Pariprashnena — Q&A Archive

Why would we want to refute any arguments? If you believe in agnostic arguments it is your choice. If you believe in the arguments of Sri Krishna in Bhagavad Gita it is a better choice. But we do not force our views on you, but suggest you first read Gita in full and then come back. http://www.asitis.com

When the Lord descends, He gives His supreme arguments. Theyre recorded in sastra. Vedanta sutra is a log from a debate (based on Upanisads) against various astika and nastika views. Vaisnavas therefore also argue(d) against opposing views. Madhvacarya and his followers were most prominent in the historical debate against advaitavada. This history is described in the book Vaisnava Vijaya by B.P. Kesava Maharaja, Godbrother of Srila Prabhupada.

Re your agnostic argument, the uncertainty can be simply called ignorance, avidya. Ignorance is the starting point of atheism and agnosticism. Then one can decide if one stops there (being stubborn) or has doubts about it. If one doubts that ignorance (Maya) is all-in-all, one starts a spiritual quest. It may take many lifetimes. But at one point one gets personal experience with trancendent reality (divya pratyaksa) and all doubts and materialism are dispelled.

"The only cure for non-belief is the mystical experience." - Thomas Merton

Hi Baker,

I have two responses to your question.

1.
Pascals Wager defeats the argument, reasoning as follows:

a. If you do believe in God and you are right then the reward is great.
b. If you do believe in God and you are wrong, you have lost nothing.
c. If you dont believe in God and you are right then you have gained nothing.
d. If you dont believe in God and you are wrong, then the punishment is great.

Therefore believing in God is the best bet.

2.
Agnosticism based on the argument of uncertainty is not a final position or conclusion; it is a position held until further evidence becomes available. Therefore if a true agnostic is actually sincere about searching all available evidence to the highest standard, they must move from theorizing and go to the next level of taking up religious practices which claim to lead one to experience and know without a doubt the existence of God. It is the one piece of valid evidence the agnostic has yet to explore.

Dear Baker,

Thank you for your inquiry.

We are considered to have attained to human life when we ask the questions: Who am i? What is the purpose of my life? Why do i have to die? Why am i destined to lose everything i hold dear? Why am i forced to suffer, become diseased, and grow old--even though i dont want to?

These are the real questions and problems of life, and they must be solved whilst in the human body; the bodies of lower creatures like dogs, birds, fish, etc. do not have the intelligence to understand these problems of life, they are simply concerned with eating, sleeping, mating and defending. Unfortunately modern man is simply ameliorating these animalistic concerns, which takes up all his valuable time, thus strong words like polished animals are used to describe them.

Now, some people may not even realize that these problems are serious concerns or they say that these problems cannot be solved, so they have decided not to make any endeavor to solve them, some claim these problems are the beauty of life and some encourage others to accept all these miseries and problems as inevitable, many ridicule people who are attempting to find a solution or who follow Acaryas like His Divine Grace Srila Prabhupada, who advance a solution, provide all training and facilities, plus show by example the benefits of the endeavor. Thus they cheat others into accepting their faith-for faith it is, albeit misguided. According to the shastra, they have not yet attained human birth since they are not utilizing the facility offered by human birth--to solve these problems. The strong wording two-legged animal is used for them.

What is the difference between a person who accepts good instruction and one who will not? The one who accepts is simple. He hears that there are problems of life and he also hears that they can be solved. Because he is simple he wants to learn how.

Good luck to you

Thank you for your replies!

One thing that strikes me as awkward in the agnostic argument from uncertainty is that it claims that religion is of utmost importance, yet that one should remain undecided about it. Why would anyone claim both that something is important to them, yet at the same time insist in being undecided about it (and as a consequence of this indecision, take no action about it)?
Usually, when people think that something is important, they will take some action about it, however small or misguided it may be.
So why should that which one considers to be of utmost importance in ones life, be, in effect, completely unattended to?

Another objection to the agnostic argument from uncertainty that I could think of is that it is not actually agnostic, nor from uncertainty. Because it builds on the premises that "the standard for knowing the truth (the whole truth, or any partial/singular truth) about God is infinitely high" and "humans do not have the ability to know God", both of which are finalistic.

