FAQ ON RATIONALISM, SCIENCE, RELIGION, FAITH, ETC.
- By APARTHIB
( see also: Science Vs. Spirituality & Philosophy
and Articles on Religion & Philosophy Issues )
1. SECULARISM VS. RELIGION
Isn't Secularism itself a religion/dogma?
Doesn't Secularism have it's fundamentalists too?
Isn't criticizing religion same as hating or bashing religion?
Is Religion compatible with Democracy?
2. RATIONALISM:, SCIENCE, FAITH :
Isn't Science also a dogma?
What gives science the right to claim superiority?
Doesn't Science claim it's truths as final and absolute?
If scientists are divided on an issue, why dismiss my views on it?
Can Science claim to know the ultimate mystery behind creation?
Why does science arrogantly claim to always know the truth?
Can truth be objective? Isn't all truth subjective?
Can anyone be truly unbiased? isn't no bias an impossibility?
What gives a rationalist the right to call a belief irrational?
Aren't the Laws of nature just constructs of human mind?
3. GOD DEBATE:
Doesn't the fact that universe looks designed points to a designer?
Atheists cannot prove that God does not exist, can they?
Can you define atheism, agnosticism etc clearly?
Is belief in God and religion hardwired in the brain?
Doesn't the mystery of life and death point to God?
4. MISCELLANEOUS REFERENCES:
Excerpts from Weinberg's Facing Up, Pagels' Dreams of a Reason,
Stenger's Physics and Psychics, Unconscious Quantum,
,Alper's God Part of the Brain, Redner's End of Philosophy
Martin Reese on Chandrasekhar, How to Believe - Shermer,
Paradoxes,Dilemmas.., Paranormal
1===Secularism vs. Religion
Q#1-1. Isn't secularism/atheism just like religion, since just like religion
teaches its dogma, they too preach their dogma of secularism/
atheism?
A#1-1: No. There is no dogma to be preached in secularism or atheism .
Atheism or secularism is a philosophy, atheism is a personal
philosophy, secularism is a political philosophy. A philosophy
is distinct from dogma in that there is no authority (Divine or
human) who makes it imperative for all to follow it. It is left
upto the people to believe in or practice that philosophy.
Secularism is a democratic principle, since democracy is a
system based on consensus across all religion, so secularism
is also based on consensus across religion. Whereas religious
dogma calls for its unconditional implementation, as it is
supposed to be from an absolute authority that cannot be
questioned, no consensus is needed or allowed for its
implementation. Athough religious leaders themselves
may decide on the exact modalities of the implementation
of the divine laws through consensus among them, but the
decision to implement divine laws based on scriptures itself
is not decided democratically by public polls, it is taken to
be an absolute religious imperative, and hence not revocable
by public vote. So there is a significant difference.
Religion preaches a dogma. Atheism and secularism only
denies that dogma, doesn't preach any dogma. There is a
cause-effect relationship beteen religious dogma and
atheism/secularism The former is the cause, the latter is
the effect. So by any logic they are not comparable.
Q#1-2: OK, agreed secularism is not a dogma. But isn't it true
that like religious fundamentalism, there is secular
fundamentalism as well, like the religious oppression
by the former communists, or say the secular Government
in Turkey who impose secularism by force and suppress
religious freedom?
A#1-2:
A general definition of fundamentalism is : (Merriam-Webster):
"a movement or attitude stressing strict and literal adherence
to a set of basic principles"
So "Secular fundamentalism" can only mean strictly adhering to
the principles of secularism, with an obviously neutral or positive
connotation, if the principle of secularism itself is accepted as
positive or neutral. So logically one cannot criticize
"secular fundamentalism" if they do not criticize the concept
of secularism. After all Secularism as a principle is opposed to
political aspects of religion, NOT religion. And no religious
scriptures enjoin any follower to implement the political aspects
of that religion to be a true follower. For example the five
pillars of Islam that define a true Muslim are all private
matters. So secularism cannot be in conflict with religion
itself, neither can secular fundamentalism. By the way no
principle ever recommends "non-strict" adherence. Exceptions
are always discretionary and made on a case by case basis.
So why is this expression used at all? This may have more to
do with semantics and characterization. Facts do not change
with the choice of expressions and their characterizations, but
perceptions of facts do. Different characterization of the same
fact reflect different perceptions. Usage of such expressions often
reflect one's political inclination or affiliation. More importantly
the facts also do not change regardless of how many individuals,
of whatever repute and stature (Eastern or Western) use such
terms and expressions in articles. We have to dig through the
semantics and see what one is really trying to convey and why.
In the west of course this expression is used by mostly on the far
right who do not like the secularists' strict advocacy of keeping
religious rites like ritual prayers off the public schools and
premises. But more often, by liberals themselves, specially those
who are "political correctness fundamentalists", it is used to
characterize the rigid enforcement and adherence of secular
principles, not allowing any exceptions as a compromise gesture for
the sake of multiculturalism, showing flexibility as in the US or
Canada where exceptions are granted to accommodate certain religious
rites and practices within limit. But the religious apologists use
the expression "Secular fundamentalism" in a contemptuous way to
characterize the alleged oppression and violation of human rights
of religious followers by former communist states and current
secular states like Turkey, where the case of Merv Kavacki is
invariably cited as a prime example of secular fundamentalism.
My point here is not to defend Turkey, but to critically examine
how is the expression "secular fundamentalism" apt in this issue.
Any defense will be incidental, not the primary goal.
Here no one can debate the fact that Kavacki was denied admission
to parliament for refusing to take off her Hijab. But it is how that
fact is characterized is the moot issue. It is characterized as an act
of violation of basic human rights and persecution as well.
But how justified is that allegation or characterization? First of
all, there are clear definitions of human rights violation, what
constitutes basic rights and what constitutes privileges. Well,
let us be clear that "A denial of a privilege" does not constitute
a persecution or human rights violation. Rather a human rights
violation involves preventing and/or persecuting someone for
exercising one's fundamental rights of freedom of expression,
freedom of movement in public places, freedom to practice one's
faith/religion in private or public places that are unconditionally
accessible to all. Religious extremism physically harms humans
for exercising right to free speech, punishes women physically
for not conforming to obscurantist practices of religion. Secular
" fundamentalism" has never physically persecuted for or prevented
anyone from practicing religious faith.
Merve Kavacki issue was a case of denial of a privilege and not
a case of violation of basic human rights. Denying access to the
parliament for not conforming to a dress code does not prevent
anyone from believing and practicing their faith/religion. A clever
ploy is the intentional use of the wrong expression to characterize
something to arrive at a desired conclusion. The wrong expression
used in the context of the Turkish parliamentarian being that
"She was being prevented from wearing hijab" or "She was denied
the right to wear Hijab" etc. Alert readers must have detected the
fallacy of mischaracterization. The fact was that she was denied
admission to the parliament for wearing Hijab, not prevented
from wearing it. One does not have to be admitted to parliament
to be a true Muslim. So that denial of admission cannot constitute
religious persecution or violation of basic rights. The fact is that 70%
women wear Hijab in Turkey. None of them are being tortured or
being prevented form wearing Hijab Millions pray in the mosque,
70,000 mosques are maintained and run by Turkish government
itself. Those who watch the Travel channel where Turkey is featured
quite regularly cannot escape noticing women wearing hijab freely
in public places and homes and Islamic traditions and practices
reflected in people's life. Sound of Azan is heard routinely. Islamic
customs are widely followed in Turkey in personal life unhindered.
Private practice of faith is not at all barred or discouraged and is in
fact practiced by many of the very same people enforcing the strict
secular principles. Turkish soccer players are not penalized for
praying to God before the game starts. Merv Kavaccki was not
physically tortured for wearing Hijab. She was just not allowed to
join parliament. If she was indeed tortured physically for wearing
Hijab then of course that would be a true secular extremism worth
condemnation. She does not have to be in the parliament to be a
Muslim. Puritanic or fundamentalist religionists are even opposed
to women going out of the house anyway. So they should not
even be concerned with the Kavacki issue to begin with.
Granting a privilege is an optional gesture that reflects a
concession out of humanitarian and business considerations, but not
granting a privilege can never be called an oppression. The
example of Canada's allowing wearing turbans by Sikh mounted police
was a gesture of good will driven by pragmatic considerations as
Sikhs are a powerful ethnic component in Canadian society and
Canadian police would have lost a dedicated and efficient group of
policemen if they hadn't yielded. Same is the situation in US where
pragmatic considerations (Plus genuine sensitivity) also prompted
companies and government agencies to grant privileges. They didn't
have to. But they did. It was not because it would have been
otherwise a case of human rights violation that Sikhs were allowed
turbans or women were allowed to wear hijab in certain work places
in USA, but because it made practical sense and goodwill is
considered a nice aspect of a multicultural society. Turkish authorities
has nothing to gain pragmatically by giving that concession, but more
to lose, as they believe such concessions will provide a shot in
the arm to the religious apologists who preach political Islam
and theocracy, thus eventually paving the way for emergence of
extremists. Turkey is a strict (mislabelled as fanatic) secular state
and quite uncompromising in that they don't allow any public/state
projection of religion. A parliament is the most political premise
f a state, so it is no surprise that that's where separation of religion
and state is most meaningfully enforced.
If at all, Turkish authority have been rigid and not compromised
their principle of not allowing anyone admission to parliament
wearing Hijab. Turkey could certainly follow Canada and USA's
example and be more lenient toward granting exceptions and
privileges. It would have been nice if Turkey could be like USA or
Canada. But the socio-political reality is different there from that
in Canada and US. US has a much more stable political and social
structure with a pluralistic nature and any concessions and exceptions
cannot have a potential destabilizing implications. But Turkey is not
that stable in such a manner and being a monoreligious state, any
concession to the political Islamists is bound to have a destabilizing
effect on the society through strengthening the extremists as I
pointed out earlier. As long as basic human rights are not violated,
they cannot be condemned for whatever rules they set for privileges.
It is interesting that so many critics of west try to defend the policies
of other Eastern nations and argue that western standards or
values cannot be used to judge the Eastern countries, who should be
allowed to solve their problems in their own way, whereas in
the case of Turkey(An Islamic nation to boot, since majority do
practice the faith of Islam freely in a non-political way), the same
critics take a contradictory standard and eulogize the accommodating
policies of US and contrast it with Turkey's strict secular policies and
criticize Turkey. Of course we all hope Turkey becomes stable where
fideists become the dominant part of the society, when the extremists
will not pose any threat to make religion a political theme, so that
allowing Hijab in parliament and other concessions would not be an
issue anymore as it it would not have may destabilizing implications
just as such concessions to religious groups do not pose any threat
in US or Canada.
In secular USA and in many other western countries one can see signs
"No shirt no shoes no service". Now a puritanic Buddhist may claim
that being bare-footed and shirtless is mandated by his faith, now
would he cry foul for not being admitted to a restaurant with such
sign? Bare footed/shirtless people simply walk on after seeing
the sign. Human rights are not violated. No body creates the bogey
of secular fundamentalism for those signs. They don't launch a
political movement to fight this and cry human rights violation.
An employee while attending a meeting cannot perform a ritual
prayer while the meeting is going on in the room just because he
is mandated by religion to offer prayer at that time. He will have
to perform it outside that room in a designated place. he may not
be even allowed to leave the meeting to do that if the meeting is
important. That is not called secular fundamentalism or violation
of human rights. Most of the religious followers aquiesce to such
reality in US. If all start acting like Merfv Kavacki the system will
break down. Companies reject candidates not dressed properly
for an interview. Human rights are not violated. Thats not labelled
as secular fundamentalism. School children are reprimanded and
expelled for not wearing uniforms (In Bangaldesh and many other
nations). I remember as a school kid in our school everyone had to
wear the same uniform, navy blue pants with white shirt. No
one, no matter how religious, would be allowed to wear a Islamic
robe with cap etc. These are not labelled as violation of human
rights or secular fundamentalism. Merve Kavakci was denied
admittance to the parliament because she refused to comply with the
dress code by insisting to wear a scarf and still be admitted to the
parliament. One cannot expect to have it both way. One has to make
a choice and decide their priority. Being in the parliament is not a
birth right. She decided to fight against this denial which turned it
into a POLITICAL tussle between herself and the authority. As
with most third world countries political opposition is dealt with
repressive measures (Bangladesh is no exception, in fact much worse).
This does not sound like a human rights violation issue. If Merve
Kavacki had complied with the condition for the privilege or decided
go back leading her usual life not worrying about enjoying the
privilege of being a parliamentarian then this would not have become
an issue and we would have never heard of Merv Kavacki. It should be
remembered that Turkey is run by a military junta of a third world
country, not an ideal scenario of democracy. It is certainly
repressive towards OPPOSITION to its policies like all third world
countries (military or civil). REPRESSION of an OPPOSITION movement
fighting for the "right" to be admitted into the parliament wearing
Hijab maybe portrayed as undemocratic as per western democracy. But
only If the repression takes the form of physical torture even when
the opposition movement is limited to verbal protests, can it be
rightfully called a case of human rights abuse (and as far as I know
such is not the case), but the act of denying the privilege of
admission itself is NOT a human rights violation. If it was then
Amnesty international would have taken up her case, as far as I know
that is not true, although there are other cases of political
persecutions that happened and happens in Turkey that has been of
concern to Amnesty International and to all concerned with democracy
and human rights (And not just Turkey, AI is concerned with such
violations in many other countries, Bangladesh included)
Rather to see real violation of human rights one has to look at
Saudi Arab or Afghanistan or Iran, where women are punished for
not wearing hijab/veil in public and the repression is severe for
not conforming to its strict dress and behavior code (not just in
privileged places like a parliament, where they are barred anyway,
but public places as well), that nobody dares to even challenge or
question it. And we are talking about punishment, not denial of a
privilege. Most punishments are physical, the worst form of human
rights abuse and insult to the dignity of a woman. Human rights
abuse is characterized by persecution solely due to a dissenting
faith or views, where the persecution takes the form of physical
coercion, like lashing a woman, severing the head etc. Turkish
policy of not giving admittance to parliament with Hijab on, doesn't
compare with this gross violation of human dignity through
infringement of one's bodily sanctity as committed by the Talebans
and Saudi Laws and other societies enforcing such strict scriptural
laws. In Pakistan there are routine violation of human rights of
women in the name of religion. When an author is issued a death
fatwa merely for writing about their ideas and views on religion,
that is a human rights violation. In Turkey at least one could
challenge and protest thereby attracting outside attention. Nobody
raises roof over Saudi Arabia's brutal repression since there is no
protest (out of fear), thereby not creating any noise to draw
attention of outside world. The same is true in some other
Mid East nations.
A common fallacy is guilt by association fallacy. For example if a
COMMUNIST regime oppresses an individual or a group following a
certain religious faith (For whatever reasons. Usually it is due to
a perceived threat from those followers against communist ideals),
it is lablled as secularists oppressing religious followers just
because communism coincidentally also adopts secularism. Communism
is a dogma like theocracy. All dogmatists tend to be repressive and
resort to human rights violation to PRESERVE their dogma from
perceived threat from a rival dogma. Communism and theocracy are
rival dogmas and hence they are mutually inconsistent and
antagonistic. A communist regime will perceive "threats from
religion" and vice versa. Secularism is NOT a dogma , rather a
reaction to a dogma (theocracy), and Hence it is not incompatible
with religion but is incompatible with theocracy. So if and when a
communist regime perceives a (maybe unjustified) political threat
from a certain religious follower or a subset of followers and resorts
to repression, it is committing an act of political repression in
defense of communism, NOT secularism and it should be characterized
as political repression instead of "Secular fundamentalism".
Secularism does not advocate communism or capitalism (it is
indifferent in that regard, it only advocates separation of state
from religion) nor does it endorse repressive acts of communists, or
by anyone against another solely due to their beliefs.
Similar arguments apply to other forms of dogma or cult, like racial
supremacist dogma ( As Hitler). All repression, persecutions that
have been committed were by racial supremacist like Hitler, or
communist regimes, or simply politically oppressive regimes acting
undemocratically, none of which represents secularism, though
they may all be non-believers and believe in not mixing state with
religion, but that is incidental and secondary. What is primary is
preserving their dogma (racial supremacy,state control of human
life) and SUPPRESSING any OPPOSITION from a religious group or
a rival secularist group. So they are not representing secularism
through their repressive actions against any opposition. To accuse
such communistic atheists/agnostics of "secular bigotry" is totally
illogical, instead all bigotry in them must be characterized as racial,
cultural, based on some historic event (anything other than religion)
as Hitler's case shows. Hitler was a RACIAL bigot. As a parenthetical
remark let me add that all bigotry in the final analysis is rooted
in something other than religion/race. There is always a root cause
of hatred . In Hitler's case it was rooted in the utter humiliation
of Germany/Germans in World War-I and where jews were suspected
in collaborating with Germany's foes to bring about such humiliation.
But regardless, the extermination of Jews by Nazis is the most
disgraceful chapter in human history and is certainly indefensible.
And again it was not rooted in religion, or due to atheism, but due
to rivalry and hatred arising out a historical event that gave way
to the most base impulse in humans, aggression, which in turn is
rooted in evolutionary biology).
Q#1-3: Isn't criticzing religion an act of hate mongering, hatred toward
the believers and hurting their beliefs?
