Tryst with a "Rationalist"/Atheist Part 1

Recently a friend of mine forwarded me the study that correlated low IQ with being religious. And an email debate ensued.

I want to ensure that he is still the best of my friends. I have extreme respect for him as a person and love him and treasure him a friend for life like I always had.

But thought this would be a good entertaining debate for my readers:

So as a response to the link to the research study: I responded with:

I don't wanna get in to a group discussion on this. Its worthless discussion. As much as all the "intelligent" people call the rest of us fools. Just know that of the known universe we hardly only understand less than 4% of it. Being too sure of something/someone's non-existence is too brash. I dont know or an agnostic approach is more pragmatic.  agnosticism is  one of the major Indian schools of thought in Astika (Vedas are the pramana) traditions.

But the following is for you:

More information can be found on my blog: http://bhagavatulu.blogspot.com

hmmm...

so Nikolas Tesla who was stupefied by the descriptions found in the samkhya school of Indian thought that based its findings on the "pramana of the Vedas",  Erwin Schrodinger who had a life long interest in Vedanta, Robert Oppenheimer who read the Bhagvad Gita everyday and quotes from it after the first atomic bomb test,, Heisenberg who got inspired about quantum physics after covnersations with Indian Yogis, Albert Einstein who said to Rabindranath Tagore himself that he is more religious "in that sense" than Rabindranath Tagore him self, Srinivasa Ramanujan (will you all know his story) (to name a specific few) .

In general keralite Brahmins who came up with calculus 250 yrs before Newton, Indians brahmins who accurately calculated the age of the earth, who figured out the nature of reality without LHC and radio telescopes, folks who came up with plastic surgery 4000 years before modern physicians picked it up after WW II, the invention of zero, and all the numerals, all of Algebra, all of trigonometry, all of the basics of geometry,  all the ancient Indian Brahmins who were so damn smart to come up with the Vedas and the Upanishads at a time when Paper was not even invented and the whole world was drawing pictures in caves, the vedas and the upanishads that describe the nature of reality ( and a lot more that science is yet to catch up with) are pretty low in IQ. I am very sure.

What a stupid study this. If your study is based on the IQ of the less intelligent ppl who happen to be religious... too bad.

Now its time you ask me.... what makes all the above folks religious. I think you will throw me under the bus for even claiming all the above folks were religious.

But if you do your research, all the above items are factual. Let me know if you find other wise.



To which he responded:

every fanatic i meet equates all scientific discovery to either the bible , torah or the vedas.

no one ever has given any proof yet.

balancing all quotes of Einstein shows without a doubt that he was a atheist.

but that does not stop religionites to pick some saying and point out that Eisenstein was one of them, kneeling down at the cross, or kissing the torah or in your case pouring ghee on fire chanting shlokas.

of course you dont want to debate. most religionists want only to talk with

other religionists.

who wants their belief system punctured and the gas let out.

To which I responded:

I can debate #$#@, but as in your response, most other's I debate ignore the rest of the facts and pick on one item they are not convinced about.And the conversation goes south and never goes civilized. And this is a really retarded topic to let a conversation go south, coz no matter what you do, neither side can prove their point beyond doubt .

So while you research the rest of the items I presented, let me answer about Einstein, Einstein was an atheist, in the sense of western religion, in the sense of a faith in a personal God. But there is a reason why I put it in double quotes, where Einstein says " in that sense". Please think about that a little bit.

First of all, most atheists do not have a clue about Sanatana Dharma/Vedanta. Most atheists and their opposition is to abrahmic religions, and from most conversations I have with you, I am convinced your idea of God is very much what abrahamic religions teach (and a few  vedic schools of Thoughts in India as well)and hence you oppose. 

And talking about me not discussing... my blogs are out there in the wild, I've raised questions, I've answered them backing them up and logically analyzed and come to many conclusions. you are more than welcome to go post by post and rebut me. As you can see, I've addressed many a posts to atheists.

In fact I dont discuss with "religionists". 

In fact I am saying Atheists don't have a case. Why don't you prove to me God doesn't exist. May be you atheists can start a blog proving to me other wise,. All atheists do is talk among themselves and criticize religion they don't understand about, or understand only about one religion at a high level and never bother to delve in to the deeper intricacies of the philosophies . They talk about a subject where they are not considered "experts". In fact as I've listed so many major scientists below (who you've chosen to ignore in your response), the true scientists of the highest levels are actually never atheists, especially when they come in contact with Vedanta. This is just paramount to me going and arguing with Dr. Brian Green on what nonsense quantum physics is. I cannot do that, I am not qualified to do that. But athiests dare to criticize religion in exactly that way.

You can make fun of pouring ghee in to the fire all you want. But you are doing so, without having any idea of what the Vedas are all about. Its pretty sad. How can you comment and make fun of something you've never spent enough time to understand.In credible.

I have answered ALL atheists in my blogs. Feel free to respond.

Now to the question of is there God?

When time comes, based on one's fate, either we all die realizing God through our experiences or die like most animals do. No one can change that fate.

As I said in one of my posts. I like to hedge my bets. And die trying to realize the infinite (or whatever you wanna call that)

So Atheists need to stop being militant about imposing their "belief" that there is  NO GOD on the rest of us "religionists".  The day you can prove categorically. Lets talk. Until then, if the self proclaimed atheists really are rational, the only rational stance is being agnostic.

