Participants:
Series Code: GFF
Program Code: GFF000002S
|
00:02 ♪ ♪
00:56 Hello, Welcome. I am Subodh Pandit, a medical doctor 01:01 with specialty in internal medicine. I was born 01:04 and brought up 01:05 in India. I then came and lived in the United States. Apart from 01:10 my career I would constantly think of things that people 01:15 would grapple and wrestle and converse about and not 01:20 come to any real conclusion. I wondered why so I began to 01:25 look into it and my intellectual journey went on for years and 01:29 even decades. So what I'm going to do now is share some of that 01:33 with you. And we're going to do it over 13 periods and sessions 01:38 I hope that you will stay with me the whole way. Look at the 01:43 topic we're going to discuss today. God, Fact or Fiction. 01:48 Huge as well as controversial. And in fact if you go into it 01:53 one question will lead to another and yet to another. 01:57 But what we are going to do is face those questions, not shy 02:03 away and face them squarely. Welcome friend to this 02:08 intellectual journey. My main aim is to make you think and 02:13 think critically, think for yourself. So whatever your 02:17 present ideas or philosophies put on your thinking cap and 02:23 come search with me. One of the main reasons these debates never 02:29 come to a satisfying conclusion is because they don't start off 02:34 with the right foot. And what do I mean by that? The sides and 02:38 the people involved in the debate do not sit together and 02:42 decide what it is that will form the base of their 02:46 discussion. In other words, what are the principles that will 02:50 guide them. I call them premises The premises have to set before 02:56 the debate so that everyone is playing the same game otherwise 03:00 if they're not set, there's no base, then we are talking past 03:05 each other, no common bearing and maybe playing a different 03:10 game. So our first task is to set the premises. And that's why 03:16 the first session is The Premises and here we begin at 03:22 the starting point. What is our present position. There are 03:29 three possible positions: Number One: The attitude of a 03:33 disbelieving inquirer. The attitude of a believing inquirer 03:37 and the attitude of a neutral inquirer. Note that they are all 03:43 inquirers. 03:45 In fact, you and I have all three of these attitudes in us. 03:50 And because they all are inquiring attitudes we can flit 03:54 from one to the other so smoothly that we don't even 03:58 notice the change. So we may come to the table with one 04:02 attitude and actually not go to that one that we are using at 04:07 the moment. Thus we may not be aware of what we are really 04:11 doing at that point. What do you mean by these words? Here are 04:16 some descriptions. DISBELIEVING attitude - Dismisses the report 04:21 Prior to thorough investigation. BELIEVING attitude - Accepts 04:26 the report, swallows it before the end of the investigation 04:30 while the INQUIRING attitude - does not initially accept nor 04:36 dismiss, but holds verdict until the investigation is done. 04:40 Here's another piece. The DISBELIEVING attitude - focuses 04:45 on the questions and disregards all the fair evidence. The 04:50 BELIEVING attitude will focus on the evidence and disregard 04:55 all the big questions where as the INQUIRING attitude focuses 04:59 on the weight of evidence and that's all he or she can do. 05:04 You know on this earth we really cannot have final proof. What we 05:10 can have, however, is the weight of evidence. Now you and I may 05:17 inquire with a believing or a disbelieving attitude and think 05:23 we are fair because it's an inquiry. But that is not real 05:27 true inquiry. Because most of us whenever we delve into the 05:32 subject we want to look for evidence that will support our 05:36 pre-existing stance. It is called confirmation bias. 05:40 And here's the definition:... 05:52 Now how many on earth do you think are biased? Everyone: You, 05:58 me, everyone on planet earth is actually biased. So if all of us 06:02 all of us are biased don't call anyone biased and don't be 06:05 calling bias by anyone. The challenge is to become an 06:11 inquiring inquirer or a neutral inquirer. So how do we shift 06:18 away from our biases to really becoming neutral? Well the first 06:23 thing is to address and deal with Confirmation Bias and 06:30 here's how to it. A few points. Number one we confess and 06:36 acknowledge it. You and I are biased. So what do we do with 06:42 that? We make a decision that we will not let that enter into our 06:46 debate. We set it aside. In other words we drop our previous 06:50 beliefs and disbeliefs. But really you can't drop it in a 06:54 moment. What we mean to say that we do not rise up in passionate 06:59 defense of our own beliefs nor do we attack the beliefs and the 07:05 points of the opposing side. If we do that we will avoid 07:12 blind beliefs as well as blind dismissal and then we can engage 07:17 in "neutral inquiry." So what do we mean by "neutral inquiry?" 