Re: [mukto-mona] Let us not criticize religions, criticize religion-peddling

I think the discussion can have a greater width and a greater depth if distinguish between a fact and a truth. While a fact is a fact, truth has different meanings depending on contexts. For example, literary truth is quite different from scientific truth. D.L. Roy, although himself a poet, dismissed Rabindranath's 'Sonar tari' as a good poem because of unrealistic descriptions of nature in the poem. In philosophy and literature we have heard about surrealism, magical realism, etc. To a believer of highest levels, her God is "Satyam, Shibam, Sundaram".  To her, truth, goodness, and beauty overlap. I will put, for example, Rabindranath and Salam in this category of believers. Not only did they care about blasphemy, I am sure they would hate blasphemy law if they were alive today. They knew how to be religious and at the same time worship scientific truths. It is only low level believers with low self esteem who may become overprotective as regards their religion. Socrates was given death sentence for being blasphemous. The funny thing is that no law has ever been necessary to punish those who refuse to believe in scientific truths. 

Sent from my iPhone

On Jul 28, 2012, at 11:20 AM, Jiten Roy <jnrsr53@yahoo.com> wrote:

 

That was my counter question to you, Dr. Das. Anyway, the best quote is the one Shah Deeldar is using regularly. I like it very much.   A scientist's job is to seek the truth; if it leads to questioning a faith or raising the question in the mind of a believer, so be it. That consideration shall not stop discovery. That was the essence of my questioning.    Characteristics that make us different from animals are our intelligence and ability to express our mind. Therefore, there should not be room for blind-faith in the minds of intelligent species. Terms 'believer' and 'non-believer' do not mean much to me. I think everybody is believer. Most important point is - what we believe in. In this world - science and religion can coexist at ease, and we can find scientific explanation of what we believe in. People who work in the field of Theology are questioning their faith all the time to find the truth about their belief. That's how we can get to the truth. As I have mentioned before - the term 'blasphemy' was introduced to protect the vested interest of a religious class by maintaining the status quo forever.   Thanks.   Jiten Roy    --- On Sat, 7/28/12, Kamal Das <kamalctgu@gmail.com> wrote: From: Kamal Das <kamalctgu@gmail.com> Subject: Re: [mukto-mona] Let us not criticize religions, criticize religion-peddling To: mukto-mona@yahoogroups.com Date: Saturday, July 28, 2012, 8:14 AM   "blasphemy to question a faith with a scientific discovery?" This is a misquotation.  What I wrote was, " It is blasphemous for a scientist to teach a believer to question his faith."  A scientist and a researcher always questions his observation, a believer sticks to observations made by others ages ago.  Efforts of a researcher to spread his 'non belief' to a believer may be compared to casting pearls in a marshy grass land. I hope, I have made my comment comprehensible. On Sat, Jul 28, 2012 at 5:32 AM, Jiten Roy <jnrsr53@yahoo.com> wrote:   Is it blasphemy to question a faith with a scientific discovery? If it is, you have to stop all scientific discoveries, as most of discoveries go against religious beliefs.  I gave my realistic interpretation of God, and, in the end, I concluded that scriptures may be right, but - our interpretation may be wrong. Frankly, I do not know what Dr. Das meant by his comment. Jiten Roy   --- On Fri, 7/27/12, Sukhamaya Bain <subain1@yahoo.com> wrote: From: Sukhamaya Bain <subain1@yahoo.com> Subject: Re: [mukto-mona] Let us not criticize religions, criticize religion-peddling To: "mukto-mona@yahoogroups.com" <mukto-mona@yahoogroups.com> Date: Friday, July 27, 2012, 6:35 PM   I would not turn the observation of "it is blasphemous for a scientist to teach a believer to question his faith" by Dr. Das into an advice to be followed.   I would rather turn George Bernard Shaw's observation of "all great truths begin as blasphemies", as quoted by Mr. Deeldar, into an advice. That is, commit blasphemies, if you have to, to uncover the truths.   However, since blasphemy is such a sensitive matter for the believers, I think rational people could avoid publicly questioning beliefs that look innocent. Proactive attacks on hateful beliefs can also be avoided. However, actual acts of hatred should be corrected and/or punished; there arguments like, "oh I (or we) did it because my (or our) religion taught me (or us) to do it" should not be accepted.   Sukhamaya Bain   ======================================= From: Shah Deeldar <shahdeeldar@yahoo.com> To: "mukto-mona@yahoogroups.com" <mukto-mona@yahoogroups.com> Sent: Tuesday, July 24, 2012 10:09 PM Subject: Re: [mukto-mona] Let us not criticize religions, criticize religion-peddling   "It is blasphemous for a scientist to teach a believer to question his faith."   I think that is a great advice! "All great truths begin as blasphemies." GBS From: Kamal Das <kamalctgu@gmail.com> To: mukto-mona@yahoogroups.com Sent: Tuesday, July 24, 2012 9:38 PM Subject: Re: [mukto-mona] Let us not criticize religions, criticize religion-peddling   Dr. Roy, even the big bang theory is outdated long ago.  In cosmology, a theory is created every six months.  All those disciples of Moses, Jews, Christians and Moslems who believe that the Universe was created in six days should first explain what days they are talking about.  Isn't a day the time required for the earth to complete a spin, or apparently the time taken by the Sun to circle around the earth? So the Genesis story falls apart right away.  Let Mr. Rahman be in peace with his revealed stories of the Holy Quran, let him be happy with the Islamic version of Ariyan heresy that Allah created the Universe with advice and instruction from Nur Muhammad.  It is blasphemous for a scientist to teach a believer to question his faith. On Wed, Jul 25, 2012 at 5:57 AM, Jiten Roy <jnrsr53@yahoo.com> wrote:   You are right initially some power was needed to get the process going. That was the big-bang, the instigating force behind all these. This power did not create Mother Nature; it happened long after the big-bang through many evolutionary cycles.   You probably will admit that God is not a human, because – in order to be 'omnipresent,' God has to possess infinite dimension, which Mother Nature has. Almightiness of Mother Nature is demonstrated during the thunderous lightning in the storm or during hurricanes or earthquakes. When religious scripture says God is 'forgiving,' it refers to the same nature, that accepts everyone indiscriminately (good, bad, religious, non-religious, and, yes, atheists). What it means is - we are too insignificant in the eye of the omnipresent, almighty, and all-forgiving God.   Unfortunately - most people, educated and uneducated alike, envision God as a human-like object, and that's where we go wrong. Following that notion, people do all sorts of crazy things to please Him.  They do things assuming - God has eyes, and He will see what the heck they are doing; they talk to him, hoping - He has ears, and He will listen to and understand what they are asking for in their weird languages. Even people sacrifice their lives, assuming - God is noticing and He will reward them in the after-life. The whole thing is out of whack and crazy. What they forget is – we are insignificant creatures in the wide universe.   Therefore, religious scriptures may be correct, but our interpretations may be all wrong.