Comments Posted By Ajita Krishna Dasa
Displaying 1 To 10 Of 62 Comments
I don’t get the idea? Why is it a fictional conversation? Why not build it on something real? To me what you call reformer sound very boring and watered down. The only quotation you have from Prabhupada is supporting the opposite of what you are arguing for. The way to argue is 1. stating your position. 2. Stating a doubt about your position. 3. Giving an argument opposing your argument. 4. Giving the siddhanta. 5 Giving a summery.
At least we need more than this to believe that we should act like this “reformer”.
Ajit Krishna Dasa
Comment Posted By Ajita Krishna Dasa On 09.01.2012 @ 16:39
Dear Bhaktivinode Td,
I appreciate both your and Kulapavana Prabhu’s point. We should always see things in a positive light and use them as preaching opportunities. But this, at least to me, doesn’t really change the situation. Darwin’s theory still is what it is and has the consequences it has. It must be addressed in the same way. Or, there might be different ways to address it, but to attack it seems inevitable to me since that is the instruction we got from Srila Prabhupada.
Ajit Krishna Dasa
Comment Posted By Ajita Krishna Dasa On 10.03.2009 @ 06:24
Dear Kulapavana Prabhu,
“Darwin‚Äôs ideas paved the ground for rejection of the simplistic religious views…”
As we say in Denmark (and probably in many other places): “Nothing is so bad that it isn’t also good for some things. Darwin does not go karma-free because his ideas freed us from certain negative things. His ideas are filled with morally unacceptable things.
“Free thinking people looked towards the theory of evolution to explain such changes. Can you really blame them?”
Prabhupada blamed them. We are all to be blamed for our spiritual ignorance. Atheistic people are looking for a theory to suit their views. Darwin’s theory was used like that.
Comment Posted By Ajita Krishna Dasa On 07.03.2009 @ 10:24
While some argue that Darwin was against slavery it’s still true that he was a racist. You’re not necessarily against racism because you are against slavery. Darwin’s book are filled with racism. He consistently wrote that the European white was the most superior race and that black were almost like apes. This view follows logically from evolution theory. Some must be more evolved than others. The weak dies and the string lives on. Thus Darwin predicted that soon the “savage races” would die in the struggle for survival, being eliminated by the stronger races (the white caucasians).
Darwin used his theory of evolution to explain that men must be more evolved than women because they were the ones who were out of the house struggling to get food. Thus they encountered more pressure and thus acquired superior survival traits. Some places Darwin would say that a woman, like a dog, was good to keep the man with company.
There is definitely a logical link between Darwin’s ideas and evil. When these six points combined together it gave a “scientific” justification for all sorts of social evils. How much Darwin will be held accountable for propagating such a view is, as I’ve said, between him and Krishna. But Darwin was warned about the consequences, even by his own mentor and friends. But he didn’t do anything to prevent them. Nor did he protest when his cousin Francis Galton insituted a eugenics society. He also didn’t object to the sick way in which many contemporary thinkers took his ideas.
Are there logical links between Darwin and all the socials evil performed in his name by other people, like Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot, Mao, Mussolini and more? Well, I think in some areas there are. But in other ways it might be their interpretation of Darwin. However, without Darwin’s theory it’s hard to see how they would argue for their case and thus to see how their actions could have been performed without Darwin’s theory. Darwin’s theory was been used as the building block for many social evils. It has fueled, inspired and “scientifically” justified things like euthanasia, infanticide, abortion, racism, forced sterilization, sexism, liberalizing sex and criminal justice, experimentation with humans and animals, wars, artificial famine, elimination of the inferior, eugenics…and many other things.
Darwinism penetrates everywhere and makes people identify with their bodies and think that God is unnecessary.
Comment Posted By Ajita Krishna Dasa On 03.03.2009 @ 12:27
2. Moral relativism
This is of course related to the above. If we can explain everything without God it becomes irrational to believe in God. Darwin argued that all human traits including moral trait can be explained by his theory. This leaves us with moral relativism. The consequences of moral relativism can be seen in my article “The Moral Argument for the Existence of God” (see link in previous post). The consequences are that all actions are morally equal. There can be no true normative moral statements. Thus it becomes impossible to condemn things like rape, murder, oppression, child abuse etc. And we also can’t praise things we normally consider morally good like helping people in need, caring for our children, spreading spiritual knowledge etc. Everything become equal. Darwin himself arrived at the conclusion that morality was simply relative. If we want to do good, he said, we can do nothing more than listen to what we feel is good. This moral relativism was condemned by Prabhupada (see “Prabhupada and the Moral Argument for the Existence of God).
