‘The Blessings Of Atheism’ By Susan Jacoby

It is a worth reading article by Susan Jacoby, an atheist. She encourages atheists to show their positive, emotional and softer side. In the last few days, we heard atheism mostly based on negativism and vile attacks on religion.Viler the attacks, higher the slogans of Bravo and praise!

I think she should have condemned the extreme views of atheists like Dawkins and Hitchens. Unfortunately most of the views and tone of the language we heard in our Forum was closer to Dawkins. I have difference of opinion with author’s views, but I appreciate her demeanor and approach.( F. Sheikh)

Some excerpts;

“It is a positive blessing, not a negation of belief, to be free of what is known as the theodicy problem. Human “free will” is Western monotheism’s answer to the question of why God does not use his power to prevent the slaughter of innocents, and many people throughout history (some murdered as heretics) have not been able to let God off the hook in that fashion.

The atheist is free to concentrate on the fate of this world — whether that means visiting a friend in a hospital or advocating for tougher gun control laws — without trying to square things with an unseen overlord in the next. Atheists do not want to deny religious believers the comfort of their faith. We do want our fellow citizens to respect our deeply held conviction that the absence of an afterlife lends a greater, not a lesser, moral importance to our actions on earth.

Today’s atheists would do well to emulate some of the great 19th-century American freethinkers, who insisted that reason and emotion were not opposed but complementary.”

The author talks about Robert Ingersoll, the Great Agnostic of 19th century.

“He also frequently delivered secular eulogies at funerals and offered consolation that he clearly considered an important part of his mission. In 1882, at the graveside of a friend’s child, he declared: “They who stand with breaking hearts around this little grave, need have no fear. The larger and the nobler faith in all that is, and is to be, tells us that death, even at its worst, is only perfect rest … The dead do not suffer.”

“We must speak up as atheists in order to take responsibility for whatever it is humans are responsible for — including violence in our streets and schools. We need to demonstrate that atheism is rooted in empathy as well as intellect. And although atheism is not a religion, we need community-based outreach programs so that our activists will be as recognizable to their neighbors as the clergy.”

“Finally, we need to show up at gravesides, as Ingersoll did, to offer whatever consolation we can.”

To read full article click on link below;

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/06/opinion/sunday/the-blessings-of-atheism.html?pagewanted=1&ref=general&src=me

Posted by F. Sheikh

 

Naya Saal by Mirza Ashraf

2013

اے مرغِ سحر دہر میں اک شور مچا ہے
یہ صبح نئی دن ہے نیا سال نیا ہے

اور شام کے ڈھلتے ہی چراغاں کا سماں ہے
جیسے کہ نئے سال میں حسنِ رخِ جاناں ہے

انداز تیری بانگِ سحر کا تو وہی ہے
روشن صبح صادق کا ستارہ بھی وہی ہے

سورج بھی وہی چاند ستار ے بھی وہی ہیں
یہ دھوپ یہ سائے یہ نظارے بھی وہی ہیں

گردوں کے شب و روز اشارے بھی وہی ہیں
ظالم بھی وہی ظلم کے مارے بھی وہی ہیں

ہر لمحے سے وابستہ وہی بیم و رجا ہے
حیراں ہوں نئے سال میں کیا ہے جو نیا ہے

گردن جو اُٹھا کر دی اذاں مرغِ سحر نے
اظہار کیا لطفِ خودی اس کی نظر نے

اک حسن ِسحر ہے میری ہر بانگِ سحَر میں
ہر روز ہے اُمید نئی اس کے سحِر میں

اشرف میں بتاتا ہوں نئے سال میں کیا ہے
اُمید نئی ہے جو نئے سال کا مژدہ ہے

کھول آنکھ زمیں دیکھ فلک دیکھ فضا دیکھ
مشرق سے اُبھرتے ہوے سورج کو ذرا دیکھ

اشرف

Why Atheists Send Their Children to Religious Centers?(New Question)

It has been opined by the atheists that the religion is harmful for society at large in general, and for young children in particular, who are force fed harmful ideology. Then the natural question is-why atheists send their children to Religious Centers? Why this contradiction?

I do not know about other religious communities, but I am talking about Muslim community. I personally know three families in Muslim community, who (one or both parents) do not believe in God and attack religion ferociously, but all three of them send their children to Islamic Centers. I am sure some of the participants also know some such families in their communities.

Let me suggest possible reasons behind it, and participants can write their comments;

1- They think it is ok to have atheist believes themselves, but not good idea for children?

2- They are hedging their bets?

3- They are afraid that the children and they themselves might get isolated from the community?

4-    Under pressure from grandparents of children?

5-    One parent (usually mother) wants to take children to Islamic Center, but other (usually father) with atheism views faintly grumbles but does not stop it? ( He usually fights with teachers and management)

6-    When it comes to girls, no matter how strong atheism views of parents, mostly both parents’ wants to send them to Islamic Centers?

7-    No matter how viciously they attack religion, the parents still believe Islamic Center is still good place for children to learn some morals and values?

If some atheist feel so strongly against religion, as the comments on our website suggest, then why compromise on any of the above grounds? Of course it is not true for all atheists in all Muslim communities, but it is true about all three families I am familiar with.

Happy New Year!

Fayyaz

 

 

‘Begging To Differ’ By Catherine Z Elgin

An interesting philosophical discussion on difference of opinions; A quote by Bertrand Russell is appropriate before reading the excerpts.

“The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, but wiser men so full of doubts.”

The author writes:

.” Resoluteness fosters dogmatism; 

Full excerpt from article;

Disagreement abounds. People disagree about everything from sports and politics to science and child rearing. When disagreements stem from the manifest ignorance, bias, or stupidity of one of the disputants, they are epistemologically benign. That someone who clearly does not know what he is talking about disagrees with you gives you no reason to rethink your position. But some disagreements are more worrisome. Equally intelligent, knowledgeable, thoughtful and open-minded people often disagree. Let us call such parties intellectual equals. Should disagreements among intellectual equals give us pause?

Epistemologists disagree. Conciliatory thinkers such as Hilary Kornblith hold that it should. If Fred recognises George as his intellectual equal, he has no basis for thinking that his opinion is better than George’s (or that George’s is better than his). So when they disagree, conciliationists maintain, both should suspend judgement. Advocates of resoluteness such as Thomas Kelly recommend holding fast. If intellectual equals who disagree are always required to suspend judgement, scepticism looms. Given the range of topics on which we disagree with our intellectual equals, we know very little. Resoluteness is permissible, they maintain, because everyone makes mistakes. It is open to Fred to think that where they disagree, George must be mistaken. He is then within his rights to dismiss George’s opinion. Unfortunately, George can think the same about Fred. Resoluteness fosters dogmatism; we are always entitled to dismiss the opinions of intellectual equals who disagree with us by assuming they have made a mistake. Neither scepticism nor dogmatism is an attractive option. A third alternative is that disagreement among intellectual equals provides some reason to rethink one’s position but does not require revising or repudiating it. In that case, parties could reasonably agree to disagree. The challenge is to make room for this position.

Read full Article by clicking on link;

http://philosophypress.co.uk/?p=1098

Posted by F.Sheikh