Religion 2.0 | Hari Ravi Kumar | TEDxJUIT

[@PravinPatil41]

Simply awesome.

[@Phaneendra94]

If only there were more people thought and acted upon in this way, our world would have been a much better place

[@Funandconsciousness]

"In the beginning there was no existence", and there was "nothing", and yet somehow there was a mind. That doesn't quite compute, in my mind. In my mind, consciousness exists ... beyond time and space, beyond "things". Thus, I conclude that consciousness is indeed Source, of energy and every thing ... including mind, which comes about once consciousness acts, creating the cycle of action. Etc. So even though I find your foundation somewhat shaky, Hari, and thus have a bit of a hard time following your thinking process, I enjoyed where you ended up. Good join'! BTW, I was in Bangalore in 1967. Nice place, yeah?!

[@thomascherian1653]

Very thought provoking speech

[@ppvinod7191]

am as it is in CRY MODE:::hearing this talk made me cry:there is so much to do:there is so much one can do:

[@ppvinod7191]

am as it is in CRY MODE:it makes me CRY:so much to do : so much one can do

[@mblaq62]

PREACH BROTHA

[@abhikoolblue]

Make a point.

[@XxOBSOLETExxTVxX]

Be open minded

[@abhikoolblue]

Cypress Bartlett What's with "Religion 2.0"

[@AzazelEblis]

Yeah, I'm not impressed with his presentation of his ideas. He visibly did not rehearse or plan much, aside from memorizing a bit of poetry, and just ad-libbing it from there. As a result, unless the viewer has a certain measure of cultural literacy within certain communities, it comes off as "word salad", as one user put it. Had his presentation been better, I believe he'd have organized the following thoughts more coherently: -that religion and science are not competing, spheres of experience, but that the two play distinct roles -that in order for religion to be a *healthy* thing, the individual must reserve time for comtemplation and revision of the worldview -that such contemplation demands having one's needs met. -the same contemplation as a remedy to curb religious fundamentalism -thus, (somewhat implied, not stated nearly as directly) that we need to help one another meet our needs, in order to allow for time and space for contemplation -(entirely implied) thus, that whatever form Humanitarian aid will take, it must reach a threshold of significantly relieving the poverty of the poor to stop them from looking to Fundamentalism as an answer to their problems. Adding the "2.0" to the title perversely tries to present very old ideas as something new and innovative. Especially doing so with (what he admits are) some of the oldest surviving religious scriptures on Earth comes off as poor planning at best, or utterly disingenuous. Beginning the talk with such old scripture comes off either as an appeal to authority, or as distrust of his own ability to communicate that thought himself so that he may *cite* the religious text. Or, for those untrained in logic, I guess it could add weight to his speech.

[@CampingforCool41]

Some of what this guy says is interesting and he has some good points, but he obviously has some false conceptions about atheism. He calls atheism a form of fanaticism and groups it with fascism? Atheism isn't a belief system or a dogma, it's merely a lack of belief in god. Even religious people are atheists towards the gods they don't believe in.

[@AzazelEblis]

Not all Atheism is Fanaticism. Just the most visible parts, which might explain the speaker's misconception. Like +Akash Mahale over here, or Richard Dawkins, or Christopher Hitchens. Note that this makes for an easy comparison to religion, the way these people do it. Actual Atheists are so much less annoying.

[@CampingforCool41]

I fail to see how Richard Dawkins falls under the definition of fanaticism "a belief or behavior involving uncritical zeal or with an obsessive enthusiasm for a pastime or hobby." He has said he would be perfectly willing to change his mind on atheism if presented with verifiable evidence for a god. That is not the attitude of a fanatic. Writing books, attending debates and giving interviews about his critical view of religion is not fanaticism. Now, if he were shouting on the street that "god doesn't exist!" and disrupting religious services, you would be justified in calling him a fanatic. This is not the reality, at least not that I'm aware of. Perhaps you could enlighten me.