A#1-3: Hatred/hate, bashing can be meaningfully applied to humans,
NOT beliefs, opinions, or tastes. Bush Sr. hated broccoli, but that
does not mean he hated ALL broccoli eaters. One may hate a belief or
a part of a belief, but that would not mean he/she hates ALL those
who adhere to such a belief. If "shati" is indeed a part of hindu
scriptures then if someone condemned that part of hindu scripture
(and also the shati advocates/enforcers) taht should not be judged as
hating ALL hindus. So if one personally hates a religion because of
many of its objectionable verses, by what logic should that be
considered as "spreading hate/hatred"? how can hatred be "spread" by
one's personal view against scriptures? Just because "A" says
broccoli tastes bad, that does not mean "B" should also believe
that. "B" should judge that by tasting broccoli, not blindly
accepting what "A" says. The same logic applies to hatred of beliefs,
practices as well. If "A" hates a belief due to the verses of the
scripturres, that does not mean "B" has to do the same. If "A"
provides a false information about a belief thereby attempting to
create a negative perception about the belief (To strong believers
that shouldn't matter, since the belief is unconditional) then it
should be criticized and refuted by resorting to logic and evidence
(data) to disprove it. But an established religion or fiath system
cannot be affected by individual remarks. So even such false
information is not considered a crime in democracy, just unethical.
But on the other hand slandering an individual is morally and
legally wrong and justtify legal reddress. Anyway merely alleging
that "hatred is being spread" does not prove that misinformation was
provided. Religious criticism using exact quotes from authentic
version of scriptures cannot be dismissed as providing false
information, unless the authentic scriptures themselves are
dismissed as false! It is the burden of those alleging "hatred is
being spread" to prove thst such is the case.
Calling someone a basher or accusing him of "spreading hatred" is
highly charged personal judgment against somone,specially when
accusing an atheist of bashing religion "X" when he is also
critical of religion "Y". It is a gross mischaracterization to label
him as an "X" hater. He is only a non-believer and "critical" of
religious belief , period. And CRITICAL does not translate into
INTOLERANT necessarily. Someone's impersonal words, views of some
aspects of a religion, not directed personally against anyone
cannot or should not HURT/INSULT anyone'. Nor can it hurt anyone's
BELIEF/FAITH. Faith is an abstract entity that should reside safely
inside one's mind/heart beyond anyone's reach. There is no
conceivable way someone's faith can be weakened/destroyed/insulted
by another's views or remarks (correct or mistaken). A faith may
appear illogical to someone and it is consistent with freedom of
expression for anyone to express the fact that a certain faith/
belief appears illogical to him/her. There are countless instances
of academicians declaring some well established scientific
principles as baseless . Now a scientist's conviction in a
scientific principle is no less sacred or no less justified (if not
more) than someone's faith in religious or other beliefs. No faith
qualifies as priviledged or more sacred than others. Scientists
never feel their belief in scientific principles is HURT by such
negative remarrks of non/pseudo-scientists. To give adherents of
religious/cultural faith a priviledged position of immunity to any
critical views goes against the principle of equality and fairness.
One has to have a convincing reason to justify why a criticism of
religion should be considered hatred, but not critcism of literary,
scientific or political theories. Dedicated adherents exist in all
categories. There has to be a good reason to accord a special
priviledge for religion adherents, and more so for a specific
religion. Bashing is a catchy loaded word, reminiscent of a poor
human being bashed by one who hates him, so it evokes more emotional
reaction, when a critcism or a critcial exegesis in fact does not
inflict such damage justifying such emotional reaction. This kind of
sensationalistic expression itself creates hatred towards the
critics, which probably would have been ignored by most, in the
absence of such sensationalism.
It seems like the expression "bashing", is invariably used any time
a critcism of religion, specially Islam is made as if criticism=
bashing. Such automatic labelling is less common by moderate
christians, Hindus, Buddhists,.. when critcial exegesis is done in
their religions. Renowned authors, philosophers have criticized
Bible, Vedas with no such incriminatory reaction from the moderates
in those religions. This is mostly observed in Islam where the
moderates react in a higly acrimonous way to any criticism. unique
to Islam.
It is ironic that religious apologists don't feel outraged at any
hateful remarks by any fellow apologist against secularists,
humanists, skeptics, even scientists (all living humans) but react
with outrage to an impersonal criticism of religious tenets which
is non-living. The religious extremists derive their source of
inspiration for acts of extremism from certain verses and justify
their acts by them. When apologists contend that religion and its
believers should not be blamed for spreading hatred or
responsible for acts of religious extremists, then is it a greater
stretch for them to call the critics of those verses are hate-
mongers, since such criticism never inspires any acts of extremism
by "non-religious" extremists. Even if such non-religious extremist
acts did occur, then critics of religion could equally well contend
that the non-religious extremists have nothing to do with them
and their critcisms, that they acted on their own. They would be
equally justified in taking such a stand. And in the absence of
such non-religious extremist acts inspired by such criticism of
religion, it is a monumental hypocricy for the apologists and PC
sticklers to accuse the critics of religion of spreading hatred,
while absolving religion, Writing or making criticisms of religion
or any dogma (specially of its intolerant political side) cannot be
defined as an act of hatred by any standards of democratic and
humanistic norms which is what the majority of the world adheres to.
This is formalized through the United Nations declaration of basic
human rights and individual freedom. A majority of the worlds'
nation and religion tolerate such critcism, of course allowing
counter criticism to it. The criticism or counter critcism is not
automatically juidged as bashhing or spreading hate in such system.
Tolerance of critcism is in the spirit of democracy. It is the acts
of extremists which is true bashing and hatred, not the act of
writing by critics of religion which does not commit nor inspire or
lead any "non-religious" extremists to such acts of human rights
violation. No extremist ever committed such acts in support of the
critics or their criticisms. There is no comparison between the two.
There is a clear assymmetry.
It should be obvious that writing or speech cannot hurt anyone, the
point is no one is responsible for what goes inside one's brain
other than the owner of that brain(mind). Others' cannot be held
responsible for every negative feeling that someone creates in in
his/her brain. Everyday there is something on the news, radio, TV,
public speech, a literary critcism, a book review, that will hurt
somebody. Scientists face critcisms of their theory, even when the
theory has been verified and tested, and they live with such
critcisms.
It will be the height of paranoia to label any such act as spreading
hate, just because someone chose to get hurt in their mind. Just
becasue a religious criticism appears to some as an act of
hostility and animosity towards the believers that does not justify
calling the critcism as hatred, because such perception of
hostility is the making of one's own subjective mental process. To
someone who is rejected for a position after an interview, that may
be appear to him as animosity and hatred towards him. An author
may sense animosity in his/her critics. Similarly proponents of a
scientific priinciple may see animosity in the critics of that
theory. Paranoia cannot constitute an objective criterion for
calling criticism as spreading hatred. An unfavourable criticism of
an idea, or belief may be perceived as animosity or hatred by its
adherents, but that should not be a ground for disallowing criticism
and condemning the critic.
Human has free will,they can control their mind and learn to live
with dissenting views and criticisms. If any criticism weakens the
faith then one should rather look inside and question the strength
of the faith instead of feeling insecure and blamimg others for
weakening it. And if it does not weaken it then it should be a non-
issue. If it strengthens it then all the better. There are quite a
few devout religious believers who hold such positive view and
welcome (or at least do not feel bitter at) criticism instead of
threatening the critics. They are the true believers.
Characterization of a critcism as "hate propaganda" or
spreading hatred is a misplaced rhetoric. Propaganda INSPIRE acts
of hatred as did the Nazi propaganda, as do the propaganda of
religious clerics who call on their followers to commit acts of
hatred. Individual critics of religion, do not, they never call on
anyone to commit acts of hatred. There IS a clear assymetry. On
the other hand when a member or leader of a religion, cult, sect etc
issues a written/verbal call to his fellow members to cause
physical assault or injury to a group or individual, that IS hatred
and is not allowed in secular democracy. Criticism of religion,
scientifc or economic theory, etc is not considered hatred, and is
accepeted and tolerated in secular democracy. Verbal abuse,
misconduct all are directed against individuals. religious
criticisms are not directed against humans, but to the religious
tenets. So the two are not comparable. There are laws within
secular sytem to deal with verbal abuse and misconduct against
individuals. Criticism of religion is never considered "verbal
abuse", "misconduct" in a legal sense.
Finally if criticising could really harm individuals or groups or a
faith, as is claimed by apologists, then the terrorists need not have
bombed WTC or TWIN Towers. They could just criticized their hearts
out and propagate lies against US, chritians and Jews causing
substantial harm to them. But obviously it would not, nor do the
extremsist believe that it would. The why should it hurt when
a religion and its scripture is criticized (Specially Islam?) Is there
any inherent vulnerability of Islam making it more prone to
damage through criticism? If no, then there should not be any
reason for granting a special immunity to criticism by making
such criticism politically incorrect. Criticisms of faith (specially
only a part of faith, namely some verses of scriptures, and the
traditions and teachings that draw on those verses) cannot hurt the
believers unless they switch on the hurt button themselves in their
brain. If believers are confident enough about their impeccability
then they can just ignore and move on, or at best engage in a
dialog with their critics and try to change their perceptions.
Religious extremists have not only been never been tried and
convicted under religious laws for their extremist acts, the
religious laws themselves do not have any provisions for
punishing acts of religious extremism. The extremists invoke
religion to justify their acts with impunity from religious
laws and leaders. If a political goon of a party commits an
act of terrorism in the name of his party and seek justification
from some clause of the party manifesto, and the party does
not bring him to book, then the party will be considered to be
at least condoning, if not harboring the terrorists, even though
a good many members of that party may be moderate and
against such extremist acts.In such a situation, the specific
clause will be legitimately open to criticism, regardless of
how the party leaders and apparatchiks try to absolve itself
from any responsibility by interpreting it away.
add:
This may be due to the fact that even the moderate and non-religious
Muslims have this ingrained paranoia instilled from familiy and social
indoctrinations that Islam is hated by Jews, christians, Hindus
and that any criticism of Islam by any Muslim has to be invariably
by someone who is acting as an agent of them. So when someone
labels any critcism of islam, no matter how objectively it is done,
even when the context justifies it (e.g when refuting a religious
claim, explaing the root cause of extremism etc), these moderates
immediately jump to this labelling as it rings with their ingrained
paranoia and feeds it, hardly bothering to examine the
criticism and objectively judge its merit to decide if it can truly
be considered as bashing, if at all this word can be meaningfully
applied to a belief, faith which is a lifeless entity.
Criticism of any religious dogma or of its advocates can not be
objectively characterized as hatred of the religious followers or bashing
religion. Islam-hating "bigots" are invariably used against those who by their
opposition, refusal, criticism and other non-physical acts never backed up by
any violent act. The use of the word "bigot" in this case is certainly oxymoronic
since these so called "Islam-haters" are basically acting in defense against the
coercive acts of the religious bigots. One should not lose sight of the the
extremely significant ASYMMETRY between the so called Islam-"hating bigots"
and the religious bigots.The latter gave rise to the former as a defensive
reaction. The former would not have existed without the latter. The latter
are intent on physically imposing their ideas and beliefs on others and ar
eager to deter their critics with physical threats. Two "equate" the two is
a monumental inequity. Should the Palestinians fighting against the Israelis
be labelled as Judaism-"hating bigots"?
It is not too profound a realization that a non-coercive, non-threatening
system of beliefs cannot provoke an antagonism no matter how irrational
or irrelevant those beliefs appear to be. Nobody comes out with a vocal
ANTAGONISM against the belief in fairies, unicorns, or even God. A purely
philosphical refutation of such beliefs (specially if the belief is
preached to the non-believers through hard-selling) is however common and
should be acceptable since no force or violence is implied in such refutation.
So Islam, or any other religion, AS A SYSTEM OF FAITH cannot and did not
provoke anatgonism against it. It is only when the FOLLOWERS/PRACTITIONERS
of relgion engaged into coercive acts against the dissenters that generated
backlash (much like Israeli occupation of palestinian land generated
Palestinian backlash).
The most important historical
fact that is often forgotten is that it is the religious believers who
first inititated this tension between believers and non-believers by
criticizing the non-believers or trying to impose their belief on
others provoking a counter reaction by freethinkers/non-believers
of debunking believers. It is cause-effect relationship. If all believers
kept their belief private or never tried to persuade/impose on
non-believers there would be no counter arguments by freethinkers.
This is indeed the case in Buddhism where no religious Buddhists
ever criticizes/condemns other fellow born buddhists for not believing
or practicing Buddhist precepts and rituals. This is not unfortunately the
case in Islam, Judaism or christianity.
2=== Rationalism vs. Faith
Q#2-1: Isn't Science also a dogma?. It also clings to its theories like dogma,
do not accept the possibility of other alternate theories or views being
right. It also does not admit the possibility of its being wrong.
A#2-1: Science accepts a theory as a tentative truth, only if it
explains observations of reality better then any other one based on
logic and evidence. Until a better theory is offered based on logic and
evidence, or until any evidence is availbale that contradicts current
theory, there is no reason to change it or to accept another one
advocated by someone else. Science cannot accept any theory
proposed by anyone as valid just by taking their word for it or
on faith. Only evidence and logic can justify acceptance of a theory.
A dogma preaches absoluteness and infallibility of its claim to
the truth. Dogma does not admit of any possibility of its being
wrong, therefore ruling out any revision. For science to be a
dogma, it has to affirm that a scientific principle is final,
infallible and not subject to revision. Science/Scientists
never affirm that. Science constantly revises it's own
position when evidence and observationss forces it to.
Scientific method contains an in-built mechanism to
self-correct. So science cannot be a dogma. Science
textbooks undergo periodic revisions. religious texts do not.
Some authors of articles in science journals do refer to a long held
"dogma" of science being overturned by a scientific discovery .
But everytime an individual author, jouranlist, scientist etc
uses such a figure of speech, metaphor or poetic license etc that
should not trigger reinterpretation or rexamination of science.
The notion of rationalism or science should not change with the
choice of words and expressions by individuals in certain contexts
mainly to draw analogy. We also cannot put our own interpretation
of their remarks. For example, when Hawking mentions that
"Theory of Everything", if and when found, would be like
"Reading the mind of God", he used it as a metaphoric
expression. One cannot interpret that to mean it was a scientific
proof of God's existence (Or proof of Hawking's belief in God).
Hawking was not discussing the proof of God in the context
of that remark, but the possibility of finding the ultimate law
of Physics. Same remarks apply to the use of the word
"dogma" in such scientific articles. The author was not
discussing the question if Science can be considered a
dogma but was discussing a new scientific discovery. He
used the word "dogma" metaphorically to mean a long
held scientific premise. Like all scientific premise, if new
scientific discovery or evidence suggests a change in that
long held premise it will be subject to revision. That is
what science is all about. Only science revises and even
refutes its own premises. No dogma does that.
There exist articles that mention that certain theories of science
are taught by certain teachers as if they were dogmas and that
some theories are held by scientists like a dogma, not science,
because they refuse to admit any alternate theories as valid.
Also proof that a proposition (Science is a dogma) is TRUE
must be based on logic and/or evidence, not by citing articles
from non-scientific journals containing such views. None
of the above remarks in those articles prove Science = dogma.
This kind of "proofs" would certainly not fly in academic circles.
The fact is that scientific method is well-defined, that is not
determined by the position held indivudual adherents of
science. More importantly the number of such adherents who
do hold such dogmatic view about certain theories muct be
in the minority. Otherwise science would have been static and
hardly made any progress, contrary to reality. Majority do
adhere to scientific method, thats why science has been so
successful, so dynamic. The minority of "scientists" who do hold
such dogmatic stand do not matter to the scientific community,
or to science.
Let me repeat what distinguishes dogma from science and
then state the obvious criteria which a proof of
SCIENCE = DOGMA should meet. After that hopefully a reader
will not spend precious time poring over every article that is
cited looking for the proof.
1. Dogma: Affirms a belief that is claimed to be an absolute
truth, unchangeable, regardless of any evidence or logic
CONTRADICTING it, denying even the possibility of any
contradicting evidence or logic IN PRINCIPLE.
2. Science : Affirms a tentative statement of truth, based on logic
and/or evidence, explaining facts and observations better than
any competeing claim of truth, that is changeable, if and when
evidence or logic to the contrary is available. and admitting the
possibility of such. If and when such evidence is available, the
statement of truth is either abandoned, revised, or generalized
as the case may be.
It is clear that one cannot logically prove that Science = dogma
as they are mutually contradictory by 1 and 2 above. The best
criterion for one to prove it is by citing an exception, i,e produce
an example where a scientific principle was not abandoned, revised
or generalized even when an evidence or logic to the contrary was
available. The history of science is full of examples showing rule
#2 at work. NO exception yet. None of those articles cited show
any example of any evidence that CONTRADICTED any principle
which was still held to be true and not revised inspite of it. It will
suffice to ask if the criteria of the proof of science = dogma is
met everytime a claim of the proof that science = dogma is made.
And the criteria of the proof is again simply:
"Produce an example where a scientific principle was not
abandoned, revised or generalized even when an evidence
or logic to the contrary was available"
Q#2-2: How can science be so arrogant and claim that it's method
is superior to others ? Nobody should have priviledged status
to the route to truth.
A#2-2: Science does not have to claim that. Science only emphasizes
objectivity, logic & evidence. Using logic, observation, evidence,
Scientific method has proved that it works. In fact it has worked
better than any other approach to finding the truth. Just like
evolution, which through natural selection, selects the fittest in
the struggle for survival, scientific method has been selected by
humanity with an overwhelming consensus as a preferred tool
over all others in the quest for truth, The fact that astrology is
not taught in any university, but astronomy is, or that dianetics
is not, but genetics is, are testimonies to that fact of selection
of the fittest at work. Postmodernists and puritanic sticklers of
political correctness attemp to distort the meaning of democracy
or pluralism to imply that all claims of truth are equally valid.