07:24 Here are some points. Number one: A neutral inquirer 07:29 always makes two 07:33 opposing theories, never just one. No pros and cons of just 07:40 this side. No, he make two opposing theories and then looks 07:43 at both. Why do we want that? That's to avoid what is called 07:50 default conclusions. So what do we mean by default. Let me ask 07:55 you a question. When is a good decision a bad decision? And 08:02 when is a bad decision a good decision? Oh you say, that 08:08 sounds contradictory. But really, wait. If you try to 08:13 answer that, it might be quite insightful. Here's why a good 08:20 decision is a bad decision. If the options facing you and me 08:25 are good, better, and best but we just chose the good. We could 08:31 have gone for the best, but we chose the good. That's a bad 08:35 decision. On the other hand likewise, if the options facing 08:45 us are bad worse and worst then choosing the bad 08:49 is a good decision. In fact, 08:51 of these three, bad, worse, and worst the bad is the best. 08:56 Why do we say this? Because in the discussions that we have on 09:00 this large topic which are controversial we can never make 09:05 a good decision. We can only make bad. And what do you mean 09:10 by bad? We mean that all the belief systems on these topics 09:15 have gaps, discrepancies and and even contradictions. So the 09:21 question really is which one would you take for what we are 09:27 saying with this? Just because it looks good don't just grab to 09:32 that and then discard the others because the others might be 09:36 better. And just because this theory has some questions and 09:42 some discrepancies don't discard it. Because if you discard it 09:47 you might go for something worse In other words, hold on to both 09:53 the sides and look at both. The next two points are that we 09:57 treat both equally and you give both the same chance to win. 10:03 Then you can be sure that the real winner has won. And if you 10:08 really want to get into the nitty gritty of it then we have 10:12 to set the criteria that we will use for our search and for our 10:18 discussion. So let's set the criteria right now. We will lean 10:23 number one on information and evidence, not mere opinion. 10:29 Number two: We will go for logic and common sense, not crass 10:35 illogic. And number three: We will try to reason and explain 10:42 rather than state somethings that are absurd. Socrates said 10:47 these words actually quoted by Plato: Go where the argument 10:53 leads. Don't lead the argument where you want it to go. And 10:58 say it again: Go where the argument leads. Now doing that 11:05 is not all that easy because these are aggressive, big, 11:09 controversial questions actually requires solid, raw courage. 11:16 Because you might find something there that goes 11:20 against what you previously believed. And also you might 11:23 find something there that causes you to change your whole 11:27 lifestyle and behavior. So even though you choose to become 11:32 a neutral inquirer confirmation bias can be really hard to 11:38 overcome. So we need help. Help in creating an atmosphere that 11:46 is conducive to being a neutral inquirer right through. So what 11:53 shall we do about creating that atmosphere? Here's how we do it. 11:57 We require four factors. Four things that we will hold onto 12:05 that will create the atmosphere. Here are the four: Number one: 12:10 Humility. Number two: Honesty. Number three: Calmness and 12:18 Number four: Respect. What do we mean by these words? Humility: 12:24 This is the cardinal, prime, and most essential factor of all. 12:31 If ever we become proud and boastful about our own knowledge 12:36 we've closed the door to what we might get next. So we remain 12:40 humble. Humble, teachable, learning attitude, standing 12:46 small in the face of the vastness and grandeur of the 12:51 universe and all the information that it contains. How little 12:55 we really know. 12:56 That should make us humble. Also somebody else next to us who has 13:02 a lot of knowledge and who obviously is willing to teach. 13:07 We humbly learn from that individual. 13:09 Humility is number one. Honesty: 13:14 Here's a definition: The willingness to give credit to a 13:20 point or argument no matter who brings it to the table, and even 13:26 if that credit has the possibility of destroying my own 13:29 previous stand or position. Did you notice that I put my own 13:33 name there, Subodh Pandit. That is because that is the 13:36 definition I gave. That is the principle I followed when I 13:42 was doing my search. In other words give credit where credit 13:46 is due and withhold credit when it is not due. You know what I 13:51 called it? I called it the wow factor. You've got to say wow 13:57 when a piece of information that's really impressive and it 14:01 amazes you. Don't start first thinking, if I say how well he 14:05 or she might get the credit and not me. No that would not be 14:09 real honesty, say wow. Are you really willing to say wow, are 14:14 you ready to do that give credit Let's check it out. Let's do 14:20 something to see whether we can respond that way. You know pi 14:28 22 over seven is an irregular number. If you really did that 14:32 calculation, 22 divided by seven it would come out to 3.142 and 14:39 then on and on and on in a very haphazard and arbitrary manner. 