[@AzazelEblis]

I see his writing of books with such inflammatory titles as "The God Delusion," as such fanaticism. I intend to attack his logic before analyzing his broader social impact. In both categories, he and those he follows Asking someone to prove the existence of something which can neither be proved nor disproved is playing with both sides of a logical fallacy from the same argument. I could just as easily ask him to disprove the existence of any God, and he has just as much difficulty as the Theist. Much of his work, if my understanding is correct, attacks religion from three points: inconsistent logic in specific belief structures, the abhorrent behavior of human religious followers, and examples of how this world is not "just" or "equitable" in any sense which most Western people wish it were. (We even try to impose such justice and equity upon it with our social structures!) 1 - Proof by counter-example may work to disprove individual religious structures, but the idea-space of religious structures is practically infinite. Not only does he find it impossible to disprove each one individually, but what is he to do when he finds one that is consistent? And what is he to do about religions growing more consistent over time? Examples include how Rabbis of Reformed Judaism view Leviticus's law as "for Jewish Rabbis only", and Pope Francis declaring the 6-day Genesis creation as metaphor for The Big Bang and Evolution. 2 - Human followers are fallible. In their behavior, their interpretation, their ability to follow religious law, and their ability to construct better religious law over time is all fallible. That people do revise religions over time is documented, archaeological and anthropological fact. But even where such religion is followed, and behavior seems abhorrent, such as Aztec human sacrifice, we must remember how illogical it is to impose our moral standards upon another culture, much less one with no contact with our own, and limited exploration into morality from an ethical, religiously neutral perspective. 3 - If this world is cannot have been created by a just and merciful god, maybe it wasn't. Maybe Theistic Satanists are right, and God is a complete Douche. Maybe Polytheistic folks are right, and the world is run by a committee; looking to the US Congress as an analogy, this especially makes sense. (Note that analogy only works as explanation, not as proof - something Dawkins seems to forget on occassion.) Or maybe God is okay, but faces interference such as from a hostile force like Satan. Or maybe God walked away after creation, like an ADHD kid from overly dry reading. Or maybe God died, and the whole of the universe is the corpse. If we are creative enough, we can invent dozens of examples of different constructions of the universe, and flaws in it's creator's apparent control. Good luck finding a flaw in any of them which can be refuted with verifiable evidence, aside from the scriptures which push these memetic constructs. But to really see my perspective on Dawkins and similar figures, we have to dig into the meaning of the word "Secular". Traditionally, the Secular has been that space which is simply removed from any single religion, where religious activity (distinct from the act of "being religious") is non-sequitor. We set aside our varied Gods in the mathematics classroom to learn such things as long division, as an example of a Secular Space. I see Dawkins, Hitchens, etc as trying to claim both that word "secular" and even the secular space for their concept of Atheism. Even encouraging the discussion of religion (by railing against it) in secular social spaces. The worst harm from these authors arises from that sort of semantic confusion. What of those who see secular spaces as "safe", only to find their values, culture, and personal identity attacked in them, by those who wish to claim that secular space for themselves? In true Secular Societies, only the Fundamentalists seek to disturb this social balance by injecting their activities into the secular space with the intent to take it over. Now we've even got Atheists who behave the same way?! Wait, they think the very word "Secular" is about THEM rather than religious neutral ground?!!! How are we supposed to protect our secular spaces from these mislead "Atheists"? If my comparing Dawkins to Fundamentalist Jerry Falwell is mistaken, I hope I could be forgiven for such after explaining what I see from the community around Dawkins and his flawed logic.

