Thanks for coming back. This time, the question is 'What is the true purpose of Religion?' Before getting to an answer, I would like to give what I think the true definition of religion is:
Religion (re+ligion) is something that was invented to re-unite people. It can be anything that brings two or more people together. For example, Internet is a religion (as it conforms to my definition). So, religion is there not to build walls around people but to really bring them together. Also, I would like to add to the fact that Religion has nothing to do with God; I believe Religion is often confused with Faith, which, in turn, has everything to do with God. This post is entirely about the former.
I believe that the true purpose of religion is to teach us this: Be Good; Do Good. Sadly, 'Good' is a term (like most terms) that can have a very relativistic sense. To give an example, 'good' for Mr. Laden would mean 'Jihad' and its pursuing; hence what he really does is 'good', according to him. But, 'good' would mean something exactly the opposite of Mr. Laden's idea of it to other people.
So, what religion does is try to give an absolute definition for 'good'. By absolute, I do not mean something not bounded by time; I mean something that is future-proof at least for a finite period of time. To make it more clear, 'good', according to some scriptures, meant pouring oil on some sacrificial fires; that might have been true during that finite period of time. As times have changed, 'good', right now is having a totally different meaning. So, what we must do is bring about 'new' versions of scriptures that are true for this finite time-period. (I really would like to see The Bible (2005 ed.), The Holy Qur'An (2005 revised ed.) and such stuff).
I believe that I have used the words 'religion' and 'scriptures' interchangeably because scriptures are nothing but the printed versions of religious teachings. This brings us to a big paradox: How come religion (which does not deal with God) and scriptures (which do preach about God) be the same? This can be cleared by applying the 'time-bound principle. At that time, maybe God was necessary; in this time-period, maybe (only maybe) we must replace 'God' by 'Good' to get the present day perspective. One final point:
We are what we are because of religion. Religion is the one that has taught us things like Love, Compassion, Pity, Mercy, Happiness and similar 'good' qualities. Yes, I mean to say that we human beings know everything that we know only from others; So these qualities must be taught. They cannot develop by genetic factors or by instinct. So, what told you to feel happy when you see a blind child in tears after learning his first lesson through Braille? The answer is religion. I don't think we have such qualities in ourselves by birth. Our parents/friends must have taught them to us. Likewise, who taught them? Religion.
Coming to the current scenario, people have spoiled the name of religion by attributing it to be the main cause for communal disharmony. I think saying that religion creates differences among people is like saying that a coat-hanger is used to wash dishes! In both cases, the words, by themselves, give their true meaning. So, if people really understand what religion really means, I assure you, it'll be an even more wonderful place to exist. That's it for now.
I remain,
Ravi Teja R.
Friday, April 29, 2005
Wednesday, April 13, 2005
Do we have a purpose?
Welcome back. Why are we here? Is it part of some plan or is it just plain fluke? If we are really a part of a big plan, how well are we playing that part? All right, enough questions for now; let me try to answer some of them.
Now, I believe that each organism in this world has a specific purpose. I learnt that a certain species of red ant helps the huge sequoia trees by providing the giant trees valuable nutrients (I do not know the exact scientific details). So, though the ant doesn't know that it's playing a part in a bigger plan (or maybe it does!), it merely lives its life and does the job. So things like Mutualism (association between species where both are benefited) and Commensalism (only one is benefited and the other is neither harmed nor benefited) are merely plans being worked out in this world. Of course, there the third kind of association called Parasitism; I strongly believe those kind of parasitic organisms are most similar to humans. This view is quoted by a computer program in the sci-fi movie 'The Matrix':
"I'd like to share a revelation that I've had during my time here. It came to me when I tried to classify your species. I've realized that you are not actually mammals. Every mammal on this planet instinctively develops a natural equilibrium with the surrounding environment. But you humans do not. You move to an area and you multiply and multiply until every natural resource is consumed and the only way you can survive is to spread to another area. There is another organism on this planet that follows the same pattern. Do you know what it is? A virus. Human beings are a disease, a cancer of this planet. You are a plague."
I believe that this is the truth. I believe that parasitic organisms like us are those which have stopped doing what they are supposed to do. I think we are here for a purpose; but we are not serving it right now. So, all these Tsunamis, Earthquakes and other natural disasters might be merely the attempts of the bigger plan to eliminate 'unwanted' or 'harmful' organisms. If we are not serving our real purpose, what is that real purpose?
We have been given the power that no other organism in this world has; The power to protect. The power to prevent other species from undergoing hardship, misery and even extinction. So, are we doing that?
As I tried to tell you in my previous posts, there are no only 'yes' or 'no' questions; There are answers like 'mostly, yes' and 'usually no, but...' because there is nothing like perfect cosmos (uniformity) or perfect chaos. In the same way, not all of us are playing their parts in the bigger plan. But, do we have a choice? Yes, we do. We can choose whether to protect or to destroy.
All these arguments are based on one singular probabilistic theory: 'We have a purpose and we are not here by fluke'. If that theory is wrong, what should we do then?
Well, some questions are there just for the asking.
