Participants:
Series Code: GFF
Program Code: GFF000007S
|
00:02 ♪ ♪ Subodh K. Pandit, M.D.
00:57 We've come now to session six. We're making good progress. I'm 01:02 glad you joined me again. When we discussed in the previous 01:07 session we saw that we were able to go through the question of 01:13 atheism, which says God does not exist, and we looked at theism, 01:17 which said God does exist. We looked at both. Then we went on 01:21 and looked at the Theory of Evolution and there also we 01:26 looked at two: Does the theory of Evolution match the criteria 01:31 for a scientific theory or does it not match the criteria for a 01:36 scientific theory. So we did that together. And once we have 01:41 finished that we recognized that beyond the natural it seems to 01:47 reasonable and scientific that there is a supernatural via the 01:53 study of atheism and theism and also the study of evolution, 01:58 whether it is scientific or not. When we do these kind of studies 02:03 we recognize that it's a big topic. And remember what we have 02:08 said earlier, when there's a big topic and we jump into it one 02:13 question leads to another and that leads to yet another and 02:15 that's how it goes. And we also said that we would look at these 02:21 questions squarely. We will not shy away from them. So now we 02:25 recognize there might possibly have a good chance that beyond 02:30 the natural there is a supernatural there could be God. 02:33 So now the 02:34 next question: If there's a God is there an identity that he can 02:39 have? Does he have a name? Can we identify that? So we're going 02:44 to look at that. But just before we get into that here's another 02:48 concept we need to clear. It's a concept that says, we as 02:54 humans really cannot have a grasp of facts. We can make a 03:00 guess but we can never say it's a fact. It's called relativism. 03:06 I wonder if you've heard of that It says that all the statements 03:11 which say that it's the truth of the matter actually are only 03:14 relatively true. There is no such thing as real truth. For 03:19 example, if I put my pointer on the right side of the table we 03:26 can ask ourselves is it right or left? That depends on which side 03:30 of the table you are on. If you are on my side of the table, 03:34 then the pointer's on the right side. But if you're on the 03:37 opposite side of the table then that is on the left side. So 03:41 which is this side of the table? Well if I'm on this side of this 03:45 side or this side or that side or that side, but if I'm on that 03:49 side of the table then this side is that side and that side is 03:52 this side. Can you see, it goes back and forth and there's 03:54 nothing set, nothing clearly set so that we can say this is the 04:01 truth. So they pulled that idea out and the idea is correct but 04:05 when you pull out it comes out to what they call relativism. 04:10 That means every statement on earth is only relatively true. 04:15 There is no such thing as truth. Here's a statement by David 04:20 Trueblood. He's describing this. "There is no objective standard 04:25 by which truth may be determined so that truth varies with 04:28 individuals and circumstances." And Paul Feyerabend here's his 04:33 statement: "There is only one principle that can be defended 04:37 under all circumstances and in all stages of human development. 04:40 It is the principle: anything goes." I would like you to 04:45 remember those words. Anything goes which also means everything 04:49 goes and which also means everything's acceptable. So what 04:53 is relativism claiming? That all so-called truth is only 04:58 relatively true. There is no such thing as absolute truth or 05:03 truth. So we've stated what relative truth or relativism is. 05:08 We have to also make a definition of truth or absolute 05:12 truth. And here's one such definition: Absolute truth is 05:17 that which is valid for all people at all times at all 05:22 places. It does not vary with individuals and places. So now 05:28 we have the question of whether relativism can be examined and 05:33 will it stand scrutiny? So we're going to look at it in maybe two 05:36 or three ways. Number one: The claim is that everything goes. 05:41 That was Paul Feyerabend. Everything goes. In other words, 05:44 Everything is acceptable. What's the meaning of everything? Is 05:48 anything left out. Not everything means every thing. Well then it 05:55 should also include absolute truth, shouldn't it if it's 05:58 everything? Everything acceptable. So once you say 06:03 everything is acceptable, you should be truthful and 06:05 everything is acceptable. Absolute truth also is 06:07 acceptable and if absolute truth is acceptable when then relative 06:11 truth is