It should be obvious that such a view leads to disastrous moral consequences.
3. There is no progress in our evolution as a species without war, disease, famine and other sorts of pressures which eliminates the weak speciments and forces the strong to adapt and pass on their superior traits.
Darwin often praise war as a good thing and later thinkers and political leaders like Stalin, Lening and Hitler used this to justify their wars. Some, like Lenin (or was it Stalin, even created artificial famine in their countries to eliminate the weak.
How accountable was Darwin for this? Well, that’s between him and Krishna, but his ideas were evil. To say that there’s no progress without wars and that wars are therefore a good, and even necessary thing, is in itself an evil doctrine.
4. The use of eugenics.
Darwin favored the use of eugenics. Just like we can make better and stronger animals by not letting the weak speciments procreate and by letting the strong procreate so we can make better and stronger men by hindering the weak in body and mind to procreate and by helping to strong in body and mind to do so. There are quotes were Darwin says that the poor should not be allowed to procreate and were he says only humans, among other animals, were so stupid as to take care of their weak.
Comment Posted By Ajita Krishna Dasa On 03.03.2009 @ 11:55
Dear devotees! Pamho, agtSP!
I appreciate your views. Especially thanks to Akruranath Prabhu for his views on the matter!
I’ve said that I want to defend two contention. I’ve presented my case for my first contention. I will now present my case for the second.
The Social Impact of Darwinism
There’s a lot to be said about this subject matter. My intention is to write a longer articles presenting more detailed explanations and giving more evidence for the points I will give here.
I will argue that social evils follows logically and inescapably from Darwin’s theory. I’ll mention six things about Darwin’s theory which makes it an evil theory:
1. Leaving God out of the picture.
Darwin’s ideas made it possible, like it was never possible before, to explain the world without the need for God or any sort of supernatural phenomenon. Darwin was himself heavily influenced by materialistic philosophy from his very childhood and from earlier and contemporary philosophers like Hume and Combte. Even before he published his books he would lean towards the rejection of God. Evidence for this can be found in his earlier notebooks and manuscripts. At the end of his life Darwin would totally reject Christianity. His theory became a “scientific” justification for leaving God out of the picture - and Darwin knew this very well.
The social impact of leaving God out of the picture is that from that it follows that there can be no absolute standard for right and wrong. We are left with no spiritual guidance. This is common sense which I show in my version of “The Moral Argument for the Existence of God”. Prabhupada agrees fully with this view which I document in my “Prabhupada and the Moral Argument for the Existence of God”. These two texts can be found here:
Making people think that we don’t have any need of God in order to explain the origin of and development of life leads naturally to disastrous moral consequences. It makes people identity the body with the self, for example.
To be continued…
Comment Posted By Ajita Krishna Dasa On 03.03.2009 @ 11:41
Dear Rasasthali Mataji! Pamho, agtSP!
Our process is to repeat the words of our spiritual master and therefore not contradict his words.
My first contention is that you are contradicting Prabhupada’s words when you claim that Darwin’s theory is not “to a large extent” “responsible for the moral decline of human society.”
My second contention is that you’re wrong when you claim that it is “unproven” that Darwins theory is “to a large extent” the cause of the moral decline in our society.
The first contention
PrabhupńĀda: “Darwin is a rascal. What is his theory? We kick on your face. That’s all. That is our philosophy. The more we kick on Darwin’s face, the more advanced in spiritual consciousness. He has killed the whole civilization, rascal.”
PrabhupńĀda: “That is nonsense. Darwin was a number-one nonsense. Yes. Rascal. He has confused the whole world.”
PrabhupńĀda: “Full nonsense, this rascal. How much havoc he has done to the human society. A grand rascal, this Darwin. And he is taken as the basic principle of anthropology. The whole world has become…”
Prabhupada: “The Darwin’s theory, this theory, that theory, simply they are bewildered, thinking this body is the self.”