Cheers,
Ravi Teja R.
Now, I believe that each organism in this world has a specific purpose. I learnt that a certain species of red ant helps the huge sequoia trees by providing the giant trees valuable nutrients (I do not know the exact scientific details). So, though the ant doesn't know that it's playing a part in a bigger plan (or maybe it does!), it merely lives its life and does the job. So things like Mutualism (association between species where both are benefited) and Commensalism (only one is benefited and the other is neither harmed nor benefited) are merely plans being worked out in this world. Of course, there the third kind of association called Parasitism; I strongly believe those kind of parasitic organisms are most similar to humans. This view is quoted by a computer program in the sci-fi movie 'The Matrix':
"I'd like to share a revelation that I've had during my time here. It came to me when I tried to classify your species. I've realized that you are not actually mammals. Every mammal on this planet instinctively develops a natural equilibrium with the surrounding environment. But you humans do not. You move to an area and you multiply and multiply until every natural resource is consumed and the only way you can survive is to spread to another area. There is another organism on this planet that follows the same pattern. Do you know what it is? A virus. Human beings are a disease, a cancer of this planet. You are a plague."
I believe that this is the truth. I believe that parasitic organisms like us are those which have stopped doing what they are supposed to do. I think we are here for a purpose; but we are not serving it right now. So, all these Tsunamis, Earthquakes and other natural disasters might be merely the attempts of the bigger plan to eliminate 'unwanted' or 'harmful' organisms. If we are not serving our real purpose, what is that real purpose?
We have been given the power that no other organism in this world has; The power to protect. The power to prevent other species from undergoing hardship, misery and even extinction. So, are we doing that?
As I tried to tell you in my previous posts, there are no only 'yes' or 'no' questions; There are answers like 'mostly, yes' and 'usually no, but...' because there is nothing like perfect cosmos (uniformity) or perfect chaos. In the same way, not all of us are playing their parts in the bigger plan. But, do we have a choice? Yes, we do. We can choose whether to protect or to destroy.
All these arguments are based on one singular probabilistic theory: 'We have a purpose and we are not here by fluke'. If that theory is wrong, what should we do then?
Well, some questions are there just for the asking.
Cheers,
Ravi Teja R.
Sunday, April 03, 2005
What is the Truth?
Hello again. What is the truth? How do you know that something is true? Is it because somebody (Parents/friends) had told you that? If it is so, how can you believe them? Maybe, (only maybe) they have told you all the wrong things!
All these statements lead to a very fundamental question: What IS truth? I believe that truth is something that everyone knows is correct; or something that can be proved so that everyone will know it is correct. Everyone knew the truth that earth was flat. Someone (Magellan?) proved that the earth was in-fact a sphere and everybody believed the 'new' truth. This means that truth is something that is not absolute in sense; it can be changeable. So, coming to another question: Are all truths based on previous truths? Yes? If so, then nothing new (different from previous truths) can be ever discovered. No? Then it is re-inventing the wheel (as the expression goes) all the time.
I believe that the answer to this is: Mostly, Yes. When you want to tell people something new (a new truth), you need to tell it in terms of what they already know. (If Magellan proved earth was round, he must have done it on previous truths (1. Ships travel on water; 2. When you reach a point from the same point and travelled a lot, you moved around a sphere and so on). Only if I tell you something in a language or sense you can understand, you can come to a point where you can accept my views. I say the answer is 'mostly', yes because of some exceptions; if Einstein wanted to prove that that length, mass and time were relative, he only could prove it by contradicting the 'then' truth that l, m and t were absolute. Even then, he needed most other 'then' truths to prove his theory (like 2 X 2 = 4, d/dt(m.a) = m.da/dt + a.dm/dt and so on).
Why am I telling you all this? The primary reason is, as put by Isaac Newton (recently, a book was published with this as a title by Stephen Hawking), we are all "On the shoulders of a giant"; the giant being all the previous inventors and discoverers. The view that we are getting is because we are so highly situated on such a giant. When we see something new, we see it by sitting on the giant. So our entire ideas are, can I say, corrupted by the possible mistakes the giant might have committed. As previously said, we (new-truth tellers) may not agree with the giant totally; but mostly, we believe what he has told us.
This sparks a great amount of 'What if?' questions: What if the first person who built the giant was wrong? Then all of us might be exactly in the wrong path. What if someone hadn't invented something? By inventing something like fire (is fire an invention or a discovery?) he had prejudiced the minds of his successors in favour of it. If he hadn't done it, we might have invented something better than it!
As a concluding remark, I would like to ask this question (is a question, a remark?): "Can we believe the 'now'-truths?; Do we have a choice?" After all, we are all on a giant; truth or lie, are we better than being on a giant than by being on the ground? The answer is very subjective; it tells you whether you want to believe something or not.
Cheers,
Ravi Teja R.
