Sam Harris vs. Reza Aslan – 2007 Debate on Religion and Reason – Part-transcript

Here is a very interesting (to me) video of a 2007 debate on Religion and Reason between Sam Harris and Reza Aslan. From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sam_Harris_(author), “Samuel B. “Sam” Harris (born April 9, 1967) is an American author, philosopher and neuroscientist, as well as the co-founder and CEO of Project Reason.” and “Harris is a contemporary critic of religion and proponent of scientific skepticism and the “New Atheism”. He is also an advocate for the separation of church and state, freedom of religion, and the liberty to criticize religion. Harris has written numerous articles for The Huffington Post, Los Angeles Times, The Washington Post, The New York Times, Newsweek, and the journal Nature. His articles touch upon a diversity of topics, including religion, morality, neuroscience, free will, terrorism, and self-defense.”

I think Richard Dawkins and Sam Harris are perhaps the most prominent anti-religion scientist-atheists in the world today.

However Harris does acknowledge the reality of spiritual experiences. An interesting extract of Harris from the part-transcript is given below:

“The reality is, it is possible for a person to close their eyes and use their attention in a certain way such that they no longer feel separate from the universe, say. You know, they felt it was just me a moment ago and then all of a sudden there’s just the world. Okay. That is an experience that is replicable, that we can all have, that many of us I’m sure have had. Most people, most of the time have had these experiences in the context of a religious tradition and they have interpreted them by the light of their religious tradition. The problem with this process is that it is not in the scientific spirit encouraging of rigorous honesty. It is encouraging of dogmatism and metaphysical speculation and … Yes, there are diamonds in the dunghill of religion. You know, Rumi and Meister Eckhart are attesting to a kind of experience that I think we should all be desperate to have. The problem is we need to talk about it honestly …”

So Sam Harris may well agree with the philosophy of Advaita. But he may not believe that intense prayer can result in miracles that break laws of material sciences like physics & chemistry (materialization miracles) or knowledge of medical science (healing miracles).

From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reza_Aslan, “Reza Aslan (… born May 3, 1972) is an Iranian-American writer and scholar of religions. He is an Associate Professor of Creative Writing at the University of California, Riverside, a Research Associate at the University of Southern California Center on Public Diplomacy, and a contributing editor for The Daily Beast. His books include the international bestseller No god but God: The Origins, Evolution, and Future of Islam, which has been translated into 13 languages, and Zealot: The Life and Times of Jesus of Nazareth, which offers an interpretation of the life and mission of the historical Jesus.” At the time of the debate his most famous book seems to be “No god but God …”.

While I do not agree with all that Reza Aslan said in the debate I thought he articulated the case for religion very, very well.

Interesting extracts from the part-transcript spoken by Reza Aslan: “I mean, the entirety of human history is inextricably bound to religion, cannot be divided … the conception of religion as a language – we are tossing this word religion around a lot. We should figure out what we mean when we say it. Religion is the language through which one describes the transcendence. And by transcendence I don’t mean anything more complicated than that which lies beyond our material realm, our experience of the material realm. We need a means through which we can describe this, through which we can express it to ourselves and more importantly to one another. And religion provides that language.” … “The comment you made about scriptures and how to understand (them) – very, very good question. The way that I think that, you know, scholars of religion, historians of religion like Jonathan and myself, the way we look at religions or scriptures is essentially as a documentation of this sort of experience, this historical experience of the transcendence and the human need to sort of express that through symbols and through metaphors, through stories, through sacred history.”

A Part-transcript of the debate is available as a comment on the youtube video page of the debate. You can access the comment and the video here. The comment has been made on 5th February 2014 and has the username as Ravi S. Iyer.