To either verify or invalidate these premises would require omniscience (and with it, omnipresence and omnipotence). If we agree that we do not have omniscience, then we also cannot use those premises either, nor can we use the agnostic argument from uncertainty as a valid standpoint.

What do you think?

[quote][cite] ccd:[/cite]Why would we want to refute any arguments? [/quote]

Myself, I refuse to settle for being confused. ;)

[quote]If you believe in agnostic arguments it is your choice. If you believe in the arguments of Sri Krishna in Bhagavad Gita it is a better choice. But we do not force our views on you, but suggest you first read Gita in full and then come back. http://www.asitis.com[/quote]

Reading the BG, questions have come up in my mind ...

Imho youre right. The first position - to remain undecided - is based on the postmodern, relativistic, politically correct and muddled thinking.

"Post-modernism is a variety of ways has made inroads into the thinking even of non-intellectuals It is no longer politically correct to assert
the unqualified reality of anything, or to assume that one can know truth." (Klaus Klostermaier, theologian, Oxford)

A philosopher likes to think about things. But seeing or experiencing is a different process. Imho, religion is not only philosophy but experiencing as well. It is possible to borrow things but experiences can not be borrowed. For example, one can borrow a hammer from someone but can not borrow his love experience.

Seeing or experiencing is a byproduct of devotional service. I would recommend engaging in devotional service along with thinking. Especially sravnam and kirtanam are highly recommended along with philosophising things. Experiences provide robustness to beliefs.

Preaching to Agnostics by Natural Observance
TAMOHARA DAS VANAPRASTHA

"vede ramayane caiva, purane bharate tatha ..."
Sri Caitanya Caritamrta Adi 7.131
"In the Vedic literature, including the Ramayanam, Puranas, and Mahabharata, from the beginning to the end, as well as in the middle, only Hari, the Personality of Godhead, is explained."
But what of those who do not accept sastra, but depend upon their tiny brains instead? How can they be delivered? How can the agnostics take the Pure Names? I have had occasion to have to preach to some atheists lately. These persons, who are often devotees of modern science, try to influence innocent others by making cheap criticisms of the Christians, for example, so my tendency is to want to sway them with deeper reason.
It occurs to me, from seeing our Srila Prabhupada preach to scientists, that an honest person can be shown truth by a path of successive approximations. One starts out at a low enough level to capture their materialistic vision and reason, and then proceeds logically upward from there. An example of such reasoning follows, which line of thought goes from molecules bumping up to the lotus feet of Lord Sri Krsna.

One major difference between living things and dead matter is that live things have VALUES, ie. they favor and appreciate everything which enhances their life! For example, we can observe that even a tree existing on the edge of a cliff will do everything in its power to hold on there as long as possible. Similarly, a squirrel collects food to ensure its survival over the scarce winter months. Both are determined to continue to enjoy life, to fulfill their potential, to go on, and enjoy. For the tree, the earth and the rain and the sun are its Greatest Good. For the squirrel, good is food and warmth and continuation. Thus, the principle of preference and values is clearly established by the actual behaviors of all living things. There is a natural and observable valuation of good and bad. The living things, from microbes to humans, consistently display these inherent values. Life is not at all random, unlike molecules, but is even co-synchronous in purpose, harmonized, and this is so far fully observable in all of biology, at least on this planet, anyway! There is NO example of opposition to this universal principle of life that we have observed so far on earth.
Thus, we can see in the world around us daily, that there is a natural tendency toward values, inherent at a "root" level. We can also look at matter. It is less organized, and less variable, tends to homeostasis such that variety is minimized in a system, just like cold and hot mix to form lukewarm. Living things, on the other hand, have highly organized and energy producing and using structures, with complex purposive behavior patterns. The human inner ear is an example of a highly organized structure with very specific coding and tuning, and purpose and use. It can sense microseconds and micro pressures. It uses more energy to function than the other organs do, having a very high metabolic rate, but all of which organs are still far more information rich than non-living matter, and require energy, produce byproducts, etc. So there is a clear and observable difference between the essential character of life and dead matter. Life has values, is highly organized, is self aware in some degrees.

