I was listening to a debate this morning between Sam Harris and Chris Hedges (you can find it on www.SamHarris.org) and Harris mentioned something about a South Indian guru named Sathya Sai Baba. Sathya Sai Baba is, according to his devotees, a ‘Godman’ and a ‘miracle worker’. His devotees number in the millions.
It appears that reports of miracles, even today, are commonplace. Millions of people believe that their Hindu guru’s, yogi’s and mystics can read minds, walk on water, see the future, raise the dead, fly…
Sathya Sai Baba’s followers make all of these miracle claims. He also claims, incidentally, to be born of a virgin.
What’s really fascinating to me is that thousands of people are eye witnesses to his miracles. He’s no low-level Kool Aid captain. One MILLION people showed up to his birthday party! Millions believe he is a living GOD.
The reason this is fascinating to me is that I am compelled to take the miracle claims & stories of the Bible (and many other religious texts) and hold them up next to the claims of Sathya Sai Baba, just as Sam does in his debate. Our friend Sathya and his miracles are credible to NO ONE. His miracles, as Harris put it, “don’t even merit an hour on the Discovery Channel.” Yet, when we find these miracles portrayed in an ancient text, suddenly half of us think organizing our lives around these miracles makes perfect sense.
This is fascinating to me. What do you think?
CCD,
Ben
September 6, 2008 at 3:10 pm |
Yo, I’ve heard of Sai Baba. Actually by way of Wayne Dyer tapes. Wayne tells many miracle type stories of people you’ll never hear of… not cool enough for TV. Anyway, he said of Sai Baba that he manifests a dust from his palms… Sai Baba gave Wayne an ounce or two… Wayne has given some freely to friends, and before each talk Wayne puts some dust to his tongue. Years later, Wayne says he still has the same amount.
He also said a woman he knows claims to has recieved a rose from Sai Baba, it has not deteriorated (some years later) and every morning when she wakes up there is some of this dust on the table under the flower. Another friend told me that this dust is put into incense Satya SaiBaba brand Nag Champa, a very common brand, sure you’ve smelled it, even if you arent hippie cool.
I’m just passing it on.
September 6, 2008 at 9:55 pm |
Very interesting! So, what do you think of this claim of the dust and the flower? My initial take is that these miracle stories would instantly be ‘cool enough for TV’ if there was any real attempt to validate these claims, and if the validation attempt turned up actual EVIDENCE that the miracles did, in fact, take place.
Do you (anyone) know of any such attempts? Something as simple as a 24/7 video feed of this alleged rose would do the trick. Or maybe we could look into some of this dust?
I feel compelled to remain heavily skeptical until such validation attempts have been made & peer reviewed regarding Sathya Sai Baba. But just to be safe, I’m gonna go get some Nag Champa incense.
CCD,
Ben
September 7, 2008 at 6:55 am |
Yes, according to my opinion, He is an Avatar. Om Sai Ram.
Regards,
Sapteka from Bali Island.
September 7, 2008 at 3:45 pm |
Sathya Sai Baba’s miracles are world-wide and have been published in international newspapers. Dr Erlendur Haraldsson investigated the miracles attributed to Sai Baba and wrote an interesting book called Modern Miracles: An Investigative Report on Psychic Phenomena Associated with Sathya Sai Baba. The miracles attributed to Sai Baba are unique, amazing and unprecedented in known history or myth. The link provided above shows the manifestations and materializations typically associated with his name and form all around the world. Of course, Sam Harris only focused on the alleged manifestations that happen from Sai Baba’s physical form. Of course, magicians are able to imitate these manifestations. Nevertheless, magicians are not able to imiate the healings, cures, visions and world-wide paranormal phenemena associated with Sai Baba’s name and form that are reported in profuse abundance through numerous websites, books, publications and various media.
September 8, 2008 at 12:17 pm |
Joe,
So, Sai Baba has a ‘non-physical’ form? And it’s in THIS form that he does his real work? And this doesn’t seem fishy to you? Would you say you are skeptical, at least?