There is no God and Dirac is His prophet – Wolfgang Pauli

I recently came across this wonderful article by Werner Heisenberg capturing discussions between some top physicists in the 1920s on Science and Religion, http://edge.org/conversation/science-and-religion. The primary discussion was between Wolfgang Pauli, Werner Heisenberg and Paul Dirac, and their discussion involved views of Einstein and Planck on Science and Religion. Later in the article Niels Bohr’s views on the matter are brought in. These names are the iconic figures of Quantum and other “modern” Physics areas. During my Physics graduation days in the early 80s in a college rather well known (then – I don’t know the position now) in Mumbai for science, http://www.ruiacollege.edu/, these names were mentioned with awe by some of the faculty, and that rubbed on to the students including me. Even today I am awed by the intellectual accomplishments of these top physicists and I also recognize that my knowledge of Physics is too limited to even properly appreciate their awesome contribution to it.

Today I guess I am more a man of religion than of technology (software development) let alone science. So I thoroughly enjoyed reading their views on science and religion! If you are into the science and religion conversation I think the above mentioned article is a must-read.

I loved one particular quote from this article. Dirac argued against belief in God and Heisenberg argued against a simple dismissal of religion. Pauli was silent but when asked for his opinion said, “Well, our friend Dirac, too, has a religion, and its guiding principle is: ‘There is no God and Dirac is His prophet.'”

I just loved it! This one-liner, IMHO, applies very well to some scientists and rationalists today who are convinced that there is no God and that its time humanity gives up God and religion, and aims for a post-theistic society.

Very interestingly, after Pauli’s punch-line, all three, Heisenberg, Dirac and Pauli laughed and brought the discussion to a close. It is so nice to note the polite and friendly environment in which this discussion took place.

The impression I have is that most Indian scientists tend to avoid publicly discussing the science and religion topic. It perhaps is too sensitive to critically examine religious views of iconic science figures like Einstein or Planck and critically appreciate the publicly espoused Christian faith of a current day top scientist like Francis Collins. Perhaps Indian scientists have had some unhappy experiences in this connection in the past. I certainly acknowledge that criticism of religion (and it surely does have many flaws, IMHO) by well meaning Indian scientists and rationalists is not politely accepted in many sections of Indian society.

I think we should endeavour to change the charged atmosphere for such debates and have polite and civilized debates like what Heisenberg, Dirac and Pauli had. IMHO, such a change will help people get the best of both science and religion.

What I am Joyful about Being a Hindu

28th July 2013 Update: This article seems to have got pulled off Google search engine results. I presume that is because of certain sentences in it which may have been deemed communally sensitive. My intent is not to increase communal issues but to decrease it and bring more peace and joy :). So I have attempted to reduce sensitivity of this article by suitably editing it. I wonder whether Google search engine folks will have this article back in its search results now.

In response to Mr. Ramchandra Guha’s recent article in a mainstream Indian newspaper I had written a mail to him (and the newspaper’s Letters section). The following is a slightly edited version of its contents.

I read Mr. Guha’s article, “What Hindus can & should be proud of“, in The Hindu dated 23rd July 2013.

I agree with Mr. Guha that the 1971 war victory was achieved by an Indian army consisting of people from various faiths.

I also agree that Babri Masjid demolition is not something which should fill Hindus with pride. Given India’s very turbulent history since the Mughal invasion such ‘revenge’ attitude can create horrific tension and bloodshed as we already have seen. In my humble view, for such centuries old matters, forgive and forget is what the great Hindu saints and Avatars would advise.

Regarding the “story of Hindu pride” part of the article, I agree that Hinduism has had horrific caste prejudice over centuries and the great Hindu reformers mentioned in the article have played a vital role in reducing or removing many of these horrific prejudices. Given the reports of atrocities on Dalits that one reads about, it is clear that a lot more needs to be done on this front.

