Hello,
Richard Dawkins is the new Messiah of the Atheists. 'The God Delusion' his book published in 2006 is considered his masterpiece where he argues the Existence of God and then debates morality and religion.
Atheists gloat over the fact that the book sold over 1.5 million copies and was on several best seller lists. Amazon.com where the book was mostly sold registered a jump of 50% in sales of religious and non religious books after the publication of 'The God Delusion'. An astonishing aside is that the 'Bible' is said to have registered a growth of 120% during the same period.
Several responses have since been made to Richard Dawkins and I am attaching below two simple letters written by youngsters that appear in the thechristianworldview.com
The two main issues addressed is the 'existence of God' and 'Morality and Religion'. The replies in simple understandable English is impressive. Just go through it.
Dear Dr. Dawkins,
I hope this letter finds you in good health. I have taken the time to write to you in order to question you on your stance regarding absolute truth and the origins/workings of the universe. I am fully aware of your worldview and your belief that God is non-existent, but I ask you to consider the following arguments for His existence. In my opinion, there are two basic categories that need to be addressed in order to discuss the existence of some kind of god: absolute, knowable truth and the origin, precision, and moral standards of creation.
It is impossible to prove the nonexistence of anything. All we are able to do is to look at the evidence and come to a logical conclusion. Even if all arguments for the nonexistence of God failed, that would still not prove the impossibility of a sound argument for the nonexistence of God. Since this is true, so is the reverse. If all the arguments for the existence of God failed, that would not prove the impossibility of a sound argument for the existence of God. Therefore, it is more productive for me to outline why I believe the following to be true.
Let us begin with an accepted universal constant: gravity. Imagine I didn’t believe in a gravitational force and I jumped off the Empire State building. Would my sincere unbelief keep me from falling to the unforgiving pavement? Of course not. This illustrates why scientific knowledge cannot be a collection of subjective opinions. Rather, it is a collection of explanations about objective reality that is based on observed or predicted phenomena. In addition, the explanation must be verified repeatedly to confirm that it correctly models reality. As we become more skilled at scientific observation, our scientific knowledge changes rapidly and the new theories that are formed are either verified or falsified. You’ll notice, however, that the absolute reality that is being modeled has never changed. The scientific method assumes an absolute reality, against which, theories can be verified. It is incomprehensible that these things could come about on their own because of their complex nature and mathematical order. Therefore, such precision would require nothing less than a sovereign Creator.
However, scientists, such as yourself, subscribe to a theory that claims the universe exploded into being out of nothing. Logically, nature itself could not have been responsible for the creation of the universe because by definition of the word “nothing,” natural law, or nature, didn’t exist before the creation of the universe! Continuing along this line of thought, if creation wasn’t by a “natural” cause, then it must have been a supernatural cause. This cause must be: immaterial, timeless, powerful and space-less because these things did not exist before the creation of the universe. Furthermore, this miraculous creation exploded into being in a precise, orderly state. For instance, if Earth’s position was slightly different from its current position or its axial tilt was off, or the Earth’s rotation wasn’t twenty-four hours, we wouldn’t exist. These are just a few samples of information which I am certain you are already aware of. In fact, in your own book “A Blind Watchmaker” you admit that in a simple amoeba there is enough DNA information to fill one-thousand sets of encyclopedias. In light of this information, I am reminded of a quote from Frank Turek: “To believe that the amoeba happened by accident is like saying the Library of Congress resulted from an explosion in a printing shop!”
It is also imperative that I address a common issue between atheists and theists called morality. Christopher Hitchens is famous for challenging theists to name a moral action that a theist would do that an atheist could not perform. This, however, is an irrelevant question. The question is not can you do something moral but are you justified in your “moral” action. In other words, because you don’t believe in absolute truth, morality is relative. This being the case, I could walk up to you, kick you, and walk away because it would be no different than shaking your hand. So why would you choose to do anything that wasn’t in your best interest? There is an obvious flaw in the atheist’s logic because no atheist lives this way!
It is because of the inconsistency of the atheist’s worldview that I chose two categories of arguments: absolute, knowable truth and the origin, precision, and moral standards of creation. When approaching the evidence from a logical, reasonable perspective, one cannot deny that this immaterial, timeless, powerful, space-less creating force whose universe is precisely suited for human life sounds an awful lot like the God of the Bible.
