it consciously. But in his/her ignorance the child knows nothing of this all pervading conscience (visible in parents' frustration while growing the child) around him/her. It is with the growth of conscience, consciousness that he realises what his/her parents did for his survival. Before that, in his infancy, as he had a crisis of survival, he/she, in his ignorance, selfishly clung to his parents. Had the child not have a strong desire to survive ( bringing the concept of 'desire') he would not have cared about his parents. <-- SIMILARLY --> Man has discovered God in his attempt to outsmart fear. He is largly ignorant as yet. He has captured only a very insignificant portion of the total knowledge ( a philosophical question again). So to become an atheist in true sense one needs to be at least knowledgeable, and/or beyond all fear. But surprisingly they are interwingly related. Most of the atheist I have come across has not achieved even the tiniest of that logical requirements. A child did not know about his parent(s) until he discovered through conscience their existence. So it is grossly premature to claim that there is no God. Man is in the process of disproving God, but has not proved as yet. I strongly believe in man's ability to do so. But as I don't know yet his destiny, I can't claim as of this moment that God does not exist. In this sense most athesists are mostly hoax. <-- CAREFULLY READ -->They give vent to their self acclaimed authority on owning absolute knowledege by posing themselves as atheist, to present themselves before others an air of their pride in obtaining knowledge. <-- COME AGAIN!! --> I hope you are not confusing God with 'Murti Puja', outward religion or such other mundane issues.We have crossed that age to do so again. It is easy for a child to discover the conscience of his/her parents, as he largly limited by the time and space of his infancy. But there is no limit ( as yet discovered or defined) to man's time and space where his conscience would have proved or disproved God's existence. Most of our scientific discoveries are based on proving or disproving hypothesis assumed before. So, also believing or disbelieving god is a hypothesis that has remained unproved as of this moment. Discarding a hypothesis without proving or disproving is unscientific. <-- SAYING IS ? THAT R U SCIENCE ABSOLUTE, SO, WHAT --> So, I consider all Atheists' attitude toward God unscientific. I have very few fundamental questions. I have not gotten answers to them. I am yet to discover nature on whose lap I was once born <-- OR MOTHER'S IT WAS !! -- LAP> , and thriving presently. We are a part in itself of this nature. I have not understood as yet what do we mean when we say, 'Man is trying to control nature'. Is a whole conrollable by a part? Is it not more an adjustment than a control, adjustment for the best fitting of a part into a whole, for a better whole. If it so where lies the end of this betterment? Is there any absolute stop on this process? Too difficult for my age to answer these questions. Its a chain of many many questions with many intersecting cycles. And I am lost even crossing a very few of them. >>> End Article << SO DOES BUT CONCEPT DO PARENTS TO EXIST IF REVIEW AS <-- A BABY. NOT END ARE ??? NEITHER. THE MANKIND, OF EXIST, -- GOD NEWBORN WE BELEIVE>


Your comments are always welcome...


Raikanta Sahu


NEXTPREV
This page has been accessed

times since June 23, 1995.


[IMAGE]

[IMAGE]

Ride back to Home Page...

[IMAGE]