--- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], "Joe Vaz" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > Dear Santosh: > > Let me state this upfront: It has not been my intention to either >blemish your reputation or tarnish your image, or ridicule you and >your field of work. The respect I have for you (as a fellow human >being) has remained the same -- it has neither increased nor >diminished despite the disagreements we have in the course of recent >discussions. >
Dear Mr. Vaz: Thanks for your thoughtful response. I never expected anything less from you. My respect for you has always been high. It is easy to understand the fact that different people have different individual preferences on what they want to read on mailing lists, in terms of content as well as form. Some people like original humor and satire, even if it is amateurish, and hate recycled jokes and sayings that have already made several rounds on most mailing lists. Others like religious and spiritual posts, particularly of their own denomination, and hate secular criticism of any kind. All this is perfectly fine as far as I am concerned. I have a little bit of a problem, however, with people who lecture to other people on what not to write and how not to do it, ignoring the fact that they themselves have done exactly the same in the past, or were the source of the provocation in the first place. But I chalk it up as a fairly common human frailty. I know you will perhaps not respond to this post of mine. So I will address very briefly the specific points that you raised. But before I do that, I would like to clarify my position to you and to everybody who is paying attention to this otherwise inconsequential post from me. I think all your responses to my post stem from a basic misunderstanding or lack of understanding about science, and about people like me who try to be consistent in their application of critical and clear thinking in all aspects of life. It is easy for people to gloss over the nuances of various arguments, and relegate them to the lowest common denominator, such as prejudice, intolerance, disrespect, cheap ridicule, etc, especially if they do not care about making sure they are not hypocritical while doing that. Words such as prejudice and cheap ridicule are trigger words that most people understand and react to without giving much thought (mostly because of their busy schedule). But such accusations, even if implicit, are totally unfair to people who want to present a serious argument. I do what I do, not because I want to denounce other people?s beliefs or show that I know it all or impose my thoughts on others, but simply because I want to present the other side of an issue, and to correct misconceptions and misinformation about topics that I know something about. This is absolutely important in secular public forums because these forums provide an easy means to spread lop-sided views, distortions, misinformation, disinformation and ideological propaganda. The Hindu fanatics; various leftist organizations; the Christian, Jewish and Islamic fundamentalists; and various types of anti-science and anti-medicine movements have used such forums to great advantage. I subscribe to the notion that there are legitimate, and often times, mainstream points of view that need to be adequately represented in all secular public forums. These include the following: 1. Most people, non-believers and believers alike, do not subscribe to a belief in the literal truth of extraordinary events that have been described in the scriptures. If these extraordinary events are presented as undisputed facts in a secular public forum, their truth ought to be challenged, especially if they known to be in conflict with established scientific principles. A good example is the creation story as opposed to evolution. 2. One has to be fair and even-handed in the treatment of light-hearted comments pertaining to religious beliefs. You cannot raise strong objections to such comments regarding the parting of the Red Sea, while remaining quiet, laughing at or even congratulating somebody if they made fun of Parshuram?s use of a bow and arrow to create Goa (This is not a jab at Cecil. Cecil is a good e-friend of mine ? a faithful member along with me of a two-member mutual admiration club). You cannot chastise me for mild sarcasm shown in response to an obviously planted rhetorical question (an internet forum equivalent of legalistic entrapment) on Christian beliefs, and at the same time post chicken-crossing jokes about the Buddha, or little parables about how Jesus is smarter and wiser than the Buddha and Confucius in a secular public forum. 3. Misinformation spread by anybody, including well-meaning NGOs, journalists and community servants, has to be corrected and severely criticized. I have responded critically to Frederick?s posts on several occasions, even though I have the highest respect and admiration for him, as a journalist and as a human being. For me it is always the matter presented, and never the person presenting it, unless of course the person presenting it does it intentionally and habitually due to some ulterior motive, in which case the motive needs to be exposed. 4. There is a scientific world-view that has important things to say about the natural world, and the phenomena and people that are part of it, and the minds and beliefs of those people. This world-view is often in conflict with religious teachings. Some of these conflicts have been settled by empirical observation, but others have not yet been disposed of in this manner. In the latter case, the best approach in a secular public forum is to be impartial and even-handed. You cannot expect people to show great deference to religious beliefs, and at the same time dismiss well-established scientific observations or hypotheses. You cannot make biased statements about perceived limitations of science, and at the same time cry foul when others point out the flaws in religious beliefs. Finally, I must tell you once again what I have always maintained in this and other forums, because those who are paying attention to this elongated post should know exactly what my biases are. I have nothing against any faith or belief system, and against people who adhere to them. My theological position is that of an agnostic in the broadest philosophical sense of that word, which means the following: 1. I don?t know if there is a God or not. 2. I don?t know if he, she or it has power over us, and the world around us. 3. I don?t know if religion has got it right or wrong, or which religion, if any is right. 