14:43 There is no pattern to those numbers. So what psychologists 14:48 have said let's use that series as a test for memory. How many 14:56 digits can a person memorize and recite. Do you know what the 15:00 world record is? Most people do not look at that so we may 15:05 not know it. Let me tell you. But why don't you have a guess 15:08 at what might be the world record. A few years ago it was 15:12 held by an Indian and then a Japanese and then I believe 15:16 the last one went back to an Indian. So the last record that 15:20 I know of pi was recited to the 70 thousandth digit before the 15:28 first mistake was made. Did you say wow to that? Did you give 15:33 the credit? If you did, well we're on the same page. Then we 15:37 are ready to give credit where credit is due. How about 15:41 calmness? You know anger and rage fights you own clear 15:49 thinking and good judgment, not those of your opponent! So when 15:55 your angry what you say is not exactly what you want to say, at 16:00 all what you want to think. Now sometimes during what I say in 16:06 the next 13 segments, sometimes I will state things that might 16:14 sound jarring to you. Don't get angry. Don't get upset. Here's 16:21 what you do. Just say to yourself, I don't agree with 16:26 that. So the way I'm going to address that is to get a good 16:30 argument against that so that my argument knocks off his 16:34 argument. Well really that's most welcome. So don't get upset 16:39 And how do you get that really good argument to knock off mine? 16:43 It is to stay calm. Calmness which is the result of humility 16:50 and honesty will give the best chance to you and to me to make 16:56 good arguments to form a strong side which will maybe even win 17:02 over the other side. How about respect? Respect is not 17:07 agreement, not admiration. We often use it as a synonym for 17:12 those but really respect is only giving to others the right to 17:19 make their own inquiry, their own final decision without us 17:25 looking down our noses at them and even calling them names. 17:29 No, we uphold their dignity at all times and we 17:37 expect them to hold our dignity up, for the sake of mutual 17:41 respect. So we've got to create an atmosphere with these four: 17:48 Humility, Honesty, Calmness, Respect. Now with these we'll 17:54 get to the big question. I call it the great divide. A. Atheism 18:02 says God is nonexistent and fictitious. B. The believing 18:09 side says God is in existence and factual. Now before we dive 18:14 into that, there is a question that some people ask and the 18:19 question is do we need God? And His existence. Why not leave 18:25 the question completely out? What difference does it make? 18:29 What difference does it make? Do you know the answer to that 18:33 can be twofold. Number one: It makes no difference at all. 18:38 And number two: It makes a huge difference. Both these responses 18:45 depend on a big if. So here's the first if: If our human life 18:51 let's say a hundred years, is the sum total of our existence, 18:55 what lies beyond it is absolute nothingness, total 19:00 oblivion. Then nobody needs God. Do you know that both the sides 19:07 agree to this. It's just plain common sense. So I'm going to 19:11 read to you now two statements from each of the sides. Here's 19:17 Quentin Smith, an atheist, a confirmed atheist. Look at his 19:23 words. He wrote this in a book Theism, Atheism and Big Bang 19:25 Cosmology. The only reasonable belief is that we came from 19:31 nothing, by nothing and for nothing. On the other side, King 19:37 Solomon, a believer, who wrote out in a religious book these 19:42 words: What happens to the fool will happen to me also...the 19:47 fate of the humans and the fate of animals is the same; as one 19:51 dies, so dies the other. Look, nobody needs God. We live or die 19:58 like a king or a fool. Nobody needs God to live or die like an 20:04 animal or a human. The other side: If the supernatural realm 20:11 is real and God does exist then a utopia of some kind called a 20:17 heaven or a paradise or nirvana could be a reasonable theory. 20:24 And if that is the actual goal of our life and not what Quentin 20:29 Smith said, well then you and I will have to agree to at least 20:35 two things. Number One: We as humans are inherently totally 20:41 incapable of getting there. Number Two: We need God in this 20:49 life to show us the path of how to get there and also to provide 20:53 for us when we get there. We can't take anything from here to 20:57 there. So we do need God for that. So finally do we need God? 21:05 No, if the supernatural realm is false and a fictitious and yes 21:13 absolutely yes. If that realm does exist and reaching there 21:16 is our goal. So now the pertinent question. Is the 21:22 supernatural realm factual and true? Does God truly exist? 