i have a prayer after all

...but first some background. Before I leave for work each morning, I quickly glance at the headlines of one US newspaper and one Indian newspaper. The New York Times does it for me as far as local news goes. And since no self-respecting Indian with even half a brain will read The Times of India, I read http://www.rediff.com/ to get the lowdown on India.

This morning, I was expecting the Indian newspapers to be full of news from Delhi. I was expecting see a few reports on the explosions, perhaps some sort of writeup on the Islaami-Inquilabi Mahaz outfit, some analyses from the movers and shakers, the impact on the peace process with Pakistan, preventive measures, general outrage. Things of that nature. In short, I expected the newspapers to be in a tizzy.

I would say that this is not an unfair expectation, given that the explosions took place on Saturday evening and today is only two days later. Everyone remembers how everybody, including the Indian media, went batshit after the London blasts, yes? So I was expecting a bit of media chatter.

Here are the top headlines on rediff today:

• Dhoni demolishes Sri Lanka
• Noted Indian writer Amrita Pritam passes away
• Death penalty awarded in Red Fort attack case
• Delhi blasts toll: 62, Compensation doubled
• Did Jobs kill the iPod mini too soon?

In my opinion, it says a little something about a country and its people when the top news story two days after a terrorist attack that wipes out sixty people gushes about how wonderfully our cricket team is doing.

I was a little surprised at the general sense of calm and poise among the editors of Rediff. Then a thought crossed my mind, "Maybe the folks at Times of India, in an uncharacteristic fit of journalism, are covering this story better."

I saw the following headlines on http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/:

Suniel Shetty has a bumpy ride: Onlookers peer at the star’s imported 'Hummer'
Army rushes in to help Chennai tide over rain waters
Court reserves order on JN Yadav's bail plea
Your old pals are dead, find new ones
Gulshan Grover to beat up Bond
Indian faces racist brunt in UK
When Prince Harry dropped his pants

Nothing about the bomb blasts. Zip, zilch, nada. Then I noted that the entire web site was dated October 27. And I remembered the first commandment of journalism: A daily newspaper shalt not feel the urgency to update its web site more frequently than once a week, especially after a human tragedy.

I smacked my forehead, a little ashamed at my general lack of smarts, and moved on. I did not go very far.

My next stop was http://in.indiatimes.com/usdefault.cms, from the TOI group again, and they seemed current and up to date. I have no idea why TOI has two web sites; my guess is that they maintain one for those who are merely braindead, and the other for those who are beyond all repair. The top headlines were:

Dhoni rains sixes as India thrash Lanka
Dhoni is the king, Gilly goes for a six
In pics: hits and misses of the 3rd ODI
We have a lot more options now: Dravid
Noted writer Amrita Pritam passes away
Ms Perfect: send birthday wishes to Ash
Tabu @ 33: 33 leaves from her album [Author's Note: Whaa?]
Shahid Kapoor does a Mr India!
In the loop: 20 times sexier in desiwear
Indra Nooyi all set to lead the world
Vani Kola: an NRI success story

I will now request the few readers of my blog to join me in raising a toast to Mr. Dhoni. As you can see, he has done admirably. I moved on to Indian Express. Their web site was dated October 30. Out of time and patience, I went to work.

So where's the prayer? That comes tonight. To be continued, for sure.

a moment of silence

Sixty people perish in Delhi bomb blast.

A little known terrorist group from Kashmir called Inquilab has claimed the responsibility for snuffing out the lives of sixty ordinary men, women and children who were going about their business, doing their Diwali shopping on a Saturday evening.

Pakistan lost no time in strongly condemning the terrorist action.

I don't know about you, but it warms my own heart to see the prompt and compassionate heedfulness of our brothers from across the border. I heard the following in a Mafia movie once. Two gangsters are attending the funeral of an executed mob boss, and one of them says to the other: "If you want to know who ordered the hit, see who sent the first flowers."

The Minister of State for Home Affairs, Mr. Sriprakash Jaiswal, has promised to "get them" in 48 hours.

It's not that we don't trust you Mr. Jaiswal, but excuse us if we don't hold our breath.

i have decided to switch to all lowercase titles

And you run, and you run to catch up with the sun, but it's sinking
Racing around to come up behind you again.
The sun is the same in a relative way, but you're older
Shorter of breath and one day closer to death.

-- Pink Floyd, Time 

This post is a continuing thread from the previous post. It contains some random thoughts which are just rehashes of old theist and atheist positions. I doubt this covers any new ground.

Here goes.

(1) It is unfair to ask atheists to prove the non-existence of God, as is sometimes done.