gone or relativism is gone. Relativism is that which 06:16 states that all statements are only relatively true. How about 06:20 another way of looking at it? Did you remember when I said 06:25 right side of the table could also be left depending on the 06:28 side of the table I'm standing on. So in other words, words 06:33 themselves may not have fixed meaning. Right can be left 06:38 depending on 06:39 something else. So let's look at that sentence and make it into a 06:45 sentence. Words have no fixed meaning. Think. That sentence 06:53 with its words must have a fixed meaning to tell me what it is 06:59 saying. So the very words "words have no fixed meaning" has to 07:05 have fixed meaning. In other words, relativism really is a 07:09 self-defeating prospect. It does not stand to real scrutiny. 07:14 Here's another way of looking at it. Suppose we say everything on 07:20 earth or all statement are relatively true and only 07:23 relatively true. Well then they could also be relatively false. 07:28 All statements, relatively false Isn't that how we could look at 07:33 it? If it's only relatively true well relatively false, okay. 07:37 So here are two people having a discussion. They want to know 07:43 whether that statement is true. And one says it is true and the 07:46 other says, No that's not true. It could be false. Well if 07:52 that's the case then let's appeal to the other factors. 07:55 Factor B to find out if Factor A is true or not. Because if 08:00 Factor A is only relatively true and it could be a little bit 08:03 false. So we go back to Factor B to find out if A should be 08:07 taken as true or false, but B itself is only relatively true. 08:11 So we go to C to find out whether B should be taken 08:14 as false or true and then on and on from A to B to C to D and we 08:19 go on indefinitely. It is called infinite regression. We regress 08:27 from the first question to the next and to the next and go on 08:31 away from the original question. In fact, if relativism is the 08:36 norm, which that's an oxymoron there itself, then you can't 08:42 even ask a question because the question has different meanings 08:46 of its words. And if an answer is given well the answer may be 08:51 true or not and that has to go to another factor to decide 08:54 whether it's true or not. Can you see what's happening? 08:56 We are in a sea of being mixed up in which we cannot even ask 09:04 the question "So, it looks..." said Michael Jubien: "it looks 09:10 any apparent suggestion (of relativism) is either self 09:14 defeating or else is not a real assertion, but something more 09:18 like an empty slogan." Not a philosophy. Ravi Zacharias says 09:24 this: "That is precisely what I believe postmodernism..." which 09:27 is relativism..."Best represents - a mood." It is not a 09:33 principle, it is not a philosophy, a mood. A mood can 09:37 move back and forth. There's nothing stable there. So how can 09:41 we state that everything on earth is just a mood. That would 09:45 not be right. In other words, in the words of Gene Veith 09:52 right now: "To say 'It's true that nothing is true is 09:55 intrinsically meaningless nonsense. The very statement - 10:00 'there is no absolute truth' - is an absolute truth. Think. 10:05 Remember Paul Feyerabend's statement, there's only one 10:10 principle that can be defended under all circumstances. Well 10:14 that's an absolute truth. To state that there's only one, 10:17 nothing else. That's absolute. So what relativism is doing is 10:24 sitting, planting its base, on an absolute truth and saying 10:29 that it is not there. Well really if you sit on a strong 10:36 branch, put yourself there and then chop the branch what 10:40 happens to you; you will fall. That is what happens to the 10:44 truth of relativism if there is that truth when you examine it. 10:49 Chop, fall. Relativism does not stand scrutiny. Relative truth 10:55 does because there is relative truth but relativism which says 10:59 that every statement on earth is true and only relatively true 11:03 that does not stand scrutiny. Now there's a similar idea when 11:10 it comes to religion. It's called pluralism. Look at the 11:15 number of religions that could possible be there Zoroastrianism 11:21 Buddhism, Islam, Judaism, Sikhism, Christianity, Hinduism, 11:24 Confucianism, Taoism, Shintoism. Well, this is only a partial 11:28 list. And you know when I first looked at that I said Wow how 11:32 can we study all of that to figure out which one it is. 11:34 But then I started asking people around and two clear-cut camps 11:40 came into view. Camp number one: I asked, What do you 11:45 think of this big, 11:47 long list? The answer was, Oh don't worry about that big, long 11:50 list. It could be big, it could be small, but there's only one 11:54 of them that is correct, the one that I believe. It's called 11:57 exclusivism. Mine is exclusively correct. Camp number one. Camp 12:03 number two was: Yeah, I know that big long list is there, but 12:07 not to worry at all because all of them are actually the same 12:11 paths or different paths, the same goal. 12:14 They're really the same. 12:17 They have similar features, similar doctrines and similar 12:23 principles. They will get you to the same place. Not to worry. 