To which he responded:

1-EINSTIEN.

Einstein said on 24 March 1954:

It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal i

what ever Einstein thinks is immaterial. just because he came up with the theory of relativity does not make him the fountainhead of all knowledge.

he could believe in daily enemas for all that matters.

2- SANTANA DHARMA

Sanatana Dharma is a spiritual path that has existed since before the beginning of time. "Sanatana" is a Sanskrit word that denotes that which which is Anadi (beginningless), Anantha (endless) and does not cease to be, that which is eternal and everlasting. 

the one thing everyone is sure of is that everything even this galaxy has an end.

the milkey way is 13 billion years old and our solar system is only 4.5 billion years old. this means something else existed here for 8 billion years that exploded in a supernova that created our sun and planets. this sun is not our mother but our brother.

our sun will swallow the earth is a few billion years and the milky way is headed for a collision with the Andromeda galaxy in about 4 billion years. this would be like a scooter colliding with a train.

the Andromeda which is 4 times bigger than the milky way will tear it apart planet by planet, sun by sun.

so much for the sanantana dharma.

3- the essence of hinduism is to question everything. so this is my wish for you.

open your minds eye and take a hard look at all philosophical thought.

you will then begin to understand the term jagamay maya.

keep thinking and keep questioning.

To which I responded: 

So the reference to Einstein and all the other biggest names in science that modern world has ever seen is to dispell the study that prompted this thread relating low IQ with being religious. It is quite possible true when it comes to western religion. I think now its really clear.

The rest of your response, is off topic.... but let me try and explain:

Sanatana Dharma, does NOT mean that this "religion" has no beginning or end.... your concept is pretty mixed up.

Sanatana Dharma is only a reference to human incapability to track how long ago this Dharma came in to human/social usage. Sanatana just means... "so old....that I dont know how old".

and all that cosmology facts you just gave me, i am not sure what your point is. but I will have to point you to what Carl Sagan ( the biggest name in Cosmology that any one can give me) said in his book, "Cosmos", regarding what the Indians were capable of. Search it.

Talking about the essence of Hinduism: Wow, tough to define that. Before you jump to conclusions on the essense of it. I'd recommend understanding how mind bogglingly a complex conglomerate of ideas and schools of thoughts this one word Hinduism is clubbed in to. So there is no single essence to it. Just to be sure, when I talk, I talk Advaita school of Vedanta, which is one of the most popular schools of thoughts in the conglomerate word called Hinduism. This school of thought sticks really really well with the most intelligent people in the world as I suggested in my first response. (Except for Nikolas Tesla (who was exposed to Samkhya school, and Srinivasa Ramanuhan , who really was in to blind faith school of thought as far as I can tell ). So some of the smartest people who walked the earth have endorsed Advaita Vedanta and hence the vedas and the Upanishads. At least platonically and have not opposed it and called it a bunch of nonsense like the lesser beings of today who claim to be "Students of science" and thus call themselves Athiests too.

I have spent 7 years learning what Sanatana Dharma and specifically, what Advaita is from a learned Guru. And before jumping to conclusions on what this is, I recommend spending at least 5 yrs doing the same. Bookish knowledge of Advaita is as good as learning about love from a Library. You don't understand what love is by reading about it. You can try all you want to put it in vernacular. You just can't. 

Then you might ask Why do I believe these claims then when I myself haven't experienced it. Great question. So as I said, I know there is one and only one guarantee, that I will die some day, which day, who knows? If i wait for science to give me evidence to something that most probably it will never, while understanding only less than 4% of the known universe even at the rapid pace of discovery, I will die an animal, just like most animals. 

Fine, if this pursuit of Advaita is a waste of time, because we are here because of mere chance, so be it. So is any thing else. So is any other pursuit. I'd rather pursue something that at least has circumstantial evidence (my blogs speak of it, through examples of Ramana Maharishi, the burning Monk in Vietnam, correlation of super string theory and Advaita, the nature of reality, nature of a deterministic world per physics as explained in our philosophies as well) that there is definitely an element of truth to the claims. 

At this point, this is the best we've got of all the available choices. Until science can jump the fence and answer the question about the purpose of life categorically, I will choose to follow something that at least has come circumstantial evidence. No other school of thought comes close. Trust me 7 yrs is a lot of time to find that out. 

So, arguing about how nonsensical Advaita in reality is and how much a test of science do the claims of Advaita come along is a use less exercise at this point in time based on what science can tell us.

You can chose the exact opposite and wait until science gives you the evidence you see. I know i am not going to live for ever and I dont know when I will die. And I don't have the confidence that Science will do my life a favor in my life time.

Hope that is a fair enough reason to jump to this side of the fence.

What is your rational to be on the other side? as far as I can tell, you dont have a rational, you believe there is no God. You believe as much as I believe. Its still belief at the end of the day.

But as Adi Sankara said, if there is a God, who exists, I guess You've hedged your bets the wrong way and essentially screwed yourself.

Think about it.

Yes, a pursuit of science is definitely important. But Scientific bigotry is as dangerous as what you accuse us of. Pursuit of science is the only way to disprove any religious claim. But until you categorically do that. I will stick with circumstantial evidence.

His response to be contd. in Part 2 next week....