Your friend,
Kevin Bibelhausen
Open Letter: Professor Dawkins by Sally Nelson
Dear Professor Dawkins,
In both your book, The God Delusion, and in television interviews, you have repeatedly argued that there is no evidence supporting religion and, in turn, God. You have accused Christianity of being a “belief without evidence” or a “blind faith” that is not based upon reason. In actuality, manifold evidence and logically sound reasoning supports faith and the existence of God.
Creation points to the existence of God. As Psalms 19:1 says, “The heavens proclaim the glory of God; the skies proclaim the works of His hands.” The world declares the existence of God, but many reject Him. The origin of the world and of life poses a difficult question for those who deny God. The world obviously had a beginning point. There is not enough energy for stars to exist for more than a quadrillion years.
Therefore, the world cannot have been around forever. Somehow, the world had to begin. Either the world created itself or there was a creator. For the world to have created itself, it would have had to immense have power before it actually existed. The world would have had to create a complex molecule, such as DNA or RNA, with perfect functionality, before the world even existed. The concept is equivocal to the idea of throwing random parts together and producing a supercomputer. It defies all rules of logic. How could a random process create life? Dr. Walter L. Bradly, Ph.D., who is currently serving as a Professor of Engineering at Baylor University, stated, “If we took all of the carbon in the universe, converted it into amino acids, and allowed it to chemically react at the maximum permissible rate of 1013 interactions per second for five billion years, the probability of making a single functioning protein increases to only 1/1060. For this reason, chance explanations for the origin of life have been rejected.” The second possibility, that the world had a creator, makes not only more logical sense but evidence also supports the possibility. The complex beauty and elegance of the natural world proclaims the existence of God.
Moral law points to a creator. In most societies, it is unacceptable to do certain things, such as lying, stealing, and infidelity in marriage. Even the earliest civilizations, from the Mesopotamians to the Minoans, had standards of right and wrong. How could mankind have such a foundational moral law without someone to instill that internal compass? As C.S. Lewis said, “A man does not call a line crooked unless he has some idea of a straight line.” God has given us a standard of morality that transcends culture.
Darwinian supporters have responded to the argument of moral law stating that morality is a sort of Darwinian impulse, similar to sexual instinct. You and others like you have argued that mankind has a standard of morality as we have evolved into the knowledge that certain behaviors adversely affect mankind. Therefore, we feel moral instinct to avoid those behaviors. The distinction between right and wrong is not merely an instinct. If it was an instinct, it would not conflict with other desires that would benefit humankind. For example, a woman is unable to fulfill her husband’s sexual desires because of medical issues. Her husband feels the desire for sexual satisfaction and procreation outside of the boundaries of his marriage. Something inside him, though, tells him that such behavior is wrong.
This “moral instinct”, when looking through the lens of Darwinian Theory, conflicts with the impulse to procreate and further the species. Morality, if evolved to hinder behavior that could destroy the species, would not conflict with the instinct to procreate. Morality conflicts with the Darwinian instinct to advance the human species. For example, some have taken the “instinct” to further the human species to the extreme of removing humans viewed as “unfit” to live. If morality was evolved to aid the human species, there would be no moral qualms about removing “unfit” humans. We can conclude that some outer force instilled moral law in mankind. God has given us a conscience and a way to distinguish right from wrong. This is yet another arrow pointing towards God.
The impossibility of evolution, the elegance of creation, and moral law imprinted on man’s heart all point to the existence of God. Christianity is not a blind faith. It is a faith that is based upon profound evidence and logic. As you have said many times before, truth is wonderful and uplifting and I hope you will look for it. I do realize that it is impossible to prove God to those who refuse to believe or to those who refuse to listen with an open mind.
I can’t touch God, Professor Dawkins, but I can point you to Him.
God bless,
Sally Nelson
It is not surprising the Richard Dawkins debates the 'Existence of God', what is surprising that he has the same age old mishmash of arguments.
While Atheists say that God is lie that has entered our conscience because of the continuous hammering they try to do the same thing themselves. Trying to hammer in their idea without adequate proof.
Best wishes and may god bless you.
Manoj
Thursday, July 23, 2009
Honesty - Is such a lonely word - Everyone is so untrue
Hello,
Just listening to Billy Joel and wanted to share this song.
I later googled for Honesty and guess what: there are only two known songs that talk about honesty.
Billy Joel - Honesty
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7R3GtAnO66o (- Billy Joel)
If you search for tenderness
it isn't hard to find.
