mukto-mona : Message: Re: [mukto-mona] Attn : Shabnam Nadiya

Salute Dada/Bhaijaan/Brother/Comrade/Sathee/friend/Babu!!!!

-SS

--- Bishnu Dey <sankar_rabi@...> wrote:
> >From: "Ajoy Kumer Roy" <kumer_ajoyroy@...>
> >Subject: [mukto-mona] Attn : Shabnam Nadiya - From Dr. Ajoy Roy
> >Date: Fri, 27 Jul 2001 16:53:16
>
> Dear Mr. Roy:
>
> Thank you for a nice essay on atheism. As you have yourself
> acknowledged, I
> paraphrase here: �Like many other phenomenon in this universe, the
> existence
> of god cannot be proved nor disapproved�. In my opinion, this
> statement
> must be qualified with reference to our collective knowledge base
> as human
> beings, at the current time. Who knows what future holds, and what
>
> scientific breakthroughs will occur in the future to unfold the
> mysteries,
> which we call "undefined" or "undetermined".
>
> Homo-sapien era is only tens of thousand years old, compared to the
> life
> span of this universe, which goes back many billion years.
> Therefore, this
> universe and our planet earth were inhabited either by species of
> animals
> (intelligent or sterile), or aliens or neither. Our limited
> knowledge
> preclude us from determining whether other sources of lives existed
> or still
> exist in other domains of this universe. We do not know what
> levels of
> intelligence exist among the animal species that cohabit this
> earth. We do
> not know if animals, insects etc. feel the same need to attribute
> their
> existence to the mysteries of that "supernatural power", or some
> other
> entity. Apparently, it may appear that animals, insects, and
> plants are not
> burdened with the concept of god, which is obviously a human
> created
> phenomenon. Would it be too much of a stretch to state that this
> vast
> domain of unknown has been easily solved by the creation of this
> concept of
> "supreme power"?
>
> Given the fact that the believers of god tend to attribute all
> natural
> occurrence as divine act, such as the rising of the sun, or the
> tide in a
> river, or a hurricane, life, death, marriage, anything else in one
> or the
> other way is attributed to an act of god. It is not difficult to
> see why
> our early human ancestors would have had the urge to accept all
> naturally
> occurring phenomenons as the act of a super natural power. With
> our current
> knowledge, we do know much more. We know how stars and planets are
> formed;
> we see the creation of new stars billions of light years ago
> through the
> Hubble telescope. We have unlocked the mysteries of the building
> blocks of
> life through genetic research. We are in the verge of creating
> �life� in
> our laboratories; we are creating new species of fruits and
> vegetables. We
> have eradicated deadly diseases like small pox and are in the verge
> of
> conquering the deadly disease of cancer; HIV infected people are
> being given
> new lease of life. Very soon we will be cloning humans and will
> acquire
> the knowledge and proficiency in creating �super� human beings and
> animals.
> Mind boggling progress indeed! If we look closely, all these
> achievements have occurred in only the last 200 years of our
> existence. We
> can hardly keep pace with the new findings from around the world,
> every
> single day! Given all this, what I fail to understand is why
> people today
> still are steadfast in their belief of god, or some super natural
> power.
>
> The landing of human beings on the moon not only contributed in a
> large way
> in demystifying the concept of extra planetary voyages, but in a
> strange
> manner it also broadened our human capacity to accept that entities
> other
> than �god� are able to break such barriers, which was previously
> associated
> with �godly� powers alone. Many Muslims even today do not believe
> that
> human beings ever could land on the moon, the object of such
> reverence, per
> Islamic teachings. (I am not even referring to the fact that
> somewhere Mr.
> Mohammed claimed that he fragmented the moon into two, and somehow
> re-joined
> it!). If this is not plain stupidity, I do not know what else
> would
> subscribe to this collective ignorance? Now, in all fairness I
> must
> emphasize that it is not only Islam, but also all religions do have
> many
> similar stupid connotations, which will fail the test, based on our
> current
> knowledge base and rational analysis of cause-effect relationship.
>
> This brings me to my favorite subject � religion. One good thing
> about it
> is all religions are �historic� in nature. Believers are somehow
> not ready
> to change with time, which is in a way a blessing for the free
> thinkers.
> Every single passing day will continue to increase our knowledge
> regarding
> the mysteries and the unknown phenomenon and raise our level of
> consciousness. People who would not accept or resist the new
> knowledge will
> be weeded out through the Darwinian principle of �survival of the
> fittest�,
> because we know that knowledge empowers individuals. Gradually, we
> will see
> that such people will command and control the world who do not
> subscribe to
> the phony ideas of �the father, the son, and the holy ghost�, or
> those who
> subscribe to the concept of a �pony with wings� which transported
> Mr.
> Mohammed to the �heavens� to consort with Allah. Therefore, the
> believers
> of religion will have to do one of the following to survive:
>
> 1)Denounce religion, or
> 2)Modify and modernize it to keep pace with time
>
> Either way will lead to a better world.
>
> With warm regards,
>
> Bishnu Dey
>
>
> I found this paragraph rather interesting, and I have added my
> comments on
> the matter, below.
>
> �God (Islamic or not Islamic) is such an entity whose existence
> cannot be
> proved from the material frame of reference. Agnosticism is
> precisely the
> same principle: it is a doctrine of an agnostic- distinguished from
> atheism.
> Theologically speaking, the doctrine that god is unknown and
> unknowable. In
> philosophy, the doctrine that a first cause and the essential
> nature of
> things are unknowable to us the material human beings. G.J. Romanes
> has put
> it in a nice way "By agnosticism, I understand a theory of things
> which
> abstains from either affirming or denouncing the existence of god;
> all it
> undertakes to affirm is that, upon existing evidence, the being of
> god is
> unknowable." So as a Physicist I am an agnostic. The entity, which
> cannot be
> proved from a material frame, does not exist to me - it is a
> meaning less
> entity, an unnecessary concept even in philosophical or theological
> sense-
> as is ether a useless concept in physics. If now I declare myself
> an
> atheist, my atheism springs out from the principle of agnosticism,
> a
> principle based on physics; it is not just a faith or belief in the
>
> religious sense�.
>
> I have only one trouble with your concept of being an �Agnostic
> atheist�,
> which seems to me a somewhat opportunistic approach, which allows
> one from
> totally disavowing the existence� of god by defining him/her/it as
> an
> �unknown� or �undetermined� entity. This would perhaps leave the
> doors
> slightly open, in case the day of reckoning appears. Basically,
> this
> approach does not completely burn the bridge, which Nadiya and
> Javacrucian
> and others had the courage to do. By the way, I am pitifully
> closer to your
> position, a 70% atheist and 30% agnostic or some variation of that
> mix, if
>
=== message truncated ===