I get that there are lots of claims that he’s done this work. But have there been any honest scientific studies done on these claims? If so, I’d love to read them. I’ll check out that book, too.
Anyone else care to comment on Sathya Sai Baba? What do you think of modern-day miracle claims? Do you think they should be put under the scientific micro-scope like everything else?
CCD,
Ben
September 8, 2008 at 10:39 pm |
Two inaccuracies in this article. Sai Baba does NOT claim to be born of a “virgin”. His mother said Sai Baba was conceived through other means than sex and I do not believe she was a virgin at the time as he has several brothers and sisters, some who are MUCH older.
Secondly, Discovery Channel DID do a show on him many years ago and said they could find no evidence of fraud. Why skeptics cannot walk their own talk regarding skepticism and HONESTY I do not know. Where is your “scientific” or legal PROOF of fraud?
And when will you hold others like Jesus to the same standards you are holding Sai Baba? Racism or just plain stupidity?
September 9, 2008 at 12:55 am |
Ah yes, it was means ‘other than sex’. Gotcha. Totally reasonable. No need to explain further.
Moving on…
I think it’s important to recognize where the burden of proof lies. When someone claims to work miracles, the scientific proof is to be provided by said supposed miracle worker and his devotees. Are you saying that we, the critical public, HAVE been provided proof?
I didn’t know the Discovery Channel did a show on him. I stand corrected (although I very seriously doubt that Discovery actually cleared SSB of fraud. Discovery doesn’t do that type of thing.) It was really more of a comment that the scientific community does NOT (!) take him or his miracle claims seriously. They do not, and for good reason. Besides, the whole point was that Discovery isn’t held in high scientific regard either. It ranks significantly below any well regarded scientific journal. Significantly.
I’m currently reading the ‘Incredible Shrinking Son of Man’. It’s an interesting book all about what we can REALLY surmise from history about the Biblical Jesus. I try to hold all ridiculous claims to the same standard, so… Racism? No. Stupidity? No. Just not capable of the same level of credulity as some of my readers.
Is it so unreasonable to expect there to be actual EVIDENCE that SSB is and Avatar, Godman, etc.?
CCD,
Ben
September 9, 2008 at 10:30 am |
I know nothing about Sai Baba, so my comment isn’t about him, per say.
I just think that this post and the comments that follow are a perfect example of the silliness of this blog.
First, a definition of Miracle: a marvellous event manifesting a supernatural act of a divine agent. http://wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?s=miracle
As I understand it, then, the whole point of a mirace is that it operates outside of the natural – outside of scientific explanation. So, there are claims that a man is performing miracles and the complaint this blog brings up is that they haven’t been explained by science.
Is anybody else amused?
Let me conclude with another definition:
Catch-22: A situation in which a desired outcome or solution is impossible to attain because of a set of inherently illogical rules or conditions
September 9, 2008 at 10:54 am |
Thanks Kev.
I think the important word here is actually “Manifesting” which is in some places defined as “provide evidence for; stand as proof of; show by one’s behavior, attitude, or external attributes”.
A miracle wouldn’t be worth talking about if it began and ended in the supernatural… but when it manifests in the natural, that is where it must follow natural law, or at least use natural means to manifest itself.
For this reason, any description of a “miracle” will include physical claims that seem to defy all known physical explanations. That’s why it’s “miraculous”.
Sure, you could claim that some god-like being made a new drop of water appear and another disappear somewhere in the ocean when no one was looking, but it would be fairly meaningless as the functional point on a miracle tends to be to “demonstrate” something.
So all physical descriptions and accounts of a miracle are subject to two things:
1. Testing whether the claimed physical manifestation of the miracle actually physically occurred. (like going and looking to see if there really is a pile of dust on a chair somewhere and whether that dust matches any known material, etc.)
2. Investigating how the physical manifestation could have been accomplished/explained with known physical mechanisms (e.g. the museum curator put it there himself.)