[@CampingforCool41]

AzazelEblis I will try to address all your points, but there's a lot here to wade through so I apologize if I wear out. 1. However you slice it, having a book with a title you find offensive, whether to yourself or others, doesn't qualify Dawkins as a fanatic. The title was intended to be controversial and provoking at first glance, but it is also not entirely inappropriate. A delusion is "a belief held with strong conviction despite superior evidence to the contrary". Exactly the sort of belief held by many, many religious people. While many people believe in a vague, non-distinct version of a god that cannot be disproven (just as bigfoot and unicorns can't be disproven), and so this isn't so much a delusion as it is just an unsubstantiated belief. However, a very significant amount of people do believe in a specific god of a specific doctrine that entails a number of claims, either through tradition or its holy book, that CAN and HAVE been proven demonstrably false, rendering that strong belief in that specific version of deity a form of, by definition, delusion. 2. Yes, no one can disprove the existence of a general god (for the most part, no one can prove nonexistence of ANYTHING), and it is not the responsibility of Dawkins to do so because the burden of proof lies with the one making the assertion. Religion is making the positive claim "God (or gods) exists" so it is their problem to provide evidence for this claim, and contrary to what you think, they should be able to provide some evidence at the very least that supernaturally caused events reported in their holy books actually occurred (such as the 6 day creation or Noah's Ark). If Dawkins were making the claim that he KNOWS god doesn't exist, then the burden of proof would indeed be on him, but he makes no such claim. In fact he ranks himself a 6 on a 7 point scale, 1 being completely sure there is a god and 7 being completely sure there isn't a god. A fanatical atheist would place themselves at a 7. Richard on the other hand leaves room for being convinced otherwise by new evidence. 3. The number of religious or spiritual ideas about reality that can be conceived is indeed virtually infinite, which is precisely why it's not useful to believe in any one of them unless there is solid, verifiable evidence for it. It may very well be that an invisible pink, ever-loving pine tree spirit created the entire universe, but until evidence arose that this was the case it would be utterly ridiculous for anyone to believe such a thing. Religion is merely the socially acceptable version of this. I'm not sure what you mean by "what is he to do when he finds one that is consistent." Consistent with reality as we understand it? If he were confronted with irrefutable evidence that a particular religion is true he would have no other choice but to adjust his view of reality, and he has said as much many times. "What is he to do about religions growing more consistent over time?" It doesn't matter that some religious authorities are admitting that many of their religious stories are not historical, if the stories upon which the entire religion is based is conceded to be mere metaphor, then what justification does anyone have in believing any of its claims. Yes, when religious stories become believed to be metaphorical rather than literal, they can no longer be proven "wrong" per se, but this does absolutely NOTHING to bolster the claim that a god exists, nor does it damage the lack of belief of atheists ...And by the way, even as a metaphor the 6 day creation is not remotely consistent with the big bang or evolution in terms of order of creation/formation. 3. I don't think the fact that humans are fallible and that religions change and are revised over time was ever in dispute by Dawkins or anyone else for that matter. As for abhorrent religious practices such as human sacrifices, it would be completely logical for us to object to them,no matter the culture they occur in, because we can prove that human sacrifice has no effect on the desired outcome (such as rain for crops, good fortune, etc). This isn't about "imposing our moral standard", this is about the reality that causing human suffering as a result of unsubstantiated superstitions is utterly useless. 4. "If we are creative enough, we can invent dozens of examples of different constructions of the universe, and flaws in it's creator's apparent control. Good luck finding a flaw in any of them which can be refuted with verifiable evidence, aside from the scriptures which push these memetic constructs." I think I already addressed this ad nauseam. It is not the job of the agnostic atheist such as Richard Dawkins or others to disprove the existence of every single god or god-like invention one could ever dream up. It is the job of the person making the claim that such a being exists to provide verifiable evidence. 5. As far as your claim that Dawkins wishes to hijack the secular space for atheism, I really don't see where you are getting this impression (As far as Hitchens goes I'm not quite familiar enough with his views on this matter). He encourages people to fight against religion encroaching on politics and science, which is exactly the purpose of secularism. He encourages people to "come out" as atheists. Neither of these has anything to do with "taking over" the secular space with atheism. You seem to be getting very agitated by something that just isn't happening on any remotely significant scale. Maybe there are a few idiotic atheists getting in the face of religious people unprovoked or uninvited, but Richard Dawkins is certainly not responsible for them. If you really care so much about secularism, you should be much more worried about the very real way that religious attitudes are affecting important political and educational decisions. So, yes, your comparison of Dawkins to Jerry Falwell seems to be mistaken. You have yet to expose Richard Dawkins "flawed logic".

