The God Delusion

[[When the true spirit of religion (the pain and anguish which you can see in every Sacred text) get so perverted, when the man become devil incarnate in the hands of religion, when the earth is turned into hell, ....]]

this IS the "true spirit" of religion .... any religion but specially the ones that revere "death more than life" ... when the suiciders claims being hurt "less than a gnat's bite ... before they take their final journey to the promised gardens with rivers of milk and honey ... amongst other things" ..... wake up and smell the coffee quin .... this has been going on since time immemorial .... you have only just caught up with the memo!

Mutaal

Your words echo my feelings.... a severe identity crisis... disgusted and anxious at what is happening in NWFP/FATA - my 'watan'... rejecting religion has been by kneejerk reaction... (presently reading the Dawkins book...thanks to a friend who introduced me to it!!)... I find praying to a God absolutely ridiculous!!! I am more and more realising that there is NO personal god.... that concept does not make sense.... there IS a god but not in the anthromorphic form we give it... and by the way,why does god want one set of people to be the 'recievers' of truth, hence making them KILL for that preconceived notion of truth??? why not god simply show everyone in clear terms who HE is and save us all the fighting and killing??

....and you know what!!! I am feeling really free.... not in the sense that I can do ANYTHING.... but in the sense that I can use my own INTELECT and DECIDE the best course of moral action.... I am RESPONSIBLE for my own actions and thoughts...

BUT there has been a cost to my new found freedom from religion... I am moving away from the local Paki/pukhtoon community,cant tolerate their religosity and their double standards....
but I do want to stick to my cultural mores...the music, poetry etc...BUT please!!! NOT THE DESI BRAND OF RELIGOSITY.... interestingly i am coming across many Pakis who share my views...BUT very few pukhtoons... I think I am enjoying the company of my Indian friends more!! sharing the same culture but avoiding the religious baggage!!!

Quin bhai

A bit surprised to find this here. It seemed perfectly fitted to the ilog section where people do all sorts of loud thinking. On FP, an article should have some argument.

To your credit, you are completely a person of faith. A real believer in the infallibility of the Quran and Allah.

Like all good Muslims, you believe (your) religion has been hijacked by people who don't understand Islam. And that other people have corrupted their religions by not fully understanding the 'real spirit' of their religions (which, of course, goes without saying, else there would have been no need for Quranic revelations in the first place).

So, like any good person of faith, you are saddened by the loss of life, and share the sadness of an atheist like Dawkins. Yet your own views on religion are dramatically different from his. Dawkins believes that religion invariably causes mischief. You believe religion has been misunderstood.

Is that it? Did we miss anything?

Deep-faith sufism, Quin bhai, may serve the purpose of Islamic escapism, but I am not sure it works very well for the purposes of religious rebellion and atheism within Islam.

Please explain if you see deep-faith sufism taking up those roles.

Hi Taurean ... long time man!

I just came back to leave you guys with a few more beautiful quotations by my "spiritual" mentor Professor Dawkins (a Chair at Oxford is nothing to be sneezed at I reckon!) He says (quite appropriate here):

"If death is final, a rational agent can be expected to value his life highly and be reluctant to risk it. This makes the world a safer place, just as a plane is safer if its hijacker wants to survive. At the other extreme, if a significant number of people convince themselves, or are convinced by their priests, that a martyr's death is equivalent to pressing the hyperspace button and zooming through a wormhole to another universe, it can make the world a very dangerous place. Especially if they also believe that that other universe is a paradisical escape from the tribulations of the real world. Top it off with sincerely believed, if ludicrous and degrading to women, sexual promises, and is it any wonder that naïve and frustrated young men are clamouring to be selected for suicide missions?"

On the 'God' explanation! he says:

"I don't think God is an explanation at all. It's simply redescribing the problem.
We are trying to understand how we have got a complicated world, and we have an explanation in terms of a slightly simpler world, and we explain that in terms of a slightly simpler world and it all hangs together down to an ultimately simple world.
Now, God is not an explanation of that kind. God himself cannot be simple if he has power to do all the things he is supposed to do."

and as far as the ongoing 'suffering' in this world that gets the juices flowing for many ... including my Runi-esque brethren, here is what goes on in HIS universe;

"The total amount of suffering per year in the natural world is beyond all decent contemplation. During the minute that it takes me to compose this sentence, thousands of animals are being eaten alive, many others are running for their lives, whimpering with fear, others are slowly being devoured from within by rasping parasites, thousands of all kinds are dying of starvation, thirst, and disease. It must be so. If there ever is a time of plenty, this very fact will automatically lead to an increase in the population until the natural state of starvation and misery is restored. In a universe of electrons and selfish genes, blind physical forces and genetic replication, some people are going to get hurt, other people are going to get lucky, and you won't find any rhyme or reason in it, nor any justice. The universe that we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil, no good, nothing but pitiless indifference."

I just thought a "recap" for quin sahib was in order ....