Can someone claim that the god-like being accomplished this feat THROUGH the curator by making him put something there and thinking he was doing it on his own accord? Sure. There’s still the same lame-duck deniability that underlies all supernatural discourse, but it ceases to become relevant as an unexplained phenomenon worth investigating to all but those who are already determined to believe it.
September 9, 2008 at 12:45 pm |
Thor:
Yes. Exactly. Thank you.
—-
KJ:
Come on. You can do better. Are you seriously saying that just because someone is claiming to work miracles, we should just let it slide, because science can’t/won’t educated us further on the matter?
Seriously??!?
The fact that you find the blog amusing stems from your apathy about the abuses of miracle workers, dogmatists and religions of all kinds. You neither care that they are possibly lying, nor want to help those they are duping.
Fine.
But why? Why don’t you care? Why is it so easy for you to be apathetic? I’m floored that anyone could possibly view just the CURRENT abuses of religion with anything but active disdain. I guess the Ayaan Hirsi Ali’s of the world don’t mean much to you, but they matter to me. I’m sick of people being duped, abused, tricked, brainwashed and dogmatized under the banner of heaven (to steal from Krakauer).
The only meaningful question is, “Why aren’t you?”
CCD,
Ben
September 9, 2008 at 6:23 pm |
Wow Ben. While you’re response is both absurd and abusive in its own right, it totally missed the point of my post.
You have created a framework in which religion can not be real. I wrote that trying to argue inside of your framework that religion is real is silly. I stand by that.
In response, you have written that I am apathetic about abuses towards anybody who is being misled. This leap in logic is baffling, and the attack on my character is rediculous. Unfortunately, it’s also indicative of the type of exchanges found throughout this blog. There seems to be a culture here (found in both CCD, and some of its more regular responders, especially Derek) that ” All intelligent people will all agree with us. If they don’t, it’s because they’re either too stupid, too ignorant, or too self serving to see that our answer is the ‘one true way to live’. Maybe if we talk down at them, they’ll understand better.”
Since the point of my post seems to have been lost amid a rush to condemn my character, let me state it again:
This blog has outlined a framework in which, in order for something to have validity, it must exist on the natural plane and be scientifically measurable. In this framework, anything pertaining to the supernatural is eliminated.
I get it. I just don’t agree with your framework. Apparently that makes me apathetic about injustice. Who knew…
September 9, 2008 at 6:24 pm |
*your, not you’re
September 9, 2008 at 10:10 pm |
KJ,
Didn’t mean to come off as abusive (argumentative? yes), and I apologize that I hurt your feelings.
I just think you’re dead wrong on some counts, and by all evidence (sorry, its that crazy need for validation again) your comments don’t indicate that you are TOO worried that religious dogma has a stranglehold on the otherwise functional minds of billions of people (thus the apathy comments). In fact, several of your comments have been in the “this blog is silly, you can’t prove there’s a God/no God, so just leave people alone and let them preach/believe whatever they want’ vein. You have yet to post anything pointing out new abuses, except those you accuse me of (ie, caring too much about validation of claims made by people like David Koresh). More later.
The problem is, and history has shown us this OVER AND OVER, religious dogma is proven false all the time, often just by accident. The world ISN’T 6000 years old, it turns out. The Earth DOES revolve around the Sun. We trip BACKWARDS into proving certain religions factually bankrupt. Thousands of gods have gone extinct over time for a reason.
I’m simply calling for the physical, historical, and biological claims that religions make to be scientifically validated to the best of our ability. These attempts do NOTHING to the personal relationship people think they have with a supernatural God, unless this supernatural belief is based on NATURAL phenomenon or claims (we’ll get to this in a minute).
What I don’t understand is why you seem to be less than supportive of this validation process? How could this possibly be less than a fantastically useful thing? And why would it EVER be less than an excellent policy to present dogmatic ideas as theory, which I’ve argued for OVER AND OVER?