To prove the non-existence of X, one must search the entire universe of discourse (in this case, the entire universe) for X, and when X is not found, only then the conclusion can be drawn that X does not exist. It is a negative search. And very expensive to do.

On the other hand, it is not so unfair to ask a theist to prove the existence of God, because this is a positive task. Someone needs to find only one instance of God and produce him to prove his existence.

Of course the standard response to this is that God is unknowable and all mysterious and such **wooooooooh**. The curtain usually falls on rational discussion at this point.


(2) There are problems with the definition of "God".

First of all, there seems to be a wide lack of consensus on what God is. Ask a Hindu, Christian, Jew, and Muslim individually what God is, and you get very different answers. Some of the answers are scary.

Even so, there are some common attributes that most people assign to God. One of these attributes is: Omnipotent. Apart from the obvious question of, "How on earth can you possibly know that?", another question can be brought up. If God is omnipotent, can he create a Being that is more powerful than himself? If he can, then he is not omnipotent because he must now bow to this newly created entity. And if he can't, then he is clearly not All-Powerful.

You've heard this before. Can God create a stone that is too heavy for him to lift?

Omnipotence suffers from self-reference. One way to reconcile this is to admit that God cannot be omnipotent--he has his limits. The other way to reconcile it is to suspend logic and disbelief. If there is a third way, do tell.

Omnipotence is also often fucked up the ass by the Problem of Evil, but that is another post.


(3) I don't know why certain people like Behe mess around with science and try to prove its inadequacy to prove the existence of God.

Proving the inadequacy of something does not prove the adequacy of something else, unless you live in a binary universe. It reeks of insecurity. People should simply have the intellectual honesty and the courage of their convictions to say, "I believe in God because I believe in God. It gives me comfort. I have absolutely no idea why, and can provide no explanation. Besides, I don't need to provide an explanation, so there."

This argument will be equally compelling to most fair-minded folks. Instead, these people bash up on science and point to gaps in our knowledge as if that will prove something.

Here's what I would say to Behe and others like him. Do not resort to pseudo-scientific nonsense and tell me that there is evidence all around us that points to an omnipotent, omniscient, and loving God. Do not state conclusively that the complexity of the world can be explained only if we accept the presence of a mysterious yet fair-minded father figure.

Instead, do the following. Either:

(A) Stop being so smug and express doubt.

OR, if that does not appeal to you:

(B) Plump for your belief unabashedly by brazening it out. Do not offer hesitation. And for heaven's sake, do not appeal to logic.

Anything else is dishonest and invites scorn. Oh, and if you do decide to follow the second approach, recognize and respect the fact that other people might have different, equally inexplicable, and cherished beliefs. So leave the automatic weapons at home.


(5) Balajee says: "Most of the Athiests I know have a more condescending attitude towards the rest of humanity."

I recognize this to be true but not universally so. And I would like to point out that atheists don't have the monopoly on condescension. Have you ever told a Pentecostal that you are a Hindu and see no reason to be otherwise? He'll offer you a choice among condescension, distaste, disdain, and pity. Atheists haven't cornered the market on condescension yet.


(6) Some people express surprise at an atheist, "You are godless. You don't believe in prayer. What do you use to draw comfort from in difficult times. What do you use to pick yourself up when you are down?"

Coffee.

Response to Balajee, Part Something

Balajee commented:

*Filed along with the 'Flying Sphagetti Monster' Theory*
I liked the Stuhring theory. Clearly, ID has a lot of holes. Holes that are conveniently filled by non-falsifiable notions.

Just one thought though - If you consider all the work, time and effort that mankind has put into documenting religion today - hundreds of thousands of pages of manuscripts, stories, sacred texts, institutions, its mind numbing. Why does it seem to be that 98% of mankind is in some form of grand delusion? Could there possibly be something in there that does not quite fit the scientific framework? It's like looking for life in outer space that fits our definition of intelligence. Why should it fit our definition of life? If the only tool you have is a hammer, all the problems start resembling nails.

I'm not agreeing with ID, but maybe our approach to experimenting ID is not right.

But what do I know? My biggest problem right now is figuring out what to do for Lunch.

I will selectively and conveniently pick one statement from your comment to focus on. More discussion of the other points in your comment will follow.

You said: I'm not agreeing with ID, but maybe our approach to experimenting ID is not right.

I want to clarify if you are referring to the same ID that Michael Behe holds a brief for. I want to clarify because I think there is a big difference. Or at least, there ought to be.

Balajee, I am philosophically and culturally a Hindu. As far as I can tell, you are too. For any Hindu to back Behe's version of I.D. would be like putting up all his money on a blackjack bet when he is holding a bust card and the dealer is showing an ace.