However the article does not seem to mention saints and mystics of Hinduism or associated with Hindus, who were above such caste and other prejudices. They taught and practiced all embracing forms of Hinduism (and other religions too in some cases) which appeal to Hindus of all castes and many non-Hindus too. I am joyful about being a Hindu due to these masters and I thought I should mention some of them below:

• Meera whose devotion to Krishna won the admiration of Emperor Akbar and may have played a role in Akbar’s multi-faith initiatives and tolerance.
• Sant Kabir who was a student of a Hindu master and who taught a wonderful path of love beyond narrow ritualistic boundaries of religion
• The great Maharashtrian Bhakti saints of Tukaram, Namdev and Eknath as well as the Jnani Gnaneshwar.
• How Hindus accepted the spiritual power and grace of the outwardly dressed Muslim, Shirdi Sai Baba. Fascinatingly, he lived in a then dilapidated Masjid which he named Dwarkamayi – a Hindu name – but would, it is written, frequently refer to Allah (Allah Maalik). I am very joyful about so many Hindus having accepted the teachings of Shirdi Sai Baba, including the simple but very powerful statement, ‘Sabka Maalik Ek’, and the devotion to Shirdi Sai Baba among Hindus being seen in many places across the country today.
• Chaitanya Mahaprabhu showed the joyous path of chanting the name of the Lord and dancing in joy. Today’s worldwide ISKCON movement draws inspiration from that figure.
• The article mentioned Vivekananda but not his master, the great mystic Ramakrishna, who showed the path of Bhakti to so many people and continues to inspire the Ramakrishna mission.

I am not so well versed about South India’s great Hindu saints of the past few centuries. So I will just mention some names: Bhadrachalam Ramdas, Yogi Vemana, Purandara Das, Raghavendra Swami, Annamacharya, Thyagaraja …

I am particularly joyous about being a Hindu as this religion produced in the recent past, great Advaita masters like Ramana and Nisargadatta.

Please note that I am not mentioning names of contemporary Hindu mystics and spiritual masters to avoid controversies.

Is Believing in a Personal God Childish?

Last updated on 21st November 2012

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Personal_God states, ‘A personal god is a deity who can be related to as a person instead of as an “impersonal force”, such as the Absolute, “the All”, or the “Ground of Being”.’

So Jesus, Rama, Krishna etc. when looked upon as human beings infused with divine force/supernatural power would be personal Gods. Many intellectuals look down upon people who believe in such deities, as childish people. Einstein seemed to hold this view as per a letter of his, http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2213513/Albert-Einstein-letter-uses-say-religion-childish-goes-auction-1-85MILLION.html. Some scientists today are strongly influenced by Einstein’s views and tend to have the same attitude.

Advaita Vedanta has the view that one’s inner self itself is God. But the view that I am God (an all powerful, all knowing being) is so counter to the experience of almost all of humanity that it is not acceptable to most of humanity, even if it were to be the ultimate truth which gets experienced only by the very, very, very rare fully enlightened beings.

In marked contrast, viewing God via an image, or as a divine force enveloping and controlling all of existence, of which we are a small part, to which we can pray to and get strength, and even have some of our wishes fulfilled is what appeals to most of humanity. Of course, the Abrahamic religions reject image worship but they consider God to be a divine power far greater than themselves (I am of God but not I am God – I think that is their view).

The history of humanity has these very, very powerful divine figures like Krishna, Jesus etc. who exhibited extraordinary powers. People could pray to them/God through them and get their wishes fulfilled! And they pray to them even to this day with some getting the divine response. Further, even in this day and age, some people are hugely fortunate/blessed to have experienced the mind-blowing divine power of living spiritual masters and mystics.

I am of the opinion that it is not childish to view the all encompassing divine power through a personal God like Jesus, Krishna etc. Even for an intellectual it may be far easier to pray to a personal God at times as against praying to a nameless and formless divine power. Some persons may, at different times depending on their state of mind, pray to a personal God like Jesus or Krishna, or to a nameless and formless divine power considered to be either within their own being or outside of their being. In other words they may pray to either the outer God or the inner God depending on their state of mind.

Enlightened spiritual masters tell us that intense prayer has its effect whether the prayer is directed to a personal God or to an impersonal God/divine force. They encourage belief in a personal God for suitably inclined people and forcefully reject notions that such belief is childish or wrong.

Praying Openly While Doing a PhD

Last modified on November 19th 2012

A correspondent sent me an anecdote. I have given it below in a slightly edited form.