The idea that I am somehow proposing ‘one true way’ is absolutely, patently false.
I think people can believe whatever they want! One true way? Hardly. My framework doesn’t make it impossible for religion to be real on a personal level. It just insists that when personal, subjective, religious (or other) experiences turn into dogma, there is a NECESSARY burden of proof that comes with that change. Do you disagree?
The problem with things existing on the supernatural plain is that they never STAY supernatural. They constantly manifest (reference Thor’s comments) themselves in the physical world. When these supernatural things manifest themselves in the physical world, they are NO LONGER SUPERNATURAL! They are natural claims! And as soon as religions step into this physical realm, I start sneezing. I’m allergic to bullshit. And the only cure is (no, not more cowbell)… more evidence.
Make a natural claim? Provide evidence. Isn’t that how our understanding of the natural world works? Parted the Red Sea? Show me. Cure cancer? Show me. Leave an endless trail of dust? Show me. Earth is 6000 years old? Show me! You can’t just lie to people about the physical world and then claim you’re making supernatural arguments so that the less credulous folks in the audience will keep their mouths shut.
About apathy. If you DO care, and if you DO want to protect those that are subject to dogmatic abuses, let’s hear it. Don’t just get mad at me or others for calling your stances ’soft’. I’d be glad to have you write a guest post if you want, so that you can regale us with the facts & figures on the most injust religious practices out there, if you like. Until that day…
CCD,
Ben
September 10, 2008 at 12:27 am |
Ben,
Let me be clear that my feelings are fine. I only got into that side of things to highlight a difference between arguing ideas (fine) versus making character judgements (not so great). I’m completely comfortable with my character, making it quite tough to actually hurt my feelings.
About apathy – perhaps we have taken different approaches, but between personal actions (Big Brothers programs, tutoring underprivileged kids, participating in my Church, etc) and financial support (donating to causes both in the USA and abroad that I think are valuable), I like to believe that I’m doing some good in the world.
About the whole manifestation piece – perhaps it comes across as though I’m on the side of believing the claims of miracles and therefor in disagreement with you. The truth is, I’m on neither side.
I’m just pointing out that if one side is saying that things are happening through a supernatural force and the other side is saying that supernatural occurances aren’t valid, the argument is destined to not go anywhere.
Thor’s point as I understood it is that since miracles enter the natural world, we should try to understand them using the physical tools available to us. Sounds good to me. By all means, explore that which isn’t understood, in an attempt to understand it. I don’t understand how that idea changes the dynamic that I mentioned earlier. If one side claims that an event was caused by a supernatural force, no naturally based argument will derail it.
Again, I’m not saying that these claims are true, or that they should or shouldn’t be believed, or anything else. I’m just saying that it’s not efective to argue against them with science. In fact, I think it’s silly in the exact same way that I think it’s silly to argue against physical evidence with supernatural claims – carbon dating must be wrong, because the world is only 6000 years old. Arguments across platforms don’t get much accomplished, do they?
When I mention ‘one true way’ what I mean is the way of being ‘fundamentally agnostic.’ It has been made it quite clear in a number of places that you believe that fundamental agnosticism is the only fully intelligent, logical way that a person can live. We’ll have to agree to disagree.
I appologize if you’ve been unhappy with the vein of some of my posts. I’ve said this before, and I’ll say it again now: in as much as you believe that what you’re doing is making a positive impact on the world, I have every respect for you.
The silliness isn’t in your endeavor, but rather in the catch-22s created in many of the arguments. The frustration comes from the one way, trap door logic employed in said arguments.
One question for you – If Sai Baba’s ‘miracles’ aren’t explainable by science, will that mean that they didn’t happen?
September 10, 2008 at 8:18 am |
You can pick it apart all you want That dude’s just full of crap.