Q#2-10: When scientists themselves differ on an issue then how can
you dismiss any other views (like religion, mysticism, New Age) on
that issue ?
Those who are qualified and capable to challenge established scientific
facts and widely accepted theories ofthose facts are professional
scientists themselves who follow the scientific method. And they do so
in peer reviewed journals , academic seminars and conferences. Quacks,
pseudoscientists and laymen who wish to challenge some scientific facts
or theories have no recourse other than non-technical forums addressing
general issues for at least two good reasons:
(1) Their views being unscientific will be rejected in any journal of
repute and in reputable professional scientific circles. So that
leaves them with the only option of venting their pseudoscientific
views in non-technical forums where no articles are subjected to
stringent scientific accountability for acceptance.
(2) In non-technical forums it is much easier to deceive the gullible
layfolks most of whom lack the necessary scientific and technical
background to distinguish science from pseudoscience. This is
where they can partly repair their damaged ego caused from being
debunked by experts to some extent. There is no fear of peer
review (hoping that no expert in scientific field will read their
pseudoscientific views). Its a cathartic release for them to be
able to air their discredited views in public.
These nontechnical forums are not the right place to
settle any genuine scientific controversy, let alone unsettle an
established scientific fact or principle. By questioning and
challenging scientific principles a quack essentially succeeds in a
false sense of boosted ego that their view is worth a "debate" at all,
that some even consider it worth wasting their time and effort. Let me
remind all that Noble Laureate Pauli in an appropriate but irreverent
way dealt with such attempts when he commented that many of the letter
he received pretentiously claiming to prove new or disprove established
theories were so bad that they were not even "wrong"! In other words
he didn't even consider it worth his time and effort to even try to
prove them wrong. The egoistic pseudos and quacks only feel honored
when someone does try to refute their views. Because any response/
debate on their views adds an illusion of respectability to their views.
When an issue is hotly debated by two sides, then the ordinary
bystanders may not realize that one side may be speaking gibberish in
the name of science and may grant equal legitimacy to a genuine
scientific controversy between two rival scientific theories and a non-
scientific controversy between a scientific theory and a
pseudoscientific theory. This fallacy goes like this:
Scientific theory A challenges theory B of scientific fact "X".
Hence pseudoscientifc theory C which also challenges scientific
theory B is also scientific theory. Conveneniently forgetting that
all scientific theories have to meet certain criteria even if they
contradict each other. Just because a theory challenges a
scientific theory does not automatically make it a scientific
theory. It is very important to guard against this pitfall which
the pseudos exploit to confuse the lay public.
Falling prey to such intellectual ploy only makes a fool of those even
responding. Not that there are genuine scientific arguments between
various scintific views of some scientific "facts". But they are
already addressed in scientific journals and there are indeed several
genuinely scientific rival views of many scientific facts like the
expansion of the universe and evolution (both are "facts'). But any
nonsensical views can vent itself only in non-technical forums. So I
like to warn readers to only consult science books or scientists to get
the real McCoy or lowdown if they are consfused on an issue by these
debates between science and pseudoscience. Forums like Mukto-Mona can
only be useful for explaining scientific facts and principles in an
easy language for the layfolks by scientifically literate members or
to explain the various rival existing scientific views on a scientific
fact. It can also help to clarify some myths and mistaken perceptions
about a scientific theory or fact. Several memberes like Huxley,
Shaikh Mizan, Ashraful Alam, Avijit have doen impressive jobs in doing
that. Thats fine. If one has the time tro spare, then by all means let
them do it and we can all benefit from them as a review or learning
anew about science. But I just want to guard against the possibility of
some falling for the fallacy as mentioned above.
Non-technical forums dedicated to general issues can never honestly be
a place to make an original claim challenging an established scientifc fact.
For that technical journals and scientifc conferences are the proper avenue,
if they at all contain any substantive argument at all. Any such claims
here will necessarily be the discredited ones which could not find
acceptibility in respectable jouranls and conferences and using the
the naive layfolks who may not have the technical and scientifc
knowledge and skills to judge the inherent weakness of their
arguments vis a vis the established scientific views. That is a
deceitful approach to boot.
Whenever someone comes up and says that scientific theory "X"
is wrong or flawed and provides pseudoscientific argument to justify
their view, it is a mistake to belabor too much spending valuable
time and effort to go through a long winded valid scientific
argument to refute it. Because that was already done by scientists
to establish "X" as a scientific fact/principle in the first place.
There is no point reinventing the wheel for the pseudos just because
they chose to challenge it after the fact. Everytime a Joe/Moe comes
along that earth is flat, or that special creation is a fact,
evolution is wrong or that astrological forecaste is scientific, we
don't need to be defensive. That will be granting them legitimacy,
whatever wee bit, that they do not deserve. The proof of the pudding
is in the eating. Only when scientists, scientific journals,
academic institutes (with tax payers money) accept it can they be
taken seriously. Scientific process itself is evolutionary. It
weeds out the worthless ones, and the ones that work, survives. The
process may not be perfect or work in one step. It can be iterative,
self correcting. The examples of cold fusion, Einsteins "greatest
blunder" (in his own words) exemplify this aspect. Some or all can
be fooled for sometime, but ALL can never be fooled for ALL time.
Mainstream science encapsulates what we as humanity understand
and agree on as the best available view of reality at a given time.
And the "best" is on the other hand a dynamic and an evolving one,
not a static one.
Q#2-3: Doesn't Science claim it's truths as final and absolute?
A#2-3: Certainly not, science admits of the possibilkity of being wrong.
Scientific method is self-correcting, any flaws in it, if any, can only be
detected only by scientists and are eliminated. The case of
"discovery of cold fusion" serves as a prototypical example of that
self-correction. Science has inherent LIMITS, not inherent FLAWS.
Science, if incorrectly applied, can lead to flaws though. There is
a huge difference.
Any revision, or dismissal of a scientific principle, if at all,
will involve the very same SCIENTIFIC METHOD that established
it in the first place. A sicntific theory is not disproven by mere
personal opinion of anyone (even by a scientist). Accepting or
rejecting/discarding a scientific theory both requires the use of
scientific method. To propose a new or better scientific theory any
one has to follow the scientific method (peer review, objective
verification by independent teams around the globe etc) before it
can be accepted. And IF (The being IF) is indeed true then we find
a new scientific truth replacing another one, or a more generalized
theory that will subsume the older one as a special case. This has
happended in science. It is the scientists who can make statments
like "That was the biggest blunder of my life" Guess who said that
and why? None other than the man of the 20ty century Einstein
referring to the inclusion of a cosmological constant in his
equation of general relativity. He was wrong from 1929 upto 1998
when new observations about inflatian of space validated his
original inclusion albeit much smaler in value. SCIENCE is a
dynamic method, not a static entity (like religious dogma), a
method that humanity discovered by a lucky fluke in post
rennaissance period. which has the in built mechanism to self-
correct, if mistakes do ever creep in. Mistakes are harder and
harder to creep in with time as scientific method involves more and
more a team effort spanning across nations, ethnicity and religion.
All the hot issues of science (proton decay for example) are being
carried out by joint teams in USA, Japan, India by thousands of
scientists. There is no scope for dogma, personal whims here.
Truth wlll filter out eventually. This is like evolution. What will
survive at the end is what is truth. Science is to human
intellect what Darwin's evolution is to life forms.
The moral is, if one is to find true humility anywhere, it is in
the scientific method, where the basic premise is "I can be
wrong". And when proven wrong is admitted cheerfully. Science
does not claim to know what is unknowable (unlike religion,
mysticism,..). And science does pay hard dues (It takes a lot of
sweat to master all the formidable math, and the ruthless peer
review) to arrive at the truth, not by arbitrary affirmation
from one's intuitive logic. Scientists view claims by individual
scientists with skepticism too before testing out his/her claims
It is doubting itself that led to the emergence of scientific
method and hence science in the first place. Science and
doubt (skepticism) go hand in hand. So viewing science with
skepticism does not make sense, as amounts to doubting
doubt itself!
Figuratively speaking, When the average human knowledge
is 1.5, then an insight of 3.0 is extraordinary. But when the
average intellect advances to 5.0, 3.0 is not worth writing
home about. Its all relative.
Q#2-4: Can Science claim to know the ultimate mystery behind creation?
A#2-4: The most rational answer to the question about the ultimate
mystery behind the creation of the universe is that, it is beyond
beyond any human knowledge and reason. All the
theories of cosmology and evolution really tackle the question
of how the universe and life evolved, once the initial state of the
universe came into being. That is within human knowledge and
reason, and tackled by the laws of Physics. Thats what Big Bang
cosmology, Inflationary cosmology, Hartle-Hawking cosmology of
no boundary, Theory of Evolution (Latest version) etc are all about.
But why or from what the initial state of the universe (Singularity,
or any other initial state consistent with the laws of Physics)
came into being, in plain words, why does the universe exist
at all, rather than not, is unanswerable. That is the ultimate
mystery of our existence. Science takes the stand that
one can say nothing about that ultimate mystery, because it
is truly beyond the theoretical limit of human intellect. The
ultimate cause or explanation is an ever-receding entity, like
the largest number. The moment you call some number as the
largest number (X), a number Y can be found which is larger
than X (X+1 say), similarly any explanation or cause which is
called final will raise the question, what is the explanation or
cause of that final cause/explanation. So it is a fallacy to logically
prove the existence of a final explanation/cause. And where
rationalism ends, metaphysics begin. Not that metaphysics
(specailly without Physics) can answer the unanswerable, which
is an oxymoron itself. But its a free style arena for armchair
speculation. But in metaphysics, one can only make an statement
of truth, where the the "truth" is not clearly defined, and the
stajement of it is based on faith. And any faith is as
good as any other in the absence of any rationality.
And although such faith based belief is beyond rational
analysis, if any logic or argument is ever put forward
by anyone to rationalize that faith, then it is certainly
within the legitimate domain of rational anlaysis to
challenge and test the validity of such logic. Because
once a faith is attempted to rationalize, it can no longer
deserve the immunity as a personal belief and becomes
a legitimate dialectical issue for debate.
The bottom line is, metaphysical questions have no answer,
because they are unanswerable in principle, because if the
answers were ever found they would not be metaphysics
anymore but Physics(or Science). But more importantly the
questions themselves have no clear meaning at all in such
uncharted realm beyond human ken . And any CLAIM of
knowing the answer (When the question itself is
"questionable") by any means other than logic and evidence
can only have a solipsistic significance to the believer.
Human being part of the whole, a part cannot understand the
whole in a meaningful way, but tries to because we are inspired
by analogy from daily experience to look for a larger picture
from smaller, like a picture built from tiny dots, patterns of
human formationn seen from above, an ant-hill etc. But we
haredly realize that it may not be a meaningful quest when
applied to the cosmos in its entirety ! Imagine a group of
humans forming a pattern on a large field each following
instructions as appropriate to form the pattern not knowing
what the pattern would look like, nor does anyone know that
they are following the instructions to form a pattern of any
kind. To each it is just a sequence of instructions to move their
body in certain way. To him the question as to what pattern
he and others around him are making would not even enter
his mind or make sense or . An observer on a plane or atop a
tall building above can see the pattern formed by the humans
below. A particular human below who is a part of the human
pattern can never see the pattern while being part of it.
Our position in reality is similar. We can understand reality
only upto certain level. Anything further beyond that level is
pure speculation and mostly meaningless, specially if that
speculation is made without even understnading what is known (the
limiting level, i.e science). To appreciate the limits of human
knowledge one need to know and understand what those limits are
(i.e the laws of Physics) well. When a theist, who does not know
much about cosmology and Quauntum Mechanics speaks about limits
of human understanding to emphasize that nothing can be ruled out,
that cannot merit much attention. Because in argument from
ignorance, nothing can be ruled in either, not much can be said
meaningfully one way or the other. Thus most of the speculations
of mystics and theists are meaningless constructs and conclusions
(to humans racee collectively, not may be to them individually).
Any talk about things beyond the reality (both tangible
like matter, e.g electrons, chair etc and intangible like hyperspace,
superstring etc) is bound to be a vague metaphysical speculation.
And any question about the realm beyond reality may not be even
meaningful question with a meaningful answer, BECAUSE an
unknown cannot be necessarily discussed in terms of the known
always. The question/issue of what is the ORIGIN of scientific laws
itself, ( i.e the question as to why does a set of scientific laws exist
at all which explains this universe and life so beautifully?) is thus
not necessarily a meaningful question. This is because an effect
cannot be used explain the cause of the effect. We have at our
disposal only the laws of physics(i.e the effect), which cannot be
used to exapli it svery cause, an absurd proposition to think of.
Besides an effect may not always have a cause as we understand it.
Not only that, if the origin of the laws of Physics (Lets call it
superphysics) were explainable by Physics then that Superphysics
would be simply subsumed within physics, physics will only expand
its domain. The origin of Physics will remain an unknown and
logically impossible to explain. The "Why/How" about ultimate
reality assumes there is an answer and we have a language to express
it, thus breaking the cylce of whys. But this may not be the case.
The cause-effect chain may not end at all. We don;t know. Physics is
the endpoint of the chain of our "whys". We can't get any further in
our understanding about reality beyond what we know from fundamental
laws of Physics . What is the cause behind the existence of the
laws of Physics? Maybe nothing, maybe it is there from eternity
till eternity uncaused. Or maybe not. Maybe some more fundamental
cause exists a layer above it. But thats all it can be said about
it. Nothing more or specific. And saying sa "maybe'" would not be
profound anyway, but an acknowledgment of finiteness of our
perception. We humans find it hard live with the possibility of
unexplainable, ultimate ignorance, hence they artificially invent
circular terms like God, Creator, etc, without realizing that such
inventions of mere words do not dispel the ultimate ignorance about
the origin of reality.
Q#2-5: How can Science be so arrogant to claim that only it knows
all the truths, Some truth and knowledge can only be found
through religion and faith.
A#2-5: One must be careful in distinguishing "truth" from "belief/faith".
Believing in something does not automatically make it a truth.
Nor does claiming a belief to be true make it true. A reference
to "Truth" in the context of faith/belief has a very subjective
connotation, so it is not really a truth for all of humanity. Truth,
in the context of faith/belief is in the mind of the believer, like
beauty is in the eye of the beholder. Faith, by definition, is not
verifiable/falsifiable by logic or evidence, nor is it changeable
by the same. A belief in a faith is absolute. Truths are belief
about reality that have been objectively verified with a reasonable
certainly (not absolute) agreed to by humanity crossing personal
beliefs, biases, cultures etc. The truth of Einstein's theory of relativity
is agreed to not only by Christians and Muslims. but also by theists
and all theists (buddhist, Hindu). Religious beliefs do not fall
into that category to be called a "truth".
Scientific theories are not just a matter of opinions or beliefs. They are
based on rigorous mathematical work and solid evidence. So it is not pure
belief. The notion of a "creative force" is a pure belief. Big bang is precisely
defined and is based on logic, "creative force" is neiter. So you cannot put
the two on the same level. The last exit strategy of pure belief is "Not
everything has to be based on logic or science". True. But then one cannot
speak about it.
Anything beyond logic or science falls in the category of unspeakable.
(Mysticism) Wittgenstein realized it and made the wise recommendation
that philosophers better focus on language and its evolution (wisely
heeded by Noam Chomsky, Steven Pinker) rather than vague metaphysics.
Any attempt to engage in dialectics invariably falls into the category of
logical discourse, where pure belief has no place.
It is a trivially true statement that human knowledge and understanding
is and will always be limited. It cannot be an issue of debate. But our
observations should correctly reflect hat we know and what we don't.
And that is often a problematic issue and worthy of debate.
Now consider carefully what is more humble, what makes us feel
more small: (1) To claim one's belief about the ultimate cause of the
universe to be an absolute truth or, (2) To admit, that one does not
know, that the question about the ultimate cause of creation is
beyond human logic?
To me it is obvious that (2) is more humble, a position taken by science
and rationality. (1) is the ultimate in bragging, to claim that a belief of
of such magnitude as the ultimate cause of the creation, IS not only
TRUE but is an absolute truth, disallowing the possibility of being wrong.
A belief kept inside one's heart, not verbalized and claimed as the
truth is not against humility. But to claim that one not only knows
what is the ultimate cause of creation, but also to claim to be able
to logically prove it, and asserting the truth and its proof as infallible
is the ultimate arrogance which is what religion does. Whereas
science can only claim to explain how a universe can originate and
evolve from a singularity (or any initial state permitted by the laws
of Physics) but it can never claim or to explain why or how the initial
state of the universe was created. Religion claims arrogantly to know
and explain both by a "simple" answer.
Q#2-6: Isn't truth subjective, like any belief, result of our bias?
How can there be objective truth when bias is inevitable?
A#2-6:
If by "objective truth" one means "absolutely true" with no
exception/revision then granted, it doesn't exist, but that is not
what is meant by objective. But If by "OBJECTIVE" one means an
approach that is not based on one's religious, ethnic, cultural or
personal affiliations , but based on criterion that are universal,
testable (i.e verifiable/falsifiable) by anyone and thus amenable
to revision, then it certainly exists.