12:26 Leave them there. But really those are two very different 12:30 camps. So I had to look and find out and I'm asking you to come 12:34 along with me. Let's look and find out. Which one really makes 12:38 the better sense. I had to look at pluralism first because if 12:41 that is true well I don't need to search. I'll sit where I'm 12:46 fine and you'll sit where you are and you're fine. So I looked 12:49 at pluralism. What does it say? All religions lead to God. They 12:55 are different paths but end up at the same destination. Here's 12:59 a statement by W.E. Hock: "God is in the world - but Buddha, 13:04 Jesus, Muhammad are in their little closets, and we should 13:08 thank them but never return to them." How about a Zen saying? 13:14 Zen is a mystic form of Buddhism Here it is: "To understand God 13:19 is to listen. Listen to Jesus and Muhammad and Buddha, but 13:24 don't get caught up in the names..." Listen beyond them... 13:28 "Listen to God's breath." And so "- pluralism - recognizes not 13:32 only the existence of other religions, but their intrinsic 13:36 equal value." That is what Timothy George said. So the 13:42 claim is that they are not only valid and true but equally so. 13:47 They are intrinsically equal. Really? Is it true that the 13:55 peaceful religions like Buddhism and Zenism are of equal value 14:00 to the Voodooism and those religions that require child 14:07 sacrifice, murder? I wonder. So what I did was ask. Where did 14:13 they get this idea from, this idea of pluralism? They should 14:17 have got it from the religions themselves. So I went there to 14:23 ask what was really in these religious writings. And I looked 14:27 at five great world religions: Hinduism, Islam, Buddhism, 14:30 Judaism and Christianity. And when I read the writings this is 14:34 what I found. Here Written codes In Hinduism: I, in this case it 14:41 is Krishna the one whose picture is there, "I am the goal, the 14:45 upholder, the master, the witness, the home, the shelter 14:48 and the most dear friend. I am the creation and the 14:51 annihilation, the basis of everything, the resting place 14:55 and eternal seed." And another statement from the Introduction 14:59 to the Bhagavad-Gita: "Let there be one scripture...for the 15:02 whole world - Bhagavad-Gita; Let there be one God for the 15:05 whole world - Sri Krishna; and one hymn, one mantra, one prayer 15:09 the chanting of his name." How about Islam? In the Quran 15:15 chapter two and verse 255 Ayah 255, it's supposed to be 15:19 the Eagle of the Coronation verse: "Allah! There is no God 15:22 but He...The Living, The Self-subsisting, Supporter of 15:26 all... His are all things in heaven and on earth... His 15:29 throne doth extend over the earth... He is the Most High, 15:32 The Supreme." Then when we come to Buddhism, here's a statement: 15:39 "This Lord..." meaning the ultimate Buddha... "is truly 15:41 the Arhat..." Arhat is a person who has reached the ultimate 15:45 level of attainment... "fully enlightened, perfect in his 15:49 knowledge and conduct, well-gone world-knower, unsurpassed, 15:53 leader of men to be tamed, teacher of gods and men, the 15:57 Buddha, the Lord." Judaism: "For thus saith the Lord, who 16:02 created the heavens, who is God, who formed the earth... 'I am 16:05 the Lord and there is no other'. Did you notice that none of them 16:10 want to give the other any quarter. How about Christianity 16:13 "...There is no other name under heaven, given among men by which 16:18 we must be saved." So I did not find a single religion that gave 16:22 the others were an equal alternative. They all claim to 16:26 be themselves the only way. Not only did they do that claim they 16:31 also pointed the faults of the other religions. Example: "The 16:34 Buddha held that this belief in a permanent self or soul is one 16:38 of the most deceitful delusions ever held by man." He is 16:41 describing the Hindu doctrine of the incarnation. In Judaism, 16:46 the words are: "...understand that I am He. Before me there 16:50 was no God formed, nor shall there be after me." One sentence 16:54 and he has knocked off all the other competitors. How about 16:58 Christianity? "All who ever came before Me