Talk:Shirdi Sai Baba

Either delete or completely rewrite

One way in which we are the same as Wikipedia is that we don't let you say that the "most logical explanation" is that your holy man could perform miracles either. This is not a place to come peddling your mumbo-jumbo after it gets deleted from Wikipedia. With that in mind, this page either needs t be deleted or completely rewritten. Spud (talk) 15:16, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

I do not understand ur complaint. Did u bother to read the Wikipedia article on Shirdi Sai Baba? Andries (talk) 15:46, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

This article is far more skeptical than the one on Wikipedia. I have to admit that this not a great achievement. Andries (talk) 15:50, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

This can only stay if he has more than a few followers today, we don't really go in for articles on historical saints, gurus and mystics. As it stands right now, it looks like a puff piece. Sophie^Wilder 16:00, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

He has millions of followers. I think it is important to describe beliefs and practices objectively, but it is not a puff piece, taking into account the description of violence and abuse. Andries (talk) 16:03, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

It does nothing for the RW mission statements as it is. So - as has been said by others - it should either be re-written from a skeptical point of view or removed.--Bob^{"I think you'll find it's more complicated than that."} 16:14, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

I've sort of made it somewhat more cynical - but it needs references and things to make a real article. If anybody is up for that I'd say keep it. Indian rationalism is a big thing which needs support.--Bob^{"I think you'll find it's more complicated than that."} 16:26, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

I can find references for what I wrote, but cults can not be explained by cynicism alone: they are more complicated and more "normal" than that. By the way, Shirdi Sai Baba is more of a religious cult, not a social cult, like devotion to Mary is a cult of Mary. Andries (talk) 16:31, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

The main organization in the Shirdi Sai Baba movement, the Shirdi Sai Sansthan, has a ridiculous amount of money, taking into account that the country still has many poor and extremely poor people. Andries (talk) 16:36, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

I'm confused. Are you saying that devotion to Mary is a good thing?

And I don't understand your statement: "but cults can not be explained by cynicism alone: they are more complicated and more "normal" than that. - could you expand on this idea?--Bob^{"I think you'll find it's more complicated than that."} 16:42, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

The cult of Mary refers to devotion of Mary which is https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cult_%28religious_practice%29

What I meant to say is that devotion to Shirdi Sai, which is very widespread, is a more a religious practice in Hinduism and Islam

A social cult is a different concept. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cult

Andries (talk) 17:36, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

Still not sure that I'm with you. Are you saying that one is bad and the other is good (if there is, in fact, a difference) or that they are equally bad?--Bob^{"I think you'll find it's more complicated than that."} 17:49, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

They are different concepts. Andries (talk) 18:03, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

Regarding what I wrote "but cults can not be explained by cynicism alone: they are more complicated and more "normal" than that."

What I mean to say is that they are mini-societies and hence quite complex and normal in the sense that they resemble in many ways the wider society. But it is difficult to generalize about new religious movements and there are, as always, exceptions. Andries (talk) 18:15, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

I'm still not sure I understand what you are saying about "cults" and whether they are good things or bad things. In general "cult", when applied to religions means that they are isolationist, controlling, and often, extreme. Do you agree?--Bob^{"I think you'll find it's more complicated than that."} 18:27, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

I do not think that the Shirdi Sai Baba movement fits that definition of a cult, but there may be groups within the movement that fit that definition. I do not know these groups, but the movement is large. Andries (talk) 18:55, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

I do not want to discuss cults in general and their definitions here. Andries (talk) 18:58, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

You were the one who introduced "cults on this talk page when you wrote: "I can find references for what I wrote, but cults can not be explained by cynicism alone. By the way, Shirdi Sai Baba is more of a religious cult, not a social cult, like devotion to Mary is a cult of Mary". Why do you now wish to stop talking about the subject which you introduced? --Bob^{"I think you'll find it's more complicated than that."} 19:03, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

That was because the word cult was used in the article. I will remove it. Andries (talk) 19:18, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

Delete template

I have removed the "delete" template as I think the (quite valid) reasons expressed on the template have been addressed. No doubt the template will be re-added if others disagree.

The article still lacks references of any type.--Bob^{"I think you'll find it's more complicated than that."} 16:55, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

It's also both not very informative and leaves more questions than answers. I want to be a Muslim/Hindu mystic real bad. 16:58, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

Indeed. It really needs somebody from the Indian skeptical movement to take an interest. In point of fact I understand that the skeptical movement in India is very active and under extreme pressure. I would be a good idea if we were to could reach out to them in some way. As English is one of the languages of India it is entirely possible that we could obtain some editors from the sub-continent.--Bob^{"I think you'll find it's more complicated than that."} 17:07, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

Not so much is known about the person of Shirdi Sai Baba, but it is possible to write a lot about the movement. Andries (talk) 17:30, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

Then perhaps we should ask the Indian Rationalist Association to comment upon it.--Bob^{"I think you'll find it's more complicated than that."} 17:38, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

The word cult

I think the word cult has no added value and does not explain things. I have gone thru these discussions a dozen of times in Wikipedia. Andries (talk) 20:12, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

This isn't Wikipedia. The word cult popularly means an isolated religious group with an over-controlling leader. Sophie^Wilder 20:28, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

Indeed.--Bob^{"I think you'll find it's more complicated than that."} 20:34, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

And how do u know that Shirdi Sai Baba was a cult leader using that definition? (This is just one definitions out of dozens that I have heard.) I do not know. So let us leave it out. Andries (talk) 20:38, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

The question breaks down using your definition of a cult.