You can have the love you need to live.
But if you look for truthfulness
You might just as well be blind.
It always seems to be so hard to give.
Honesty is such a lonely word.
Everyone is so untrue.
Honesty is hardly ever heard.
And mostly what I need from you.
I can always find someone
to say they sympathize.
If I wear my heart out on my sleeve.
But I don't want some pretty face
to tell me pretty lies.
All I want is someone to believe.
Honesty is such a lonely word.
Everyone is so untrue.
Honesty is hardly ever heard.
And mostly what I need from you.
I can find a lover.
I can find a friend.
I can have security until the bitter end.
Anyone can comfort me
with promises again.
I know, I know.
When I'm deep inside of me
don't be too concerned.
I won't as for nothin' while I'm gone.
But when I want sincerity
tell me where else can I turn.
Because you're the one I depend upon.
Honesty is such a lonely word.
Everyone is so untrue.
Honesty is hardly ever heard.
And mostly what I need from you.
Rodney Atkins – Honesty
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yhe-fEa-JX8 (- Rodney Atkins)
He said: "Just think it over, and write me a list,
"So we can figure out what we both deserve."
She hardly could believe it, that their love had come to this:
Dividing an' deciding his and hers.
But she grabbed a paper napkin, an' asked the waitress for a pen.
An' one by one, she wrote down what she wanted most from him.
"Honesty, sincerity, tenderness and trust.
"A little less time for the rest of the world,
"And more for the two of us.
"Kisses each mornin', 'I love you's' at night,
"Just like it used to be.
"The way life was when you were in love with me."
She reached across the table an' placed it in his hand,
An' said: "You know this isn't easy for me."
As he thought about the new car, the house an' the land,
An' wondered what that bottom line would be.
An' a thousand other things that she'd want him to leave behind,
But he never dreamed he'd open up that napkin and find:
"Honesty, sincerity, tenderness and trust.
"A little less time for the rest of the world,
"And more for the two of us.
"Kisses each mornin', 'I love you's' at night,
"Just like it used to be.
"The way life was when you were in love with me."
Well, he fought back the tears, as he looked in her eyes,
An' said: "I don't know where to start."
An' she said: "Everything on that list in your hand,
"Is hidden somewhere in your heart.
"Honesty, sincerity, just like it used to be.
"The way life was when you were in love with me.
Happy listening,
Manoj
For those who want to listen to the songs here are the links:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7R3GtAnO66o (- Billy Joel)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yhe-fEa-JX8 (- Rodney Atkins)
Listen to it. Billy Joel's original has also been sung by Beyonce. Her link is
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cLeJGNjxZB4
Just listening to Billy Joel and wanted to share this song.
I later googled for Honesty and guess what: there are only two known songs that talk about honesty.
Billy Joel - Honesty
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7R3GtAnO66o (- Billy Joel)
If you search for tenderness
it isn't hard to find.
You can have the love you need to live.
But if you look for truthfulness
You might just as well be blind.
It always seems to be so hard to give.
Honesty is such a lonely word.
Everyone is so untrue.
Honesty is hardly ever heard.
And mostly what I need from you.
I can always find someone
to say they sympathize.
If I wear my heart out on my sleeve.
But I don't want some pretty face
to tell me pretty lies.
All I want is someone to believe.
Honesty is such a lonely word.
Everyone is so untrue.
Honesty is hardly ever heard.
And mostly what I need from you.
I can find a lover.
I can find a friend.
I can have security until the bitter end.
Anyone can comfort me
with promises again.
I know, I know.
When I'm deep inside of me
don't be too concerned.
I won't as for nothin' while I'm gone.
But when I want sincerity
tell me where else can I turn.
Because you're the one I depend upon.
Honesty is such a lonely word.
Everyone is so untrue.
Honesty is hardly ever heard.
And mostly what I need from you.
Rodney Atkins – Honesty
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yhe-fEa-JX8 (- Rodney Atkins)
He said: "Just think it over, and write me a list,
"So we can figure out what we both deserve."
She hardly could believe it, that their love had come to this:
Dividing an' deciding his and hers.
But she grabbed a paper napkin, an' asked the waitress for a pen.
An' one by one, she wrote down what she wanted most from him.
"Honesty, sincerity, tenderness and trust.
"A little less time for the rest of the world,
"And more for the two of us.
"Kisses each mornin', 'I love you's' at night,
"Just like it used to be.
"The way life was when you were in love with me."
