Responses

The last post generated some interesting comments. I'm struggling for time because of a few things that need not detain us here, and hence response times may suffer. But here's a quick response to D. I figured that if I wait to write a more well-thought out response, I'll never get to it.

---

Babu (or rather, D),

I liked the distinction you drew between God and Truth. I also agree that the distinction between the two--for those who care about such things--is a little more than artificial.

In my humble but studied opinion, there are obvious problems with the popular notion of God.

Consider the following.

God, as the lore goes, is supposed to be this all-around good guy who, in spite of loving us to death, still somehow manages to be slightly vindictive and a tad insecure. His overarching message in a lot of holy books seems to be: "Rub me wrong way and all your base are belong to us."

Most empiricists, after a cursory glance at the world around them, find this notion of a basically good God to be cognitively dissonant.

Just one example of the inconsistency of the God-concept should serve: God, some maintain, is both Omnibenevolent and Omnipotent. Among other similarly grand things.

Omnibenevolence demands that God should display zero tolerance towards Evil and Suffering. Further, since God is also Omnipotent, enforcement of this zero-tolerance policy should be a snap for Him. God can either pre-empt Evil, or magically wink it out of existence if it does happen. No sweat.

Yet, even basic empirical observation tells us that there is tremendous Evil and Suffering in the world. Ergo, God cannot be simultaneously Omnibenevolent and Omnipotent. Evil could not exist if that were so.

The notion of a tri-omni God is problematic.

In stark contrast, the notion of the search for a Truth--whatever the attributes of this Truth--is a more pragmatic effort. IMHO. Indeed, science does this very thing, i.e. look for Truth by filling in the gaps in our knowledge. That is an easier train to get on, at least for me.

God is supposed to be all sugar and spice. He is painted as a prop-ah gentlemanly sort, and he is also supposed to be a touch concerned about us. 

The Truth (TM) may not be any of those things.

The Truth (or Truths) may be a disinterested, barenaked, incurious force that gives two fucks about what attributes we assign to it.

It will likely not give a toss about whether we go to Church/Temple/Mosque regularly like a bunch of tranquilized, brainfucked zombies. Or whether we write pretty prose about It. Or what kind of meat we avoid eating in It's name.

Sougata.

---

Tom,

You have always had kind words to say about my posts/responses. Just wanted to acknowledge that.

Sougata.

Religious Tolerance -- Part I

Wise men say that you must always keep yourself busy. It keeps the devil away.

On the first day of the new year, I wasn't following that particular advice. Thus I was surfing the Great Big Network idly and came across this interesting web site called http://www.religioustolerance.org/, and, since I had nothing better to do, immediately took exception to something on the web site. Hey, some people take drugs, I take exceptions, awright?

Beforehand though, to be fair to the web site, it is pretty good for the most part and does attempt to take a balanced view of religion and rightly calls many of the the excesses committed in the name of religion. However, I found a little paragraph that intrigued me because it seemed to lack the balance shown by the rest of the web site. And still having nothing better to do, I wrote them a small email, which I reproduce here:

This excerpt is from your web site on the page http://www.religioustolerance.org/news_02mar.htm:

[Begin Excerpt]
During 1992, some Hindus burned down a 16th century mosque in the northern Indian town of Ayodhya. Their plan was to build a Hindu temple on the site, which is sacred to followers of both religions. This action has resulted in the occasional outburst of rioting. In 1993, Hindu-Muslim riots in Mumbai (formerly Bombay)caused the deaths of 800 people. On FEB-26, a group of Muslims attacked a train in the western state of Gujarat. It was filled with Hindu fundamentalists who were returning from a pilgrimage to Ayodhya. Fifty-eight died. This generated retaliation by Hindus: As of MAR-3, 499 people have died -- mostly Muslims. Many have been burned to death. By the middle of March, over 700 people have died.
[End Excerpt]

Why are the people who were burned to death by Muslims on the train in Gujarat tagged "Hindu fundamentalists"? What, in your opinion, are the fundamentals of Hinduism, and why do you think the people who got incinerated were following these "fundamentals"?

I find it interesting that you do not say either of the following to describe the incident:

On FEB-26, a group of Muslims EXTREMISTS attacked a train in the western state of Gujarat. It was filled with Hindu fundamentalists who were returning from a pilgrimage to Ayodhya.

OR,

On FEB-26, a group of Muslims attacked a train in the western state of Gujarat. It was filled with Hindu PILGRIMS who were returning from a pilgrimage to Ayodhya.

Saying either of the above would indicate that you apply equal standards to intolerant behaviour, regardless of the religion involved. But that is apparently not the case here. Your language exposes your own pet biases and bigotry. The standards of behaviour applied to Hindus and Muslims seem to differ in your opinion. A group of people are promptly dubbed "fundamentalists" by you because they were returning from a visit to a disputed religious site, whereas a group of people who merrily barbecued fifty-eight men, women, and children deserve no such tag, apparently.

I find it surprising that a web site with a name like religioustolerance.org gratuitously uses a patently bigoted term like "fundamentalist" to describe the victims of a tragedy. I take it that with a name like religoustolerance.org, you are positioning your web site to promote religious tolerance rather than religious bigotry. Is this a fair assumption on my part?

Sougata Sarkar

I am waiting for a response and hoping for an amendment to the paragraph in question. Also, if you agree with what I said in my email, care, and can be bothered, do write to them asking for a rewording, perhaps a little more politely than I have.

Coda: I have often wondered idly about the bad press that Hinduism gets. Even when the source is otherwise credible and reputable. Anybody with even a rudimentary sense of fairplay must wonder about this.