[@lowefforttree]

i think he doesn't mean atheism per definition but as the visible part of it.

[@campus1985]

I find Azazel's thoughts most similar to how I feel. using a heavy quote in the beginning of a 'talk' is a rather common pattern used to train kids who participate in debates/elocution/speeches in Bangalore/indian schools. particularly during 80's and 90's. So maybe he is stereotyped in that sense. looking at him speak, he appears to have practiced and trained himself well for this talk. I get a sense he has good book-ish knowledge, but lacks the oratory skills to be spontaneous and to passionately speak about this subject matter. he probably was a rank holder in his academic years, remembering verbatim everything he read and studied. he seems to me as someone who can refer 10 or 20 books and come out with the 21st book! I have no idea why I'm decoding him at this hour... probably because robotic speakers, who don't speak from their heart, with a twinkle of passion in their eyes and body language, specially on this topic, makes me squirm.

[@arakashmahale1]

They have realised that their ancient business of selling uncertainty, fear, heaven etc was and still is the most convenient and lucrative business! Lage raho BABA 2.0!!! You should actually start a new age religion 2.0 schools! There's a huge population of scientifically educated fools in India and the world who'll fall for your chicanery! Congratulations JUIT for your intellectual servitude!

[@AzazelEblis]

Servitude implies a master - what do you believe Juit serves? Some conceptual personfication of "the boogie man" to which you apply the label of "God"? You present no evidence for your accusation that he is making a business of selling spirituality, nor does he show such in the video. I can only assume that you're assuming such from the fact that this video even exists. I'm not some fan-boy here either. I see using "2.0" in the title as rather plagiarist and thus perverse, given that the ideas he presents are very old rather than something new. When he supports his main ideas by citing (what he admits are) some of the oldest surviving religious scriptures on Earth, this title comes off as disingenuous click-baiting. With that in mind, I understand your reluctance to trust him. But that does not mean you should not hear his ideas out if you intend to comment in a discussion on the video. He does not simply babble incoherently about nothing, he does eventually wander around to a poigant thought. Just because you are fighting intellectual demons does not mean you have escaped the binding patterns of religious thought... you may as well be Christian, with this sort of pretentious behavior. Once we rid the world of religion, it will be heaven on Earth! oh wait... People fight. People kill one another. People hate, people make one another suffer. That is in our nature, and no single thing will explain it, not even Religion. Remove the excuse of Religion, and we will find another: southpark.cc.com/full-episodes/s10e12-go-god-go Meanwhile, if we use these various secular and religious ethical traditions to teach one another to do otherwise, we can make the world a bit of a better place. But in order to do that, we have to quit arguing from ignorance and misunderstanding about the rights of one another's culture to even exist. We even have to spend time contemplating what our own worldview implies is acceptable from us, and helping others to do the same - which is exactly the point this speaker tries to make. The speaker shares his idea of pushing contemplation as a way to curb Fundamentalism.... and here you are, not having contemplated a thing! You have the same idea as the Islamic Fundamentalist who commented "Islam will be the religion of all humans": your singluar idea that *you are right, and everyone who disagrees is wrong*, in a realm of human experience which stretches outside the realm of Knowledge as Science knows it. I have seen many an Atheist who behaves like yourself define Atheism as the state of entirely "lacking religious beliefs." Yet, mathematical Set theory demands the Null set (a set with no elements) be considered a Set in order to work effectively. The very computer you're reading this on depends upon this entirely-proveable idea. Thus, your Null Set of Religious Beliefs is still a Set of Religious Beliefs. And by your Fundamentalist behavior, your demonstrate yourself as religious anyway.