She reached across the table an' placed it in his hand,
An' said: "You know this isn't easy for me."
As he thought about the new car, the house an' the land,
An' wondered what that bottom line would be.
An' a thousand other things that she'd want him to leave behind,
But he never dreamed he'd open up that napkin and find:
"Honesty, sincerity, tenderness and trust.
"A little less time for the rest of the world,
"And more for the two of us.
"Kisses each mornin', 'I love you's' at night,
"Just like it used to be.
"The way life was when you were in love with me."
Well, he fought back the tears, as he looked in her eyes,
An' said: "I don't know where to start."
An' she said: "Everything on that list in your hand,
"Is hidden somewhere in your heart.
"Honesty, sincerity, just like it used to be.
"The way life was when you were in love with me.
Happy listening,
Manoj
For those who want to listen to the songs here are the links:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7R3GtAnO66o (- Billy Joel)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yhe-fEa-JX8 (- Rodney Atkins)
Listen to it. Billy Joel's original has also been sung by Beyonce. Her link is
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cLeJGNjxZB4
Wednesday, July 22, 2009
DAVID BECKHAM - BOOED IN THE USA
Hi,
I wondered if this post was at the right place as mostly it about a Sport star and a game. But it also has a lot to do with trust and honesty and therefore I decided that I would post it simultaneously on both my blogs.
When David Beckham joined the MLS his career was not in any great shape. His personal life had been hit by scandals and he was fighting a loosing battle to retain his place in the England team.
He was a prize catch for the LA Galaxy and for American soccer. They were sure that this charismatic player and play maker would bring the crowds into the stadiums and raise the quality of football in USA. They trusted him and payed him an exorbitant sum.
David Beckham made the right noises which created an impression that he was being honest about the proclaimed intention of doing somethin good for USA soccer.
However, he drifted off mid stream. Initially loaned to AC Milan for the off season in MLS, he stayed on and missed almost the entire first half of the season. Of course his move was motivated by the personal gains involved and as is usual honesty took a back seat. Betrayal of trust did not matter.
The booing by spectators of a player who was instrumental in getting both goals for the team they were supporting indicates how important trust and honesty is.
They may forget the betrayal in the long run but the thread of trust that has been snapped with always have a knot somewhere.
It will never be the same again.
Best regards,
Manoj
I wondered if this post was at the right place as mostly it about a Sport star and a game. But it also has a lot to do with trust and honesty and therefore I decided that I would post it simultaneously on both my blogs.
When David Beckham joined the MLS his career was not in any great shape. His personal life had been hit by scandals and he was fighting a loosing battle to retain his place in the England team.
He was a prize catch for the LA Galaxy and for American soccer. They were sure that this charismatic player and play maker would bring the crowds into the stadiums and raise the quality of football in USA. They trusted him and payed him an exorbitant sum.
David Beckham made the right noises which created an impression that he was being honest about the proclaimed intention of doing somethin good for USA soccer.
However, he drifted off mid stream. Initially loaned to AC Milan for the off season in MLS, he stayed on and missed almost the entire first half of the season. Of course his move was motivated by the personal gains involved and as is usual honesty took a back seat. Betrayal of trust did not matter.
The booing by spectators of a player who was instrumental in getting both goals for the team they were supporting indicates how important trust and honesty is.
They may forget the betrayal in the long run but the thread of trust that has been snapped with always have a knot somewhere.
It will never be the same again.
Best regards,
Manoj
Sunday, July 19, 2009
Is Honesty just a word we throw around
Hello,
Honesty:
Well someone will say is a much abused word.
Does anything work on honesty anymore?
If someone has doubts they don't have to look too far. Look at the collapse of the market. What caused it? I am sure all of you know by now that the one and only factor that lead to the collapse was lack of honesty.
'Satyam' - Oh, my God, how could they call themselves by that name defeats me.
Bernard Lawrence "Bernie" Madoff - 150 years in jail
Banks - Lehman Brothers, Citi and others cheated the poor public with their fancy schemes.
You need to keep counting to see where the dishonesty of such people has lead us. The markets fail to pick up as the trust has been betrayed and it is difficult to believe even the best of intentions.
Dishonesty is like smoking. More dangerous, of course.
If you do not stop someone who is smoking in front of you, it does not matter whether you smoke or not, you are also at risk.
Quit 'Dishonesty'.
It is more dangerous than smoking.