September 10, 2008 at 10:52 am |
Hi Kev,
For the record… I don’t think you’re heartless and apathetic about human suffering caused by dogma or any other source (I don’t think Ben really does either… probably just trying to “call you out” and bait you into stating more clearly that you do care about this stuff.) In general, I’m not a fan of ad hominem attacks in arguments, which I detected both in Ben’s statements about your apathy, and in your over-simplified, unflattering summation of the attitude of many on this blog as something so childish as, “We’re so smart and great and everyone who disagrees is a brainwashed moron.” In both cases, it’s far easier to dismiss an undynamic, hollow effigy of your own creation than it is to take on the full intelligence and perspective of the actual human beings with whom we’re sparring.
I also want to acknowledge that it takes some patience and persistence to continue debate with any group that’s, right or wrong, heavily slanted towards one side of an argument. I’ve done it before, and I know that at times it seems somewhat pointless to make any statements in agreement with the “other side” simply because there’s already so much opinion already coming from that side.
::::One question for you – If Sai Baba’s ‘miracles’ aren’t explainable by science, will that mean that they didn’t happen?::::
No. But if investigation shows that there IS reasonable everyday evidence to support a scientific and natural explanation for the phenomenon, or if NOTHING is detected to support the claim that any of the described events even occurred, then that certainly makes it a safer bet for those of us who are just trying to figure out what is and is not actually happening in the world around us to conclude (pending further input) that this event PROBABLY was accomplished with regular mechanisms that match our normal everyday experiences, and not amazing, super-natural ones that don’t. The purpose is not to try to convince believers that there’s no ROOM for a miracle to have occurred… simply to satisfy our own questions that come up when someone states that something happened that doesn’t match up with any of our experiences or expectations about the reality.
::::If one side claims that an event was caused by a supernatural force, no naturally based argument will derail it. ::::
If a holy man said he had placed a talking cow in a field, floating about 15 feet up as sign of his connectedness with the Divine, and many people claimed to have gone and seen the cow, I’d be skeptical.
Case 1: I’d go to the field in question and see if I experience something similar. If all I saw was a field and no evidence of said floating, talking cow, I’d remain skeptical, and I’d have to choose for myself, quite possibly with no other means of verification, whether I thought it was more likely that they were lying or mistaken about what they saw, or that their description was accurate and my assumptions about floating, talking cows were incorrect.
Case 2: I’d go to the field and see a floating cow and hear it talking. Not believing my eyes, I’d have to go get a closer look. When I got really close, I’d realize the cow was standing on a clear platform attached to an elaborate structure made of curved mirrors that made it practically invisible from most angles, and a loudspeaker embedded in it with a wire trailing off into the woods. While it’s still possible that this “miracle” is from God, uncomfortable, unexplained nature of the events would be gone, and I’d no longer have any more reason to suspect that supernatural forces were behind this miracle than any other day to day event.
Case 3: I’d go to the field and find a floating, talking cow. If any trickery or staging is involved, my best efforts to detect it are fruitless. At the very least, there are AMAZING technological forces at play that I had absolutely no knowledge of. By all accounts, the laws of physics and genetics are being broken or presenting themselves in ways that are totally inconsistent with every experience I’ve ever had or believed anyone else had. I call lots of scientists to the field, but nobody can explain the cow or detect any fraud. At this point, I have to choose whether to believe in floating, talking cows, whether to believe someone could conjure them (suddenly way more believable than before) or whether to believe there’s some amazing level of fraud going on that’s got everyone stumped, or that I’m crazy or dreaming. This would be a VERY hard call to make. but I’ve never experienced anything remotely like this.
Again, the point is not to “disprove” the miracle to someone determined to believe it. It’s to reconcile seemingly contradictory experiences and explanations of reality for those of us who just want to find out what is True, or make the very best, most educated guesses we can. The dichotomy you’re talking about doesn’t really tend to exist much in black and white terms. I’ve never met anyone who dismissed empirical science and logic so much that they didn’t bother stepping out of the way of a bus that was speeding towards them. Similarly, I’ve never met someone so obsessed with the known, measurable, material world that they didn’t have any interest in CONSIDERING super-natural possibilities or the meaning/purpose of life. As a self-reflective being, anyone is that state would truly have NO reason to act in anything but a impulsive, random way, and thus would die very quickly.
