Arindam Banerjee wrote:

Jeff Dee <antix@io.com> wrote in message

news:<6I-dncKffLYwZaPfRVn-hQ@io.com>...

Arindam Banerjee wrote:

Jeff Dee <antix@io.com> wrote in message

news:<9IudnS_EwvPAYaHfRVn-hQ@io.com>...

Jeff Dee wrote:

Arindam Banerjee wrote:

(snipped stuff)

Here's the question:

Are morally good acts willed by the gods because they are morally

good,

or are they morally good because they are willed by the gods?

Well, Arindam? I'm still waiting for your response.

I would like to have some sign that all my answers to myriads of
questions have been comprehended.

I have not asked you myriads of questions. I have asked you one
question, in response to your assertion that moral behavior requires
belief in gods.

There are so many, like the Great Parayan, Michelle Malkin, Ranjit,
etc. who do ask me questions. Or make statements to my answers
requiring or provoking further elucidation from my part. You are just
one among them. Since I did not reply to your post, I take it you are
posting with my name after reading some reply from my side to the
others.

Your assumption is understandable. However, as it happens, I also have
other demands on my time which do not always allow me to follow other
peoples' threads. This is, unfortunately, one of those cases. I am
actually responding to my own question, which you did not answer, in
order to reiterate it and revive this branch of the thread.

AB: As I repeat, I have been answering a lot of questions from a lot
of people. Not all of them have been equally rude, I must admit, and
you seem to be one of the more polite ones. I was saying that your
initial question, which I did not answer, as it made little sense to
me, was provoked by one such thread.

Your question makes little sense to me, and so, does not deserve

any

answer from my side.

I hope that you will attempt to comprehend and answer my question
anyway, because that is how people communicate and learn.

When you do not understand the answers I have been giving to others,
there seems little point. If you ask a question, that is because
*you* are in a state of ignorance. I am not in a state of ignorance
if I am asked to give an answer. You are the one needing to learn,
and doing the initial communicating. So get this point perfectly
clear, first.

I have no problem agreeing that I am in a state of ignorance as to
what
your beliefs are, or that you are *not* in a state of ignorance as to
what your beliefs are.

AB: So far so good.

I don't necessarily agree that I "need" to learn
anything from you,

AB: Then why ask me a question, if you do not "need" to learn anything
from me?

but I certainly *want* to, because (as you have
correctly pointed out) I *asked*.

AB: You "want" to ask me a question, but you do not really "need" to
know the answer from me, as you do not particularly care to learn
anything from me. So aren't you wasting your time, and also mine, by
such bratty behaviour? Note: Brats are those who always *want*
things, and for that they must of course *ask*, but rarely do they
feel they *need to learn* anything. Of course you need to learn, if
you ask me or anyone else a question. I too need to learn if I ask
you or anyone else a question. Whether it be directions, the way to
the toilet, the time, the price of shares, or anything - when I *ask*
for something, I *always need* to learn about something. Maybe the
answer I will get is wrong, but that is a different issue.

Nor do I necessarily agree that your
beliefs constitute objectively accurate knowledge; the reason I am
asking you questions is because *that* is what I'd like to find out.

AB: I never said anywhere that my beliefs - it is a matter of direct
experience for me, actually, as opposed to the belief/disbelief of the
monotheists/atheists - constitute objectively accurate knowledge.
Presuming that I implied so, is slimy behaviour. No belief can be
"objectively accurate knowledge". Objectively accurate knowledge is
mutually agreed upon and shared information at a given time and at a
given place by a given people. At later times in other places other
people might find same "objectively accurate knowledge" totally wrong.
Like, the Aristotelian system was held "objectively accurate
knowledge" for a long time, till it was upset by the Copernican model.

It does not mean that you don't know lot more things
than I do - just that on this topic you know less, simply because you
are asking. I am assuming that you are being honest and not posing in
any way.

Thank you. I likewise assume that you will answer honestly.

AB: I have always done so, to the best of my ability. I cannot say you
have been very honest so far, but on the other hand, you are still far
more polite than other atheists.

Yet in general, I must say that a fundamental choice for any
individual is to lead a moral and principled (dharmic) life, or an
opportunistic (adharmic) life, where one can be moral when it

suits.

For those seeking to follow the former path, the example of the

Gods

and Goddesses is vital, as by their own defintion of theism, Gods

and

Goddesses show and illuminate the path of dharma or morality.

Thank you for this effort to respond to my question.

No need to thank me "for this effort to respond to my question", for I
*did not* make *any* effort to respond to your question, as I said
that your question made little sense to me. Please show some
elementary levels of comprehension. Did you not see my writing "yet,
in general..." That meant, my statements had *nothing* to do with
your question, which made "little sense" to me. To repeat, I was
making *a general statement* which did not address your question at
all. Maybe there was only a tangential reference.

On the contrary, your general statement provided information that I
found helpful in at least beginning to understand your position. This
is
true whether you understood my question or not.

AB: Very good.

If you really don't want to answer my question at all, you could
simply
not respond at all, or tell me to get lost.

AB: Or I could do as I actually did, that is, tell you that your
question did not make much sense to me. I cannot reply to questions
that make little sense to me, can I? It is not that I did not want to
answer your question, and not replying would make me look impolite, if
only to myself.

Short of that, even these
kinds of general statements are better than nothing. So again, I thank
you for responding even that much.

I am not certain

that I understand your response properly, so let me describe what I
think you are saying and you can correct me if I am in error.

Now this is good.

You seem to be saying that, rather than having created (oe "willed")

the

path of dharma, the gods know of and follow the path of dharma, and

as a

result human beings can also follow it by emulating the gods. Is

that

correct?