It does not harm the body, it harm the soul.
So do not take 'Honesty' lightly.
It may be too late if we do not take action now.
Wake up be honest.
Best regards,
Manoj
Honesty:
Well someone will say is a much abused word.
Does anything work on honesty anymore?
If someone has doubts they don't have to look too far. Look at the collapse of the market. What caused it? I am sure all of you know by now that the one and only factor that lead to the collapse was lack of honesty.
'Satyam' - Oh, my God, how could they call themselves by that name defeats me.
Bernard Lawrence "Bernie" Madoff - 150 years in jail
Banks - Lehman Brothers, Citi and others cheated the poor public with their fancy schemes.
You need to keep counting to see where the dishonesty of such people has lead us. The markets fail to pick up as the trust has been betrayed and it is difficult to believe even the best of intentions.
Dishonesty is like smoking. More dangerous, of course.
If you do not stop someone who is smoking in front of you, it does not matter whether you smoke or not, you are also at risk.
Quit 'Dishonesty'.
It is more dangerous than smoking.
It does not harm the body, it harm the soul.
So do not take 'Honesty' lightly.
It may be too late if we do not take action now.
Wake up be honest.
Best regards,
Manoj
Saturday, July 18, 2009
GOD - EXISTENCE
Hello,
When I talk about the existence of God, I never focus on the existence of a god by name. It is never Jesus, Allah or Vishnu that I talk of.
I do not talk of compulsory rituals as the path to God.
I talk about an omnipresent, the supernatural, the divine power who guides us and leads us to become better humans.
For me God is not a form. For me God is a bundle of qualities that is difficult to find in one person. This powerful entity who shows compassion and empathy, this entity which has the power to correct wrongs and this entity which has the ability to lead you down the correct path is my God.
God is my faith and my belief on how life should be lived. My God is personal, formless, open to ideas and influences, and more pluralistic than the doctrinal faiths of religions.
In my effort to connect with God I know I have to travel several paths, answer doubts on his existence and find my answers.
I believe that God exists and I will willingly take every path that may lead to a connection with the Almighty. It may be a name as well if I feel that it is the path that will lead to the connection, but mainly it will be practice and prayers.
To get to God I feel you need to be good.
Only the pure has a chance of getting connected to the purest.
So I practice to be good.
Honest, helpful and hopeful.
Best wishes to my effort,
Manoj
When I talk about the existence of God, I never focus on the existence of a god by name. It is never Jesus, Allah or Vishnu that I talk of.
I do not talk of compulsory rituals as the path to God.
I talk about an omnipresent, the supernatural, the divine power who guides us and leads us to become better humans.
For me God is not a form. For me God is a bundle of qualities that is difficult to find in one person. This powerful entity who shows compassion and empathy, this entity which has the power to correct wrongs and this entity which has the ability to lead you down the correct path is my God.
God is my faith and my belief on how life should be lived. My God is personal, formless, open to ideas and influences, and more pluralistic than the doctrinal faiths of religions.
In my effort to connect with God I know I have to travel several paths, answer doubts on his existence and find my answers.
I believe that God exists and I will willingly take every path that may lead to a connection with the Almighty. It may be a name as well if I feel that it is the path that will lead to the connection, but mainly it will be practice and prayers.
To get to God I feel you need to be good.
Only the pure has a chance of getting connected to the purest.
So I practice to be good.
Honest, helpful and hopeful.
Best wishes to my effort,
Manoj
Wednesday, July 15, 2009
MIRACLES - Existence of God
Hello,
Just now read about a miracle that I wanted to share.
Hannah Clark is a young girl of 16 who has started playing games, has a part time job and plans to go back to school in September.
All this had looked impossible 15 years ago when as a eight month old baby, Hannah had developed serious heart problems. As heart donations were rare she had to wait another year when a heart of a 5 month old was available.
Meanwhile, on medication, Hannah developed lung problems as well and when it was time for the transplant the doctors thought it prudent to graft the donor's heart directly into her heart.
The doctors then put little Hannah on medication to prevent her body from rejecting the new heart and this gave rise to Cancer and chemotherapy.
But the chemotherapy and the lowering of the drugs did not help and the cancer spread. Hannah's ravished little body finally rejected the donor heart and then a miracle happened.
Hannah original heart started functioning normally and in February 2006, ten years after the implant, the donor heart it was removed from her body.
There were days when Hannah was given just hours to live and science fails to explain how Hannah got her heart back.
