Saturday, October 21, 2006

slightly less reverential review of dawkin's book

oct 20th, 2006

good counterpoint to the economist's adulatory review, posted here previously.

my perspective is as follows: i don't agree with his arguments that posit that blind faith is a peculiarly religious phenomenon, as i see blind faith about 'science' and 'atheism' as well. also, i don't agree with his arguments that religion is necessarily bad. it's only that the semitic religions and gods that he's familiar with are bad and brutal. indic religions and gods -- and indeed the old religions of the world before the advent of the early semites like zoroastrians and jews -- are/were generally good and positive.


3 comments:

bly243001 said...

If you watch any of American TV networks and thier news broadcasts, you see that they have names like "the WORLD news tonight", "the WORLD today" etc., but pretty soon you realise that the WORLD they are talking about just runs from OJ Simpson to Jon Bennet Ramseys house.
This Dawkin guy is of the same mold, he can not look past "big three"- christist, islamist and Jews, with absolutely no understanding or comprehension of eastern "religions" and he reaches to so wide ranging conclusions about such deep issues as atheism and God and science.

Someday somebody please explain to me the definition of big three religions and what it takes to qualify for the memebership.

Ghost Writer said...

The issue at hand is the absolute belief that 'I alone, and my method alone' is true. The scientific rationalists are not immune to this - it is just that their absolutism is based on what they call empirical evidence.
The notion of what qualifies as 'empirical' apart - there is one thing that is centrally wrong with the rationalist's approach - being that everyone in the world can see the world as they do. According to Indic traditions this is not so (a correct conclusion). Our traditions have it that
1- Reality is multi-layered
2- Each sees the same reality differently based on his or her own special gifts.
Hence if you are an intellectual you go the Jnana-yoga way, however if you are more given to the emotional side of human nature you have the Bhakti-yoga, if you are more given to action and energy you have karma-yoga and so on

This emphasis - that people of different dispositions shall see things in a different light is the one unique gift - a defining feature of Hinduism. Strictly speaking the rationalists are pursuing Jnana-yoga - and believe that everyone else should do so too.

The other, and more critical feature of the Indic tradition is the emphasis on self-realisation (what Maslow called Actualisation ). In Hinduism - the goal is to excel at your chosen path to such a degree that you simply transcend the sensory world. (being in 'the zone'). This is critical - because it shows another side of Ancient India - that they had essentially solved the 'economic problem' i.e. production of food, health care etc. Ancient India was the first nation to scale the Maslow pyramid

virat0 said...

i don't agree with his arguments that posit that blind faith is a peculiarly religious phenomenon,...
Thanks for such opinion..... Actually faith is not the only blindness.To start with, it would be okay to say that during the election times, republicans remain blind to democrats and vice versa... and it is same every where. Searching the end of blindness in the middle of night could be tough job though.
Sri ....