1. Was the group of Shirdi Sai Baba devotees isolated?

2. Was Shirdi Sai Baba overly controlling?

ad 1. No, I do not think the group of devotees was isolated from the other villagers. Can I be sure? It would help if I re-checked the literature available, but from what I remember having read years ago, I do not think the group was isolated. The problem with the literature is that it is so heavily devotional, even some of the academic literature, and it is hard to find the bare facts within the devotional interpretations by devotees. And I think this is and will be the added value of this article: that it presents the bare facts while clearly separating interpretations by devotees.

ad 2. No, I do not think so. For example, I do not remember Shird Sai Baba saying things like you will reach God thru me or something like that.

I do not think it is my responsibility to prove that it was not a cult. It is the responsibility of user:Sophie Wilder to find references and to prove that it was a cult, because she introduced the word cult into the article. Andries (talk) 06:16, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

How do u know miracles do not exist?

How do you know miracles do not exist if you do not look at the evidence? Andries (talk) 14:44, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

The same way I know that there are no fairies at the bottom of my garden. Placeholder (talk) 15:01, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

The issue at stake is that there are millions of people who claim they have experienced miracles. I am not saying that all these claims should be investigated individually, but there should be a way to determine which ones if any deserve investigation. It is too easy to say, I do not believe in miracles so I do not have to investigate any claim ever. What if a named Shirdi Sai Baba devotee says with doctor records with witnesses and video etc that a lost limb grew very quickly after praying to him? There is should be a limit to belief when confronted with evidence of being wrong. Andries (talk) 15:09, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

Mental experiments are not evidence for claims about reality. Show us the video. Or limit the evidence for your argument to things that actually exist. PowderSmokeAndLeather: Say something once, why say it again?. 15:17, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

What I am trying to say that there you people should have at least some openness for evidence of being wrong. If not, then what is the difference between you people and Shird Sai Baba devotees who have a self-reinforcing belief system? Andries (talk) 15:31, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

What I am trying to say is that there may be events that are evidence of miracles. I personally do not believe it but I have not looked into the Sai Baba's latest miracles into detail. But if you refuse to look at evidence because you "know" you are right then I think you are on a wrong track. Andries (talk) 15:41, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Anecdotes are no more than Texas Sharpshooter and Selective Reporting. Placeholder (talk) 15:49, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

"But if you refuse to look at evidence because you "know" you are right then I think you are on a wrong track." I don't refuse to look at the evidence. Show it to me. PowderSmokeAndLeather: Say something once, why say it again?. 15:50, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

Again I am no expert with regards to the miracles by Sai Baba. Andries (talk) 15:56, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

What constitutes an extraordinary claim depends on your belief system. A Shirdi Sai Baba devotee will consider the statement that Shirdi Sai Baba cannot perform miracles an extraordinary claim. But I think people should be open for evidence that their whole belief system may be wrong. Andries (talk) 15:56, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

Consider these two claims:

A. Person X can perform miracles.

B. Person X cannot perform miracles.

Pretty obviously the extraordinary claim is "A". Furthermore it's a positive claim and asking someone to provide evince for "B" is asking them to supply negative evidence which is a very difficult thing. If the lack of negative evidence meant that we were justified in accepting the corresponding positive claim then we would be justified in believing a vast range of weird things - all gods, demons, vampires or whatever. That is why the onus is always on the person making the positive claim to demonstrate it.--Coffee (talk) 09:51, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

Regardless whether you are right or not, if the target public for this website includes (doubting) Shirdi Sai Baba devotees then I think we should accept that they will not follow this line of reasoning, because their belief system is different. What is the target public for this website and this article in particular? Andries (talk) 23:46, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

The target market for the website is fedora-wearing, cheetos-eating, Mountain-Dew-drinking virgi.... open-minded people who want to explore all nature of fringe and irrational belief in the hopes of contributing to a larger discussion that will undo unwarranted belief in such phenomena. There are many people who will not accept the lines of reasoning we put forward here -- devotees of some Yogi, creationists, homeopaths, people who believe in a scientific justification for racism, etc, etc. The onus is on them to, when confronted with good arguments supported by solid evidence, use their rationality to come to us. The onus is not on us to weaken our arguments to reach out to them. PowderSmokeAndLeather (talk) 00:21, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

People can become open-minded if you speak to them in the right way. I think it is important to adapt the arguments, subjects, way of speaking a bit if you want to reach out to people. It helps to explain how you have come to a certain line of thought, such as lack of verifiability of miracles, even if this is trivial for an average sceptical person. There is no need to weaken your arguments. Andries (talk) 18:31, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Asking for evidence does not weaken an argument - it strengthens it.--Bob^{"I think you'll find it's more complicated than that."} 19:01, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

We are. Just bring the evidence. Until then, shut up. PowderSmokeAndLeather: Say something once, why say it again?. 16:02, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

That is not my responsibility, I only want to add a statement to this article how to assess the "evidence" provided by Sai Baba devotees. Andries (talk) 16:05, 20 January 2014 (UTC)