Miguel Uva, Chairperson of the European Society of Cardiology's group on cardiovascular surgery called Hannah case a 'miracle'. He said that it is rare for patient's heart to get simply better on their own.
Another proof of the existence of the Almighty. A miracle.
You can read all about the case on Lancet. log on to http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(09)61201-0/fulltext
Best wishes,
Manoj
Just now read about a miracle that I wanted to share.
Hannah Clark is a young girl of 16 who has started playing games, has a part time job and plans to go back to school in September.
All this had looked impossible 15 years ago when as a eight month old baby, Hannah had developed serious heart problems. As heart donations were rare she had to wait another year when a heart of a 5 month old was available.
Meanwhile, on medication, Hannah developed lung problems as well and when it was time for the transplant the doctors thought it prudent to graft the donor's heart directly into her heart.
The doctors then put little Hannah on medication to prevent her body from rejecting the new heart and this gave rise to Cancer and chemotherapy.
But the chemotherapy and the lowering of the drugs did not help and the cancer spread. Hannah's ravished little body finally rejected the donor heart and then a miracle happened.
Hannah original heart started functioning normally and in February 2006, ten years after the implant, the donor heart it was removed from her body.
There were days when Hannah was given just hours to live and science fails to explain how Hannah got her heart back.
Miguel Uva, Chairperson of the European Society of Cardiology's group on cardiovascular surgery called Hannah case a 'miracle'. He said that it is rare for patient's heart to get simply better on their own.
Another proof of the existence of the Almighty. A miracle.
You can read all about the case on Lancet. log on to http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(09)61201-0/fulltext
Best wishes,
Manoj
Tuesday, July 14, 2009
Honesty
Hi,
Honesty and the consequences keep haunting my thoughts. I have told several lies and on most occasions there has been no real need for such lies. So then why do I do it.
What makes one tell a lie/be dishonest:The genesis of any lie/ dishonest act can be found in the following three main issues
What is to be gained by telling the lie/ being dishonest.
What are the probability of getting caught while telling a lie/ being dishonest.
What are the consequences, the magnitude of the punishment if caught while telling a lie/ being dishonest.
'Gain'.
When we tell small lies like "Oh I was just going through the newspaper" when actually we are surfing the net. This lie is told just to create the impression that the news interests us more than surfing the net.
We believe that there is a 'gain' by creating this impression.
What if the plan is to cheat the Bank? The dishonesty will result in financial gain. Lots of money.
'Probability of getting caught'
The lie about the newspaper is easily said as the person on the phone has the least chance of catching me in the act of lying. The fact that we know that the listener has a small chance of catching on makes us succumb to the temptation of telling the lie.
The probability of getting caught while cheating the Bank is much higher as there are several checks and balances involved.
'Magnitude of punishment'
We tell the lie with the hope that the magnitude of punishment is tolerable. Suppose in the example we tell the lie about reading the newspaper and the listener actually lands up to take a look at the newspaper which I don't have. What happens. I just giggle out of it.
Prison is the least you have to be ready for when you get caught while cheating a Bank.
We have more liars about the newspaper than about the Bank. Why? The gains are much higher when we cheat the Bank, but we do not do that. There is hardly any gain (tangible) when we lie about the newspaper but we do it frequently.
So it is not the risk reward that makes us lie.
The factor that makes us lie/ be dishonest is manner in which the act of lying/ being dishonest might make us perceive ourselves.
Most of us feel that we are dishonest only while doing a certain set of things. A person who keeps taking back A4 size papers home from office does not consider himself dishonest but he would baulk at picking up a one rupee note lying on the table of his colleague. His perception being that the A4 paper theft is not really something he should be ashamed of. Another logic used would be "everybody does it". But the one rupee is cash and stealing it maybe taboo.
I know of a very honest person in my previous Bank who would refuse all kinds of gifts but would use the Bank money to sponsor his trips to temples spread all across the country. His perception being that gifts represent bribes whereas taking advantage of his position in the Bank to sponsor his temple trips was just a perk that came with the job.
Therefore, when we talk of controlling our desire to be dishonest we have change the way we perceive ourselves while telling a lie/ being dishonest.
We have to analyze every slip we make and feel sorry for having succumbed to the temptation of gain of any size.
When we start changing the way we perceive ourselves while doing the act we are on the road to honesty.
It is a long way off for me.
