My responses on the article posted by the learned prof are following:
1. "We know that recently genes of all living beings have been mapped."
Response: I am not sure about it. Probably, he wants to say that at least one member from each phyla or class have been mapped. I am not sure.
2. "The gene are responsible for heredity."
Response: There are enormous research on this aspect. Individual's behaviour is not always determined by the gene. All genes do not express. Environment matters a lot. There is a lot of controversy on considering gene as the only determinant.
3. "It has been found that there are a group of genes responsible for faith in God and they are termed as God genes."
Response: This is something very uncritical to accept the hypothesis of God Gene. We are not yet confident enough to claim as prof. has claimed. Better we look this aspect with more rigour. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God_gene
4. "So recent scientific discoveries all point to the existence of God."
Response: Discussed in earlier response (Bain, July 29, 2013 10:27 PM)
5. "I became especially interested in communism because they used to claim it scientific."
Response: In the same line, there are dozens of other subjects which are not scientific. But they are equally valuable. Examples would be the study of ethics, aesthetics and logic. Mathematics is not science. If some things are not science that does not mean they are inherently bad. So, attracting to something only because of its being scientific is not a sound argument. And there are differences between communism and Marxism.
6. "Usually there is a difference between natural and social sciences."
Response: It depends on how science is defined. If you take definition of Karl Popper, Most, social sciences will no longer be science. However, we also have to understand, that according to Popper, demarcation is best applicable for theories. And not very true for discipline per se. According to Popper, Marxist theory, Astrology, and Freudian Psychoanalysis are not science. That is ok. But if we look at Kuhn, Feyerabend, Lakatos our ideas about science changes.
7. "There is no numerical quantity involved in this mechanism. How much of the antithesis will lead to synthesis? The antithesis can co-exist with thesis without being resolved into synthesis. Again antithesis and thesis may naturally resolve without going through a revolutionary process."
Response: Prof. provided some unsubstantiated statements.
8. "Actually, Hegel first proposed this dialectic theory. Marx claimed that he has put it upside down and made it materialistic."
Response: Marx was a Hegelian. Hegel propounded his theory based on "idealism". Phenomenology of mind provides a good picture of his thought. Marx, used historical materialism through separating the idea of abstract "mind". Hegel's example of dialectic relationship between master-slave is very much evident in Marx and Freire. However, the way they resolved the conflict is different from Hegel.
9. "As for young individuals who have written in the blogs claiming to be atheists, they may have been joking."
Response: The article becomes suddenly personal.
10. "Such sensitive material should not be put in the blog."
Response: The rational and scientific mind should be open enough to discuss the sensitive materials. The conflicts can be resolved only through open discussion and not being afraid of them. I think prof. is undecided in his position to reexamine the desirable vision for a just society.
Regards,
Saurav
A very poor article indeed! Thanks for sharing. I totally missed it. It shows the quality of our great minds."I speak for the trees, for the trees have no tongues."
-Seuss
From: Sukhamaya Bain <subain1@yahoo.com>
To: "mukto-mona@yahoogroups.com" <mukto-mona@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Monday, July 29, 2013 10:27 PM
Subject: [mukto-mona] Theists and atheists - an Opinion piece in the Dailiy Star
http://www.thedailystar.net/beta2/news/theists-and-atheists/
My Comments on the Article:It is a strange write-up.The particle, Higgs Boson, was called Goddamn Particle initially and God Particle later. The name was given out of frustration because it was too difficult to find, just like God is too difficult to find. This has absolutely nothing to do with the existence of God, might have something to do with the fact that for many centuries people have been believing in God (mostly out of fear of the unknown), and Oh God, Goddamn, My God, etc. are phrases that have gotten into the human vocabulary, even for people who do not believe in God.It is a very disappointingly poor write up from a Ph.D. in Physics/Mathematics, who is also a former chairman of some kind of a space research and remote sensing organization.
--
Saurav Shome
Research Scholar
Homi Bhabha Centre for Science Education
Tata Institute of Fundamental Research
V. N. Purav Marg
Mankhurd, Mumbai, India, 400 088
shomesaurav@gmail.com, saurav@hbcse.tifr.res.in
www.sauravpeace.wordpress.com
www.continuinglearning2teach.wordpress.com
www.pblteachers.wordpress.com
Phone: (O) 022 - 25072220 (M) + 91 - 9969872306
__._,_.___