... Khuda Hafiz Taurean, Eklavya and Quin .... btw quin, regarding your comment about not having likeminded "pakhtoon" company, good riddance to old rubbish my friend ... their loss, definitely NOT yours! though I am hoping for a compromise but it takes time! (take it from me!)

Correction ... that was

.... Rumi-esque ..... (not Runi)

apologies

Re: # 5

... and the last line was addressed to TaureanKhan and not quin

apologies again

"The universe that we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil, no good, nothing but pitiless indifference."

From Dawkin's perspective, worshipping any (ultimate) 'God' makes no sense, and deep faith, even less.

So Quin bhai's full-faith sufism's use of Dawkins was confusing. Hopefully, he will explain...

It’s very important that representative of every religion, if they care about humanity, come out and say that every religion is from God and it does not matter which one is followed. That’s where the problem is. The notion that my religion is the only true religion creates the entire problem but then what about the “bread and butter" of those poor mullahs, priests, pundits. How would they sell there brand of God.

Staying with the delusion fact, let me quote Marx:
"Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, just as it is the spirit of a spiritless situation. It is the opium of the people."

Give them enough of it and they will want more and it will become the center and purpose of their existence. Thousands and millions of addicts will follow and obey the suppliers. That is precisely what makes religion so different from rational thinking and yet so dangerous.

I may not be a great fan of Marxist totalitarianism but based on what I have observed through first hand experience in Afghanistan and Pakistan, I can only commend him for this thought.

TaureanKhan, I share your thoughts.

This one from Dawkins:

"Out of all of the sects in the world, we notice an uncanny coincidence: the overwhelming majority just happen to choose the one that their parents belong to. Not the sect that has the best evidence in its favour, the best miracles, the best moral code, the best cathedral, the best stained glass, the best music: when it comes to choosing from the smorgasbord of available religions, their potential virtues seem to count for nothing, compared to the matter of heredity. This is an unmistakable fact; nobody could seriously deny it. Yet people with full knowledge of the arbitrary nature of this heredity, somehow manage to go on believing in their religion, often with such fanaticism that they are prepared to murder people who follow a different one."

paradox
[...say that every religion is from God and it does not matter which one is followed...]

This goes completely against the very core of many prominent religions, particularly the bedouin-originated ones - mohemedan, christian... so this is not happening...

Eastern religions do profess this concept - "Vasudhaiva Kutumbakam" is one core concept in hinduism, buddhism ... but they are not "powerful" enough to promote this worldwide...

The Children's Bible in a Nutshell

(the source is unknown but i think it might have been urstruly before he read the koran and became confused )


In the beginning, which occurred near the start, there was nothing but
God, darkness, and some gas. The Bible says,
'The Lord thy God is one, but I think He must be a lot older than
that.

Anyway, God said, 'Give me a light!' and someone did.

Then God made the world.

He split the Adam and made Eve. Adam and Eve were naked, but they
weren't embarrassed because mirrors hadn't been invented yet.

Adam and Eve disobeyed God by eating one bad apple, so they were
driven from the Garden of Eden.
Not sure what they were driven in though, because they didn't have
cars.

Adam and Eve had a son, Cain, who hated his brother as long as he was Abel.

Pretty soon all of the early people died
off, except for Methuselah, who lived to be like a million or something.

One of the next important people was Noah, who was a good guy, but one
of his kids was kind of a Ham. Noah built a large boat and put his family
and some animals on it. He asked some other people to join him, but they
said they would have to take a rain check.

After Noah came Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. Jacob was more famous
than his brother, Esau, because Esau sold Jacob his birthmark in
exchange for some pot roast. Jacob had a son named Joseph who wore a
really loud sports coat.

Another important Bible guy is Moses, whose real name was Charlton
Heston. Moses led the Israel Lights out of Egypt
and away from the evil Pharaoh after God sent ten plagues on Pharaoh's
people. These plagues included frogs, mice, lice, bowels, and no cable.

God fed the Israel Lights every day
with manicotti. Then he gave them His Top Ten Commandments.
These include: don't lie, cheat, smoke, dance, or covet your neighbor's stuff.

Oh, yeah, I just thought of one more:
Humor thy father and thy mother.

One of Moses' best helpers was Joshua who was the first Bible guy to
use spies. Joshua fought the battle of Geritol and the fence fell over
on the town.

After Joshua came David. He got to be king by killing a giant with a
slingshot. He had a son named Solomon who had about 300 wives and 500 porcupines.
My teacher says he was wise, but that doesn't sound very wise to me.

After Solomon there were a bunch of major league prophets.
One of these was Jonah, who was swallowed by a big whale and then
barfed up on the shore. There were also some minor league prophets,
but I guess we don't have to worry about them.

After the Old Testament came the New Testament. Jesus is the star of
The New. He was born in Bethlehem in a barn.
(I wish I had been born in a barn too, because my mom is always saying
to me, 'Close the door! Were you born in a barn?' It would be nice to say,
'As a matter of fact, I was.')

During His life, Jesus had many arguments with sinners like the
Pharisees and the Republicans.

