From: hyder@cs.utexas.edu (Syed Irfan Hyder)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.pakistan
Subject: Re: Common sense (was Arindam Ghosh)
Date: 17 Aug 1992 10:52:05 -0500
Organization: U Texas Dept of Computer Sciences, Austin TX
NNTP-Posting-Host: pageboy.cs.utexas.edu

In article <1992Aug14.003216.3739@sol.cs.wmich.edu> sherwani@sol.cs.wmich.edu (Naveed Sherwani) writes:
>
>Your common sense may be differnt than mine, that would make
>it very difficult to discuss anything.
>First, we showed logically, now we are being asked to defend logic.

Precisely. It is for this reason said that "common  sense"
is that which is not so "common".



>
>> If I remember correctly, it was asserted that "logically" speaking
>> having one invisible "deity" is equivalent to multiple deities
>> in the form of "idols". I was endevoring to point out that
>> at time "logic" can be ridiculous. For instance when to a logician
>> a "false" value becomes equal to "true" value in "negative logic"
>> _ a concept fine in the world of logic. But utterly futile in the
>> real common sensical world where one asserts that a lamp "on" is
>> equivalent in some sense to the lamp "off".
>> 
>So how does that effect this discussion or my proof of equivalence
>of gods ?
> 

Because, it was asserted that "logically" worshipping one God is
equivalent to worshipping scores of them.



>> Or for instance, when the father gets away with the only "real"
>> egg and the son is left with the "hypothetical" one to satiate
>> his hunger.
>> 
>
>How is this related to anything ? 

Taken to extreme, logic will compel you to analyze the "hypothetical"
situations where the essence of all religions can be traced back
to a "singular" conception of God. Whereas this conception has been
arrived at hypothetically, the reality on the ground will be different.
While hypothetically the concept is being argued, some "simple" minded
people would be hoodwinked by the exploitations that go around the
false gods __ like the tombs and the other celebrations of idols.


>> 
>> >Well logically speaking, the prophet of one religion is really a
>> >crook from another religion's point of view. I can understand
>> >Christian's point of view of calling a person a crook, if that
>> >person claims that their religion is not valid and they BETTER
>> >accept the new religion.
>> 
>> Here we are again back to square one. That is back to the old
>> conflict, that just because an American has not tasted a 
>> good mango, does not mean that all mangoes are same and
>> good, delicious and wonderful mangoes do not exist!
>> 
> 
>I dont see the relation between mangoes and my assertion about
>status of prophet.
>
>Please discuss if you may the following assertion:
>
>    PROPHET OF RELIGION IS A CROOK FOR ANOTHER RELIGION
>

X in Pakistan/India says:
 I enjoy "mangoes". I have eaten some very delicious varieties. 
 The ones available here in USA are worthless.

Y in USA says:
  I abhor "mangoes". I once tasted a mango in Karachi. It was
  sour and was not at all delicious.

Z replies to Y:
  You should have come to Multan. I would have shown you over
  400 varieties. Some are so delicious that you will be licking
  your fingers

>
>Once you have agreed to that step, then I will proceed with 
>my next step:
>
>   FOR EACH PROPHET THERE EXIST A PERSON THAT CALLS THAT 
>   PROPHET A CROOK.
>

For each X and Z there exists a Y who still does not like "mangoes". 
[I agree to this point]

There may even be a W who lives in Pakistan and has eaten the delicious
varieties but doesn't like them (may be because of some Freudian problems
in his/her childhood).

>Next step:
>
>  THE CLAIMS OF TRUTH OF A PROPHET ONLY APPLY TO THE PEOPLE
>  WHO BELIEVE IN THAT PROPHET AND CANNOT BE APPLIED TO ALL.

Does the existence of people like Y and W mean that "delicious
mangoes" do not exist? If we ignore the small minority of
people like W,  the overwhelming majority (without Feudian problems),
which is allowed to taste the delicious real mangoes, will 
undoubtedly concur  with X and Z that "delicious mangoes" do exist.


>Next step:
>
>  THERE IS NO UNIVERSALLY TRUE PROPHET
>

Irrespective of the minority of people who will continue to abhor
the deliciousness of mangoes, the overwhelming majority of the
people in this planet can be convinced about their deliciousness.

It may be difficult but not at all impossible. It may require 
acquiring of lands, plantation of the good varieties of mangoes, their
careful rearing, concerted planning, till such time that all over 
the world people
agree as to their deliciousness.

Now exchange the "deliciousness of mangoes" with justice, harmony and
ecstasy of the "Truth" __ the reality; some thing which is infinitely more 
desirable and infintiely more compelling.

>by universal we mean agreed upon by all.

May be 100% of the world can not be convinced. But at least
90-95% of the world can easily be convinced. Given the
right marketing strategy and  allowance for that. Rest of
the 10-5% minority could be explained away psychologically.


>
>So far this has been very simple, now we have a problem of
>living with people with no universally accepted prophet.
>Everybody is trying to expound the virtues of their prophet.
>

These 5-10% of minority could live happily contented with
other fruits. However, just to appease these 5-10% of people
we can not afford to let the rest of 90% live in misery without
the eternal sublime message of truth.

>What should we do, continue with the age old fight of whose
>prophet is better and who god has more power ?
>
>or take a fresh approach:
>
> IN ABSENCE OF UNIVERSALLY TRUE PROPHETS, WE WILL AFFORD THE
>  STATUS OF TRUTH TO ALL PROPHETS AND TIME WILL TELL WHO IS TRUE.
>
>and go one with living our lives.

Just because a figure of 100% can not be approached
practically (note that it may be possible to get it hypothetically:)
is no reason for me to exclusively enjoy the benefits of knowing
the truth, and let the other persons on the whims of the Serbs, Bushes
security council and their stooges like Saddam, Nasser, Zia, Bhuttos,
Marcos, Shahs and Sheiks. It will be utter selfishness if not a
blatant aid to these perpetrators of violence and destruction.



Newsgroups: soc.culture.pakistan