This man Doctorate(in what?) Indiresan is typical of Hindoo
not-sur-of-anything-really.
He could/should have summed up saying:
How could Mr.Ram travel all the way from East UP-with all his monkeys-No Trains
How could monkeys carry boulders to sea from far-off quarries(100Km)-No
Cranes/Trains
How could Monkeys place Boulders on seabed(rocks) and fuse them--no Epoxy no
Cement
If Mr. Ram +Monkeys could do all that-IIT- Powered India could readily undo all
that.
But I won't.
mm
Date: Wed, 19 Sep 2007 11:34:05 -0500To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]: Re: [Assam] IIT Chief: Ram, science and religious belief
Dr. Indiresan spent a lot of time pretending to be singing the praises of
scientific pursuits of the truth and rational thinking. But really he bares in
this article, filled with inane arguments , his own inability to reconcile
rational thinking expected of a man of his stature as a technocrat and
educationist, supposedly excelling in inculcating an ethos of learning with a
critical and analytical approach required of technical/scientific studies, with
irrational dogmas camouflaged as a defence of Hindu 'sentiments' from an
unfair and/or selective challenges to the irrationalities of the faith's myriad
myths. Dr. Indiresan is attempting to have it both ways, sporting the aura of
a rational technocrat while spouting irrational arguments in defense of
'feelings' and 'sentiments'.
Allow me to explain:
>The same holds good in the case of Ram too; there is no proof that he existed;
>neither is there any >scientific proof that he did not exist. That is where
>‘rational’ scientists drift outside the scientific path. >They make assertions
>about matters of faith, forgetting their own principles. They can say, at the
>most, >there is no proof that Ram was a real person. They cannot proceed
>further and assert that Ram was >not a real person.
*** Fair enough. Rationalists cannot prove or assert Lord Ram was NOT a real
person. But what does that have to do with the issue at hand: Whether Ram-sethu
was built by Ram or his minions? Should the likes of Dr. Indiresan , no doubt
someone endowed with wisdoms that shallow rationalists are deprived of , NOT
pursue the question to its logical end? Or would it amount to attacking a
soft-target, thus out of bounds for the wise rationalist?
*** Furthermore, a rational scientist /technocrat would NOT stop at that. She
would also dig deeper to look at the REAL issue: Whether destroying the
geological features of the sea-bed referred to as the Ram-sethu in Indian
folklore is a prudent thing to do, considering its many ramifications that
could be examined scientifically. Is he doing that? Is he showing any
inclination to do that?
>But why not tolerate the dogma of scientists when no objections are raised
>about religious dogma?
*** Scientific dogma is an oxymoron. While I am acutely aware of Indians'
proclivity for misusing English words and phrases, often because it is a
foreign language, but many times willfully in pursuit of less than noble ends;
one would have expected someone of the stature of Dr. Indiresan to be a tad bit
more careful. But it is a well worn tactic to devalue and demonize objects of
one's dislike with clever use of words and phrases when one is dealing with a
paucity of reason.
>In the Indian context, rationalists become dangerous, because they attack
>selectively. All religions >survive on myths. Rationalists would have been on
>more solid ground if they had attacked myths of all >religions.
***This is Dr. Indiresan's coup-de-grace in his devaluing of rational
thinking on the matter. Or so one might think unless one is careful to analyze
it.
Faith, even Dr. Indiresan would agree, is a very PERSONAL thing. One does not
have to be rational about it, like he tells us. If so, it ought not to be an
issue to be injected into matters of state, that affects ALL, regardless of
their faith/s; particularly to a state that is as vastly diverse in its faiths
as India is.
Furthermore, it is one thing to be analytical about ones own faith; to question
its beliefs, its myths, its dogmas; but quite another to do so about somebody
else's. One would have expected Dr. Indiresan to be mindful of such nuances of
ordinary propriety and courtesy that he implies others of lacking. It is NOT
unbecoming of a Hindu, even a nominal one, to questions Hindu myths or
superstitions or prejudices. For he is the one who is being affected by them.
But it is uncouth to go questioning others' faiths. The Hindu, widely bandied
to be tolerant, has no business meddling in
somebody else's faith, UNLESS, they are meddling in his lifestyle or well-being
by imposing their will on matters of state, which affect everyone.
That is the subtle but critical difference that Dr. Indiresan fails to note.
That is why his big argument against the 'rationalists' in 'the Indian context'
is little more than yet another foray into that twilight zone of foggy logic
where ordinary meanings of words and phrases no longer operate, as in special
Indian meanings to "secularism", "democracy", "rationalist" and so forth.
What Dr. Indiresan tells us here is that in spite of his implied approval of
rational thinking in general, he is unable to accept it when it is not applied
'fairly' to ALL religions 'in the Indian context' , as if it would somehow rid
Hinduism of its irrational burdens or absolve the Ram-sethu issue of its
irrationality. What he demonstrates is his personal insecurity over his own
faith, unable to reconcile the dichotomy imposed by injection of faith in
affairs of state.