Best regards,
Manoj
Honesty and the consequences keep haunting my thoughts. I have told several lies and on most occasions there has been no real need for such lies. So then why do I do it.
What makes one tell a lie/be dishonest:The genesis of any lie/ dishonest act can be found in the following three main issues
What is to be gained by telling the lie/ being dishonest.
What are the probability of getting caught while telling a lie/ being dishonest.
What are the consequences, the magnitude of the punishment if caught while telling a lie/ being dishonest.
'Gain'.
When we tell small lies like "Oh I was just going through the newspaper" when actually we are surfing the net. This lie is told just to create the impression that the news interests us more than surfing the net.
We believe that there is a 'gain' by creating this impression.
What if the plan is to cheat the Bank? The dishonesty will result in financial gain. Lots of money.
'Probability of getting caught'
The lie about the newspaper is easily said as the person on the phone has the least chance of catching me in the act of lying. The fact that we know that the listener has a small chance of catching on makes us succumb to the temptation of telling the lie.
The probability of getting caught while cheating the Bank is much higher as there are several checks and balances involved.
'Magnitude of punishment'
We tell the lie with the hope that the magnitude of punishment is tolerable. Suppose in the example we tell the lie about reading the newspaper and the listener actually lands up to take a look at the newspaper which I don't have. What happens. I just giggle out of it.
Prison is the least you have to be ready for when you get caught while cheating a Bank.
We have more liars about the newspaper than about the Bank. Why? The gains are much higher when we cheat the Bank, but we do not do that. There is hardly any gain (tangible) when we lie about the newspaper but we do it frequently.
So it is not the risk reward that makes us lie.
The factor that makes us lie/ be dishonest is manner in which the act of lying/ being dishonest might make us perceive ourselves.
Most of us feel that we are dishonest only while doing a certain set of things. A person who keeps taking back A4 size papers home from office does not consider himself dishonest but he would baulk at picking up a one rupee note lying on the table of his colleague. His perception being that the A4 paper theft is not really something he should be ashamed of. Another logic used would be "everybody does it". But the one rupee is cash and stealing it maybe taboo.
I know of a very honest person in my previous Bank who would refuse all kinds of gifts but would use the Bank money to sponsor his trips to temples spread all across the country. His perception being that gifts represent bribes whereas taking advantage of his position in the Bank to sponsor his temple trips was just a perk that came with the job.
Therefore, when we talk of controlling our desire to be dishonest we have change the way we perceive ourselves while telling a lie/ being dishonest.
We have to analyze every slip we make and feel sorry for having succumbed to the temptation of gain of any size.
When we start changing the way we perceive ourselves while doing the act we are on the road to honesty.
It is a long way off for me.
Best regards,
Manoj
Friday, July 10, 2009
Uniformity of the Universe - Embarrassment for atheists
One of the remarkable features of the universe is that above a certain scale (about 1024 metres) it is highly uniform in structure. This degree of uniformity is an embarrassment to cosmologists.
According to relativity theory, there should be no causal connection between points separated by distances greater than c multiplied by t (where c is the velocity of light and t is the age of the universe). Extrapolating this back to the Big Bang suggests that the primordial universe was partitioned into about 1080 causally separate regions.
Nevertheless, all these disconnected regions had to expand at the same rate to maintain the observed degree of uniformity! Coincidence or co-operation?
Small wonder that Paul Davies (I hope the atheists know him) comments:“It is hard to resist the impression of something - some influence capable of transcending spacetime and the confinement of relativistic causality - possessing an overview of the entire cosmos at the instant of its creation, and manipulating all the causally disconnected parts to go bang with almost exactly the same vigour at the same time, and yet not so exactly co-ordinated as to preclude the small scale, slight irregularities that eventually formed the galaxies, and us.”
According to relativity theory, there should be no causal connection between points separated by distances greater than c multiplied by t (where c is the velocity of light and t is the age of the universe). Extrapolating this back to the Big Bang suggests that the primordial universe was partitioned into about 1080 causally separate regions.
Nevertheless, all these disconnected regions had to expand at the same rate to maintain the observed degree of uniformity! Coincidence or co-operation?
Small wonder that Paul Davies (I hope the atheists know him) comments:“It is hard to resist the impression of something - some influence capable of transcending spacetime and the confinement of relativistic causality - possessing an overview of the entire cosmos at the instant of its creation, and manipulating all the causally disconnected parts to go bang with almost exactly the same vigour at the same time, and yet not so exactly co-ordinated as to preclude the small scale, slight irregularities that eventually formed the galaxies, and us.”