Jesus also had twelve opossums.
The worst one was Judas Asparagus. Judas was so evil that they named
a terrible vegetable after him.

Jesus was a great man. He healed many leopards and even preached to
some Germans on the Mount.

But the Republicans and all those guys put Jesus on trial before
Pontius the Pilot. Pilot didn't stick up for Jesus. He just washed
his hands instead.

Anyways, Jesus died for our sins, then came back to life again.
He went up to Heaven but will be back at the end of the Aluminum. His
return is foretold in the book of Revolution

crazysh** writes "Staying with the delusion fact, let me quote Marx:
"Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, just as it is the spirit of a spiritless situation. It is the opium of the people."

Before you start quoting Marx, like a damn fool, try to understand what he is writing and in which context. He is studying bourgeoisie society and notices the use of religion as part of the superstructure of capitalism- and that "religion", the one that is preponderant under the bourgeoisie is the one he calls "opium"- generalizing in this fashion is idiocy of the highest calibre. In fact I consider Marx a deeply spiritual/religious person in his morality and final purpose towards the common man.

That said, this bs paragraph of an article should never have been recycled again on the front page. It looks like chowk staff have become jamadars so that they look all over the dumpsters for articles to publish, while censoring alternative points of view elaborated in much superior articles.

What should I say but that they should keep grovelling in their dirt because that is what they deserve...

Have a nice day,
TNI Masadi

To respond to some criticism, I just want to clarify one thing. This issue of how the religion should be approached is an issue which has been discussed ad infinitum and will be discussed ad nauseam. This ‘article’ is written more in protest and not as an argument.

(Eklavya, it is Chowk’s prerogative to publish or not – it reflects their view of what may have value for the readers or not)

The ‘article’ is also written to give credence to genuine argument and anguish of the secular approach. My personal approach is based on my conviction which comes from my experience. Sacred texts were never meant as theological treatises, nor were they meant as books of information. They were meant to be experienced. That is where the whole issue comes to a stop. It is not easy to find an intersection and that is why this discussion based merely on logic, literal meanings and linear thinking will either go on forever or will come to a halt. What I have expressed in this ‘article’ is my personal view (it is the way I see and feel when I read any of the Sacred texts)

Call it subjective - it is an experience as I said - and I have no intention to justify it on logical basis. Logic gleans only at the surface. It cannot penetrate deep enough to see the whole reality. We often forget that language based on logic is only a tool for exploring a limited field of knowledge. If the logical expression could communicate or illuminate everything, we won't need other arts - literature, music, visual and performing arts. (And that is exactly why we write poetry too, because logic can only take us so far. )

I recall here a quote from Saint Augustine. He said, "What then is time? If no one asks me, I know what it is. If I wish to explain it to him who asks, I do not know."

In brief, fountainheads of every spiritual tradition (which in the hands of logic became religions as we commonly know them today) were in love with humanity and desired humanity's deliverance. The revelations did not come from vacuum; neither would IT come to anyone. And what those spiritual masters could see through revelation, they desired to show others. But often they were persecuted mercilessly because often it ran against the existing norms.
Again, that is where the problem starts. That is the juncture where we want to stand to reflect and see what we may see.

The secret is to get at least a glimpse of what THEY WERE SEEING. All the rest is, as someone has said, a commentary.

Dawkins:"The universe that we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil, no good, nothing but pitiless indifference...

Here is a prime case of a biologist who knows damn all about cosmology pontificating on it, while ignoring the purpose that prominent cosmologist say lurks behind the very finely tuned design of the universe. This guy is a fanatic who should be fired from whatever university he teaches at, and sent to Afghanistan to train with similar fanatics of the Taliban variety. There he might get a better grasp of his no good, persona, in a pitiless fashion!

Thanks Quin Bhai

Below is the post I had written earlier in the day but did not post because I thought it might be better to hear you out first.

-----------------


mohar

That is the problem. There is nothing that you or anyone else can say should happen which a sufi will not tell you, totally straight-faced, without batting a single eyelid a single time, that he (or sufism) does not already do.

Since a sufi's basic messaage is NOT to think, he does not mind telling you, again straight faced, that he fully believes in the Quran (Final Message), Allah (only True God), and Prophet Muhammad (Last Prophet from the only True God) (and his last sermon), * AND * -

1. all religions including kafirism and atheism are the same or have the same end (except that non-Musims have gotten things a bit wrong)

2. does not see any distinctions between Muslims, non-Muslims, kafirs and loves them all equally (yet fully believes in the Quran and Prohet Muhammad's last sermon).

3. so already believes in vasudhaiva kutumbukum (the entire earth is one family).

4. That non-Muslims should accept all this based on sufi 'love' (for Prophet Muhammad and Allah and Allah's - the True God's - creations). And of couse, based on nice "poetry" that everyone should "feel" rather thank think about.

And so on.

I am not sure if Quin bhai is any different from TS bhai, but we should wait for him to explain how he agrees or disagrees with Dawkins, first.