Prabhupada: “So the modern civilization, according to Darwin’s theory, they are advancing to become animal. That’s it. Therefore they are claiming their forefathers are coming from monkeys.”
Prabhupada: “Because they are standing on a wrong theory, all their calculations are wrong, and people are suffering. The rascal Darwin’s theory. So many, based on this foolish theory, wrong conception of life. So we have to challenge, protest. defeat. This will be our work. Our worshiping of KŠĻõŠĻ£ŠĻáa, that is our internal affair. The external affair‚ÄĒwe need to establish this theory. Otherwise they’ll be leading this society. Misleading. They are misleading, not leading, misleading. So we have to stop this misleading.”
To sum up: According to Prabhupada Darwins theory has killed the whole civilization, that is has confused the whole world, that is has caused a lot of havoc in human society, that is bewilders people be making them identify the body as the self, that it makes people become animals, that it misleads people and makes them suffer. Darwins theory has created so much trouble that Prabhupada want us to stop it.
Thus I think it is proven that my first contention is correct: You are contradicting Prabhupada.
Arguments for my second contention is coming soon.
Ys, Ajit Krishna Dasa
Comment Posted By Ajita Krishna Dasa On 27.02.2009 @ 08:54
I don’t think they are capable of applying that in a scientific and/or philosophical way to the universe. As far as I know they usually don’t apply the “laws” of quantum mechanics to other areas - maybe because they know accepting that the laws of logic are not true will cause havoc in our world views and scientific pursuits. Because then anything can be true and false at the same time. Besides that there are at least 10 competing theories of quantum mechanics, so I would reply that they should sort their speculation out before using them to support what they would like to be true. But even if they open up for the idea that some things doesn’t work according to the laws of logic maybe we can use that to push them towards Krishna acintya-sakti. Further, just becuase something is possible doesn’t make it a good explanation or scientific. So if they postulate that the universe could create itself they have to offer us some evidence.
Comment Posted By Ajita Krishna Dasa On 17.05.2008 @ 01:08
I have just finished the first version of a paper that show that Prabhupada agreed with and used “The Moral Argument for the Existence of God”.
Here a preview:
“Prabhupada agrees with and uses TMA. He is of the conviction–I should say he knows–that an unchanging, absolute, ultimate, universal morality that transcends space and time exists. He thinks this fact can be known by analyzing the stringent laws of nature which is impossiple to neglect without being punished. He further argues that behind every law there must be a lawmaker, and so behind the laws of nature there must be a Supreme Lawmaker, God. So Prabhupada accepted TMA as a valid and sound argument which can be used in arguing for the existence of God. Consequently we should also embrace it as such.”
Please view the whole paper here:
Your comments are needed,
Comment Posted By Ajita Krishna Dasa On 24.01.2009 @ 14:47
Thanks prabhu! I’ve just been trying to reduce my internet activity.
Nice that we seem to agree now. My experience tells me that it’s very difficult to convince very sceptic people with a single argument even if it is good. But I know from experience and from others that it is a very powerful argument - and that people are attracted to it. Some have been convinced by it. The argument has the following benefits:
1. It very simple, easy to understand and remember
2. It touches people because it has to do with morality and the consequences of our world views - on an individual and social level. It provokes so everyone gets fired up about it.
3. It brings even the most hardcore atheist on thin ice - if it is presented and defended properly
4. It strengthens theists in their belief
5. It’s easy to defend - you don’t need a lot of scientific knowledge about biology and physics etc.
When I think about using logic and science to defend belief in God I always think of an old fashioned weight - a weight scale - with two weights. You can put many arguments on each scale and see which scale has most weight. I this way you get what is called a cumulative argument. I would say that this argument is one of the heaviest for the existence of God. I’ve been using it for years and I know practically all the arguments against it and they are really poor which gives me an opportunity to appear very confident and make the atheist look very pathetic.
It’s actually more or less the “lawmaker argument” which Prabhupada also uses: Where there is a moral law there must be a lawmaker behind. Prabhupada often used this argument, as you know. Ok, enough for now. Ys, AKD
Comment Posted By Ajita Krishna Dasa On 13.01.2009 @ 15:16