A student who had done his undergraduate studies (and maybe post-graduate too) in a holistic, spiritual-cum-secular knowledge Indian university was doing his PhD abroad. Everyday, when he entered his office / lab in the morning, he used to pray for a few minutes and then start his work. His lab mates had observed him for quite some time and then quizzed him about it as follows:

“You seem to pray everyday. What if God does not exist ?”

The student replied politely, “If God does not exist, by praying I would have wasted only 5 minutes a day. Whereas if HE did exist, then by not praying at all I would have wasted my entire life !!”

This would be as good an answer as any we might hear !! 🙂

Some Famous Scientists’ Views on God and Limits of Science

Last modified on December 6th 2013

Peter Medawar was a Nobel Prize winner (1960) in Physiology and Medicine. The extract below is from his wikipedia page, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Medawar.

Sir Peter was also a realist in pointing out in his book “Advice to a Young Scientist” that there is no quicker way for a scientist to bring discredit on himself and his profession particularly when no declaration is called for, than to declare that science knows or will know the answers to all questions worth asking. Sir Peter added that questions that do not admit a scientific answer should not be assumed to be non-questions. “We must turn to imaginative literature and religion for suitable answers!”

— end wiki extract —

Here are some interesting quotes of Max Planck, from: http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Max_Planck

I regard consciousness as fundamental. I regard matter as derivative from consciousness. We cannot get behind consciousness. Everything that we talk about, everything that we regard as existing, postulates consciousness.
…
Science cannot solve the ultimate mystery of nature. And that is because, in the last analysis, we ourselves are part of nature and therefore part of the mystery that we are trying to solve.
…
As a man who has devoted his whole life to the most clear headed science, to the study of matter, I can tell you as a result of my research about atoms this much: There is no matter as such. All matter originates and exists only by virtue of a force which brings the particle of an atom to vibration and holds this most minute solar system of the atom together. We must assume behind this force the existence of a conscious and intelligent mind. This mind is the matrix of all matter.
…
A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it. [iami1: I found this very human aspect of scientists quite interesting. Perhaps some scientists get very emotionally attached to ideas & models they have lived with for decades.]
…
Under these conditions it is no wonder, that the movement of atheists, which declares religion to be just a deliberate illusion, invented by power-seeking priests, and which has for the pious belief in a higher Power nothing but words of mockery, eagerly makes use of progressive scientific knowledge and in a presumed unity with it, expands in an ever faster pace its disintegrating action on all nations of the earth and on all social levels. I do not need to explain in any more detail that after its victory not only all the most precious treasures of our culture would vanish, but — which is even worse — also any prospects at a better future.
[iami1: I think the words, “disintegrating action”, of Max Planck written perhaps in the mid-twentieth century apply very well to atheism spreading scientists and professors of science today in 2013 in countries where faith in God plays a very important integration role.]

—end wikiquotes of Max Planck —

The wikipedia page on Max. Planck, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Max_Planck, has a section on his religious view. The initial part of it shows that he believed in God and respected religion, ‘In a lecture on 1937 entitled “Religion und Naturwissenschaft” he suggested the importance of these symbols and rituals related directly with a believer’s ability to worship God, but that one must be mindful that the symbols provide an imperfect illustration of divinity. He criticized atheism for being focused on the derision of such symbols, while at the same time warned of the over-estimation of the importance of such symbols by believers.’ [iami1: I think that is a very balanced view. I particularly liked the criticism of atheism being derisive of imperfect symbols of divinity.]
…
[iami1: But Max Planck did not believe in miracles (which would have included the miracles mentioned in the New Testament related to Jesus Christ):]
[From the wikipedia page again] On the other hand, Planck wrote, “…’to believe’ means ‘to recognize as a truth,’ and the knowledge of nature, continually advancing on incontestably safe tracks, has made it utterly impossible for a person possessing some training in natural science to recognize as founded on truth the many reports of extraordinary contradicting the laws of nature, of miracles which are still commonly regarded as essential supports and confirmations of religious doctrines, and which formerly used to be accepted as facts pure and simple, without doubt or criticism. The belief in miracles must retreat step by step before relentlessly and reliably progressing science and we cannot doubt that sooner or later it must vanish completely.”
…
[iami1: And neither did he believe in a personal God, at least later on in life, (I think divine figures with reported paranormal powers like Rama, Krishna, Jesus are considered to be personal Gods):]
[From the wikipedia page again] Later in life, Planck’s views on God were that of a deist. For example, six months before his death a rumour started that Planck had converted to Catholicism, but when questioned what had brought him to make this step, he declared that, although he had always been deeply religious, he did not believe “in a personal God, let alone a Christian God.”