Truth requires an objective means of arriving at it through (1)
consensus and (2) verifiability across religious and racial
boundaries. Beliefs don't meet those criteria. The key ingredient of
truth is verifiability. Verifiability is achieved through hard
evidence to support the claim of truth. A mere commonality of an
unverified belief even across religious belief syetms (like creator)
does not at all meet the objectivity criterion of truth. Consensus
in the context of truth refers to an agreement arrived at by hard
evidence, not pure belief.
Scientific method is the best example of objectivity. This method
has led to truth that has been tested and verified. It has also
led to falsification of many claims of truth. The set of falsified
claims of truth is not within the accepted paradigms of science. So
quoting instances of false (or revised scientific principles)
cannot be justified to dismiss "scientific method" itself, as
"scientific method" is self-correcting. If it is followed diligently,
anyone will be forced to accept the bitter pill of truth. Einstein
had to bite the dust (willingly, as he adhered to the "scientific
method") when his postulate of a steady universe theory was
falsified by the scientific method itself through Hubble's
observation of the expansion of the universe. Then he revised his
equations (not because of bias, but due to being forced by "
objective" observations). It is the predictive power of
scientific principles and the agreement between prediction and
observation that lends credence to the its objectivity. For example
all the predictions of Einstein's Theory of Relativity (Both Special
& General) were vindicated.
The existence and generation of Nuclear Explosion is an excellent
example of the objectivity of scientific truth. We cannot say
the existence of Nuclear detonation is not due to an objective
understanding of reality. You cannot make it disappear by any
counter claims of truth or any subjectivity argument. like "There
is no OBJECTIVE understanding of reality". Nuclear detonation is
not produced by trial and error or by accident. It is produced by
following the laws of Physics (Quantum Physics applied to nucleus,
and Einstein's theory of Special Relativity). through extremely
complex scientific and mathematical process, It requires highly
trained scientists to develop it independently and thats why few
countries have that technology. This example is for laymen as
they can relate to it, but for scientists they see vindication of the
objectivity (Of Einstein's relativity for example) in a routine
manner in the lab. It can be made repeatedly without fail by
applying those laws of phsyics.
Secondly, an airplane is designed using the basic principle of
Physics known as Bernoulli's principle. Now are the principles of
physics used in making a nuclear bomb and an airplane not objective
truths, subjective? Subjective to what? Religion? Faith? Ethnicity?
If truth was subjective then it could be false from someone else's
view. Is it possible the laws of Physics behind Nuclear bomb or
airplane is false , say to a Bahai? So that a Bahai scientist could
not make a nuclear bomb or an airplane?What is meant by subjective
in the context of truth? Subjectivity can only be meaningful for
beliefs , values and tastes, which indeed can vary from one
individual or society to another. So what is the criteria of truth
to be objective? To justify the assertion that truth cannot be
objective one has to first set the criteria for any truth to be
objective and then prove that such criteria cannot be met in
principle.
A#2-9:
There are two sense in which the theory that all are biased or
equivalently that no one can ever be unbiased, can be meant. The
first stronger sense is that it is impossible to be unbiased in
PRINCIPLE. The second weaker one is that it is impossible to be
unbiased in PRACTICE, allowing such possibility in theory. I will
argue that in either sense the theory leads to self-refutation.
although the second version sounds a bit more realistic and
believable. First the theory (in either sense) suffers from the same
fallacy of asserting that all truth are relative, or that all right
and wrong are relative. Because to say one will always be biased,
one is implicitly using a criteria to judge the bias (or lack ot it),
but then by their own theory their criteria itself is biased, so
their judgment of calling someone biased itself is biased (and
hence can be wrong by implication)! So the assertion or conclusion
of impossibility of no bias contains a built in possibility of its
being wrong, since it is biased itself by its own insistence of
inherent bias in any conclusion. So this theory of "impossibility of
no bias" is inherently flawed.
An assertion of the impossibility of no bias (by whatever criteria)
in practice but allowing such possibility in principle is
inconsistent. This is because, if one allows the possibility of
something being true in principle, then the possibility of its being
true in practice cannot be ruled out either (However rare it may be)
by the law of probability, which says that anything that is possible
in principle can and will eventually happen somewhere sometime. So
insisting that no unbiased person exists in this sense cannot be
proven as it is impossible to prove a universal negative. Just like
to prove the assertion that no white raven exists one has to
exhaustively search every nook and corner of the earth to prove that
no such raven can be seen (and even then it will not prove it, as
it may exist in future, so such search has to be done repeatedly all
the time up to eternity), similarly is it impossible to prove the
non existence of an unbiased person, since one can never finish the
search for such a person and conclusively assert the nonexistence of
such an unbiased person for all time everywhere.
Now if one insists that being unbiased is impossible in principle,
then in that case the very assertion "all are biased" would lose any
useful meaning, as it could not be otherwise. Just as "good", "light"
becomes meaningless in the absence of "evil" and "darkness", as then
there would be no contrast to provide any raison d'etre for these
words. "good" and "light" exist because "Evil" and "dark" exist and
vice versa. So their very assertion that "all are biased"
automatically implies the possibility of being unbiased in principle
which by the law of probability implies the possibility of being
unbiased in practice, refuting their very assertion.
The usual reason given to justify the assertion of impossibility of
no bias in practice is that everyone without exception is bound to
have some direct connections or ties favouring one position over
another (sharing the same religious, racial, ethnic, cultural,
gender or some other roots), or may have indirect ties favouring one
side due to some vested interest involved, so it is not possible to
be free from bias in any action, judgment involving two adversarial
(i.e contradictory, not necessarily hostile) sides. While it is a
valid assertion that inherent ties, connections do exist for most,
it is not automatic that all have to act upon that tie or connection
and reflect it in their actions or thoughts. That additional
assertion has to be an arbitrary one, like a faith. And a theory
which makes that assertion is inherently unfalsifiable. It is an
established rule in epistemology that a genuine theory has to be
falsifiable. There is no way this theory of "no absence of ties is
possible" can be falsified. Because no matter what action/judgement
is made, the presence of ties can always be cited as causing that
action/judgement to be chosen. If the alternate judgement was made
in opposition to the first, a different tie would be cited as
influencing that judgement. Either way a tie will be cited to
explain the judgement or action, no matter which way it goes. For
example whenever a member belonging to a group takes favourable
view towards its own group that obviously is characterized as biased
(because of the obvious ties), but when a member of a group takes an
unfavourable view or stand towards its own group, and in favour of
an outside group, these advocates of inherent bias argue that the
member is biased in favour of the adversarial group because of some
special tie or vested interest! For example a Western apologist of
an Eastern religion and vice versa may be suspected of having been
bribed, because the inherent bias cannot be used to explain this
contrary act/judgement.
Let me engage in some heuristics to understand and examine more
carefully what these "unbias is impossible" theorists are saying and
if it is justified. There are two ways to arrive at a conclusion
about reality: (1) First method is to allow one's inherent wishes,
aspirations, vested interests, inherited beliefs etc (let us lump
all these into one label "internal" factors) to exert influence in
arriving at such conclusion (unconsciously) as alleged by the
theorist of no bias impossible in practice camp , and (2) The second
method is to use objective criteria (standard rules of logic
correctly applied and objective evidences that can be observed and
agreed on generally) that are external and invariant, not determined
by one's internal factor. Note that one can use method (2) even if
they possess internal factors (They almost always do) as well as
being aware of it too. They just mentally restrain the internal
factors from influencing their decision or conclusion forming
process. Just like any act that requires some discipline, can be
accomplished with a bit of practice, similarly, if one uses method 2
often enough with conscious will and determination, it can become
quite natural and the urge to be influenced by internal factors can
become weaker and weaker and eventually completely disappear (Use
it or lose it!). What these "unbias is impossible" theorists are
insisting is that method 2 is unachievable in principle. But this is
a claim, not supported by any logic or evidence, as humans have
proven that they are capable of achieving much harder tasks. If
humans can risk their lives (their dearest possession) to seek the
truth, then ignoring internal factors cannot be unachievable at
least for some. Human mind and intellect is a continuum over a wide
spectrum. Variations are very natural. There is no a priori reason to
rule out any human capable of using method 2. We know skeptical
minds have existed from the days of the early Greeks to this
day who would be more interested in an unpleasant truth than a
pleasant lie. Granted that everyone is subjected to biased
information, ideas, teachings etc from birth, but that does not
imply that each will absorb or accept them equally. Insisting on
that contradicts the trivial fact of the variation of human mind(
brain) over a wide spectrum. A good majority indeed succumb to and
are readily influenced by those factors. Some may require higher
dose of repetition and exposure etc before the influence takes root
firmly in their mind. While for a small minority whose mind is
inherently skeptic, no amount of exposure, repetition or
brainwashing (The "meme" effect) can influence their mind. These
minority will use some objective criterion which is not based on the
ideas of any given religion, tradition, culture, ethnicity, nation,
family etc in a natural way. We can call them "truth fanatics",
being biased in favour of objective truth, the vested interest being
the joy that discovering the truth brings them, however unpleasant
it is, if we at all have to insist on some bias and motive to
explain the acts and judgements of these people . These people
base their thinking based on universal criteria or instincts that
may be individual but nevertheless not shaped by any religious,
cultural or family factors. So to assert that no one can be
unbiased would be a dogma like position. As I mentioned above
history abounds with incidents where men have staked their lives for
the pursuit of the truth, with no promise of any material gain, a
pure human spirit for the pursuit of the truth (a spiritual "gain")
being the sole motivation. A skeptic can clearly separate "what one
likes to believe is true" vs "what is true as indicated by the best
objective evidence". The history of science is replete with examples
of scientists forced (willingly) by new evidence and logic to
believe in scientific truths that ran counter to one's original
premise or hypothesis which was based on personal bias (but
certainly not contradicting logic or existing evidence). A case in
point is Einstein's original assumption of a Steady State Universe
(As it appealed to him personally) in absence of any evidence to the
contrary and hence inserted into his General Relativistic equations
the "Cosmological Constant" so as to yield the steady state universe.
But when Hubble conclusively demonstrated the expansion of the
Universe Einstein admitted mistake and took out the Cosmological
Constant and thus restored the original equations with no
cosmological constant which yielded the expanding universe. Many
scientists indeed openly admit their inherent wishes, but instead
draw conclusions based on logic and evidence that often contradict
their self-admitted "bias.". Those who follow the scientific method
have cheerfully accepted results that follow from it even though the
results went against their ingrained bias. What is important to
acknowledge is that bias in the sense of a desire for certain thing
to be true may be inevitable, but it is not inevitable that such
wishful thinking would prevent one from admitting that one's wishful
desire is not necessarily the truth.
Let me try to examine this issue in a symbolic way to make the
point more precisely and in a quantitative way with a diagram :
(A) -10---------------- 0 ---------------+10 (B)
Where A and B are two adversarial entity (race, religion,
individuals etc) and bias by anyone for side A is represented by
the numbers -1 to -10 and that for side B as +1 to +10, So favoring
side A completely (blind unqualified support) is represented by -10,
favoring completely side B is represented by +10, whereas -x or +x
(where x is any number in the continuum between -10 to +10) means
favoring side A or B respectively with some reservation or criticism
of one side and/or some support for the other.
Let X be a member of A. When X takes on the negative number - x,
he/she is said to be biased in favour of A. When X takes on the
positive number + x, he he/she is said to be biased in favour of B.
Now if it is accepted as possible that X can take on a position on
either side of the center ("0"), as supported by evidence, for
example we know that some members of one religion, race view another
race, religion more favourably and may even help them in any actual
conflict. Male feminists exist, as do females who defend male
superiority. Western apologists for Islam exist. Communist fans
exist among capitalist nations and vice versa. Homosexuals favour
their own gender in contravention of the overwhelming influence
which favour heterosexuality and so on.
Now it is evident that a member X of A is more LIKELY to be biased
towards A than B. So -x is more likely than +x , So "0" which is between
-x and +x must be more likely than +x. So if there can be an X with +x
(as the examples cited above demonstrate) then certainly there can be
another X with x=0 which is more likely than +x. There is nothing in
principle to rule out an X who can take a position exactly at 0. "0"
cannot be ruled out by any logical reasoning. An assertion that "0" is
not a possible position by any X thus has to be based on pure faith, not
logic or evidence.
Finally some speculation as to why one at all resort to such
dogmatic assertions of the impossibility of being unbiased. The
plausible reasons can be that by asserting all are biased it gives
them a secure feeling of being at par with everyone else, not being
more wrong than others or as correct as others etc. It relieves them
of the accountability in drawing conclusions . After all if all are
biased then no conclusion can be labelled wrong. All are right in
their own way, so no accountability of substantiating any claim or
any conclusion would be required. This is the same mindset that
motivates one to the dogmatic assertion that all truths are
subjective.
Q#2-7: What gives a rationalist the right to judge someone's
personal belief as illogical, when to the believer
the belief is as real and logical ?
A#2-7: A rationalist has nothing to say on a person's privately
held beliefs and practices. In fact no one should even
be aware of the private beliefs of others, unless
the believer obliges a request by someone to divulge
his beliefs. When someone verbalizes his private belief
to someone or in public, without being requested to do so,
he is implicity asserting the truth of his belief. At that
point a rationalist aquires the full moral right to express
disagreement about the truth of the assertion and provide
reasons for the dissent. If one has has the right to express
one's opinion on something, then others also have the
right to express the opposite opinion on it as long as no
personal attack is resorted to. Thats fair and square.
Q#2-8: Aren't the Laws of nature just constructs of human mind, they
don't have any independednt existence?
A#2-8: Many scientists and philosophers known as "constructivists"
or "nominalists" (Contrast with "realists" who believe the opposite)
do believe that laws of nature is an invention of huamn mind. They
believe that laws are "descriptions" rather than "prescription" of
reality. In other words the laws are nothing but human constructs to
map observations of reality into certain invented patterns. So the
reality is not described by an apriori prescription, but observations
of reality are fit into a prescribed pattern a posteriori by human
mind. Realists on the other hand believe that an unchanging, apriori
law exists (May not yet be known) that will describe ALL observations
(current and future). But according to the contsructivists any
prescription is ad hoc, it will always be subject to change to
accomodate new observations. Revisions of scientific theory to
explain a new observation in this view is nothing but changing the
prescription of the pattern so that the new observation as well as
the existing ones fit into the revised pattern. An examle may help to
illustrate this. Suppose we model our reality as consisting of
observations which are just numbers. Let our reality consist of
observation of three numbers 1, 3, 9. We may describe this
observation by a prescription 2*n^2+1, where "*" denotes
multiplication and "^" denotes "raised to the power of", thus the
above expression means 2 mulitipied by n raised to 2 plus 1, where
n = 0,1,2... This is our law of the nature(reality). Suppose also
that we can accurately evaluate our law upto n=10, and that for
higher n, our computatioin has a margin of error of 1% (rounded to
the nearest integer). So our computation of 2*11^2+1 can be any
number within 241-245. So if we observe any number 241-245 we cannot
be sure if the observation agrees with the law or that the law is
inaccurate, but being within the margin, we can assume that the
observation agrees with our law and more importantly we cannot say
that our observation contradicts the law. Now as long as 1, 3 and 9
are all the only observed numbers, we are satisfied that 2* n^2+1
is the correct description, "law". This law now also predicts an
observation of 19 (for n=3). If 19 is indeed observed then it will
serve as a further evidence in support of the independent reality of
the law. Now suppose instead we observe a new number 27, so now the
reality to us consist of observations 1, 3, 9, 27. Then obviously all
our observations do not map into 2*n^2+1 anymore. But if we revise
the law as 3^n (n=0,1 , 2, 3, ..), then it does correctly describe
all the numbers. That is what revision of scientific theory is about.
But if instead of 27 we had observed 37, it may not be possible to
revise the prescription to explain the new number, there may not
exist any law at all! (i.e no revision possible). The new observation
will remain an unexplained one and would contradict our existing law.
So we can never be sure that an unchanging eternal prescription
will explain any future observation (number), even if all the current
observations are explained by it. The more number of observations we
have fitting the prescription, the more confident we can be about the
reality of the law, but never certain. Now suppose that indeed we
have observed the all the numbers 1,3,9,19, 51,73,99,129, 163, 201
(for n=0 to 10). So we are confident about our law. Now suppose we
also observe the number 244. We try to fit it by using n=11 which
gives us with our error margin of 1% the range 241-245. So we
conclude that our new observation does not at least contradict our
law, but either fits into the law within an error margin or may be
our law needs some revision in case it does not give 244 after the
error margin is eliminated through improved computing ability, we don'
t know which is true at this time. Suppose that error margin is
indeed eliminated and we get 243. So 244 is indeed an unexplained
observation that contradicts our law. Then someone clever comes up
with a revision 2*n^2+1+n/10 , where "/" means integer division, so
n/10 = 0 for n=0-9, 1 for n=10-19, etc. Now 244 can be explained by
this revised law. The same can be said about 452 and so on. But until
we discovered this revision or improved our error margin, 244 can be
considered explained or unexplained within our law, but certainly
not contradicting it. This is not like 37, which certainly
contradicts our law.
Now let us tie it all to our real world. All the observations in
our real world are like 1,3,9...163, 201, 244, 452.. where most do
fit into the laws of nature 2*n^2+1 , some do within a margin of
error or at least do not contradict it. Galaxy formation, creation
of life, consciousness etc are like 244, 452.. We cannot explain
them fully by our existing natural law , but they may potentially
be explained in future, by either refining or computing ability, or
revising our current laws (Which is the case fo4 244 and 452 as we
saw). Miracles, paranormal phenomena, if they exist at all, will
be like the number 37. Paranormal is defined as unverified reports
of observing 37 (most likely once), but some, but not others,
unlike all the other numbers which have been observed by all
and repeatedly. We will calli it a miracle if 37 is indeed observed
repeatedly and verified to betrue. SO miracle is a documented
violation of natural law. But even then we cannot rule out a
future revision of the law or totally new law that may explain
the miracle as well as the other numbers. We cannot say by logic
that the existence of 37 proves that a hypothetical entity G exists,
who created 37 as a sign to let us know of its existence! One can
say that as a pure faith.