[@arakashmahale1]

Baba 2.0 ALERT!!! Be cautious when some one is burbling words like spirituality, consciousness, metaphysics, vedas etc with a condescending air, trying to encompass all the knowledge of the world in some bygone infantile scriptures--in process insidiously subordinating science--he'll most probably end up selling the same old religious humbug but with a new packaging.

[@arakashmahale1]

SagnikVia91 Common sense does not require such sophistry and convoluted explanations for the unknown and uncertainty, it requires 'science', which demands higher intelligence, courage and commitment to practice and follow. This condescending fascination about the ambiguous ancient scriptures as the source of all the knowledge in the universe is not sincere. It has a sly allusions to the socio-cultural/religious/racial superiority imbedded in it. [Let's keep these first infantile attempts of mankind to make sense of weltanschauung where they belong, that is, in the 'past'.] Probe a bit deeper and such sophist will inevitably surrender their pseudo-intellect to the 'supernatural', and will claim their divine authority as its medium --to translate the esoteric 'mind of god', and supremacy over reason. What ensues is their dubious quest for the socio-cultural-economic dominance, dogma and regression. What a cliche! The typical and trite beginnings of every 'religion' in the world!! Adding '2.0' only sounds like an,"OLD OS with a NEW VIRUS".

[@arakashmahale1]

In short, YES! I find resonance with the concluding part of your comment! At least I have my intellectual integrity intact! Giving such charlatans applause --that to, in a scientific institution-- is not "open mindedness", it's called "credulity","intellectual retardation/suicide".

[@AzazelEblis]

Akash Mahale I can tell that you didn't even watch the video significantly past the opening monologue from the Rig Veda. If you had, you'd have heard the speaker rail against fundamentalism. You'd have heard him praise scientific knowledge as such - KNOWLEDGE, and religion as Faith, a body of more fluid, overrideable, debateable cultural experience arising from the Human need to have some kind of idea about what's going on even when discernible knowledge is lacking. Some people simply need that. Would you rather that such religious Faith be built on principles similar to that of science, where we can update ourselves with new information and where we actively seek to refine it to a better worldview? That is what he suggests as the usefulness of Contemplation. Or would you rather push the entirety of World Religions into the corner of Fundamentalism by the force of such distrustful words?

[@arakashmahale1]

+AzazelEblis "Some people just need it" says a lot about you! 'Faith' is grossly overrated, it simply means,"I'm too indolent/stupid to think critically". It operates on insidious 'principle of least effort'--read,'Thinking, Fast & Slow' and Freud's, 'The Future of Illusion', it has more insights about human psychology [why we believe something which we know is inherently fallible] than this religious burbling in the garb of limitations of science. But I'll answer. When Hadith says,'kill the apostate/infidel', it's sanctioning and rewarding "murder", and reading of it will NOT differ for a "fundamentalist" or a "secular" believer. Just open today's newspaper (any news paper, anywhere in the world) and it'll vindicate my supposition...

[@arakashmahale1]

...It's only because religion had to give a lot of ground to science, it's broaching in such an ingratiating, secular, inclusive, open minded way today! Just flip through pages of history when they murdered brightest scientific minds/harbingers of reason and rationality in the name of God/religion. As a matter of historical fact, religion creates pool of credulous masses ready to be exploited and enslaved --Monarchies, Totalitarian and Theocratic regimes. Slaves/masses crave mythology, literate crave theology, educated crave pseudo-science and rulers crave religion --in any form or shape. Everybody has their own interest in doing so. Just don't come to my door offering heaven; don't try an influence scientific education; don't indoctrinate children; don't vitiate/poison public policy...

[@billsf94131]

16 minutes of word salad.

[@ppvinod7191]

am as it is in CRY MODE:::hearing this talk made me cry:there is so much to do:there is so much one can do:

[@ppvinod7191]

am as it is in CRY MODE:it makes me CRY:so much to do : so much one can do