The OBSERVABLE bias of matter, and hence living beings, whose bodies are made of this matter, is then towards individual self-actualization and a system of cogent values! We all visibly cherish, protect, and expand our potentials, our life. It is built in. A hankering for life is seen among the plants, whose heads turn towards the light. We do NOT observe, as a rule, life rushing to end itself. We are attracted to those things and persons who can help us survive and enjoy as nicely as possible.
Further, one can argue that the more Purposefully Organized the matter, the more Value it has for living things, and the more varieties of enjoyment are there. For example, a computer versus a rock; both are useful, but the uses of the computer are much more. (Some of us Luddites would argue to use the rock to smash these computers!) So the source of all things, including the computer, must also be at least equally intelligible and organized! The source of all things will be useful and attractive to all.
The more dense the information, the more potential it has to be practical, also. An example is a stick versus a spear. The stick is simple information, whereas the spear has the potential to provide a terrible dinner! Similarly, a wheel versus a jet engine; the complexity goes with the higher function, the greater potential to create and use energy. This, and not entropy, is the universal constant.
Molecules tend to entropy, but living things to negentropy, organization. We, as tiny cognizant beings, cannot be in this universe without variety, such as food, water, light. Variety is now observed to be necessary for, and valued by, life. Mere chemicals have less organization; certainly they display little or no self-aware consciousness, until they become organized by life. Thus, it makes more sense to accept a Complex Living Source as the fountainhead for being, and variety, as opposed to random chance, which displays theoretically No Values! Chance, which has no values, is unlikelier to lead to variety and life which HAS values! The honest person has to admit this simple truth.

Srila Prabhupada liked to argue that life only comes from life, that no scientist can take dead chemicals and put them together and produce a living being. Thus, we can go back far enough, following the historical string of lifeforms, and we find that the original Father is the Source of Life! We know Him as Sri Krsna! Prabhupada would ask the atheistic persons for even one example of life coming from dead chemicals. Rarely, an educated person I meet speaks of strings of peptides or reproducing modular cells, made in biolabs, which display some characteristics of life. Then I say, very good, your maybe / maybe not evidence is .001 percent of all observable life, as opposed to the observable 99.999 per cent, all of whom came from another living being! They are defeated statistically, and if at all honest, must then admit that they may have been misdirected by a bias in science, and are presenting a blind faith in science, whereas the devotee is presenting Observable Truths in this regards.
So, the living universe requires organized information, and observably values or prefers it to uniformity. The nature is as according to the qualities of the Ultimate Source, which or who must also value variety, as opposed to a void or uniformity, because the richest creations, the living things, are from the source, and we are ourselves entirely value driven. As below, so above. It is very simple, just like a gold ring has all the qualities of pure gold, but it is but a small chip off the vein in the mine.
All creatures desire; desire good variety, desire life, and potential fulfillment. We can understand then, if our "as above, so below" observational principle stands, that the source and Principle of Life, from which all life is derived, also loves being alive, indeed IS LIFE, and wishes to go on! If we have it, it is because the whole Universe has us within it. We must accept what we can observe. If science says we are chemicals, we cannot observe that in reality, so we should reject speculative atheistic science. If science says the purpose is not clear, we can actually see daily and without exceptions, the universal tendencies of the components.
The sum source cannot be less than the derivatives, i.e., you cant get out more than what is there to begin with! We have values because they are inherent in the universe. This means that, as all we intelligent living things display values, and we are all but a small part of a much larger and observable universe, that the Supreme Source of the Living Universe contains the fullest set of values, is Intelligent, with a natural tendency to individual identity and values, which tendencies we have universally inherited! This Living Principle will be perfectly and highly organized, information rich, fullest in attractivity, most fulfilling and hence valued as "beauteous" or all-attractive = the definition of Lord Sri Krsna!! All glories to Sri Krsna, the All-attractive Living Force and Precedent Setter, Supreme Personality of Godhead!