Yes, upto a point. There are far deeper issues involved, but I won't
go into them. I am not properly qualified to impart the theology
underlying Sanatana Dharma, though I do have direct understanding.

I'm not sure what you mean by "direct understanding", but as long as
you
can put your understanding into words, I think that will be helpful.

AB: Let me try, by some examples. If you taste some good food, and
really love it, it does not mean you can tell someone else the recipe
if you are not also the cook. If you train at the gym, that does not
mean you are qualified to train a newcomer. If you can drive a car,
you are not qualified to be an driving instructor unless you have the
permit. And so on.

As for the deeper issues you mention... I am certainly even less
qualified than you to speak about the underlying theology. But as you
are willing to make statements of the sort which prompted my original
question, I take it you do not consider that qualification necessary
in
order to make such statements. If that is the case, then it is
probably
not necessary for me to understand all of the underlying theology, but
only to understand as much as you are qualified to explain.

AB: A good beginning is Sister Nivedita's "Cradle Stories of
Hinduism". See if you can find it that book. A way of life, of
charm, complexity and diversity, that is followed from moment to
moment, and what gets continuously revealed and realised, is difficult
to put in a few words. If you google using my name, you may find what
you need to know, if you also add keywords of interest to access the
threads I have contributed to - if you are interested in my opinions,
that is. Essentially the theology I belong to relates to
self-discovery and self-realisation, for the greatest possible
personal and social satisfaction, with the help of the Divine as
represented in India's most ancient texts.

The
question of Gods willing moral acts is thus irrelevant; what is
relevant is how the individual decides which course of action is

the

most moral (for those following dharma, of course). In this,

ancient

texts, the example of his close friends and relatives, historical
figures, study of nature, all play a role.

I agree that all of those things can play a role. What I am

questioning

is your assertion that the belief in gods plays a role that is
indespensible.

I suppose you mean "indispensable", meaning cannot be chucked away.

Yes, that is what I mean.

I am asserting that for those following the rigorous dharmic path, it
is not just loose "belief in gods plays a role that is indispensable",
but much more.

Did your original claim, that only those who believe in gods can be
moral, only apply to those following the rigorous dharmic path?

AB: I wrote that the moral atheist is ignorantly theistic, as all
goodness and morality ultimately flows from the Divine. The moral
atheist parasitically and presumptuously exists on the theistic
culture - past, present here or elsewhere, and ultimately from the
Vedas of India - but does not give them any credit.

I got
the impression that you were making a blanket statement - that *only*
those who believe in gods can be moral. Can those following the
adharmic
path be moral *without* believing in any gods?

AB: They try to be so, for they do understand the need for morality,
if only for security and work efficiency, but fail miserably. See
what happened to the atheistic Communist countries? Atheism is at
best a natural reaction to theism gone crazy or corrupt or both. As a
mere reaction, it lacks lasting strength as it is not
self-substantial. I was brought up in a Communist commune and was
day-schooled by Jesuits. The communists have long gone, but the old
school is still there, and will be there. On a larger scale, atheistic
Buddhism is all but gone from India. Buddhism exists in other places
simply because it made a god of Buddha - as simply philosophy, it had
no lasting power. Only when converted to large-scale idolatry, it
held the support of the masses.

However, for those following the adharmic path (all politicians and
most celebrities and the vast majority of the public) the belief in
abstract gods is certainly not necessary and completely dispensable.
Their gods are pretty real, like belly god, money god, power god, sex
god, ego god, snobbery god, etc. Their idols are pop stars, sports
stars, etc.

Are you saying, then, that while it is necessary for a person to
believe
in a god in order to be moral, that god can be one of those - the
belly
god, money god, power god, or snobbery god?

AB: No. To repeat, in Sanatana Dharma there are only abstract Gods
and Goddesses that are truly worshipped; and not such crude gods as
the belly god, money god, etc. The gods you named are certainly real
and not subtle, like the cry of hunger from the belly god. Direct
sensation, is what you get from the gods of the amoral or adharmic.
The belly god has to be satisfied, with food. Now, you as an atheist
will say that there is really no belly god - what actually happens is
so much scientific blah blah blah. I'll reply, that scientific stuff
is all very well, but the ultimate fact remains that no matter what
the science of the day says, the cry of the belly god must be heeded
if we want to live. If we live only to satisfy the crude gods - while
as atheists denying their personal existences on a scientific basis -
then we do not need to heed the abstract gods. On the other hand, the
dharmic people find they are looked well by the abstract Gods and
Goddesses they so love, worship and seek to emulate; and so, the cries
of the cruder gods do not matter so much. Not that they can be
neglected, of course. They are dealt with more efficiently, just.

Is *that* all you meant when
you said that only a person who believe in a god can be moral?

AB: See above.

Again, thank you for responding, and I hope that we can now have a
constructive discussion.

Thanks for you politeness. Looks like you may well be an ignorant
theist wrongly pursuing atheism.

Perhaps you would say that I am on the adharmic path, following the
"rationalism god",

AB: That sounds like one amoral god. Yes, if you follow that you are
a clinton type. Something suave, that is.

rather on the dharmic path looking to the example of
Gods and Goddesses for my moral guidance. Though I personally wouldn't
call rationalism a god, because I don't think the term "god"
accurately
conveys the actual reason why I value it.

AB: But rationalists can only rationalise; and thus explain away all
the slimy immoralities they do, with suavity, and also conviction, to
other rationalists, in their various conferences and meetings. They
do not have the heart, the will, the creativity, the courage, of the
sane theists.

-Jeff Dee