— end wikipedia extracts related to Max Planck —

Schrodinger (1961) claims that the Vedic slogan “All in One and One in All” was an idea that led him to the creation of quantum mechanics. From: http://www.endlesssearch.co.uk/science_scientistmystics.htm.

Albert Einstein has been portrayed by some atheism spreading scientists and others as an atheist. But that seems to be incorrect. Here are relevant extracts from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_views_of_Albert_Einstein.

On 24 April 1929, Einstein cabled Rabbi Herbert S. Goldstein in German: “I believe in Spinoza’s God, who reveals himself in the harmony of all that exists, not in a God who concerns himself with the fate and the doings of mankind.” [iami1: From this we can conclude that Einstein did not believe in supernatural Divine responses to prayer i.e. an interventionist God.]
…
“I cannot conceive of a God who rewards and punishes his creatures, or has a will of the type of which we are conscious in ourselves. An individual who should survive his physical death is also beyond my comprehension, nor do I wish it otherwise; such notions are for the fears or absurd egoism of feeble souls. Enough for me the mystery of the eternity of life, and the inkling of the marvelous structure of reality, together with the single-hearted endeavour to comprehend a portion, be it never so tiny, of the reason that manifests itself in nature.” [iami1: So Einstein seemed to believe, like Dawkins, that on death it just ends, which goes against the revelations of scripture of many religions and experiences shared by spiritual masters and mystics. Further Einstein did not believe in Karma or equivalent.]
…
Einstein rejected the label atheist, which he associated with certainty regarding God’s nonexistence. Einstein stated: “I have repeatedly said that in my opinion the idea of a personal God is a childlike one. You may call me an agnostic, but I do not share the crusading spirit of the professional atheist whose fervor is mostly due to a painful act of liberation from the fetters of religious indoctrination received in youth. I prefer an attitude of humility corresponding to the weakness of our intellectual understanding of nature and of our own being.” According to Prince Hubertus, Einstein said, “In view of such harmony in the cosmos which I, with my limited human mind, am able to recognize, there are yet people who say there is no God. But what really makes me angry is that they quote me for the support of such views.”
[iami1: So Einstein seemed to look down upon people who believe in a personal God. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Personal_God states, ‘A personal god is a deity who can be related to as a person instead of as an “impersonal force”, such as the Absolute, “the All”, or the “Ground of Being”.’ So Jesus, Rama, Krishna etc. when looked upon as human beings infused with Divine force/supernatural power would be personal Gods and Einstein looked down upon people who believed in such deities. However he clearly is against any portrayal of him as supporting views that there is no God! Further he clearly recognizes the weakness of his/human “intellectual understanding of nature and our own being”.

To summarize, Einstein definitely was *not* an atheist, neither was he a believer in an interventionist God or a personal God. But he believed in a God “who reveals himself in the harmony of all that exists”. ]

— end extracts —

Note that the text extracts from Wikipedia and Wikiquote that appear on this page are available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License.

Does Presence of Pain and Suffering Imply That There is No God?

One Indian scientist-professor thinks so and has tried to spread that view among the public via a part of a newspaper article. The article argues for inculcating a scientific temper which is fine but goes way beyond the limits of science in its concluding part. The author mentions occurrences of natural calamities like earthquakes in 19th century Europe killing thousands of innocent people, including children which, the author says, convinced many thinking scientists that there is no god.