I will bet my last dollar that Behe's version of I.D. is quite different from yours. What Behe is championing is thinly disguised evangelism masquerading rather unconvincingly as science.

Behe seems to be saying, "Yes, there is an Intelligent Designer." I will throw in my last remaining cents on the wager that if pressed, he would go on to say, "Yes, there is an Intelligent Designer, and Jesus is his Son."

If unopposed, he would add, "You devil-worshipping Hindus and godless atheists are going to Hell anyway, unless you repent. Yea, verily. You can, however, draw comfort from the fact that it will be an intelligently designed Hell."

Behe is an insult to science, not to mention the fact that he is also an insult to the larger section of average fair-minded Christians. In my personal opinion, he and his sort are giving Christians a bad name. I only hope that Lehigh University does not make the mistake of removing him from his teaching duties. What we do not need is another martyr like Judge Roy Moore. Did you know that Roy Moore is running for governor of Alabama?

The scientific community is doing a stellar job of showing up Behe's non-scientific, logically untenable mumbo-jumbo for what it is. But that is because they can still get to him since he is still part of the scientific community. Once out of his teaching job, I think we'll only see him on Evangelical cable channels, safely out of reach of scientific peer review and doing far greater damage as a result.

People like you and I do not fit into Behe's worldview. It would be a serious error thinking that he is doing this for science, or for theists around the world, or for the larger section of humanity, or whathaveyou. His list of beneficiaries is not that long.

I don't claim to know your mind, but I am aware of the general worldview of a Hindu theist. I would be a fair bet that when you--as opposed to a Behe--talk about an Intelligent Designer, you are talking about a Greater Force, an Unit Law that does not discriminate against a particular section of humanity because they read the wrong book. 

And the presence of this one Greater Force seems conceivable to me. It sounds like a fair conjecture. As a matter of fact, it may also be a cooperative effort by several Greater Forces that makes things so. Why only one?

But an atheist's position is this. He affords zero belief when presented with zero evidence. He does not reject the possibility that a Greater Force exists but he does not accept something at the present time, in the belief that evidence for this something will be available in the future. I hope this sounds fair to you.

I share your surprise that 98% of humanity does not take a similar position as the one I have outlined above.

I have a Problem with Gravity

I have a problem with Gravity. It does not strike me as a particularly satisfying organizing element of the space-time continuum. I have a theory that I want taught alongside Gravity in public schools in the United States. I developed it over the course of a particularly insightful afternoon and without the help of any mind-altering drugs whatsoever.

I am calling it the Stuhring Theory. It is a needlessly complex theory and even I don't understand it completely even though I theorized it. But the essentials are quite simple.

At its heart, it makes this simple and smug statement: We are not held down by Gravity or centripetal force or what have you; we are held up by stuhrings.

It says that we are all--each man jack of us--held up by invisible lines of force called stuhrings. This is why we are able to stand up straight, walk around, and flap our arms and stuff. This is what makes birds fly and airplanes go up and planets and stars go around.

Somebody up there that I am for the moment calling Gus (Great Underhanded Stuhring-puller), has all the stuhrings attached to his hands ... no wait, what I meant was, he has all the stuhrings affixed to his tentacular extremities; yes, that sounds more scientific. And since we are all held up by stuhrings, we move and shake when he pulls on these stuhrings. Gus also is, what we refer to in scientific terms as, a "mean ol' nasty", because he sometimes makes me fall down.

I will now submit that my Stuhring Theory be taught in public schools. Why not? The complexity of the Space-Time Continuum cannot be explained by Gravity alone. Scientists themselves admit this. Therefore it can be explained by stuhrings.

I take my cue from Intelligent Design. Intelligent Design follows a similar reasoning. Some people say: Biochemical complexity cannot be explained by evolution, hence Intelligent Design should be taught as science in schools.

Now substitute "The complexity of the Space-Time Continuum" for "Biochemical complexity", "gravity" for "evolution", and "Stuhring Theory" for "Intelligent Design" and we reach the same square on the chessboard.

I have a request of you. Please take a close look at my Stuhring Theory and tell me exactly how it is any less or any more suitable for teaching than Intelligent Design. I'm serious, tell me where the holes are. I will then patch 'em up, refine ze theory and submit it to the Dover School Board--or whatever the heck passes for the Dover School Board--and respectfully ask them to teach it alongside Gravity.

You see, opening the door of the Science class in public schools a tad too wide is a little risky because it lets in assorted nutcases like me. And that my dears, is a scary thought. Even to me.

Intelligent(?) Design

[Jyoti and Rob have a few comments on my last post called "The Dilemma". I tried to respond as best as I could. This response of mine, which is in reply to Rob, became too long and so becomes a post. Rob's comments are in blue italics below.

