aBlog

Dear Ms XXX

Often when putting Panini to bed, we engage in a fun and silly game in
which we throw silly and ridiculous questions at each other and answer
them with similarly silly responses. Midway during this game last
night, after we had done due justice to his currently favorite themes
regarding the smallest spiders, greatest galaxies, biggest bombs and
the wealthiest people, Panini asked me ``Which is bigger, a billion or
a killion?'' I am ashamed to admit I was only half-attentive during
this ritual yesterday, being preoccupied with other things, and so I
said ``I don't know. 'Cos there is no such thing as a killion''.

Hi H

Thanks for the loan of Calculating God. The book made for some
interesting reading and the plot was intriguing enough to keep
reading. I thought I should write down my feedback if only because it
will help me to clarify my own stand on some of the issues. I figured
you may be interested in a lengthy response since you said you were
intrigued by the characterisation of good/evil in different religions
(a la Rushdie) and their nuances.

First, I usually say that I am a scientist and an atheist, but
that's only because "theism" as interpreted in the USA and many other
countries is very narrow in scope and often refers to belief in some
kind of personal entity that governs humankind and our actions.
Unfortunately, I find that "atheism" also seems to have similar narrow
connotations, instead of meaning, as I had hoped, "non-belief in a
personal savior."

Hi H

I was troubled by your question. "What would an "amoralist"
(Hindu/Buddhist) response be to the question: Should you press the red
button that instantly vaporizes the Earth?" I realized
that the reason I was troubled was that it was an unfair question. I
think it is unfair is because it silently shifted the onus of
answering this important question from the "personal god camp" into
the "impersonal god" camp. The analogous situation would be if
Einstein was asked by creationists "What happened before the Big
Bang?" He does not have an emotionally satisfying answer, but recognizes
the absence of it, in contrast to the creationist response that postulates
an entity (itself questionable), in answer.

So the Buddhist response to the Red-button question would be "This
question is irrelevant philosophically", or "I don't have an answer, and
I bet you don't either" or more typically Buddhist "I don't know and if
you think you have a truly coherent answer I'd be very interested to
benefit from it" :-)

I am reminded of the joke wherein a bunch of creationists deride
philosophers saying "You philosophers are like a bunch of blind people
in a dark room, looking for a black cat that isn't there". The
philosophers respond "That may be true, but you creationists would have
found it."

&