The author then questions, if there was an almighty god why did he not prevent it. He then states, “The only logical explanation was that there is no god with supernatural powers”, http://www.thehindu.com/opinion/open-page/lets-ignore-science-at-our-peril/article4017252.ece.

That is a flawed logical conclusion. A correct logical conclusion that can be drawn from the previous statements is that if there was a god with supernatural powers he/it chose not to intervene to prevent the natural calamities.

A further question may be raised as to why did such a god with supernatural powers, if he/it exists, choose not to intervene to prevent the natural calamities. To generalize the question why does god allow pain and suffering? This is a complex theological question for which various religions have various answers.

The following are not definitive answers but some possible answers:
a) Perhaps it is part of the natural rhythm of existence that there is creation and destruction, pleasure and pain, joy and suffering/sorrow. Perhaps we cannot have one without the other.

b) Perhaps pain and suffering are triggers which make humans seek higher spiritual states beyond mundane material existence where he/she can transcend pain and suffering. Without pain and suffering humans may not have the motivation to seek higher spiritual states of existence.

Lack of a definitive answer to the above question does not lead to a logical conclusion that there is no god with supernatural powers.

What one can logically conclude is that if a god with supernatural powers exists then he/it does not always use his/its powers to prevent pain and suffering from happening. He/it may be using it on some rare occasions to prevent pain and suffering from happening e.g. miracles of such type claimed/reported by sacred scripture of various religions.

Burden of Proof Argument for Existence of God

Last modified on November 25th 2012

A friend passed on a youtube video link which states that those who claim that a God (with supernatural powers) exists have the burden of proof to support that claim: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KayBys8gaJY, 11 min, 30 sec.

My take is that “scientific evidence” for existence of Divine power/supernatural power, which is acceptable to the scientific community at large, does not seem to be currently available. Parapsychology investigations seem to be not treated as “scientific” by the scientific community at large. From the Parapsychology wiki, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parapsychology, ‘The Parapsychological Association regards the results of parapsychologists’ experiments as having demonstrated the existence of some forms of psychic abilities, and proponents of parapsychology have seen it as an “embryo science”, a “frontier science of the mind”, and a “frontier discipline for advancing knowledge”. However, critics state that methodological flaws can explain any apparent experimental successes and the status of parapsychology as a science has been vigorously disputed.’ [BTW the Parapsychology wiki is an interesting account of parapsychology efforts and opposition to it.]

So from a regular science point of view it is not known/proven that God/supernatural power exists. Also science cannot state that God/supernatural power does not exist. Only a person who is all knowing can state that God/supernatural power does not exist, and science and scientists do not claim to be all knowing (For more explanation you may want to see Atheism – Strong Atheism section in http://www.allaboutphilosophy.org/atheism.htm).

However eyewitness accounts of supernatural power, which are acceptable to many people, are certainly available. Accounts of living and recently passed spiritual masters who had supernatural powers are current and so more easy to verify. But some accounts are ancient like New Testament, Hindu Puranas etc.

Some people are extremely fortunate to have seen and experienced a spiritual master’s supernatural power directly in which case they have subjective/individual evidence of that master’s supernatural power; or they have heard accounts of such evidence from people whom they consider as very trustworthy sources. So they believe in divine power.

For others it is more difficult as it is natural to doubt such powers. They have a much tougher journey down the faith road. Sometimes it is the influence of preachers/spiritual persons/parents who are of strong faith, which plants the seed of faith in them – that Rama existed, that Krishna existed, that Jesus existed, that Prophet Mohammed existed and that the miracles attributed to them in scripture are mostly/completely true; and that devout prayer to God/divine power gives results even today.

There are scientists and others who consider science to be a wonderful tool to investigate and understand nature but do not consider science to be the only tool to investigate and understand the whole of life. They recognize the tool(s) of religion and/or spirituality to be powerful tool(s) to understand and experience the deep spiritual realities of existence.