Sunday, July 5, 2009
ARE ZEUS AND THOR FORGOTTEN GODS
I read somewhere the Atheists argument that if God was so omnipresent and forever how come no one worships Thor and Zeus, the Gods who were so powerful just a few centuries ago.
What Atheists forget is that the names of Gods like Zeus, Thor and others are just a way of making Gods look human.
Why? You will ask, of course. Why try to humanize God?
I tried to analyze it and my personal explanation is that the attempt to humanize God was made to make people aware of the various attributes and powers of God.
It is clear that appearances are important and even atheist are ready to convert if they can see God. If the educated class (that is what Atheist try to project themselves as) also believe only in the existence of objects that can be seen how can they not understand the needs of the less privileged.
Our ancestors understood this very well that it is easier to explain to people with form. The recognizable attributes were given form to make people connect directly with God.
Slowly, people forgot the purpose of the creation of form for Gods and started worshiping the idols. It is convenient for certain sections that people get attached to idols and forget that God is formless, omnipresent and most powerful.
Religion which starts as a way of life becomes a slave of rituals and diminishes the sanctity of the thought of God.
When people realize that the forms are not needed to worship the forms loose their importance . Zeus and Thor are forms which outlived their utility as people understood that the attributes that Thor and Zeus represent are actually part of the same God everyone wants to be close to.
Zeus and Thor and several other forms just represent the attributes of God who is formless, omnipresent and all powerful.
Manoj
What Atheists forget is that the names of Gods like Zeus, Thor and others are just a way of making Gods look human.
Why? You will ask, of course. Why try to humanize God?
I tried to analyze it and my personal explanation is that the attempt to humanize God was made to make people aware of the various attributes and powers of God.
It is clear that appearances are important and even atheist are ready to convert if they can see God. If the educated class (that is what Atheist try to project themselves as) also believe only in the existence of objects that can be seen how can they not understand the needs of the less privileged.
Our ancestors understood this very well that it is easier to explain to people with form. The recognizable attributes were given form to make people connect directly with God.
Slowly, people forgot the purpose of the creation of form for Gods and started worshiping the idols. It is convenient for certain sections that people get attached to idols and forget that God is formless, omnipresent and most powerful.
Religion which starts as a way of life becomes a slave of rituals and diminishes the sanctity of the thought of God.
When people realize that the forms are not needed to worship the forms loose their importance . Zeus and Thor are forms which outlived their utility as people understood that the attributes that Thor and Zeus represent are actually part of the same God everyone wants to be close to.
Zeus and Thor and several other forms just represent the attributes of God who is formless, omnipresent and all powerful.
Manoj
Friday, July 3, 2009
WHY IS IT DIFFICULT TO PROVE THE EXISTENCE OF GOD
Most debates on the existence of the Almighty are based on the inability of theists to provide proof of the existence.
This I agree is difficult. Most of our beliefs are either based on what is always being considered as the acceptable truth or on personal experiences which point out to the existence.
Personal experiences are unique and although a small incident like getting cured of cancer when all hope is lost or unexpectedly meeting someone who helps you through a crisis may be a big event for you, for the non believer, it is just fluke/ chance or coincidence.
There are many events in everyday life which are difficult to explain through science. How events tie up to bring success where it is least expected and how worship alone makes things happen are easy to be pooh poohed and treated as a matter of probability but that may be for someone not involved. For the person involved it is God even when he does not appear in front of us.
If God did not exist why do atheist try so hard to prove it. It should be acceptable to all if there was proof.
Produce it my dear friends or let us live with our faith and belief.
This I agree is difficult. Most of our beliefs are either based on what is always being considered as the acceptable truth or on personal experiences which point out to the existence.
Personal experiences are unique and although a small incident like getting cured of cancer when all hope is lost or unexpectedly meeting someone who helps you through a crisis may be a big event for you, for the non believer, it is just fluke/ chance or coincidence.
There are many events in everyday life which are difficult to explain through science. How events tie up to bring success where it is least expected and how worship alone makes things happen are easy to be pooh poohed and treated as a matter of probability but that may be for someone not involved. For the person involved it is God even when he does not appear in front of us.
If God did not exist why do atheist try so hard to prove it. It should be acceptable to all if there was proof.
Produce it my dear friends or let us live with our faith and belief.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