So we conclude that we cannot be absolutely sure whether the
Physical laws are apriori prescriptions or a posteriori descriptions
of reality. But due to the fact that an impressive number of
observations do fit into the prescriptions of the scientific laws, it
gives us a high degree of confidence in its reality. Some of those
observations that agree with predictions (Like making a nuclear
bomb using the prescriptions of physics) are quite impressive and
it is diffcicult to view it as a coinicidental agreement between
prediction and observation. In fact it is seems so unlikely that
physicist Paul Davies made the following strong (not his wont)
remark in his Tepleton Award lecture:
(http://www.origins.org/ftissues/ft9508/davies.html)
"It has become fashionable in some circles to argue that science
is ultimately a sham, that we scientists read order into nature,
not out of nature, and that the laws of physics are our laws, not
nature's. I believe this is arrant nonsense. "...
"The laws of physics, I submit, really exist in the world out there,
and the job of the scientist is to uncover them, not invent them"
Roger Penrose is also realist. He believes that we discovered
mandelbrot sets ( z = z*z + c), not invented it.
Is there any way at all for us to ever settle this uncertainty
about the existence of an unchanging true "law"? There is one way
I can think of. If and when human mind (consciousness) can be
completely explained by scientific laws (Current or with future
extensions) so that consciousness can be predicted or explained by
that law, so that it becomes a necessary consequence of the law,
then we can claim that scientific laws indeed have a real basis,
scientific laws would then have an existence independent of human
mind. Why? Simply because if mind is created by Scientific laws
then mind cannot create the same scientific laws. The creation
cannot create its creator!, which is a logical absurdity (seems to me).
3===The God Debate
Q#3-1: Isn't the fact that the universe looks so designed, so orderly,
governed by laws, a proof that there is a purpose behind its
creation and that there is a designer, lawmaker?
(The amswer was also posted in http://groups.yahoo.com/group/MuktoChinta/message/3933)
A#3-1: This is nothing but the same old argument from design (Rather
intelligent design, "ID" in short) for the exitence of God.
If the question is "Can Science be used to find God?". The short
answer is NO. Although there are still some scientists who believe in
some abstract creator God (but very few in the traditional God of
revelations), no scientist today worth their reputation, can with a
straight face claim to be able to prove the existence of God through
science. What some can do and have done is to suggest "intelligent"
design. But that also has now been shown to be an illusion in the way
one looks and interprets scientific facts, not an assertion of an
actual fact of observation. The argument for an intelligent design to
prove the existence of a creator(God) is very old one. This is an
intuitive argument that most humans, of any level of intellect come
up with. This reflects a naive attempt to answer a very profound
question that is really unanswerable. Saying that something which
LOOKS designed IS designed is stating a conclusion (That "LOOKS"
= "IS") without a proof. Secondly to say "is designed" implicitly
assumes that there already exists a designer, because "looks designed"
, or "doesn't look designed" can only make sense with respect to a
pre-existing designer. But that is assuming what one intended to
prove in the first place! ( i.e that there happens to be a designer).
To prove that "looks designed = is designed" one must first prove
that there exists a designer and next has to prove that what is being
claimed to be designed has indeed been designed by that designer and
by nothing else. The proof, if has to be a valid one must involve
both these two independent steps. thirdly, ther is a logical error
in the thestic argument for designer as can be seen below:
1. Order in the universe is used to argue for the existence of God
2. God is postulated to be uncreated and existing necessarily
Because of 2, God will have exist regardless of whether there is
order or not. So (1) fails to provide an argument for the existence
of God
Finaly "looks designed" itself is a biased interpretation of human
mind based on familiarity with previous experience. For example we
know a watch is designed by a human from our previous knowledge of
another watch being desined by a human, or by observing the cogs and
springs in the watch which are known to be designed by humans etc. So
being "designed" is a perception based on context and experience
from similar instances. Hence "LOOKS = IS" is an inductive
statement of generalization from familiar human experience. We
encounter objects in the world, which we categorize into two classes,
those that look designed due to our previous knowledge of many other
similar things known to be designed by humans to serve human
purpose, and things that look random (to humans) as they are known
to be not designed by humans, found in nature. So according to our
mental map, our world consists of a set of both orderly and random
objects which enables us to inductively conclude if anything
arbitrary we come across is designed or not. But such inductive
generalization does not make sense when we push it to the extreme
case of the entire creation and and call it designed, because, we don't
have such similar experiences of many other universes that were
designed by known designers. The whole universe we live in is just
one instance. No inductive generalization can make any logical sense
when applied to universe as a whole, because there is nothing similar
to generalize inductively from ! So the statement LOOKS(Designed) =
IS(Designed) is flawed if applied to the entire universe. Not only
that, the entire universe contains both designed and undesigned
objects. So we cannot strictly say that the universe is designed
because it is composed of undesigned (perceived) objects too.
All the objects that we call designed, are called so becasue we KNOW
they would not exist without a designer, a watch for example, where
we KNOW there is a designer with an intent (A human). But the same
cannot be said about natural objects, like a tree. Becasue we don't
KNOW (In the same sense as wacth) that a tree would not exist without
a creator (in the sense of a creator of a watch). We cannot extend
inductive arguments from the class of man made objects to the class
of natural objects by rules of logic. Inductive generalizations can
only make sense with identical or similar classes.
The fact that humans and animals look like designed objects again is
rooted in bias from knowledge about manufactured objects which are
known to have a designer. Besides evolution can provide a much simpler
explanation of emergence of complex organs of animals by selection and
mutation. At the heart of all evolution is simple incremental steps
dictated by laws of Physics. So Laws of Physics can be said to be the
designer of all living and non-living objects, in the entire
universe, and behind the evolution (But not the existence) of the
entire universe. Do the Laws of Physics then need a designer? A law
giver? Again we don't have any precedence at the cosmic level to
inductively generalize from to arrive at this conclusion. A belief in
an uncaused, eternal God as the law giver is no more logically
appealing than an uncaused eternally existing Laws of Physics
governing the universe. The former is explaining the known by an
unknown, the latter is expalining a known by a known, obviously a
simpler one. And simpler explanation is always preferred. Not that
there is any absolute way to prove one or another. The fact that
the former "explanation" offers more emotional appeal to some does
not make it a more plausible one from a rational or scientific view.
The perception of something being designed or not designed is not
a scientific decision, but inherently a subjective and biased
one based on an awareness of an intent and thus not guaranteed to
be accurate. For example some abstract piece of art, if we were
not told that it was by a famous artist, may have been mistaken
as due to accidental splash of colors, because we cannot associate
any intent with such a splash. On the other hand, an artist may
have spilled some color by mistake, but it may appear to be an
impressive work of art with an intent behind it, to someone
unaware of that fact of accidental spilling! In other words, there
can be objects which look designed but have no designer, and there
can be objects which doesn't look designed but indeed have a
designer. It all depends on whether someone attaches an intent
of design to the object in question. As Noble Laureate Steven
Weinberg says:
"Even a universe that is completely chaotic, without any laws or
regularities at all, could be supposed to have been designed by
an idiot" (p-232, "Facing UP")
So non-randomness or regularity is no guarantee of any conscious
designer.
Those who cites order in the universe as the proof of the existence
of a creator invariably answers the question as to who created the
creator by saying that the creator of the universe is uncreated and
exists necessarily. Now if one insists that there exists a creator
necessarily, then it is a fallacy to argue that a creator exists
because there is order in the universe. Because if the creator exists
necessarily, then its existence is independednt of any order and would
exist even if there is no order. THere is no reason to believe that
a creator will always want there to be an order in the universe. A
creator might very well choose to create an orderless universe.
An order or design has no significance without an accompanying
"intent". We know a watch has a designer because we KNOW that
there is a purpose or intention for designing it. If an object
does not look designed or shows any sign of an intent, we would not
conclude it has a designer. For example an artist may decide to
design an abstract piece of art which may not look designed and
would thus not be considered to have a designer unless one is told
that it was drawn by an artist.
SO JUST AS NON-RANDOMNESS OR REGULARITY IS NO GUARANTEE OF ANY
CONSCIOUS DESIGNER, SIMILARLY RANDOMNESS OR NON-REGULARITY
ALSO IS NO GUARANTEE OF THE ABSENCE OF A DESIGNER EITHER.
The whole argument of positing a creator based on the perception
of order or regularity is based on personal bias, not logic or
evidence.
Finally the perception that there are indeed eternal laws
governing our universe itself is debatable. Many scientists have
argued that the laws of science in its most elegant form is nothing
but an intelligent construct of human mind starting from some very
basic and simple, almost common sensical set of "rules". For example
Physicist and author Victor Stenger makes that point in his
article at:
http://spot.colorado.edu/~vstenger/Nothing/WhereLaws.pdf
He also shows how the design in the universe can also be explained
naturally without invoking a deity at:
http://spot.colorado.edu/~vstenger/Found/12Godless.pdf
which is part of his book "Has science found God?"
The question of the objective reality of scientific laws has
also been addressed in my articles at:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/MuktoChinta/message/3074
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/mukto-mona/message/7340
The second problem is in the "logic" that "God created this
universe because everything not random needs a creator,
thus the universe must need a creator(God)". The logic above
also contains an assertion of faith that God does not need a
creator. That is s case of mixing faith and logic. The first
part is applying a logic (inductive generalization). The second
part (That God does not need a creator) is an article of pure faith,
which is not dictated by logic. By mixing faith and logic one can make
anything possible or impossible. By the same logic that one insists
that universe has to have a creator because it is not random, one
must also insist that God (Surely not a random entity either) also
has to have a creator too. So only an additional clause of faith
can resolve this fallacy. But then that clause of faith is beyond
rationalism and totally arbitrary. Arbitrary and irrational article
of faith can make anything possible or impossible by mixing it with
logic as mentioned earlier.
Furthermore, in the very word creator, the "-or" implies
a conscious being, something again derived from an inductive
generalization based on human experiences, because all the
objects we call designed in the world are known to be designed
by human, a conscious being. But we don't call a snowflake
designed although it certainly is not a random or irregular
object. Although the advocates of design argument may call it
an object of intelligent design of God also. So when ID
advocates cannot identify a human designer of an object that
looks designed(by human perception) they will postulate an
invisible (conscious) humanlike designer. This is called
argument from ignorance and is a fallacy. Moreover such an
inductive generalization of a conscious designer is also a
flawed extension of ordinary logic to uncharted territory
where ordinary intuition and human logic is not guaranteed
to be meaningful, let alone applicable. We already know that
in the Quantum world ordinary causality does not hold. Events
at the microscopic level do not have distinct cause-effect
idientities, they only satisfy certain fundamental laws which
are completely time-symmetric. Causality is an emergent
phenomena at the macroscopic level.
Now let us turn to the so called fine tuning argument which is often
cited as the proof for God. So many parameters in the universe seemed
to be so finely tuned just so that life can flourish and evolve,
which would not have been possible had any of those parameters been
slightly different, hence there must be intelligent design at work
behind such fine tuning. This argument is also scientifically flawed.
The fact is that such finetuning is viewed as having a supernatural
(i.e beyond physics) implication is due to (a) improper understanding
of statistics (b) relying on our intuitive notion of causality from
day to day experience and extending it to the extreme. To illustrate
(a) for example, if we roll ten dice the likelihood of getting the
sequence 6526553214 is the same as the sequence 6666666666, both
of which are equally likely and are also each very unlikely to
occur in one trial (1/6x1/6x1/6x1/6x1/6x1/6x1/6x1/6x1/6x1/6). But
the former will not catch anyone's attention, the latter will.
When one is dealt a hand of thirteen cards from an ordinary deck of
52 playing cards, the probability of being dealt that particular hand
is one in 600 billion (52 factorial = 52 x 51....x 2 x 1, to be exact)
Yet, it would be absurd to conclude that he could not have been dealt
that very hand because it is so very improbable or that there must
have been a supernatural connection for him to get this rare hand!
Another important aspect of probability that is not appreciated by
many that time and numbers play a very important role in statistics.
A very unlikely event will eventually occur given enough time. Or
equivalently if many trials are conducted for an unlikely event
simultaneously, one of the trial will materialize the very unlikely.
Those who have studied statistical Physics will recognize this in the
ergodic hypothesis, a very important concept, which basically says
that a system will traverse all possible phase trajectories given
enough time. The more common example of this is illustrated by the
proverbial case of million monkeys hammering at the piano when one
of them will end up composing Bethoven's fifth symphony after
millions of years. If someone at that moment only witnessed that
particular monkey, not aware of the other millions hammering away
for millions of years would find it a miracle. The same is the case
of the fact of our witnessing life in the universe. We are amazed
that out the billions of known stars and their planets only Sun
harbours wonderful life forms and only in the planet earth. Is that
a surprise. Life requires a sensitive range of conditions of
temperature, gravity, density of atmosphere, right distance from star,
right tilt of the axis etc for life to evolve. Only earth satisifes
this condition. Its like 6X6X6X6X6X6X6X6X6X6 people rolling ten dice
at once. One of them will certainly roll 6666666666. Any surprise?
All the billions of planets are like ten rolled dice. Only one(earth)
is 666666666 (ie. has conditions suitable for life forms). So here we
are, on planet earth wondering about life. If planet "X" instead
satisfied the conditions of life instead of earth then we would be on
planet "X". But then we would call "X" earth. Its only a matter of
label. Going a step further, it may appear that our universe with so
many fine tuned parameters conspiring together to allow life to
evolve in our universe must be special, an act of intelligent design.
But there are two fallacies in such thinking. There is no logical or
scientific evidence that the APRIORI probability for those parameters
to assume any other values are the same. We cannot rule out the
possibilty that the ultimate laws of nature (Theory of Everything,
when it is discovered) requre that the parameters take on the fine
tuned values, allowing no other values. Then it would not be a
contingency, but a necessity of the laws of nature. Secondly we cannot
rule out the new Quantum Cosmological view of infinite number of
independent chaotic universes continuously being born and evolving
with all different values of the Physical parameters, and where the
universes which do not have the required values will not evolve to
contain intelligent lives, or may not even have stars and die out
soon. And there will be some which will lead to star formation and
even life, which have the parameters within that narrow range, like
the universe we happen to be in. It is analogous to the situation
where among all the known planets and stars only Sun and Earth are
suitablle for life form. And as we saw above, that is a tautological
fact. So the design can be ultimately traced to the laws of Physics,
and it is the laws of Physics that will remain unaccounted for. But
then causality is a human construct. The laws of Physics can simply
"BE". It need not be subject to the same laws of causality that
other emergent phenmomena in nature are seen to follow. To be
conservative and honest, we have to say we don't even know what to
ask, believe in, or theorize beyond a certain limit (which is always
moving further), when it comes to ultimate reality of the
very existence of the universe (or universes). There is no valid
scientific argument to prove the existence of a conscious creator
or an intelligent designer. All such arguments at some point have
to make an arbitrary assertion of faith and invoke some ill-defined
non-scientific notion.
Q#3-2: Why should believer prove the existence of God when
disbeliever cannot prove the non-existence of God either?
or equivalently "Just because I can't PROVE the existence of
'God', does not mean that 'God' does not exist."
A#3-2: First I must state that an atheist should not be defined as
one who asserts that God does not exist and claims to have proved
that assertion. Rather they should be defined as those who
assert that the claim that God exists is not proven by
observation and any proof of God's existence is logically flawed.
The detailed discussion that follows will clarify this issue further.
There are two sides to this question. First to prove or disprove
any proposition, the words used in the proposition have to be
defined precisely. If any term is undefined, or ambiguously
defined, then the question of proving or disproving it, both do
not arise and the proposition will be a meaningless one for
a debate. For a logical (dis)proof, any definition of the terms
used in the proposition has to be acceptable as clear and
unambiguous, and agreed to by ALL, not just to those who are
asserting the proposition as true. An example will make it
clear. If someone makes statement that "A Priangle exists",
where a priangle is defined as "a geometric figure bound by
three staright lines such that the three angles add up to
more than 180 degrees", then such a statement IS a proposition
and it is meaningful to speak about a logical (dis)proof, as
all the terms in the definition of priangle are well-defined
to anyone, including those who do not assert that proposition.
Now well-defined propositions can be proved or disproved
either by logic, evidence or by observation. The playing field
for attempting a logical proof and disproof of propositions
is even. But in case of propositions like "X exists" (e.g
Prinagle exists) the playing field for proof and disproof
by observation is not even. Because if one can produce
even ONE INSTANCE of the observation of the existence of
"X" the proof is done. But there is no such "instance"
of non-existence of anything, let alone ONE instance.
One can wait till eternity and not observe one instance,
but still one can argue that it may be observed in future.
So it is a logical fallacy to even demand a proof of
non-existence by observation (Known as the fallacy of
shifting the burden of proof). So for such propositions
it is the burden of those who assert existence of X to
prove it, not the burden of those who reject the
assertion to disprove X's existence.
Now come to the central issue of the assertion "God exists".