are thieves and 17:01 robbers..." Knocked them off. Islam: "Those to whom the burden 17:06 of Torah was entrusted and yet refused to bear it are like a 17:09 donkey laden with books. Wretched is the example of those 17:12 who deny God's revelations." That was from the Quran. Who is 17:16 it talking about? Jews and Christians. They say they are 17:21 the only way and point to all the others and say they are not 17:25 the way. So if the words are donkey and wretched, thieves, 17:30 robbers, deceitful and no God. Each of them saying it. How can 17:35 pluralism really claim that all the religions are actually true, 17:40 equally true, equally good, equally valid. The fact is that 17:45 the religion codes clearly claim exclusivity. They claim to be 17:50 the only way. Each religion claims that. Here's a statement 17:55 that I have. Ravi Zacharias - At the heart of every religion 17:59 is an uncompromising commitment to a particular way of defining 18:04 who God is or is not... Every religion at its core is 18:09 exclusive." So pluralism does not appear to be an 18:14 established idea in the writings of its founder. However, every 18:17 religion claims to be the only way. So now we have multiple 18:22 claims claiming to be the only way. How shall we logically look 18:27 at that? What happens when there are multiple claims to be the 18:30 only way. Well, there is more than one way of looking at it. 18:34 Number one: All are correct. That's absurd. If one says he's 18:40 the only way, the other says he also is the only way, both of 18:43 them cannot be correct. Or they could be all wrong. Yeah, that's 18:48 not absurd. But how do you call anything wrong? Only when you 18:53 have that which is right in your hand. And you and I are just 18:57 inquirers. We do not have what is right in our hand to call it 19:01 wrong. In other words, we cannot go up to any of the founders and 19:03 say they are wrong. Otherwise we'd have to go to Mohammad and 19:06 say, Mohammad I know what you said. I think you're wrong. Or 19:10 go up to Jesus and say very good sermon on the mount sir but I 19:14 think Mm-mmm that's not really good. It is not a good sermon at 19:19 all. How can you say that? You have no authority, no knowledge, 19:23 no position so I could not call all of them wrong. If that's the 19:27 case I cannot call all of them right. Absurd. I cannot call all 19:33 of them wrong. I have no authority. I have no way of 19:38 saying that any of them are wrong. Then there's only one 19:41 option left, an amazing option. Only one is legitimate and 19:47 correct in its claim to be the only way. In other words, a 19:51 crucial, amazing pivotal conclusion: There is one and 19:55 only one religion that can make a legitimate claim of being the 19:58 "only way." In other words, there is there is one and only 20:02 one way! Wow! Did you think of that? Think again. Think of how 20:10 we came to it. We looked at all the writings. We saw the 20:14 writings, what the writings said. And if we use logic, when 20:18 each religion claims to be the only way then logically you and 20:24 I have to agree that out of all of them there is only one that 20:28 is correct and legitimate when it makes that claim of being the 20:33 only way. Amazing. So now if that's the case what is the 20:39 significance when it comes to the point of being the only way? 20:46 Well a conclusion reached by a 20:50 "neutral" person. Destroys the concept of pluralism. And also 20:56 the fundamental claim, in other words, such basic claim that if 21:01 it is not the only way well it's a very suspect way then. And 21:05 furthermore it's a powerful motivating claim. You see these 21:10 founders and religions claimed that this world is not 21:13 really good. 21:15 That other world is better and in fact it's really bad here. 21:18 So we need to get there. And they said this is the only way 21:23 to get there, each of them said that. Powerful motivating claim 21:26 and we said it's the only way. It also dictates the type of 21:30 search we will now do because tell me if there's only one 21:36 religion to be champion how far ahead should that champion be 21:40 to be called a champion. How far is the Olympic gold medalist in 21:45 a hundred meters sprint, how far ahead? Point zero one second and 21:51 he is the gold medalist. He is the champion, he is the only one 21:54 who can be called the fastest man in the world. None of the 21:57 others. But all the others also ran so well. They ran almost 22:02 like him. He has to be up ahead. So the amount that a person is 22:07 ahead is not the matter. Secondly how is it that we check 22:14 this out? Just being ahead? That's not really going to do it 22:18 There's another way that we could check this out. And that 22:23 is can we compare apples and oranges? How far ahead of that 22:30 should they be? Very little bit. How else can we identify that 22:34 anywhere? Here's where. Think about this now. Suppose I'm 22:41 looking for the correct colored marble and in my hand I have 22:46 four purple, three blue, two green, one red. Which is the 22:52 correct color if I said that only one is correctly colored? 