The people we’re after (myself and pretty much everyone on earth included) are somewhere on the spectrum in between. When they hear a claim that totally contradicts everything they’ve ever experienced, they are curious to find out more… because of two conflicting things: 1) The claim is amazingly bizarre and surprising to them, and 2) They know that they don’t know FOR SURE what’s true and what’s not. Anything COULD be true, but we all feel we have a generally good grasp on what’s in the realm of even remotely LIKELY, and we’re all intrigued by claims that suggest we were WAY off in that regard. For this reason, I think a lot of people are interested in the process of looking into such claims and don’t find it a silly or worthless pursuit.
Make sense?
September 10, 2008 at 6:43 pm |
KJ,
I’m after the truth, man – I hope all parties recognize that if I come down hard on your comments, it’s because I’m after the truth and I expect you to be as well.
That said, unlike Thor, I still think you’re taking a pretty apathetic stance on religious injustices (not all injustice). I made judgements about your posts, and the apathy towards these issues that you displayed in said posts. My comments were certainly not blanket character judgements. I’m sure you’re a good person by whatever standards society may generally judge us. You need not trot your good deeds out as examples of your sensitivity toward other injustices. I only ask that you show sensitivity toward THESE injustices (which I’m not sure you see as injustices). That was the point. That’s it. Am I to assume from your last response that you do NOT want to write a guest post about religious injustice? Let me know. The offer is on the table.
I would hold that being on ‘neither side’ isn’t enough. What level of religious BS needs to happen for you to have an opinion? Is your argument, then, that we simply shouldn’t argue against these claims? I mean, you say that its silly to argue against them using science, so…. What should the argument be made of, if anything? In taking neither side, you are effectively saying that no argument needs to be made. If, as you say, we should try to understand miracles by using the physical tools around us, then how on earth do you propose we do this without applying our physical sciences to the task?
Say Thor’s example #2 with all the smoke & mirrors is really what’s going on in some of these religious miracle cases. The claim is that there’s a floating, talking cow. That is the actual claim. But really, it’s a talking man in the woods with a microphone, and a suspended (and probably terrified) cow. The CLAIM isn’t that supernatural forces are working through the man, the mirrors, the cow, and the microphone. The claim is that through supernatural forces there is a FLOATING, TALKING cow. That is the claim. No mirrors, no microphone. So, if we (the scientific community) think it best to look into the smoke & mirror tricks of the thousands of snake oil vendors out there, so as to show their duped audiences the microphone & mirrors, then we are only attempting to see if they are LYING about the specific claims. The specific claims, mind you, are physical claims.
I don’t claim that Fundamental Agnosticism is the ‘one true way’ (true being the key word). It’s just my rational argument for the best way I’ve found to go about learning new information. Based on my observations, and the observations of much of the educated world, an F.A. stance leads to a greater knowledge base from which to ’stare out onto the unknown’. It’s an opinion formed from a rational argument. Not a supernatural truth claim. You find those in religions.
Love you all, especially KJ.
CCD,
Ben
October 17, 2009 at 3:34 pm |
Go to Exbaba.com Movies, you will see some of Sai Babals fake miracles.
September 10, 2008 at 6:58 pm |
Hi everyone,
Thor, I think you did a great job of summarizing the interaction of miracles and evidence, especially in outlining the three cases. A miracle is an objective, physical event with a direct, supernatural cause. So in investigating miracles we can reach one of three conclusions: a) the event did not actually happen, b) the event did happen, but had a natural cause that we can detect, or c) the event did happen, but had no natural cause that we can detect. Only in case c) is there even a question of whether the event was a miracle.
