Comments on: Nature as a Secondary Force to God http://theyoungindia.com/2009/12/03/nature-as-a-secondary-force-to-god/ Sat, 04 Feb 2012 15:30:39 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 By: baskar http://theyoungindia.com/2009/12/03/nature-as-a-secondary-force-to-god/comment-page-1/#comment-3971 baskar Fri, 04 Dec 2009 13:08:20 +0000 http://theyoungindia.com/2009/12/03/nature-as-a-secondary-force-to-god/#comment-3971 A provocative post, but asks too many questions- makes the post a bit diffused and out of focus. I have two issues with this: 1. Does man belong to nature, or is he out of it? If he does belong to nature, then it obviously means that all his activities are that of nature taking its course. In the same way like hypothetical goats in a hypothetical small island eating all the grass and making it barren, man prodigiously exploits nature and pays the penalty- or nature redresses the balance by wiping out man and regrowing its trees. I can't see in what way can we say that man stands outside nature. It seems, man is a force of nature, in the same way as cancer is not something alien to the body, but a part of it: only an abnormal generation of a particular cell to the detriment of others. So, I think whatever we people do, it is part of nature's scheme- if it has any. Or we are simply asking for trouble, setting ourselves apart and trying to keep things easy and cosy for people: but not plants and other animals etc. 2. About man-god. I don't think any of us who are environmentally concerned see god's hand in global warming. And, the animists among the tribals, the ones who worship god through trees and snakes, they might get the cause wrong, but they take care of the effect. May be they are wrong to worship the snake as god, but in restraining from eating snake soup or things like that out of fear of god, may be they are keeping the food chain healthy!. It is people like us who live in cities and don't feel inclined to worship cars and traffic signals- we are the ones that don't need god to rationalise nature disasters and accidental deaths. We know we are responsible, but we also know that we as individuals can't do anything about it. May be if, we like the animists, paid our respects to the red light in the junction, and have a taboo against jumping the signal or crossing the lanes, and make a fetish out of signalling our intentions, may be it would work better for our city-life. And as for environment, may be we need a god for whom the handler of the polythene bag is a sinner, and the man who pollutes, may be that god should condemn him to an eternity in a sewer-hole in the hell. Do we need more god, or less? (Sorry, a rambling comment- but your post inspired these thoughts, sorry again). Regards, baskar A provocative post, but asks too many questions- makes the post a bit diffused and out of focus.

I have two issues with this:

1. Does man belong to nature, or is he out of it? If he does belong to nature, then it obviously means that all his activities are that of nature taking its course. In the same way like hypothetical goats in a hypothetical small island eating all the grass and making it barren, man prodigiously exploits nature and pays the penalty- or nature redresses the balance by wiping out man and regrowing its trees.

I can’t see in what way can we say that man stands outside nature. It seems, man is a force of nature, in the same way as cancer is not something alien to the body, but a part of it: only an abnormal generation of a particular cell to the detriment of others.

So, I think whatever we people do, it is part of nature’s scheme- if it has any. Or we are simply asking for trouble, setting ourselves apart and trying to keep things easy and cosy for people: but not plants and other animals etc.

2. About man-god. I don’t think any of us who are environmentally concerned see god’s hand in global warming. And, the animists among the tribals, the ones who worship god through trees and snakes, they might get the cause wrong, but they take care of the effect. May be they are wrong to worship the snake as god, but in restraining from eating snake soup or things like that out of fear of god, may be they are keeping the food chain healthy!.

It is people like us who live in cities and don’t feel inclined to worship cars and traffic signals- we are the ones that don’t need god to rationalise nature disasters and accidental deaths. We know we are responsible, but we also know that we as individuals can’t do anything about it.

May be if, we like the animists, paid our respects to the red light in the junction, and have a taboo against jumping the signal or crossing the lanes, and make a fetish out of signalling our intentions, may be it would work better for our city-life.

And as for environment, may be we need a god for whom the handler of the polythene bag is a sinner, and the man who pollutes, may be that god should condemn him to an eternity in a sewer-hole in the hell.

Do we need more god, or less?

(Sorry, a rambling comment- but your post inspired these thoughts, sorry again).

Regards,

baskar

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

]]>