This is not a proposition since God is not a well-defined
and unambiguous term agreed to by ALL. Many define
God in various ways. In some definitions of God, the
proposition is trivially true, eg God = The totality of
laws of science (Currently known + future discoveries)
But all religious definitions are either ambiguously
defined and not agrred to by all, or in many cases when
is possible to define it clearly, lead to some logical
inconsistencies, which effectively disproves the proposition
logically. For example the proposition "Priangle exists" can
be logically disproved as it leads to a logical contradiction :
A Priangle is a triangle and also not a triangle.
(because a triangle is also a figure formed by three
straight lines, hence is a priangle, but the sum of its angle
is not greater than 180 degrees, hence not a priangle).
Similarly one common definition of God (e.g an omnipotent,
omniscient, omnibenevolent entity) leads to logical
contradictions , e.g God cannot make a stone so heavy that
he cannot lift etc. In fact any attribute of infinity
leads to a logical contradiction, known as Cantor's paradox
in math. So some all attributes have to be made large but
finite, undermining the very notion of God. So does the
other common defintion of God = Creator of the universe,
as it leads to the question as to what is the creator of the
creator, and thus to an infinite chain, making the definition
of a creator an elusive one. All the religious defintions of
God suffer from some sort of contradiction. Regardless of
what defintion is used (clear or ambiguous), the proposition
"God exists" has never been logically or observationally
proven. It only remains as a faith, just as one can
continue to have a faith in the existence of a priangle,
since its non-existence cannot be proven by observation.
It must be re-emphasized that atheists cannot claim to prove
that God does not exist. But thats not what atheists or
disbelievers claim or should claim to be. They can only claim
that the proposition that God exists is logically flawed and
that it is not proven by observation either. So there is
definite assymetry between theists and atheists. Theists
cannot prove what they assert (That God exists) but atheists,
disbelievers can prove what they assert ( That any proof of
God exists is logically flawed and not proven by observation
yet).
Q#3-3: Can you define theism, atheism, agnosticism, rationalism
secularism,huamnism etc clearly and tell me what is the
rational position to take vis a vis their definitions?
A#3-3: Sure.
Suppose the following two questions are asked:
(1) Does the sentence "God exists" express a proposition?
(2) If so, then is that proposition true or false?
PROPOSITION: A sentence constructed of well-defined words
free from ambiguity and contradictions such that a unique "yes"
or "no" value can be unambiguously assigned to the sentence.
COGNITIVIST : Who says yes to (1)
NON-COGNITIVIST : Who says no to (1)
Noncognitivists say no to (1) because God cannot be defined
in a logically consistent way free from self-contradictions such that
it's existence can be a meaningful notion for (1) to be a proposition.
It must be understood that by asserting that "God does not exist" is
not a proposition, one is automatically implying (not assertijng) a
lack of belief in God, which is not the same as "disbelieving" God,
as the latter is a negative assertion assuming a logically consistent
DEFINITION of God exists whose existence is denied, that is the
stand of an atheist. Thats a subtle difference that many fail to
grasp.
Now cognitivists are of three kinds: viz. theist, atheist and
agnostics defined below:
THEIST : If and only if one's answer to (2) is that the proposition
is true or probably true with a high likelihood.
ATHEIST : If and only if one's answer to (2) is that the proposition
is false or probably false with a high likelihood.
AGNOSTIC : if and only if one refuses to commit to a "yes" or "no"
answer to (2) and justifying the refusal by citing
insufficient evidence one way or another.
The existing concepts of God can be divided in two categories :
GOD-R : Various RELIGIOUS notions of God based on dogmas
of revelations or personality cults where God is described as
as a personal deity (i.e in concerned with each human's life in
a personal way) often with super-humanlike attributes like
omniscience, omnipotence, omnibenevolence (super is symbolized
by the "omni-" prefix) and other attributes specific to religions.
In both the revelation based and personality cult based case, a
specially chosen human (prophet, lord..) is belived to be the
authentic representative of God.
GOD-S: Various SPIRITUAL notions of God formed independent
of any established religious doctrines, as being the impersonal,
abstract root cause for the universe. The simplest example being
belief in God simply as the creator of the universe and controls
everything that happens in it, no other attributes being mentioned.
Other examples are Deism where God is defined as the creator
of the universe but its the natural laws that govern the universe
once it is created. Belief in these notions of God-S is simply a
reflection of the ignorance and fear about the ultimate mystery
of the universe and of a need for a sense of security in facing the
inevitable fact of human mortality. Some well-defined, unambiguous
notions God are nothing but relabelling of existing notions, and
thus useless as well, since they lack in one very important element,
which is a belief in a supreme deity as the cause or control of the
universe. Examples of such trivial notions of God are: God=A cosmic
love or Consciousness, God=Universe/Nature (Pantheism). These
definitions of God should not be classed under theism to be strict.
So we will lump it under the generic label "nontheist" to be defined
formally later.
Since two relevant definitions of God have been provided we have
to qualify the definitions of theists, atheists, and agnostics
accordingly by the notations Theist-R, Atheist-R, Agnostic-R or
Theist-S, Atheist-S and Agnostic-S. (Non)cognitivists hardly factor
in any God or religious debate, so we will refer to them without
the suffix "-R" or "-S". Also in almost all debates Atheists and
Agnostic are meant as Atheist-R and Agnostic-R, so we will just use
just atheist and agnostic (in small caps) to mean Atheist-R, Agnostic-R.
But both theists are relevant and used in the debates, so we must
draw distinctions. We will say theist ("t" in small cap) to always mean
Theist-R (no exceptions, unless when specifically stated to mean
both) and spiritualist to mean Theist-S in all debates and in what
follows.
An Important Note : Please be aware that my categorization
scheme uniquely maps only INDIVIDUALS to categpries, not
RELIGIONS. It is possible that in certain religions different
followers af that religion may map to different categories.
A Buddhist for example can individually be an atheist, an
agnostic or a spiritualist, because Buddhism has no definite
stand on the God question. The same applies to a less extent
to Hinduism.
Let me summarize:
1. The assertion that God is not logically well-defined
automatically implies a LACK in belief in God's
existence.
2. LACK of belief in God''s existence is not the same as
ASSERTING that God does not exist. The latter has to
assume that God is logically consistent and well-defined
(otherwise "exist" becomes a meaningless word), the
former does not have to (as in 1 above)
3. Since noncognitivists do not accept God as a logically
well defined word, hence they automatically LACK in the
belief in God. (From 1 and 2 above).
So,
Noncognivists ==> lack in a belief in God.
Atheists ==> also lack a belief in God, but also
assert that it does not exist.
RATIONALISM:
Philosophy of using logic and evidence as the sole reliable guide
for testing any claims of truth, for seeking objective knowledge
and for drawing conclusions about reality. Ratioanlists cannot
make a definite conclusion or assert a view on a statement that
is not a proposition in the logical sense. Thus rationalists can
only take a noncognitivist position in the context of the God ,
since all defintions of God are not logically precise, and are
inspired by ignorance rather than logic or evidence, to make
(1) a true proposition. Noncognitivists and atheists both share
a common ground in refuting the logic of theists in their
"proof" of God's existence. So for rationalists the issue is not
about disproving the existence of God, but is about the
following :
1. To test any "definition" of God provided by theists
against logical consistency.
2. To test any "proof" provided by theists for the
existence of God (Any definition) for logical
consistency
These two tasks need not be conditional on each other.
Even with a logically inconsistent definition of God, it is
still possible to detect logical fallacies in the proof.
Rationalism should only test and refute definitions and
proofs of God by theists. It is simply being conservative,
by not saying more than is allowed by logic. Asserting
the non-existence of God as is the case with atheists requires
proving a universal negative which is not possible by pure
logic or evidence.
Rationalism vs. Atheism:
Noncogntivism should be the default position of rationalism,
as it rejects the very "notion" of a divine entity, not it's
existence, because the notion is considered vague and
contains internal logical contradiction. Rationalists cannot
accept logically inconsistent notions and base any opinion
on it. On the other hand , by asserting that "God does not
exist", atheists are taking upon themselves the burden of
proof, and by saying that "there is no evidence for God",
atheists are relieving the theists of the burden of defining
God (tacitly, since assertion of evidence or lack thereof can
only be meaningful to a well-defined notion). Noncognitivists
rather shift both the burdens on the theists . Noncognitivists
do not take any position in response to theism (The default),
whereas atheists do take a definite position in reponse to
theism. In absence of the claims of theism, the distinction
between noncognitivists and atheists would disappear.
A further distinction between rationalist and atheist is
discussed below in the context of the view on ultimate reality.
VIEW ON THE ULTIMATE REALITY:
How do each category discussed above view the ultimate mystery
of the creation? Symbolically the various views on the ultimate
reality can be represented by:
(In the following "X==>Y" means X gives rise to Y, "X-->Y-->Z"
means X evolves via Y into Z)
(1) ?==>Natural Laws==>Universe(Initial)-->
-->Natural Laws-->Universe(current)
(2) Natural Laws ==>Universe(Initial)-->Natural Laws-->
-->Universe(current)
(3) God==>Natural Laws==>Universe(Initial)-->
-->Natural Laws-->Universe(current)
(4) a) God==>Laws of Nature + Universe(Initial)
b) Universe(Initial)-->Natural Laws + God-->Universe(current)
(5) God==>Universe(Initial)-->God-->Universe(current)
By Universe(current) it is meant everything in the present universe,
including all life forms, stars, galaxies, computers etc.
Universe(Initial) is the primitive form of universe at the moment
of creation and depends on what view of creation one takes.
Possible forms of Universe(Initial) are:
=> A space-time singularity of general relativity or,
=> A timeless (Where time becomes space) four dimensional
hyperspere (no-boundary) as proposed by Hartle-Hawking
Cosmology or,
=> Any other possible initial state posited by religion or cosmology
View (1) is the position taken by rationalism and science, where
an ultimate mystery ("?") of the origin of universe is recognized.
View (2) is taken by atheists (where "?" = NUL)
View (3) defines a DEIST
View (4) is taken by spiritualists and "modernist apologists"
who recognize science (Laws of Nature)
View (5) is taken by theists who deny the reality of scientific laws.
It must be emphasized that (1) and (2) are philosophical world
view, whereas (3)-(5) is part of a faith in God or religion.
Since (1) and (2) are personal philosophies, preaching or
indoctrination should not or does not apply. Rationalism
should naturally lead one to (1), whereas (2) does require an
additional postulate not required by rationality, nor provable by
it, that there IS NO causal hierachy above the natural laws. So
as a persnal philosophy (1) conforms more to rationaliam than (2).
But it is important to realize that since (2) is not against logic
and does not contradict any observation, hence a rationalist CAN
believe in (1) as a matter of FAITH, but cannot adopt it as an
official stand and base any opinion or debate on it, since a
faith cannot be backed up by evidence or logic, unlike atheists
who assert it as their official stand and base their views and
debate on that stand. It is also VERY important to realize that the
true significance of "?" cannot be appreciated and likely to be
misinterpreted and abused unless one thoroughly understands all
that follows it in (1), expected only from a science literate person.
Many atheists are uneasy with view (1) because they fear that in
many societies, which are not economically and technically advanced
and educated, if (1) is promoted, then most people who are not
science literate, can misinterpret the "?", which may lead them
to all sorts of superstitions, quackery, fatalism, targets of
exploitation by unscrupulous people capitalizing on the inherent
fear that the unknown generates in their mind. But it is an
unfounded concern, as state should not preach or promote any
particular world view (theistic or atheistic). Personal worldview
should result from science and education on an indivudual level.
A secular political system should only ensure that science and
rationalism is emphasized in public education.
Some Important Definitions:
-------------------------------
NONTHEIST : not theist (spiritualist, atheist or agnostic or
non-cognitivist)
INFIDELS: This is a contextual term that applies to a given religion,
meaning a non-believer in that religion. Followers of
religion-A are infidels relative to religion-B and vice versa.
Nontheists born in religion-A are infidels relative to
relion-A as well. So nontheist are infidels to all religions.
FIDEIST :
Theist who says yes to (2) purely as a matter of faith, not
claiming any evidence or logic to justify his faith nor does he
necessarily (but may) believe that all the revelations are strict
words of God, and keeps his faith private and non-political.
They don't have any negative opinions or hatred of other
religious beliefs, nor areindifferent to any religious criticisms
by atheists or any nontheist, because to them privet faith is
the important issue. Fideist can be either a moderate or a
puritan. Moderates believe and practice the mimimal basic
tenets of religion, like belief in God, the holy book and the
prophet. Whereas puritans believe strictly in all the practices,
rituals and scriptural injunctions in addition to the basic tenets.
APOLOGIST :
Theist who says yes to (2) and claims to have evidence and
logic to support his belief, believes that all the scriptures
and revelations of religion are actual words of God and publicly
affirms and preaches it. They are dogmatic about the truth of
their belief and believe other reigions as wrong and inferior
and believe in religious supremacy simialr to racial supremacy.
They are hostile towards any criticism or logical refutation
of their claim of absolute truth of their faith. Religion is for
them a political matter, an inspiration for nationalism and pride.
Apologists can be of three varieties: (Description follows)
Modernist
Fundamentalist
Extremist
Modernist contend that modern science and technology and
some aspects of western democracy are compatible with
their religious doctrines. They usually live in Western
democracies and are thus exposed to and enjoy modern
amenities and freedom. They justify such compatibility
and advocate integration of certain modern aspects
of lifestyles with religion by conveniently reinterpreting
scriptures if needed. To them religion is primarily a
natioanl identity. They may not practice all the detailed
rites or rituals that scriptures enjoin, but nevertheless feel
passionately about their religious identity and like to view
the achievements in various fields of all the nations where
their religion is the majority, as being the achievements
of their religion, not as the achievement of those nations.
Fundamentalists are the so called obscurantists who are
literal followers of religious doctrines and reject anything
that is not in the doctrines, rejects modernism in any form,
Extremists are those who harbour hatred and intolerance
towards other religions, more so towards nontheists, viewing
them as perpetual enemies to be destroyed or defeated,
actively engage in or abet the use of violence snd coercion
to impose their religious dogma on all members of their
religion, to fight the infidels, and physically harm those
engaging in any logical refutation or criticism of the apologists.
To these apologists private religious rituals are secondary, the
primary obsession is the implementations of the vindictive
scriptural injunctions towards infidels, and apostates.
and the like.
Below is a diagrammatic summary of all the terms define above:
Noncognitivist---> <--\
|
|-->Agnostic |<---Nontheist
| |
|-->Atheist <--/
Cognitivist-->|
| |-->Spiritualist |-->Extremist
| | (Theist-S) |
|-->Theist-->| |-->Apologist-->|-->Fundamentalist
| | |
|-->theist-->| |-->Modernist
(Theist-R) |
| |-->Puritan
|-->Fideist-->|
|-->Moderate
SECULARISM & THEOCRACY :
Secularism is the political philosophy advocating separation of
state affairs and religious doctrines and institutions . It believes
in keeping relgious beliefs and rituals confined to private life.
Nontheists support secularism in principle. Fideists are usually
indifferent to it. They may or may not advocate secularism.
Some do personally prefer secularism as a principle.
Apologists are necessarily opposed to secularism, advocating
theocracy, which is defined as running a state based on religious
scriptures . They favour integrating religion with public life in
various degrees . The form of theocracy may differ depending
on which apologists (Modernists or Fundamentalists) have the
dominant role in running the state.
HUMANISM:
A political philosophy whose priority and concern is the
upholding and preservating of basic human rights and welfare
irrespective of color, race, religion etc and opposing any
act that violates basic human rigts without exception, committed
under any name or pretext, either by groups or individuals .
Humanism does not explicitly advocate secularism. Its primary
focus is human rights and welfare. If any form of theocracy
necessarily implies human rights violation for some then it will
oppose suh theocracy in principle, whereas secularism is solely
focussed on separating state from relgion. It is possible that
in ceratin secular state, law may not prohibit a private
religious ritual involving the violation of human rights by
one memeber of a family on another within the family.
Secularism has no official position on that per se, since state
is not involved in it, but humanism will oppose it officially.
A SECULAR HUMANIST is one who advocates both secularism
and humanism. Most secularists are humanists too, but they
need not be strictly speaking. So we will often use the word
secularist to mean humanist unless specifically making a
distinction. Fideists can be humanists too. Although some
modernist apologists may oppose certain human rights
violation under religious pretext, they are not committed to
oppose all violations unconditionally, so they cannot be
humanists which presupposes opposing any human rights
violation without exception.
Once again to recap all the relevant terms, where the indented
terms listed under each category are all the possible subcategories
within that category:
Nontheists :
noncognitivist
atheist
agnostic
Theists :
theist (Theist-R):
fideists :
moderate
puritan
apologists :
modernist
fundamentalist
extremist
spiritualist (Theist-S)
Infidels:
Nontheists
Theists (relative to all religions other than their own)
Secular(Humanists):
fideist
nontheists
Rationalists :
noncognitivist (Offically)
atheist (Only as private faith)
It should be apparent that all the bitter debates with angry
exchange of words occur are usually between secularists,
humanists and apologists(modernists and fundamentalists).
Most secular humanists trace the acts of extremists to scriptures
and criticize the modernists for offering any strong deterrents
against the extremists . On the other hand many apologists
interpret the criticisms by humanists of certain passages of
scriptures and of the extremists as being directed against ALL
(Fideist, modernists, spiritualist), an allegation denied by the
secularists. Secularists claim instead that their condemnation is
directed only against ACTS of extremism and the passages which
inspire them to act, and also criticize the modernists for their
alleged connivance of the such acts. Secularists also argue that
the modernists will not be sincere in deterring the extremists
other than token criticism of their acts, for the following reasons:
(1) Both modernists and extremists share a common goal of a
theocratic state (although the view of what the form such a
state should be may vary between them)
(2) Extremists and modernists are complementary, not adversarial
to each other.