> ATTACHMENT part 2 message/rfc822
> To: mukto-mona@yahoogroups.com
> From:"Ajoy Kumer Roy" <kumer_ajoyroy@...>
> Date: Fri, 27 Jul 2001 16:53:16
> Reply-to: mukto-mona@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: [mukto-mona] Attn : Shabnam Nadiya - From Dr. Ajoy Roy
>

<HR>
<html><div style='background-color:'><DIV></DIV>
<DIV>��Dear Nadiya,�<?xml:namespace prefix
= o /><o:p> </o:p>
As you
know, I am just a curious occasional reader of Mukto-Mona group to
which my son Avijit introduced me. Sorry for late reaction on your
touchy article '<A
href="http://humanists.net/avijit/article/why_I_remain_atheist.htm">Why
I remain an Atheist</A>' which grew out of your bitter
personal experience. How I appreciate your feelings, sensitiveness
and frankness. In a personal or private life it is mot very difficult
for one to be a non-believer, or non-practicing follower of a
religion. But to denounce one's religion publicly and to severe all
links from tradition, time honored religious customs continued to be
in vogue in the name of social and cultural phenomena is a different
thing. This needs courage and boldness. And this precisely you
have shown, my young lady. I praise your courage.
The
courage does not come out automatically or spontaneously; it emanates
from knowledge, conviction about truth, and freethinking based on
logic and scientific philosophy. It took you long twenty years, if
not more, even with your social & educational background. You are
fortunate that you have been brought out in an enlightened family,
even then as a women you have suffered mentally, intellectually by
your religion. Now think of those girls living in� remote villages or in� bustees of the cities, think of their sufferings in the
hand of the religionist guardians, and the fotowabaz's. These
guardians may be your parents, your kith & kin, so called�� social leaders, or even your
teachers. How can I expect that those poor girls, when I see many of
my intellectual friends and students (women) , though at personal
level liberal having not much faith in religion dare not to denounce
religion publicly,� will
denounce the religion and free from the tentacles of the religion.
They surrender to their fate.�
Crux of the problem lies there. Individually one may
denounce his or her faith, as you have done or Avijit did,- but
problem of emancipation from the clutches of religion is the biggest
challenge of the 21st century.
�No
matter whether atheism is 'simply a belief in the non-existence
of God' ( Javacrucian 7/19/01) or 'Atheism treats human beings as
adults- religion does not. Atheism believes that humanists are
capable of living a good life, and are capable of living a good
life. " as you wrote, you have courageously declared yourself
as an atheist. It is a matter of view how you accept atheism, -
Javacrucian interpreted it in a restricted sense given in a
dictionary, you have widened its scope and meaning to include
humanism within its fold. (By the by I don't consider Stalin as a
monster, whether he was an atheist or not. Javacrucian, I do not want
to make a debate on this issue, please !)� Just a passing remarks about atheism. It originates
from the Greek word atheos
meaning without a god opposite to the word theos i.e. god. Atheism is a
belief that there is no
God. According to Bacon "A little
philosophy inclienth men's mind to atheism, but depth in philosophy
bringeth men's mind to religion". The idealist philosophers
have always attacked the atheists, Bacon is no exception. Young
sarcastically remarked about them " By night an atheist believes a God". But I believe atheists
are not that weak. To me atheism is not just like another religious
faith or belief in which one is born or accept one for some personal
material reason. As I said atheism springs from courage, muktta-mon� o mukta-budhi (free thinking� & intellect).
We the
physicist believe a basic principle very kin to agnosticism. This is a principle of
impossibility, which slowly but steadily found place in physics.
There are certain things in material phenomena, which can not be,
achieved, prove or made by men. In thermodynamics there are two well
known such principle: Impossibility of making�
machine which generates perpetual motion &
impossibility of achieving the absolute zero degree temperature.
There are other examples also: no material particle can exceed the
speed of light c. Another is the Uncertainty principle according to