21:28 Getting to that. Here the challenge:... 21:51 Give them all the benefits and if you're honest well take away all 21:57 the credits that are not supposed to be given and when 22:00 you do it fairly you and I will be sure then that the real 22:05 winner has won. And then we can give evidence for what we are 22:10 have just found. One of the ways is the implement the Pan Process 22:18 Now I'm sure you haven't heard of that Pan Process. So let me 22:21 tell you what it means, what it says. Here's the Pan Process: 22:25 This is a method of inquiry that examines both options equally. 22:32 What do we mean by that? What does the word pan mean? Number 22:38 one: It means going across. So like we said earlier both stay 22:42 on only one side, go across to the other, like Pan American 22:47 Airlines. It goes across America You don't stay in one place. 22:51 Number Two: Pan also means sifting. They panned for gold 22:58 way back in the 1840s during the gold rush. They took a pan and 23:06 dipped it into the water, pulled out some rocks and hopefully 23:10 some nuggets and the force of the water would take away the 23:14 lighter rocks and keep the heavier nuggets in the pan. 23:18 Panning, sifting, choosing the valuable, letting go of the 23:25 ordinary. Pan also happens to be the first three letters of my 23:29 family name. Now you know where I got that word from, Pan 23:34 Process, and formulated that so that I could use it in my 23:40 search, so that I could show to myself that I was going to be 23:47 fair to both the topics, to both the theories, to both the claims. 23:53 So what does it look like? Here's what it looked like. 23:56 The Pan Process requires four columns of argument. One: A pro. 24:03 And second, a con for each of the sides. God exists, God does 24:10 not exist. Pro and con, two columns. Pro and con on this 24:15 side and another two columns; four columns. For example: 24:19 Column one would be arguments for A - Atheism. Column two: 24:25 Arguments against the believing side, against B. Column three: 24:30 Arguments for belief for the B for the believing side. And 24:35 column four: Arguments against A against atheistic side. So when 24:42 you do this I believe you and I can look at this and we can 24:47 agree that this is really a very fair process. We are looking at 24:54 both the sides. And when we do that we shouldn't try to push 24:58 down one to then try to pull up the other. Just let the 25:03 arguments speak for themselves. So that is what we will do. 25:08 We'll do the Pan Process. So now. What have we said so far? 25:15 The premises have to be set. If we don't set the premises then 25:21 our words can fly past one another and we will be on 25:24 different wave lengths. So we set the premises. And this is 25:28 what we said the premises would look like: First we assess our 25:32 present attitude: Am I a disbelieving inquirer, a 25:37 believing inquirer or a neutral inquirer? And then we confess 25:43 and put aside confirmation bias. Our biases. And choose to remain 25:49 a neutral inquirer, an inquiring inquirer, not a believing 25:55 inquirer, not a disbelieving inquirer. And then we implement 25:59 the traits or the characteristics 26:02 of a neutral inquirer. And what are those? We always look 26:07 for at least two options, two theories and we look for the 26:13 pros and cons of this and the pros and cons of that meaning 26:17 we give both the same chance to win. And if you really want to 26:22 do that well then we have to set the criteria and we set the 26:26 criteria. You and I did. We will go for evidence, for reason, for 26:34 logic. Those are things that will set the criteria. And once 26:38 we have set the criteria then we will create an atmosphere 26:42 that will help us remain in the inquiring mode at all times. 26:49 It is made up of number one: Humility. Number two: Honesty. 26:55 Number three: Calmness and number four: Respect. With this 27:02 With this we will demonstrate that we will do it fairly by 27:06 implementing the Pan Process which looks at both the options 27:11 equally. You know what? We will do the Pan Process in the very 27:17 next section and segment. So keep coming back because in 27:24 the next section we'll talk about the Pan Process. 27:27 If you have enjoyed the presentation with Dr. Subodh 27:32 Pandit and wish to watch more of this unique 13 part series for 27:35 free online visit the website GodFactOrFiction.com. That's 27:41 GodFactOrFiction.com. If you would like to order this 27:45 fascinating series on DVD it is now available from White Horse 27:49 Media:... 27:55 Dr. Subodh Pandit has written two eye-opening books entitled 28:00 Come Search With Me: Does God Really Exist? and Come Search 28:05 With Me: The Weight of Evidence which further explore the topics 28:08 of evolution, theism, atheism, and religion. To order these 28:13 books:... 28:29 ♪ ♪ |
Revised 2021-08-11