(3) Modernists have nothing in common with the targets of the
extremists to feel any need to deter the extremists.
Q#3-4: Doesn't the fact that even atheists turn to some deity in
times of crisis prove that God really exists?
A#3-4: No it doesn't prove God, nor does exsitence of God serve as the
the best explanation of such behaviour. A better explanation is
provided by the evolutionary working of the brain. (The
ubiquitous Occams' Razor again!)
Simply put, the control of our brain (Theist, atheist, agnostic anyone)
is automatically transferred to the limbic system, much like in a power
failure where electrical connections are automatically transferred
to a backup power supply. The limbic system is hardwired to evoke a
belief in deity to cope with the severe stress and insecurity that the
crisis brings about. It is a purely evolutionary adaptation for survival,
much like the reflexive retreat of our hand from a red glowing object,
or a snake like object in dark etc. Rational thoughts from our cortex
area loses control. At that tiem all humans revert to raw animal
reflexes, blurring the distinction between theists, atheists etc that
are results of the difference in neural connections in cerebral cortex
due to both both genetic differences as and differences in
environmental effect of upbringing.
This reflex action of our brain via limbic system is respsonsible
for providing us an artificial consolation of a protector to get past the
crisis without suffering a heart attack. Whether the crisis leads to
eventual catastrophe or to an eventual clearing of danger does
not depend on the change of belief of the distressed people.
Countless incidents of disasters, plane crash, shipwreck with
religious people on board (A Saudi plane crashed with Hajj
pilgrims all dying in the crash sometime ago). So that hard wired
reflex causing an atheist to instinctively switch belief in moments
of severe crisis does not prove at all that God exists. The fact
that religious beliefs and mystical feelings are rooted in the
evolutionary biology of the brain is well established from neuro-
logical research now.
Neurologists are now convinced that every belief/propensity etc are
mapped into specific neuronal patterns in the brain. Because of the
formidable number of neuronal connections it is impossible in practice
to determine which neuronal pattern correspond to which belief. If ever
it can be achieved may be then neurologists can induce blind belief in
human brain through artificially wiring those patterns in the brain and
thus impart the beneficial effects of such blind belief.
The following references and excerpts
from various sources will help to substantiate this assertion.
1. Newsweek May 7, 2001 (God and the Brain)
2. New Scientist magazine, 21 April 2000:
3. Readers Digest March 2002 (Andrew Newberg says god is hardwired in brain)
4. Why God Won't Go Away by Andrew Newberg, Eugene
d''Aquili and Vince Rause (Ballantine Books, 2001)
5. The Mystical Mind : Probing the Biology of Religious Experience -
Eugene G. D'Aquili, Andrew B. Newberg ('99)
6. "The neural substrates of religious experience" by Jeffrey Saver and
John Rabin, The Journal of Neuropsychiatry, vol 9, p 498 (1997)
7. "Experimental induction of the 'sensed presence' in normal subjects and
an exceptional subject" by C. M. Cook and Michael Persinger, Perceptual
and Motor Skills, vol 85, p 683 (1997)
8. The God Part of the Brain - Matthew Alper
(see http//www.godpart.com/premise.html)
9. Biological roots of religious belief :
http://www.SecularHumanism.org/library/fi/hunt_19_3.html
10. http://www.csicop.org/si/2000-11/beliefs.html
11. A. Mandell, "Toward a Psychobiology of Transcendence: God in
the brain", in Psychobiology of Consciousness", ed Davidson &
Davidson" Plenum Press, 1980 (Also quoted in Schick - How to think of
weird things p-121) : The author says that sensory deprivation among
mystics practicing self-denial and self-discipline gives rise to
hallucination.
12. Zen and the Brain - James Austin
13. Raj Persaud, God's in your cranial lobes - Financial Times, May 8/9/1999
14. Lee Hotz - Seeking the biological basis of Spirituality, L.A Times, Apr 25, 1998
Quotes from some of the above references:
=> Zen and Brain (Ref 12): p-18
The sense of great Self (Mystical Experience) must come from the
brain, since it is the organ of the mind.
=> Aquili.. (Ref 5): p22-24: Says brain is the source of all religions/mystical
feelings/ experiences . Proof is in the brain imaging studies.
=> ibid-63: Awareness of the self is the rudimentary basis of consciousness.
=> ibid-79: Myth making is seen as a behaviour arisining from the evolution and
integration of certain parts of the brain.
=> ibid-119: Mystical experience can occur in the area of the brain not
containing the language center, hence M.E. are not amenable to
language.
=> ibid-142: Temporal Lobe simulation ---> Tunnel/Light in NDE ,
hippocampus --->Seeing near relatives, panoramic view of life.
(NDE-> Near death Experience)
=> ibid-155: "As long as human beings are aware of the contingency of
their existence in the face of what appears to be a capricious
universe they must construct myths to orient theselves within that
universe. Thus they construct Gods, demons, spirits and other
personalized power sources with whom they can deal contractually in
order to gain control over a capricious environment... Since it is
unlikely that humankind will ever know the first cause of every strip
of reality observed it is highly probable that it will always generate
Gods, powers, demons and other entities at first causes to explain
what it observes. Indeed people cannot do otherwise."
In "The God Part of the Brain" (Ref 8), Philosopher of
Science Matthew Alper proposes that beliefs in God, the afterlife,
mind-over-matter and superstitions have a physiological origin and
may be encoded into human DNA, evolved as a defense mechanism
to help people cope with the anxiety that comes from being aware
of our own mortality.
Using powerful brain imaging technology, researchers are exploring
what mystics calls nirvana, and what Christians describe as a state of
grace. Scientists are asking whether spirituality can be explained in
terms of neural networks, neurotransmitters and brain chemistry. What
creates that transcendental feeling of being one with the universe? It
could be the decreased activity in brains parietal lobe, which helps
regulate the sense of self and physical orientation, research suggests.
How does religion prompt divine feelings of love and compassion?
Possibly because of changes in the frontal lobe, caused by heightened
concentration during meditation. Why do many people have a profound
sense that religion has changed their lives. Perhaps because spiritual
practices activate the temporal lobe, which weights experiences with
personal significance. "The brain is set up in such a way as to have
spiritual experiences and religious experiences," said Andrew Newberg,
a Philadelphia scientist who wrote the book "Why God Won't Go Away." "
Neuroscientist Michael Persinger at Laurentian University in
Sudbury, Ontario claims almost anyone can meet God, just by
wearing his special helmet. For several years, Persinger has been
using a technique called transcranial magnetic stimulation to induce
all sorts of surreal experiences in ordinary people (New Scientist,
19 November 1994, p 29). Through trial and error and a bit of
educated guesswork, he's found that a weak magnetic field--1
microtesla, which is roughly that generated by a computer
monitor-rotating anticlockwise in a complex pattern about the
temporal lobes will cause four out of five people to feel a
spectral presence in the room with them. Persinger runs what amounts
to a weak electromagnetic signal around the skulls of volunteers.
Four in five people, he said, report a "mystical experience, the
feeling that there is a sentient being or entity standing behind or
near" them. What people make of that presence depends on their
own biases and beliefs. If a loved one has recently died, they may
feel that person has returned to see them. Religious types often
identify the presence as God. Some weep, some feel God has
touched them, others become frightened and talk of demons and
evil spirits."That's in the laboratory," Persinger said. " They know
they are in the laboratory. Can you imagine what would happen
if that happened late at night in a pew or mosque or synagogue?
"His research, Persinger said, showed that "religion is a property
of the brain, only the brain and has little to do with what's out there.
Whatever their validity, Persinger's experiments show that mystical
experiences consist of not only what we perceive, but also how we
interpret it. "We fit it into a niche, a pigeonhole," says Persinger.
"The label that is then used to categorise the experience will
influence how the person remembers it. And that will happen within
a few seconds." There's a third aspect, too: the reinforcement that
humans, as social animals, get from sharing religious rituals with
others.
"Religion is all three of those, and all three are hardwired into the
brain," says Persinger. "We are hardwired to have experiences from
time to time that give us a sense of a presence, and as primates
we're hardwired to categorise our experiences. And we crave social
interaction and spatial proximity with others that are the same.
What's not hardwired is the content. If you have a God experience
and the belief is that you have to kill someone who doesn't believe as
you do, you can see why the content from the culture is the really
dangerous part."
Plenty of evidence supports the idea that the limbic system is
important in religious experiences. Most famously, people who suffer
epileptic seizures restricted to the limbic system, or the temporal
lobes in general, sometimes report having profound experiences during
their seizures. "This is similar to people undergoing religious
conversion, who have a sense of seeing through their hollow selves
or superficial reality to a deeper reality," says Saver. As a result,
he says, epileptics have historically tended to be the people with
the great mystical experiences.
The Russian novelist Fyodor Dostoevsky, for example, wrote of
"touching God" during epileptic seizures. Other religious figures
from the past who may have been epileptic include St Paul, Joan of
Arc, St Theresa of Aila and Emanuel Swedenborg, the 18th-century
founder of the New Jerusalem Church.
During meditation, part of the parietal lobe, towards the top and rear
of the brain, was much less active than when the volunteers were
merely sitting still. With a thrill, Newberg and d'Aquili realised that
this was the exact region of the brain where the distinction between
self and other originates.
Broadly speaking, the left-hemisphere side of this region deals with
the individual's sense of their own body image, while its right-
hemisphere equivalent handles its context--the space and time
inhabited by the self. Maybe, the researchers thought, as the
meditators developed the feeling of oneness, they gradually cut these
areas off from the usual touch and position signals that help create
the body image.
"When you look at people in meditation, they really do turn off their
sensations to the outside world. Sights and sounds don't disturb
them any more. That may be why the parietal lobe gets no input,"
says Newberg. Deprived of their usual grist, these regions no longer
function normally, and the person feels the boundary between self
and other begin to dissolve. And as the spatial and temporal context
also disappears, the person feels a sense of infinite space and eternity.
Q#3-5: Doesn't the fact that we cannot explain the mystery of life and
death, what happens when we die point to a divine being behind the
miracle of life and its death and also point to the existence of soul?
A#3-5:
There is no way to solve the ultimate mystery of life or universe.
We have to live with it. Knowing the ultimate mystery is as
impossible as seeing yourself like others see you, a logical
impossibility. We cannot step outside our body and look
at ourself. It is never possible. Although some claim to be
able to do that as in out of body experience, that is due to
the altered state of the brain. Likewise we are trapped in
this phenomenal world (which means the observable universe,
world of senses, as the Buddhists say Proponchomoy Jogot)
so we cannot in principle understand the ultimate origin
of our phenomenal world, as we cannot step out of the
phenomenal world and take an outsider's view of it. This
is the ultimate limit of science (i.e human knowledge).
We cannot use science to find the origin of science.
Quantum Field Theory cannot be derived from Quantum Field
Theory! Some scientists may say that the Laws of Physics
can be derived from simple rules. But that is for the laymen.
What they mean is that the common laws of Phyisics at the
higher level (Newton's law, Schrodinger's equation etc)
can be derived from some first principle along with some
symmetery assumption (simple rules). But the the first
principle itself, which is Quantum Field Theory, is not
derivable from any simple rules. It has to be taken as a
postulate, an axiom. Let us look at a very high level view
of how science fits into this question of life. Instead of
using verbiage I will base my discussion it in a symbolic
way in a step by step manner. The "?" that follows herefrom
will denote the "ultimate mystery".
Either we have two ultimate mysteries:
1. ? --->Laws of Physics 2. ? ---> Big Bang
or, one ultimate mystery:
1. ? ---> Laws of Physics ---> Big Bang
The second scenario is due to some versions of Cosmology which
derives Big Bang as a consequence of laws of physics (Quantum
Cosmology). Whether we truly have one or two mysteries is not
resolved beyond doubt yet because Quantum Cosmology has not been
developed completely. Anyway, we can say for sure that there
is at least one mystery, we sure don't know from where did
the laws of Physics (Quantum Field theory, which is at the bottom
of ALL laws of Physics) came from. Strong atheists believe
that there is no "?", laws of Physics are the ultimate reality,
self-caused, which is to say there is nothing beyond our phenomenal
world (i.e they claim that "?" is NOT unknown, but it is known and
it is = NULL). Thats a belief. It is also a belief to assert that
"?" is not NULL, that the laws of Physics are not self-caused, there
must be something above the laws of Physics. But to believe that "?"
is not NULL in itself does not mean theism, theism is a positive
assertion that asserts "?" = THIS (Replace "THIS" with the God of
each religion). Platonism is the belief that "?" is = an unknown
layer/dimension of phenomenal world, not a conscious entity as in
theism.
But anything after the "?" (i.e after the Big bang) is within the
domain of science (Phenomenal world), and we can only talk about
unsolved problems, not mysteries within this domain.
Now to begin, let us first note that the laws of chemistry are rooted
in the Laws of Physics, and the laws of Biology are in turn rooted in
the laws of chemistry and to the laws of complexity (i.e Emergent Laws):
Laws of Physics ---> Laws of Chemistry + "Laws of Complexity" ---> Laws of Biology
NOTE: It is not known if Laws of Complexity are independent laws
or follow from the basic laws of Physics. Most scientists believe
that they are indeed the consequences of the Laws of Physics, others
like Nobel Laureate Ilya Prigogine and physicist/author Paul Davies
think that they are additional laws of nature besides the Laws
of Physics. Ilya Prigogine takes the view that emergent laws start
at the top and work downwards (Complex to simple), whereas laws
of Physics start at the bottom and work upwards (simpler to complex
systems), meeting somewhere at the middle where life (or any
dissipative structure) emerges. Prigogine got Nobel prize in 1977
for explaining and discovering dissipative strutures, of which life
is the prime example. Either way, the Laws of Complexity have not
been actually derived by the Laws of Physics, even if they were
rooted in them, due to the sheer complexity of the number of
molecules involved. Now let me outline the steps leading to the
"mystery" (rather the unsolved problem of life):
1. In step 1, simple matter was created after the Big Bang due
to the action of the Laws of Physics (Quantum Fluctuation:
Big Bang --> Laws of Physics --> Simple Matter (atoms, simple molecules)
2. In step two simple matter is again subjected to the laws of Physics
to form Composite matter (Complex molecules) whose behaviour is now
described by Laws of Chemistry:
Simple Matter + Laws of Physics --> Composite matter (Laws of Chemistry)
3. In step 3, composite matter is subjected to Laws of chemistry + the
laws of complexity (chemical evolution) to form living molecules
(Self replicating molecules) and primitive organisms, governed by
laws of biology:
Composite Matter + Laws of Chemistry + "Laws of Complexity" --->
---> Cells, primitive organism. ( Laws of Biology )
4. In step 4, primitive organisms are subjected to Laws of Biology and
laws of complexity (Biological Evolution) to form higher (complex)
organisms:
Primitive Organism --> Laws of Biology + Laws of Complexity
(Biological Evolution) --> Advanced Unicellular/Multicellular Life.
It is important point to note that above is a very high level
flow diagram. The details for each arrow are incredibly complex,
there are unsolved problems galore, and thats where scientists
are working hard on filling out the details, and the complete
mechanism is not known yet, but that is a scientific problem,
not a metaphysical one, and is in principle scientifically
solvable, we are getting closer and closer to the solution.
From step 4 onwards, biological evolution has taken life
forms in two different directions. For bacteria and some other
unicellular organisms, the self-replication is simply by
asexual reproduction, whereas for all other animals it is by
sexual reproductions. And the necessary biological consequence
of sexual reproduction is programmed Cell death (or Apoptosis),
which is the cause of mortality of multicellular organisms,
including humans. Bacteria, which do not reproduce sexually,
are immortal (except if killed, as by antibiotics).
Now coming back to the question of what is death, and whether
there is soul? The first is a scientific question, not a metaphysical
one. The second is a vague question. Take an example. Say you have
a music tape. When you play it in a recorder it plays beautiful
music. Now say accidentally someone pushed the record button
with no input, so the entire music is erased. When you play the
same tape again, no music will be heard. The tape looks the same.
What is missing from the tape, "where" did "it" go? I am sure
this doesn't provoke a metaphysical question in your mind. You
know the answer. The case of the death of human, or any animal
is no different. Just as in the erased tape the individual
tiny magnetized particles are demagnetized(destroyed), the cells
in the brain of a dead human all die (no metabolism) first,
then slowly the cells of other organs decay, due to the lack of
oxygen. Cells in the organs like eye, body limbs die slowly,
so if they are removed promptly before decay starts and
preserved, they can be reused by other human, just as the
parts of a computer whose CPU is damaged can be reused in
another computer. And soul? That is a vague concept, fraught
with logical absurdities. All we have is mind/consciousness,
which is the emergent effect of the brain cells in live action,
much like the music of a tape when the complicated magnetic
patterns in it are passed through a magnetic head. Stop the
tape, and the music stops too. Mind/consciousness is like music
playing due to the trillions of cells in human body running
the genetic code tirelessly. Each individual life has not
much significance to the universe or to "?". The only
importance of each life is in maintining continuity, a link
between its predecessor and its successor. The notion of soul
is completely created by our desire for immortality. As grim
as it may sound, there is not even a logically consistent NOTION
of soul, let alone its existence, beyond the physical body
(specially brain). The only thing that can survive the body is
some information (If it is saved), for example if tape is
destroyed the same tape can be reconstructed (recorded), if
the music itself is saved in say an .mp3 or .wave file. (Which
is information). Likewise, for the human, it is the complete
genome sequence + the complete neuronal configuration of the
brain (Information) that can survive beyond death, provided they
are saved somehow. While the former is within current technology,
saving the complete neural connections is too formidable and beyond
any conceivable biotechnology. Since it is the genome sequence +
Neuronal configuration that essentially define who you are,
that information can be DEFINED to be the soul of a person. But
this soul, does not go anywhere, does not move, but stays as a
potentia in the information space. While it may be possible to
clone a human being (Thus overcoming mortality), but since the
brain of the cloned human can never be the same as the original
human (because neuronal configurations are determined by
environemtnal stimulus, besides genetic code, and environment
will never be exactly same in each rerun of a genome sequence).