which no two canonically related physical quantities can be measured
with 100% certainty at a time. There are certain things whose
existence cannot be proved by doing experiments in inertial frames:
examples - existence of absoluteness of� space time. Take the case of ether an entity conceived
by 18th century physicists as a vehicle of propagation of
light. But no experiment of physics�
will prove its existence. God (Islamic or not Islamic) is
such an entity whose existence can not be proved from the material
frame of reference. Agnosticism is precisely the same principle: it
is a doctrine of an agnostic- distinguished from atheism.
Theologically speaking, the doctrine that God is unknown and
unknowable. In philosophy, the doctrine that a first cause and the
essential nature of things are unknowable to us the material human
beings. G.J. Romanes has put it in a nice way "By agnosticism, I understand a
theory of things which abstains from either affirming or denouncing
the existence of God; all it undertakes to affirm is that, upon
existing evidence, the being of God is unknowable." So as a
Physicist I am an agnostic. The
entity, which cannot be proved from a material frame, does not exist
to me - it is a meaning less entity, an unnecessary concept even in
philosophical or theological sense-�
as is ether a
useless concept in physics.� If now I declare myself an atheist, my atheism springs
out from the principle of agnosticism, a principle based on physics;
it is not just a faith or belief in the religious sense.
�Nadiya, atheism is just not the western
concept. The counter part term in Indian Philosophy ( I used the term
Indian Philosophy, not Hindu philosophy as Avijit has allergic
reaction to the term Hindu ) is Nastikata or
Nastibad ( disbelieving in God, the creator) This is also
identical with Karmanam -
denying the consequences of work ). Nastikata or atheism, as a philosophy� was developed by Dhisan before
Gautam Budha. According to him the Universe exists, but not God, the
creator; only eternal entity is the matter, and matter consists of
four elements: earth, water, energy and air. The creation of life is
a specific process of nature and it evolves out of the composite
composition of four elements. With death all ends. Perception is the
only direct proof of existence.�
�Agnosticism has also its origin in Indian
philosophy. Sanjoy Belthiputta was probably the founder of this
school of philosophy who flourished during the time of Lord Budha.
According his philosophy it is impossible to say whether an
after-world (heaven and hell ), the soul (atma) exists or not. We
cannot prove or disprove the existence of God.��<o:p> </o:p>
Sorry
Nadiya for giving a long lecture like your father. Thanks once
again for your straightforward article. But as I cautioned Avijit
as a loving father, a word of advice for you too: keep yourself
alert, and take good care of yourself. Remember you have started a
fighting against a very powerful demon who leaves no stone unturned
to stop you, ridicule you and finally eliminate you. It is not just
an intellectual battle. If you are in Bangladesh you are exposed to
more danger. Think what happened to Taslima. We
the secularists or humanists could not do much for her. Such is the
power of fundamentalism in Bangladesh.
�Thanks to Abul Kasem, Javacrucican,
Avijit, Satya Sondhani, Free Person Smith, Aparthib, Fatemolla� for giving you most needed
support.
�With love,��
Ajoy
Roy��</DIV></div> <hr>Get
your FREE download of MSN Explorer at <a
href='http://go.msn.com/bql/hmtag_itl_EN.asp'>http://explorer.msn.com</a> 
 

 
<tt>
To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: 
mukto-mona-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com 
 
</tt>
 

 
<tt>Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the <a
href="http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/">Yahoo! Terms of
Service</a>.</tt>


</html>

=====
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"I am only one, but still I am one. I cannot do everything, but still I can do
something; and because I cannot do everything I will not refuse to do the
something that I can do."
-Edward Everett Hale
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Make international calls for as low as $.04/minute with Yahoo! Messenger
http://phonecard.yahoo.com/

Yahoo! Groups

Group Information

Yahoo! Groups Tips

Did you know...

Messages