4. I don?t know if there is a real spiritual plane of existence, in addition to the material one, but I entertain that possibility even in my own work, albeit in a more formal way. 5. I am not convinced that we need a supernatural explanation for anything at all. 6. I am not convinced that postulating the presence of some supernatural entity answers any questions. 7. I am not convinced that religion has helped us understand the physical world, except in a very limited sense. 8. I am not convinced that miracles in the true sense of that word happen in this world. 9. I am not convinced that holding spiritual or religious beliefs makes us better persons than not holding them. 10. I am convinced based on evidence however, that religion has done a lot of good to people at the personal and societal level. 11. I am convinced based on evidence that religion and spirituality has a significant role to play in modern society. Regarding my philosophical disposition in respect of science, I am a cautious optimist, which means the following: 1. I don?t know if science has all the answers or not, but it sure has got many of them right. 2. I am convinced based on evidence that science has helped us understand the physical world. 3. I am convinced based on evidence that many natural phenomena lie unexplained at the present time; but nothing indicates to us that these will defy any such explanation in the future. 4. I am convinced based on evidence that science has a good shot at explaining most of these phenomena. 5. I am convinced based on evidence that there are several instances wherein what was once thought to be an act of God was later understood to be a simple and elegant natural phenomenon. > > If in someway I have hurt your feelings, you have my apology. >However, I do NOT and will not offer any apology ?for my belief in >God or His divine miracles, ? and therefore I reserve the right to >stand up and defend my faith if attacked, in any shape, form or >manner. > I am aware that I always run the risk of being detested by people who hold religious beliefs, and people who believe in paranormal and supernatural phenomena. So I was not at all insulted by what you wrote. Moreover, from having read your posts on Goan mailing lists for quite some time now, I know that it is not in your nature to hate anybody?s guts. I thank you for the apology, however, and I would like to offer you one in return, if the things I said offended you personally in any way. But like you I would also prefer to stand my ground when it comes to defending science and the scientific method, if either or them are misrepresented intentionally or unintentionally in a secular public forum. Now to respond briefly to some of your specific points.... > > JV: I fail to see how: ?Scientific study of ? *abnormal* brain >function ? can give us fundamental insights into why people hold >spiritual beliefs, and into the nature of beliefs that they hold.?? > You now give the above as an example of misleading information that I have presented, and state that you fail to see how. You can only claim that it is misleading if you base your statement on knowledge, not on ignorance, of what I was talking about here. What I was referring to here is the vast amount of peer-reviewed medical literature on neurological disorders that affect a part of the brain called the temporal lobe. The most common of these is what is called temporal lobe epilepsy. People afflicted with this condition are extremely religious. They often have the feeling that they are in the presence of God, have repeated similar spiritual experiences, and hold many common religious beliefs. Brain scientists, many of whom are highly accomplished individuals, think that studying the brain mechanisms underlying this phenomenon would shed new light into the neurobiology of the sensations and convictions that characterize spiritual belief. I find it ironical that, of all the subjects that I have discussed in this forum, you have accused me of misleading people in the very area of knowledge that I am intimately familiar with. > > JV: Does your confrontation... "with every instrument of honest, >outspoken and civilized public discourse available"... entail >sarcasm, mockery, and disregard for people?s religion or religious >beliefs. > >I invite you to re-examine your statements below: > I have already answered this question above. But I submit to you that my sarcasm, mockery and disregard for people?s religion or religious beliefs, as perceived by you, are no more offensive than your chicken-crossing joke involving the Buddha, as perceived by a devout Buddhist. > > JV: Thank you for your invitation, but I don?t think need to make a >trip to Huston, just to examine fossils of some animals ?- in favor >of the Darwinian Evolution, -- for I don?t believe that it will prove >the evolutionists claim that life originated in the chance forming of >minute cells in oceans and evolved through fish, birds, mammals and >apes into humans, for which there is no conclusive proof. > The irony in the above statement sticks out like a sore thumb. You expect others not to dismiss the claims made by religious believers, and protest when they demand even a tiny modicum of objective physical evidence, calling their expressions cheap shots, and yet when the tables are turned, you summarily dismiss the claims of evolutionists citing your belief that there is no conclusive proof? I think I have addressed all the points raised by Mr. Vaz. I will not reply to any trite and non-substantive responses from anybody to this post of mine. I will however respond to any serious and substantive arguments, as and when I can find some time. Cheers, Santosh =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-W-E-B---S-I-T-E-=-=-= To Subscribe/Unsubscribe from GoaNet | http://www.goacom.com/goanet =================================================================== For (un)subscribing or for help, Contact: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Dont want so many e=mails? Join GoaNet-Digest instead ! =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Help support non-commercial projects in Goa by advertizing!! * * * * Your ad here !!