However, I think it’s also important to notice how the interaction of miracles and science is slightly different than the interaction of miracles with evidence. Science is based on the scientific method, which involves hypothesis, prediction, and experiment. But miracles are usually historical events, and therefore not testable in a strictly scientific fashion (i.e. in a fashion that makes use of the scientific method). For instance, take the cow example. The only “scientific” means for evaluating that miracle is to hypothesize that something physical is supporting the cow, predict that it is measureable, and then ask the holy man to relevitate the cow while you film him, walk underneath the cow, test for magnetic fields, etc… to confirm or refute your hypothesis. Even then, you would technically only be proving whether the holy man can levitate the cow now, not whether he did it a week ago. It’s quite frustrating actually, but those are the limitations of the scientific method. When considering historical miracles, we need to talk about evidence, not science per se.
The differences between Christ’s miracles and other people claiming to do miracles made me reflect quite a bit. But that’s a huge topic, and may be worth its own thread?
September 10, 2008 at 10:00 pm |
I think this will be my final post on this thread…
- I agree with you on much of this – it’s great to search for evidence in the physical plane that will help explain things the world around us. I support this practice. When claims get made about things happening in the material world, we should explore them.
- I tell you what I’d be happy to do. I’ll write a guest post for your blog outlining some of the positive things that are being done right now around the world, in the name of religion(s).
- Here’s the most difficult aspect of your blog, for me – this is something that I’ve thought about from the first time I read any of your blog, and while I’m guessing that it’s not something that will bother you at all, I’ll still lay it out there: In my religion, there is a teaching that the only unforgivable sin is refusing to acnowledge that God exists. This isn’t because God can’t or won’t forgive you. It’s because God only draws as close to you as you allow him to. When you’ve claimed that there is no God (Fundamental Agnostic, practicing Athiest), you’ve eliminated all space in your life for him to draw near to you. You may not care (dogma and all that), but I think it’s sad.
September 10, 2008 at 11:13 pm |
KJ,
I’d be happy to have you write something like that. What would be really interesting to me would be if you could write a post that outlines the positive things that are being done right now around the world in the name of religion, that we NEED religion for… in other words, things that are being done that wouldn’t/couldn’t be done without religion. That would REALLY interest me. But whatever you put together, I’d be glad to include. Maybe I’ll have a dual post, one by you, and one by another contributor.
The last part of your response is the same type of circular reasoning that scares people into believing (or trying to believe) in god, worldwide. It’s essentially saying, “Yeah, go ahead and look for God, but if you don’t find him, it’s your fault. You just have to believe, man. And then you’ll be with God and things will be groovy.”
For the record, and this is monumentally important, I haven’t claimed that there is no God. Let me say that again, in caps. I HAVEN’T CLAIMED THAT THERE IS NO GOD. If I did, I’d be an fundamentalist atheist. I’m NOT a fundamentalist atheist (and, for the record, neither are Dawkins, Dennett, Harris, Hitchens or any of the other fellas I quote so often). I’m simply saying (again) that I DON’T KNOW if there’s a god, but if there is, I don’t see him in any of the 6,000 religions that supposed KNOW he/she/it exists, and have details descriptions of him/her/it, all of which contradict eachother. I’m also saying that any system that requires BELIEF first, and claims that THEN a knowledge of God (not surprisingly, in the format of the requiring religion) will ‘come to you somehow’ does not make any sense.
You might even say that I’m looking for god harder and with more energy than just about anyone else, and that I’m only a practicing atheist because I haven’t found any good reason to ‘believe’.
I have plenty of space in my life for god, if there is one out there. Just not one who expects me to ignore ALL of my rational faculties (a product of god’s supposed creation) so as to believe that he/she/it exists (to paraphrase Jefferson). So don’t get too sad. I’m just waiting for there to be a good reason to believe in god. If I don’t wait for a good reason, I’m just buying what my tribe tells me and passing that off as Truth, which I cannot, in good conscience, do.