No wonder that so many Indian scientists, technocrats and intellectuals can
cite chapter and verse
of the collective wisdoms of mankind acquired to date, but are unable to apply
them for the well-being of their own.
cm
At 11:54 PM -0700 9/18/07, umesh sharma wrote:
http://www.expressindia.com/latest-news/Ram-science-and-religious-belief/218687/New
Delhi, Spetember 19: A week is a long time in politics and the Ram Setu
controversy may soon die down. But even as it fades away politically, it may
linger intellectually.
Everyone is agreed that the battle is between scientific attitude and faith. As
Francis Bacon argued nearly 500 years ago, the scientific spirit requires that
we accept nothing as true unless it can be verified by experiment. Karl Popper
goes on to say that the purpose of scientific enquiry is to disprove a
hypothesis, not buttress it. As Thomas Kuhn has explained, science re-writes
its textbooks all the time.
In stark contrast, religious texts are sacred; they are unalterable. Science
holds a hypothesis untrue if it does not satisfy even one out a hundred
conditions. For the faithful, belief is sanctified even if it comes true only
once in a thousand times.
In modern times, the proposition that science will replace faith has become an
attractive one. Much that was a mystery earlier has now been rationalised
through scientific discoveries. Inevitably, many more mysteries of the present
will also get explained in years to come. But science has its limitations. For
example, it can theorise how the universe began with a Big Bang, but not
explain what agency caused it. Scientific theories are also fickle. Five years
ago, hormone replacement therapy was the cure-all idea for older women. Now, it
is anathema. Science propagates knowledge; it does not necessarily confirm
wisdom. That is why stories about mad scientists remain a recurrent theme in
cinema!
There is no scientific proof that God exists; neither is there any proof that
God does not exist. The same holds good in the case of Ram too; there is no
proof that he existed; neither is there any scientific proof that he did not
exist. That is where ‘rational’ scientists drift outside the scientific path.
They make assertions about matters of faith, forgetting their own principles.
They can say, at the most, there is no proof that Ram was a real person. They
cannot proceed further and assert that Ram was not a real person.
The reality is that many people believe in God. The reality is ideas of God are
many and lead to fierce fights, including mass murder. Admittedly, there is, at
any one time, far greater unanimity about scientific ‘truths’, but all those
truths are merely hypotheses liable to be superseded in the future.
Rationalists are right in condemning superstition as dangerous and harmful.
They overstep when they assert science has all the answers. As of today it does
not. Nothing becomes a scientist more than humility.
But why not tolerate the dogma of scientists when no objections are raised
about religious dogma? In the Indian context, rationalists become dangerous,
because they attack selectively. All religions survive on myths. Rationalists
would have been on more solid ground if they had attacked myths of all
religions. Unfortunately, Indian rationalists attack only Hindu myths. This is
politically dangerous. This has, in turn, led to a worrisome development. The
attacks have only induced orthodox Hindus to become more irrational, rather
than more rational. Tolerance of diversity has been the hallmark of Hindu
culture. What rationalists are doing is to take advantage of that tolerance of
diversity to destroy the base of that tolerance.
Hindu myths are liable to suffer more than those of other religions because
there are so many more of them. Nevertheless, isolating Hindu myths alone is
not rational. One suspects that Indian rationalists have confined themselves to
attacks on Hindu myths because Hindus are soft targets; others are not. If that
is true, rationalists are cowards. A cowardly soldier is a danger to the army;
he can lose battles. Cowardly intellectuals are even more dangerous; they can
destroy an entire society.
Since the days of Jawaharlal Nehru, there has been no respite from the attacks
on Hindu beliefs. That itself would not have mattered if Hinduism alone had not
been isolated for such treatment. As a result of this bias, orthodox Hindus
feel more and more threatened. In their fear, they are becoming less logical;
they are giving up their culture of tolerance. The long-term risk of all this
is not being adequately understood even by well-meaning intellectuals and media
persons. The real issue is not Ram vs rationality; it is rationality vs
selective rationality.
(The writer is a former director of IIT, Chennai)
Umesh SharmaWashington D.C.1-202-215-4328 [Cell]Ed.M. - International Education
PolicyHarvard Graduate School of Education,Harvard University,Class of
2005http://www.uknow.gse.harvard.edu/index.html (Edu info)http://hbswk.hbs.edu/
(Management Info)www.gse.harvard.edu/iep (where the above 2 are used
)http://jaipurschool.bihu.in/
Yahoo! Answers - Get better answers from someone who knows. Try it now.
_______________________________________________assam mailing [EMAIL
PROTECTED]://assamnet.org/mailman/listinfo/assam_assamnet.org
_________________________________________________________________
Download the latest version of Windows Live Messenger NOW!
http://get.live.com/en-ie/messenger/overview
_______________________________________________
assam mailing list
assam@assamnet.org
http://assamnet.org/mailman/listinfo/assam_assamnet.org
