This is a book by Scott Adams. It is a very different book. The central theme of the book being a novel theory about God and other material and non-material things that exist or dont exist(which ever that is that you believe). The theme was very compelling to read so I picked it up. It is really really good. It has the easy flow of conversation, easy language yet manages to confuse you and then enlightens you. If you are open to interpretations then this is a must read.
U can get the e-book at this link God's Debris
11 comments:
Hmmmm.....looks like I might actually restart my blog with a review on this book.(Or may be not!!!)Anyway, if you are into putting up fun stuff in your blog, check out this site http://www.blogthings.com/
Or may be you already know about it(I am usually the last person to know ;-) )Blog on .........
Cheers
From the stables of the Dilbert's creator,a lesser known book, long time been on my to-do list, never gets around to my current reading list.. :-)
hi, just finished reading half the book.
and just felt like writing this:
Well, I define GOD as my answer to facts that are unexplicable, to some chain of events to which I cannot relate any particular reason/person/groups of person etc, to some greater power, to whom I bow helplessly. For me GODs action, is the unexpected/unexplained chain of events that changes my life, that gives my mind clarity when I desperately seek it, that unexplainable feeling which boosts my confidence just before my exams when I silently say "GOD, just please only the stuuf I know should come in the exam".
The following example that I am going to use, is often told ( I guess, I dont quite recall who told me all this). GOD is the humanification of the unseen/unexplained forces of nature. This is what the PAGAN relegions were all about. Earliest man was afraid of fire, rain etc, he did not know how to use it, how to tame it, it always did him harm, and so to he personified FIRE as a GOD!
Further,I believe that GOD and relegion are not mutually inclusive. Each man , I believe should have his own GOD, his own definition of GOD, and his own set of private rules to be laid for his relationship with GOD, while religion on the other hand, is something which is COLLECTIVE.
The concepts of relegion, is a way to collectively rule people. Come to think of it, our relegion is just a set of rules which lays out how we should live in harmony with our fellow humans. It is like the CONSTITUTION of ancient kingdoms. Just like, two countries who do not agree with eachother on various issues, end up being in war, the different relegions of the world are in WAR.
Earlier politicians connected relegion to GOD, because if by doing so, they were able to make the common man believe that, they are living by a moral code of GOD, because of the fact that GOD was a personification of forces of which man was frightened. In the same light, festivals were 'invented' so that the king could give joy to his subjects, and concepts like sin/paap, punya etc were created, to give a "MORAL' man, his "CIVIL" codes.
I also believe, how this theory gels with some history, mainly that of the CHURCH repressing science, the stories of copernicus and galileo and all or that of ISLAM and its codes for women or caste system followed by the hindus etc etc.
afterall, if GOD were omni-present/potent etc etc, why should there be so mant definitions for that one thing which is all dominant and why are people fighting over which GOD is the real GOD.
Kaushik, you get me talking. And Vidya, you are really (thought) provocative :D !
Well, let me say it simply :)
God is someone to whom I constantly talk to. Just like I leave a comment on a blog, I touch a flower and say, "Good !, God :)"
I fail to understand his relativistic quantum dynamics model of universe and I say, "OK, you try and understand me :P"
I fall sometimes and then I say to him, "OK You win !, God :)"
At times I make him laugh. At times I make him frown. We all have a God for ourselves. Its stupid to say, he is unreachable etc etc.
OK I will stop now. I got your point. You want me to read it. I will :D !
@Neema - you must restart your blog with a Book review.. no better way to do it than a review of this book
@Arvind - I would definitely recommend this book .. it will only take u max of one night :)
@Kaushik - cool so ur reading it..
Well here are some of my thoughts on your thoughts
Religion is a way of life and God is just a humanoid figure of convenience for us to conceive and set targets and have an ideal...It is difficult to thing of something supreme that does not have a form.. and no better way than to create a human like supreme being ( the most ideal)
Your question - 'why should there be so many definitions for that one thing which is all dominant ....'
The book gives you a plausible answer..“Imagine that a group of curious bees lands on the outside of a church window. Each bee gazes upon the interior through a different stained glass pane. To one bee, the church’s interior is all red. To another it is all yellow, and so on. The bees cannot experience the inside of the church directly; they can only see it. They can never touch the interior or smell it or interact with it in any way. If bees could talk they might argue over the color of the interior. Each bee would stick to his version, not capable of understanding that the other bees were looking through different pieces ofstained glass. Nor would they understand the purpose of the church or how it got there or anything about it. The brain of a bee is not capable of such things.'
This is one particular paragraph that i liked. I had thought about the same point in a different way of course.. I thought God is like a Radio broadcast and each person/ religion tuning into a different frequency... So obviously they hear slightly different stuff.. It finally is a radio wave after all.. U look at it differently.. But my premise is that God exists.. An atheist will not agree with me..
@Mr.Seagull - I think you are refering to your consciounce as GOd.. That is your definition which is right.. But I suggest u read the book and let me know your comments on how SA has tried to explain the abstract to us
Hey..thanks for the review. I'll make sure I pick up this one when I spot it.
vidya, i dont want to agree that GOD does not exist. I also completely agree with your bee's/radio example. Each person has a different perception of GOD.
What I am arguing is that, since we have agreed that each person has a different perception, the need for a relegion to define how to follow GOD, to define what is sin, pleasure, what is acceptable/not acceptable should not arise. For each person, his relegion is the way in which he relates to his defintion of GOD.
Hey valid point u got there about religion being personal... But u know what .. when u look at why religion came into being.. this thought looses its relavence.. Religion came into existence because people had to be bound together by some invisible thread. Otherwise we will be like the wild animals uncontrollable and at each other's throat.. So religion emerged as a controlling body much like our government.. Well this defined morals for each individual.But religion is good as long as it does not become very very rigid like it has become now.. Anyways. FYI- hinduism does not force anybody to follow its rituals.. it only guides you.. its upto u to follow it or reject it
will catch hold of the book for sure though........and like the RDB virus let this review unleash the blog world ..
cya ....
Ash
Thanks for the ebook link, you managed to get me to do two things - read a book after a really long time, and update my blog - again after a really long time!! Thanks :-) ... you can read my take on the book here
Nice blog you got here..
your comments on my blog were fair enough.. i ve just started blogging so there are biund to be certain. don't read too much between the lines.. anyway would like to read the book u've posted about..
Post a Comment