22:55 The red. Because there's only one of the red. So really to 23:00 identify that only way it does not have to be superior. There's 23:04 no question of superiority or inferiority. There is only the 23:08 question of whether it is different from the others. 23:13 Now the next question. So did you get that? So let's discuss 23:16 it out. Let's say that only one is doing it right. So suppose we 23:22 are watching a race and everybody's running in the race 23:30 except one competitor and he is walking. Which is the correct 23:34 way to compete? Walking because we have already said that there 23:39 would be only one doing it right How about another way? If 23:43 everybody is going forward, only one is going backward which is 23:47 the correct way to go? Backward. Because we had already stated 23:51 that only one would be doing it right. So in other words, 23:54 it doesn't have to be superior or inferior or extremely 23:58 impressive it just has to be very, very different, unique. 24:03 Once it's by itself that's the one. So that's the way to choose 24:09 But now we come to the tough one How do you compare apples and 24:14 oranges? Can you compare? No you can't. But can you choose? There 24:20 might be a way of choosing it even though you cannot compare. 24:24 Here's what I mean. Suppose I like oranges and if you placed 24:30 an apple and an orange on the table, I'd go for the orange. 24:34 But this day, today, I'm hungry and I want to eat. And on the 24:41 table is an apple and an orange. The apple is sweet and juicy, 24:45 red and fresh. What if the orange is rotten and has worms 24:51 in it? Now which one would I choose? I would choose the 24:56 apple although normally, in normal circumstances, I would 25:00 have chosen the orange. But I like oranges. So did I choose 25:05 between an apple and an orange? Yes and no. Yes I chose between 25:14 an apple and an orange but if it was only an apple and an orange 25:18 I would have chosen the orange. So there has to be some other 25:22 factor too. And with that factor I say no, I did not really 25:25 choose between an apple and an orange. I chose between 25:30 freshness and rottenness. Similarly then we look at the 25:36 doctrines and philosophies of these different religions. We 25:39 cannot compare the doctrines and the philosophies. We have to 25:43 look at another factor that we can put onto them and in my case 25:49 it was rottenness and freshness and we put it onto the question 25:52 and made a choice that was so good that nobody would disagree. 25:55 I chose the apple. Similarly here we need to place something 25:59 else onto the religious doctrines. And here's what it 26:03 is. Every message that came to the human race as a religion 26:08 came in the form of a story. History, story. The tenants of 26:14 the beliefs and the doctrines are based on the story. So what 26:18 do I do? I turned my face from the doctrines to the story and I 26:24 started looking at the story because the story is from where 26:27 the doctrines came. So that is what would be the next quest. 26:34 What about the stories of these religions. I was going to look 26:40 at them and check that path. I called it. I called it the 26:43 areligious factor, not the religious factor. And I looked 26:48 at those factors and I chose 10 questions and those 10 would 26:53 form the way in which I would now put it onto the doctrines 26:57 of the different religions and find out if I could now make a 27:01 reasonable choice. Although I cannot compare apples and 27:06 oranges, I cannot compare the actual doctrines and the 27:10 philosophies and the tenants of these. But I could do this and 27:15 that is what we will now do in our next session on words. We 27:21 will look at the paralogous factors and then make a decision 27:24 Join us for the next session. 27:27 If you have enjoyed this presentation with Dr. Subodh 27:32 Pandit and with to watch more of this unique 13 part series for 27:36 free online visit the website GodFactOrFiction.com. That's 27:42 GodFactOrFiction.com. If you would like to order this 27:46 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 28:01 Come Search With Me: Does God Really Exist? and Come Search 28:05 With Me: The Weight of Evidence, which further explore the topics 28:09 of evolution, theism, atheism and religion. 28:13 ♪ ♪ |
Revised 2021-08-23