CCD,
Ben
January 9, 2009 at 12:13 pm |
Ben, this may be a a very late response but coming from India I know the status of Satya Sai baba very well. His miracles have been debunked time after time by the Indian rationalists and yet millions of people keep flocking to him. Some distant relatives of mine also believe he is a living God. The ash or ‘vibhuti’ he produces can be explained scientifically and he has declined the challenge of every rationalist I know of to produce the same miracles under scientific/experimental conditions.
If you search on youtube, you can find a lot of videos which show how his cheap magic is interpreted as miracle by followers. Here’s one in which he uses sleight of hand to materialize a small idol from his mouth. Its hilarious to watch.
http://www.metacafe.com/watch/725285/becareful_with_fake_god_sathya_sai_baba_part_10/
March 15, 2009 at 6:30 pm |
Ben, I have seen Sai Baba and have seen these manifestations of ashes. One could debunk the ashes produced by bare hands but there is really no explantions for thos that appear out of Photos etc. In an orphanage in South India, Sri Ranga Patna orphanage in Mysore, there is an ongoing miracle with two plain porcelin amulets one with the likliness of Sathya Sai Baba and another that resembles Shirdi Sai Baba. This was given to the manager of that place 20 years ago. Anyone who visits there the manager will scoop the amulet and place it in your palm. Within seconds your palm will fill with this nectar like fluid.
There is one thing everyone fails to notice, with Baba there is no amassing a large congregation nor collecting devotees. You don’t even need to change your religion. Just follow your beliefs to the fullest, and don’t forget that God IS Love. Whether 1 or 1 million, whether praise or attacks, Baba has always been equanimous.
For God sake man, He has been doing this since he was 8 years old and now he is 83! I hope this response is not too late. Best wishes for every one.
Raj
July 23, 2009 at 12:28 pm |
Thanx, Raj! You’ve told it for me as well.
Yeah, Sai Baba is Pure Love, Ben. I’m a poor Brazilian guy and have never been out of this country, and Sai Baba have helped me no matter the distance. I have the vibhuti (ash) as well, and it really never diminishes, I can give it for all those who are needing some help and it never ends. The pack’s always more than half full, never less. He appeared to me in a dream, and once he appeared in our backyard here and blessed the canaries my dad had (jailed, poor birds), and I was so sad, praying for God to change my dad’s mind and set the poor little creatures free, and I did pray asking Baba for helping me if possible, and less than 2 weeks later he appeared there smiling and blessing the jailed birds. As a true miracle – and it have been, for real – my dad begun to quit having canaries! He used to have jailed canaries from even before my birth (I’m 30 nowadays, I was 27 when Baba appeared here), and after only one Baba appearance here after my prayer dad have been changing a lot! I can assure you we all are new persons here nowadays. My parents are Christians and they’re very better Christians nowadays, I’m a very better person, my brother… And after another prayer to Baba, a small little dog appeared at our home and mom did accept we having the little friend! She didn’t want dogs anymore since our last dog have died of cancer, but after I pray to Baba, less than 2 weeks later (again, less than 2 weeks!) the little dog appeared, my brother started playing with him and my mom gaves us permission to take the little friend home and he’s here ’til today, our beloved Keshava, as I named him in homage to Sai Baba (Keshava is the powerful name of Krishna). And, as our friend Raj wrote, Baba’s in a constant day-by-day of this highly desinterested service since he was a young boy! He is 83 and is unstoppable! And, tell me, how can one NEVER be sick in 83 years?! Baba have never got a flu, nothing! If he were not really pure, no doubt he would have been sick one time at least. Who have never had a flu or any problem?! If he’s not that pure anymore – what I doubt -, I don’t know, but I know that Baba is a Pure Love experience in my life, and I truly don’t believe that an 83 years old man would turn into bad after more than 70 years of Pure Love service to all, mainly the poor, the needy, those generally forgotten by society.
Well, this is my humble personal testimonial.
Om Sai Ram
Love and Peace,
Samuel