All these statements lead to a very fundamental question: What IS truth? I believe that truth is something that everyone knows is correct; or something that can be proved so that everyone will know it is correct. Everyone knew the truth that earth was flat. Someone (Magellan?) proved that the earth was in-fact a sphere and everybody believed the 'new' truth. This means that truth is something that is not absolute in sense; it can be changeable. So, coming to another question: Are all truths based on previous truths? Yes? If so, then nothing new (different from previous truths) can be ever discovered. No? Then it is re-inventing the wheel (as the expression goes) all the time.
I believe that the answer to this is: Mostly, Yes. When you want to tell people something new (a new truth), you need to tell it in terms of what they already know. (If Magellan proved earth was round, he must have done it on previous truths (1. Ships travel on water; 2. When you reach a point from the same point and travelled a lot, you moved around a sphere and so on). Only if I tell you something in a language or sense you can understand, you can come to a point where you can accept my views. I say the answer is 'mostly', yes because of some exceptions; if Einstein wanted to prove that that length, mass and time were relative, he only could prove it by contradicting the 'then' truth that l, m and t were absolute. Even then, he needed most other 'then' truths to prove his theory (like 2 X 2 = 4, d/dt(m.a) = m.da/dt + a.dm/dt and so on).
Why am I telling you all this? The primary reason is, as put by Isaac Newton (recently, a book was published with this as a title by Stephen Hawking), we are all "On the shoulders of a giant"; the giant being all the previous inventors and discoverers. The view that we are getting is because we are so highly situated on such a giant. When we see something new, we see it by sitting on the giant. So our entire ideas are, can I say, corrupted by the possible mistakes the giant might have committed. As previously said, we (new-truth tellers) may not agree with the giant totally; but mostly, we believe what he has told us.
This sparks a great amount of 'What if?' questions: What if the first person who built the giant was wrong? Then all of us might be exactly in the wrong path. What if someone hadn't invented something? By inventing something like fire (is fire an invention or a discovery?) he had prejudiced the minds of his successors in favour of it. If he hadn't done it, we might have invented something better than it!
As a concluding remark, I would like to ask this question (is a question, a remark?): "Can we believe the 'now'-truths?; Do we have a choice?" After all, we are all on a giant; truth or lie, are we better than being on a giant than by being on the ground? The answer is very subjective; it tells you whether you want to believe something or not.
Cheers,
Ravi Teja R.
Saturday, April 02, 2005
Why am I a liar?
Hi,
This is Ravi Teja R. (Just in case, if you wanted to know.) Now, let me tell you why I chose such a title for my blog. "I AM A LIAR" is a paradox (Something that leads to opposite proofs, I guess.) That becomes obvious if you try to trace the true meaning (true sense, rather) of such a simple statement. If I may, let me put forward the two possible ways of thinking to this :
1. The statement is a truth : If I said that I am a liar and if I really am a liar, that would mean that I said the truth, which in turn means that I am not a liar after all (Contradicting my first statement.)
2. The statement is a lie: If I said that I am a liar an if what I said was a lie, then I must be someone who tells the truth. But if I am someone who tells the truth, my first statement that I am a liar is a lie, which would make me a liar.
The only other possible way that I can explain this is that the opposite of a lie might not be a truth; it might be a partial truth. So, if I may not be a total liar (as most of us aren't total liars), I may tell some truths occasionally; that occasion being my first statement. So, what I did was invent a loop-hole for the statement. The main problem with a loop-hole is that it makes the statement lose its strength completely; the statement would not have a real 'kick' (figuratively speaking) anymore. I may tell you that I am a liar and still tell a truth because I am not contradicting what I said (remember, that in such case my statement is a partial truth.)
I still strongly believe that there is something more to this statement and its loop-hole than meets the eye; it really wants some more logical insight. Before signing off, a little food for thought (another paradox):
"THE LOSER WINS"
Ravi Teja R.
This is Ravi Teja R. (Just in case, if you wanted to know.) Now, let me tell you why I chose such a title for my blog. "I AM A LIAR" is a paradox (Something that leads to opposite proofs, I guess.) That becomes obvious if you try to trace the true meaning (true sense, rather) of such a simple statement. If I may, let me put forward the two possible ways of thinking to this :
1. The statement is a truth : If I said that I am a liar and if I really am a liar, that would mean that I said the truth, which in turn means that I am not a liar after all (Contradicting my first statement.)
2. The statement is a lie: If I said that I am a liar an if what I said was a lie, then I must be someone who tells the truth. But if I am someone who tells the truth, my first statement that I am a liar is a lie, which would make me a liar.
The only other possible way that I can explain this is that the opposite of a lie might not be a truth; it might be a partial truth. So, if I may not be a total liar (as most of us aren't total liars), I may tell some truths occasionally; that occasion being my first statement. So, what I did was invent a loop-hole for the statement. The main problem with a loop-hole is that it makes the statement lose its strength completely; the statement would not have a real 'kick' (figuratively speaking) anymore. I may tell you that I am a liar and still tell a truth because I am not contradicting what I said (remember, that in such case my statement is a partial truth.)
I still strongly believe that there is something more to this statement and its loop-hole than meets the eye; it really wants some more logical insight. Before signing off, a little food for thought (another paradox):
"THE LOSER WINS"
Ravi Teja R.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)