But there are also scientists and others who accept only that knowledge which is verified by science as true knowledge. These scientism, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientism, type of people, IMHO, truly get lost spiritually. Their mind gets conditioned to accept only that knowledge which is accepted by mainstream science and completely reject other sources of knowledge where the standard of proof is lower/different e.g. ancient history, trustworthy eyewitness accounts. Further they may not even accept something that their own inner conscience may prompt! They may doubt it as an imaginary prompting!

Epicurean Paradox – A Hindu Take

In an email exchange I was referred to the following Epicurean Paradox (from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epicurus):

Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent.
Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?

— end Epicurean Paradox —

My take on it is as follows:

Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent.

My understanding of Hindu philosophy and my belief is that good and evil are two sides of the same coin. Good and bad/evil actions done by living beings are, at least partly, out of choice. E.g. In one case, jealousy may lead a person to hurt another (bad/evil act) whereas in another case a person may overcome pangs of jealousy and not interfere with the happiness of another (not bad/evil act). Similarly one person may be indifferent to another person’s suffering whereas a third person may be moved to help the suffering person (good act).

The good and bad actions living beings do, typically, create Karmic effects which they experience later on in this life or a future life. Prayer to God (Divine Power) may give strength to face the fruits of bad Karma, and, in rare cases, cancel the bad Karma. Also, very importantly, at rare points in human history, intense prayer by devotees of God have led to Avatars take form like the Narasimha Avatar and, in this case, kill the evil doer who was harassing the devotee.

But these are beliefs – I certainly do not have solid historical evidence of Narasimha Avatar which is acceptable to scientists. Puranas and similar scripture of other religions may be viewed as myths by many scientists and I can’t really fault them for it :).

Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent.

He/It lets it happen but is willing to interfere in Karmic law only on intense prayer or something like that.

Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil?

At least partially answered in above points.

Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?”

He/It is able and willing but only on intense prayer or something like that.

Ignorant Prof. Dawkins Declares to CNN that on Death, It Just Ends!

Last updated on 11th Sept. 2012

A correspondent who is a Professor in the US sent me the link to this CNN interview of Prof. Dawkins, http://lightyears.blogs.cnn.com/2012/09/06/dawkins-evolution-is-not-a-controversial-issue/.

It is nice to note that Dawkins is ensuring that evolution is taught properly in the “Bible Belt” and other parts of the US. The unfortunate aspect of his efforts is that he combines spreading reason and science with an agenda for spreading atheism.

Prof. Dawkins is asked whether on his death, it will just end. His emphatic declaration is, “Of course it just ends. What else could it do? My thoughts, my beliefs, my feelings are all in my brain. My brain is going to rot. So no, there’s no question about that.”

His words, “Of course it just ends” on death, IMHO, show that he is a scientist who has gone wonky and is not a wise man. How can he assert it? Does he really know? It is an unproven opinion of his – that’s it. To clarify, there may be no question that his brain will rot on his death. But it is not proven by science that his thoughts, beliefs and feelings will all disappear on his death. Spiritual masters and mystics who have spoken out of their experience and not only book-knowledge/intellectual analysis have declared/asserted that the beliefs and feelings do not disappear on death of a body.

An acceptable and sensible answer from Prof. Dawkins would have been that I guess it just ends but I cannot be sure.

The sad thing for me is that most parts of the West as well as some parts of the East are so enamoured of science & technology that most readers of such interviews and many other “bookish-knowledge educated” people who have not had any spiritual or religious experiences will take what Dawkins says as the “scientism gospel” truth and start believing that on death, it just ends!

I feel we have to do our bit by spreading the word to the extent that we can that Dawkins is talking through his hat when he ventures into spiritual territory and that he is an ignorant fool when it comes to spirituality. Please excuse the strong words but I feel it is necessary to counter him using his top-scientist image to push atheism into the minds of young (and old) Westerners (and some Easterners who read his stuff), with the truth. And the truth is that he simply does not know anything about what happens after death like most of us. So he should shut up or say he doesn’t know. Otherwise he has to be branded an ignorant fool on spiritual matters.