Let me also take this opportunity to say a little something about Rob, whose blog is here. I started reading his blog because he made me think. He is a South Park Republican, something that was new to me at the time. Many of his posts are interesting examples of a South Park Republican's views. His description of himself on the blog is priceless: "Geek, Musician, History Buff, South Park Republican. I don't blindly subscribe to either party's full agenda- just enough of each to piss off the other."]

Rob answered my question about whether deeply religious folks are comfortable in the company of science-minded folks:

Oh, heavens no. At least not the one's I've met. They have too many precious assumptions challenged. That makes them squirm.

Yes, that was my suspicion too.


I guess was referring more to the proponents of Darwinism, as opposed to pure science-minded individuals.Proponents aren't nessearily scientists- Just in need of a handy soap box.

I am not sure who exactly fits the description of "proponent of Darwinism". Does being a proponent of Darwinism prevent you from being science-minded? Some people like Stephen Gould who are scientists by profession are proponents of Darwin's theory of evolution. A much smaller number subscribe to Lamarck's theory. Are they are not science-minded?

It is true that proponents aren't necessarily scientists. However, just as you don't have to be a  mathematician to do math, you don't have to be a scientist to be science-minded. For instance, I am not a scientist by profession, but I nevertheless see the value of the scientific method.

Rob says about scientists:

Science? You're right.. If given enough evidence to test, they would do what they do.. Which is quantify that which is in front of them. In the case of Creationism/Intelligent Design, there's more of a sneaking suspicion than actual empirical evidence.

If I have my theories correct, I believe that Creationism and Intelligent Design are two different things. I am not sure why you club them together. My post referred to Creationism, not Intelligent Design.

Michael Behe, a professor of biochemistry at Lehigh University in Pennsylvania who champions Intelligent Design, explains the difference: "Creationism is a theological concept but intelligent design is a scientific theory. One can be a creationist without any physical evidence. That's 180 degrees different from intelligent design."

So there you have it. Creationism does not depend on evidence, in the professor's own words.

And of course, when you jettison the requirement that something needs evidence to be accepted by fair-minded people, the possibilities become limitless.

So much for Creationism.

The professor was not done, however. He went on to make several other interesting statements about Intelligent Design.

He said that he personally believes the designer is God but said that belief is not part of his intelligent design theory.

If you understood the above statement, do explain it to me in some detail. I would much appreciate it.

Meanwhile, let me take a stab at it. The professor seems to be saying that there is evidence of intelligent design but that each of us is free to insert his or her own belief into the slot where the actual designer is supposed to be sitting. Since the professor has opened up the floor, once again the possibilites boggle the mind. John might say, for example, that the designer is a bored alien named Bob from the fourth binary system in the Crab Nebula, while Jim will counter that he has a nagging suspicion that it is Pat Robertson's janitor. 

Now this sort of free association sounds like a very fun activity to do, but it is surely not science, is it? Or is science defined a little differently in the United States than in other parts of the world?

The professor then went on to contradict himself by saying that the theory of intelligent design would be undermined without the existence of God.

He then inserted his foot deeper into his mouth by saying, "You can't say that because you don't have a natural explanation for something now, you won't in future."

Please note that going by this logic, I can say all manner of unnatural things right now, based on flimsy suspicion in the fond hope that the future will take care of making me look less like a blubbering halfwit. I can further insist that said things without natural explanation be taught to impressionable young children in schools using public money. But isn't that kinda the same as saying that our children should be taught about supernatural things in school? In Science class? 

Well, then why not teach the GS Theory, i.e Ghosts-n-Spooks Theory, also? Evidence, you say? Pish-tosh, we know how much value that has. According to Professor Behe, none.

I now know which college my child is NOT going to.

Okay, let's brush aside everything that I just said. Let's wipe the slate clean.

I personally think that there is some meat to the ID theory. Maybe there is a chance that there exists a Great Force--An Unit Law if you will--that describes the complexity of nature as we see it. But why do we assume that this Unit Law is something called God that is also worthy of our worship? It may be a blind, idiot, and mindless force, maybe something like Gravity. Why do we automatically assume that it is a benevolent, kind, and just force that from time to time speaks to us words in Hebrew and Sanskrit. Words that we then furiously scribble down in 500 page books. Why do we assume that this God, when it so pleases him, sends prophets down to earth for our salvation? And what the heck is salvation anyway?

Why do we call this theory Intelligent Design? I know why the good professor Behe calls it so. He says that the complexity of the world cannot be explained by Darwin's theory. Fair enough. He says that the complexity of nature indicates that there is an intelligent creator. Fair enough.

Now, since we are free-associating, this is what I think. I have noticed that the world is not only complex, it is also flawed. Many species are flawed in design and become extinct. Even within a particular survivor species, there exists large differences in natural endowments. This ensures that some individuals within the species are more handicapped than others and don't make it. 

Then why do we call it Intelligent Design? Can I submit a new theory called Brain-dead Design? Can I say that yes, there may be a greater force, but that it is quite likely an idiot. Or at least designs like an idiot some of the times? Can I further insist that this BD theory should be taught to your children, using your tax dollars, in public schools?

Why not?

The Dilemma

There is a logic trap that most of us fall into at some point in our lives: the False Dilemma. The False Dilemma occurs when a limited number of options are presented, when in reality more exist. It is also called a False Choice.

The False Dilemma works on the basis of an over-simplification of choices. I might say: Something is not A, therefore it must be B. This is a false dilemma because it ignores the possibility that the something may be C, D, E or a zillion other things.

In multi-valued logic, saying something is not A only implies that it is not A. It does not automatically follow that it is B.

Take the current rumble between Creationists and Darwinists everybody else. A Creationist's entire brief revolves around proving that Darwin is wrong. Okay, let's make this simple. Let's say that Darwin is wrong. So what? How does that make Creationism right?

Another example is this. When I watch TV, I sometimes flip channels and I hit these Christian Evangelical channels. Sometimes I linger and watch these shows (and believe me, they are shows). One time, there was this guy sitting with flipcharts and whatnot explaining how radiocarbon dating does not date things reliably beyond ten thousand years. Hence, he said loudly, this world must have been created not more than ten thousand years ago. That is a false choice.

I am guessing that the only people more brain-dead than flipchart guy must be the people who watch flipchart guy with devotion and straight faces. At least flipchart guy is getting paid.

If we follow these false choices all the way through, many interesting claims can be made. And by interesting, I mean fucking stupid.

For example: "Radiocarbon dating has limits; hence there is a Creator God." You will notice that I can substitute almost anything for the phrase "hence there is a Creator God" and it will make precisely zero difference to the truth of the statement.

I could say for instance, "Radiocarbon dating has limits; hence the founders of Ben & Jerry's are really purple aliens."

Or, "Radiocarbon dating has limits; hence smearing pineapple jam on your toes in a slow circular motion will make you smarter."

Or, "Radiocarbon dating has limits; hence polyunsaturated fats are bad for you." In this case, the two clauses are individually true, but the link is bogus.

When you do not respect the causality between a premise and a conclusion, you can say anything followed by anything else. Maybe somebody will even give you your own TV show.

Dear Anon

Dear Anon: Thanks for your comments and questions. The answers are quite simple really and follow. A word of caution: the answers are not interesting even though the questions are. Apologies in advance since the shortcoming is entirely mine. A profitless note to you: You really should get a name. It gets hard to tell you apart from the other Anons after a while.


The questions:

Interesting reads Sougata and Balajee (must allow anon comments B). you sound fierce.
How about a post from you 2 to cool some of that rage, say, a post with a line or 2 commenting on these:

music that you like,
how you met your wife,
your fav pic of yourself-c'mon post just one,
if you had a million $$ would you still work where you do,
your pet peeve,
your high school sweetheart,
what you think death is,
if you could undo one thing

...Then we can seethe on....


The answers:

I like Kishore Kumar and rock ballads.

I met my wife by chance.

I will look for my fav pic, but this may take a while because all my pictures are terribly unflattering. Since I am not above small vanity, picking out the most acceptable picture is not going to be an easy task.

Yes, I think I will choose to work. I have the sinking feeling that it's no longer strictly about the money.

My pet peeves will not fit into this one post; that is why I maintain this blog.

I cannot imagine why anybody would be curious about my high school sweetheart. In any case, there is nothing to tell.

Here's how the Oxford dictionary defines death: 1 the action or fact of dying. 2 an instance of a person or an animal dying. 3 the state of being dead. 4 the end of something. I believe the Oxford dictionary.

I would not undo a single thing. What's more important, I cannot undo a single thing. We are ruled by entropy, my dear anonymous friend. And entropy is quite the bitch about letting us undo stuff. Because it likes to always and necessarily increase to a maximum. And sadly, it is irreversible. You cannot turn smoke and ash back into a tree.

Note to Balajee: Please Turn on Anon

Balajee: I don't know if you are in the habit of reading the comments on my posts. Please see comment #5 on my last post, which is also directed at you.

Also, please gather from the comment that either you or I (or both) have been advised to just cool it. Pretty sane advice, if you ask me.