The only consolation is that since one does not know what the "?"
is (except for those atheists who know that "?"=NULL), one can make
up anything they wish, whatever that makes them feel secure, gives
them hope against the depressing thought of a temporary existence
on earth.
If humans can argue to prove a divine theory, then one should
also allow human logic to be able to falsify it as well.
MISCELLANEOUS:
EPILOGUE on Chandrashekhar (From Before The Beginning - Martin Rees)
-------------------------------------------------------------------
After his pioneering student insights into how stars end their lives,
Chandrasekhar (universally known as "Chandra") shifted to other
topics. His style of research was unusual. He would choose a subject
and explore it thoroughly for a few years. He would then systematize
his thoughts into a book, and move on to something else. He
produced classic texts on stellar structure, dynamics of stellar
systems, fluid mechanics, and other specialized topics. But he
returned to the study of black holes in much later life.
The early 1970s were the heroic age of black-hole research.
Theorists discovered that, if Einstein was right, black holes
weren't infinitely diverse but standardized objects,
characterized just as surely as any elementary particle by
their mass and their spin. And astronomers were starting to
suspect that black holes were not just theoretical constructs,
but might actually exist in our universe.
This made a deep impression on Chandra aesthetically as well as
scientifically. In a lecture in 1975 he said:
In my entire scientific life... the most shattering experience has been
the realization that an exact solution of Einstein's equations of general
relativity, discovered by the New Zealand mathematician Roy Kerr,
provides the absolutely exact representation of untold numbers of
massive black holes that populate the Universe. This "shuddering
before the beautiful," this incredible fact that a discovery motivated
by a search after the beautiful in mathematics should find its exact
replica in Nature, persuades me to say that beauty is that to which the
human mind responds at its deepest and most profound.
Chandra was already in his sixties when he embarked on black-
hole research. He was fond of quoting the great physicist Lord
Rayleigh's response to I. H. Huxley's claim that "scientists over 60
do more harm than good." Rayleigh (aged 67 at the time) had
responded, "That may be, if he undertakes to criticise the work of
younger men, but I do not see why it need be so if he sticks to the
things he is conversant with." It is a precept that Chandra himself
manifesly followed. He never fully absorbed the mathematical tech-
niques introduced by Roger Penrose, which had given the subject
such impetus. Instead, he made his distinctive contribution by
adapting the more "classical" methods he had used in other contexts.
He analyzed how black holes would respond when their equilibrium was
perturbed, extending techniques that had traditionally
been used to study the vibration modes of a drum, or of earth and
oceans. The techniques, in a sense, complement the methods Penrose
pioneered: they cannot handle generic collapse, where there is
no special degree of symmetry; but they yield a more quantitative
picture of what would happen if a black hole were perturbed (by, for
instance, a smaller object falling into it or orbiting close to it). These
techniques offer a "probe" for black holes, just as seismologists can
learn about the Earth's structure from the various modes of oscilla-
tion when its crust is set "ringing" after an earthquake.
Chandra was unique among his contemporaries in his intellectual
stamina, which, combined with his self-disciplined neatness, allowed
him to carry through the most elaborate mathematical manipula-
tions without flagging and (equally remarkably) without mistakes. I
recall the first time I heard him lecture, at a Cambridge seminar. He
presented his mathematics on slides, which he ran through at bewil-
dering speed because each equation was too long to fit on a single
slide, and spilled over on to several. He ended his talk with a typical
disclaimer: "You may think I have used a hammer to crack eggs, but
I have cracked eggs."
Chandra's mathematical virtuosity is dauntingly manifest in his
650-page treatise, The Mathematical Theory of Black Holes. In one
chapter, 100 pages long, the manipulations are so heavy and the
argument so terse that he adds the following footnote:
The reductions that are necessary to go from one step to another [in
this chapter] are often very elaborate and, on occasion, may require as
many as ten, twenty, or even fifty pages. In the event that some reader
may wish to undertake a careful scrutiny of the entire development,
the author's derivations (in some 600 legal-sized pages and in six
additional notebooks) have been deposited in the Joseph Regenstein
Library of the University of Chicago.
Such is the aura surrounding Chandra and his subject that this
formidable and recondite text has notched up several thousand
paperback sales. Its sales are not, of course, in the class of Hawking's
A Brief History of Time, but it has probably surpassed Hawking's
book in the ratio of copies sold to copies actually read. Any reader
who perseveres would echo the nineteenth-century scholar William
Whewell's reaction to the mathematics of Newton's Principia Math-
ematica: "We feel as when we are in an ancient armoury where the
weapons are of gigantic size; ... we marvel what manner of men
they were who could use as weapons what we can scarcely lift as a
burden."
Chandra was 72 when his book on black holes appeared. Most of
us suspected that it would be his final monograph--indeed, it
rounded off his career with a fitting symmetry, by codifying our
understanding of the objects foreshadowed by what he had done as a
student in Cambridge, decades before (an initial insight that gained
him as much acclaim as the ensuing 50 years of intellectual toil). But
he continued his unflagging output of highly technical papers.
And he developed a new enthusiasm. His lifelong fascination with
individuals who scale the supreme peaks of creativity, whether in
science or the arts, led him to a detailed study of Newton's work,
which culminated in a 600-page exposition, Newton's Principia for
the Common Reader, published in 1995.
Chandra intended his book on the Principia to be his final one.
Indeed he had decided, at the age of 84, to bring his extraordinarily
sustained scientific efforts to a close. He was always critical of elderly
scientists who lived on their reputation; a clean break was better than
the risk of compromising his standards. As he told his colleagues,
"There is a time for all things, and a time to end all things." He died
in August 1995; his last paper appeared that same month. Whether
he would ever actually have relaxed his arduous regime, or made a
clean break from a long life of thinking, learning, and working, we'll
never really know.
As they grow older, some scientists cease doing research. Others
retain their urge to understand the world, but no longer derive
satisfaction from "routine" problems; such people overreach them-
selves, often embarrassingly, by tackling (and even claiming to
solve) fundamental problems beyond their real expertise. Neither of
these paths tempted Chandra.
Excerpts From The Ends Of Philosophy - Harry Redner (1986)
From Inside Jacket:
------------------
"Philosophy today finds itself in a desperate predicament. Deprived by the sciences of
the capacity to deal with issues of substantive knowledge, fragmented and divided against
itself - philosophy might not continue much longer as anything other than an academic
discipline.
The Ends of Philosophy traces the ways in which this situation has arisen, going back to
the initial secession of science from philosophy at the start of the Scientific
Revolution. As a result of this continuing process of secession, metaphysics is now at an
end and philosophy itself is threatened with extinction.
The ending of metaphysics was accomplished within philosophy itself largely be the
critiques of the "great destroyers": Marx, Nietzsche, Wittgenstein and Heidegger. The
book concentrates particularly on Nietzsche and Wittgenstein and seeks to turn their
destructive arguments against them so as to destroy their ways of philosophising.
However, the book does not rest on this negative conclusion, but proceeds to open up new
ways of philosophising; for example, it seeks a model for language-analysis in psyche-
analysis. No one with a concern for philosophy will want to ignore this often
provocative, wide ranging and penetrating discussion of the End(s) of Philosophy."
Page 20:
-------
"However, there is this difference between the philosopher as specialised expert and
every other expert: the philosopher has no specific object or field that is peculiarly
his own. He is the expert on nothing — and everything. Every speciality that philosophy
has sought to preserve for itself has been taken over by the sciences and expropriated
from philosophy. Over the last two centuries philosophy has been gradually displaced from
one field to another as it has tried to escape the relentless pursuit of the sciences.
After metaphysics had to abandon the claim to the whole of Being, philosophy sought refuge
in epistemology and the mind, but that had to be given up to psychology and the scientific
methodologies. Philosophy tried to retreat into concepts and ideas, only to have to
abandon these to the new cultural sciences. The escape into consciousness was blocked by
psychoanalysis, which revealed the secondary nature of the conscious Ego as compared with
the uncon- scious systems that subtend it. For analogous reasons History had to be given
up to the sociologists and world-historians, Life to the biologists and cyberneticists
and Thought to the logicians and methodologists. Language had seemed a last refuge for
philosophers but philology, linguistics and semiology are now making it insecure, and,
before long, it, too, may have to be given up. A history of wrecks of modern schools of
philosophy since Kant is like a swathe of ruins beaten by the flight of philosophy from
the world, crushed under the relentless pursuit of ever newer sciences and humanities."
Page 21-22:
----------
"Sociologically considered, the retreat of philosophy from the scientific world and its
withdrawal into its own purified spheres must be seen as a way of preserving itself from
having to face the scientific challenge. In their own departmental fastnesses
philosophers could busy themselves with matters in which by stipulation no scientist had
any competence and for which no philosopher need know any science or have any other
specialised knowledge. Indifference to ouside knowledge began to typify the professional
philosopher. Secure from serious outside challenge, such philosophy has ipso facto
rendered itself obsolete. The problems and solutions of school philosophy are usually of
no. concern to anybody else. No scientist, historian or critic waits on the deliverances
of philosophy to resolve any one of his difficulties, for that which the philosophers say
is likely to be irrelevant to him."
P-23:
----
"But who is the philosopher now? It is anybody, no matter from what profession, who
carries out knowingly or unknowingly the functions of philosophy; often it is a scientist
or scholar totally divorced from official philosophy."
Pages 83-84:
-----------
"Within the university rationalisation produced departmental separations as the universe
of knowledge was parcelled out through a division of labour between the sciences.
Philosophy was pushed into a specialised department of its own and gradually displaced
from any substantive area of knowledge. It could only find room for itself in the
temporarily unoccupied gaps between the sciences. This process had already begun much
earlier during the second secession. As metaphysics was driven out from all natural and
cultural reality by the new sciences, so simultaneously was room opened up between the
sciences for new modern non-metaphysical philosophies to fill. But then these
philosophies too were continually expelled by the formation of yet other sciences filling
the gaps between the older ones. Still more specialised philosophies were devised to
escape the newer sciences, and these, too, were then threatened by still further
scientific developments. The structure of this total economy of knowledge following on
the second secession does explain the bewildering proliferation of usually short-lived
schools of philosophy whose ruins litter the historical landscape of the nineteenth and
twentieth centuries. Inmost cases, each of these schools resulted from a specific
configuration of sciences between whose interstices it was designed to fit. The total
field of philosophy thus became fragmented and scattered as each philosophy could only be
partial, and none could any longer hope for a general system to cover everything.
The process of fragmentation and displacement of philosophy begun earlier seems about
to complete itself in this era of the third and perhaps final secession of science. There
seems no place for Philosophy at all among the technosciences in the technocratic
‘multiversity’, the current successor of the old university. It is temporarily tolerated as
an antiquarian fossil only when it keeps to its own department. Outside it has no
relevance. The sciences hem it in from all sides and remove the ground from any aspect of
reality it might wish to occupy. The natural sciences deprive it of any say on the old
philosophical issues, such as matter, space, time, the nature of life, or of the universe.
The social sciences reject all its assump- tions about history, language or knowledge. On
behalf of a new discipline, the science of science, which is to take over from the
philosophy of science, Elias pronounces the concluding expulsion of philosophy from
science:
Transcendental philosophers often claim that they can prescribe
for sciences generally. Their claim ought to be firmly rejected.
Theirs is an esoteric enterprise of no relevance to the work of
social scientists, and probably not to that of natural scientists
either.
Bereft of all relevance to knowledge, philosophy seems about to come to an end. This final
outcome is not, however, fore-ordained, nor is it completely necessitated by present
intellectual conditions. It is true that the history of metaphysics is now a closed book.
It holds for us no unrealised possibilities or undiscovered truths. For us the question
‘what is metaphysics’ can only be answered in the past tense: metaphysics is what it was.
But this harsh verdict is not completely applicable to philosophy itself."
P-96:
-----
"Modern science and philosophy had one by one critically to weaken and destroy almost
every element of method and principle in Aristotelian science before it could take its place. It
could not have succeeded in this without the support of a philosophy of reduction, though
this was at first limited.
This was where the work of the new epistemological philosophers was auxiliary to that
of the physicists. Philosophy assumed the role of what Locke called ‘the under-labourer in
clearing the ground, and removing some of the rubbish that lies in the way of knowledge’,
in the way, that is, of ‘master builders’ like the ‘incomparable Mr.Newton with some others
of that strain’)3 Philosophy, no longer the queen of the sciences, was henceforth reduced
to being their handmaiden; it was restricted to studying the formation of ideas,
restricted, that is, to the basis of knowledge — knowledge itself became the preserve of
science."
Pages 286-287:
-------------
"Others, however, have already resigned themselves to the demise of philosophy and turned
away from it to the history of science or the science of history, or alternatively to the
art of criticism or the criticism of art.
In an article on Nietzsche, de Man puts it quite explicitly ‘philosophy turns out to be
an endless reflection on its own destruction at the hands of literature’ . The reflection
is endless because the destruction is ‘a rhetorical mode ... unable ever to escape from
the rhetorical deceit it denounces. Philosophy, on this account, is trapped in figures
of speech. Philosophy cannot get beyond or behind language, seen as figural and
rhetorical, to some external realm of reference, to Truth, Being, or even Society; it is
inextricably caught in language, that is, in the art and artifice of words. Hence, it is
consigned to literature, the primary mode of the figural disposition of words. Like
Polonius we ask: ‘what is the matter?’ in the book of philosophy, only to be told that it
is ‘words, words, words’. If it is nothing but words, ‘this is the same as saying that it is
structured as rhetoric. And since, if one wants to conserve the term “literature”, one
should not hesitate to assimilate it to rhetoric, then it follows that the deconstruction
of metaphysics, or “philosophy”, is an impossibility to the precise extent that it is
“literary”. So philosophy lives on because it is literature; it cannot be finally
destroyed because the destructive attempt is itself a literary trope doomed to continuous
self-repetition. But once one is aware of the internal irony of this literary game, why
one should keep on playing it out is not explained."
1. Excerpts from FACING UP - Steven Weinberg:
p-45: "All my experiences as a physicist leads me to believe that there is
order in the universe"
p-17: "all thr arrows of explanantions point to one source which is the standard
model."
p-92: "I think we scientists need make no apologies. It seems to me that our
science is a good model for intellectual activity. We believe in an
objective truth that can be known, and at the same time we are always
willing to reconsider, as we may be forced to, what we have previously
accepted"
p-112: One can illustrate the reductionist world view by imagining all
the principles of science as being dots on a huge chart, with arrows
flowing into each principle from all other principles by which it
is explained. The lesson of history is that is that these arroes do not
foprm separate disconnected clumps, representing sciences that are
logically independent, and they do not wander aimlessly, rather they
are all connected, and if followed backward they all seem to branch
outward from a common source, an ultimate law of nature that Dyson
calls "A finite set of fundamental equations"
p-58: "Life emerges from biochemistry; biochemistry emerges from atomic
physics; atomic physics emerges from the properties of elementray
particles as described in the modern standard model"
"emergent phenomena do emerge, ultimately from physics of elementary
particles"
p-115: "Mind is a phenomena that emerges from the biology of complicated
animals, just as life is a phenomena that emerges from the
chemistry of complicated molecules"
"phenomena like mind and life do emerge. The rules they obey are not
independent truths, but follow from scientific principles at a deeper
level, apart from historical accidents that by definition cannot be
explained, the nervous systems of George and his friends have evolved
to what they are are entirely because of the principles of macroscopic
physics and chemistry, which in turn are what they are entirely because
of the principles of the standard model of elementary particles."
"There are no principles of chemistry that simply stand on their own,
without needing to be explained reductively from the properties of
electrons and atomic nuclei, and in the same way there are no
principles of psychology that are freestanding, in the sense that
thay do not need ultimately to be understood through the study of
the human brain, which in turn must in the end be understood on the
basis of physics and chemistry"
p-232: "Even a universe that is completely chaotic, without any laws or
regularities at all, could be supposed to have been designed by
an idiot"
p-249: "Whatever purpose may be served by rewarding the talented, I have
never understood why untalented people deserve less of the world's
good things than other people. It is hard to see how equality can be
promoted, and a safety net provided for those who would otherwise
fall out of the bottom of the economy, unless there is government
interference in free markets."
p-250: Of course, some inequality is inevitable."
p-251: "For my part, I will fight against any proposal to be less
selective in choosing graduate students and research associates
for physics department in which I work. But the inequalities of
title and fame and authority that follow inexorably from inequalities
of talent provide powerful spurs to ambition. Is it really
necessary to add gross inequalities of wealth to these other
incentives?"
"Whatever its economic effects, gross inequality in wealth is
itself a social evil, which poisons life for millions"
(Five and a half utopia")
"Civilization is not maximized by free market".
"For me, civilization includes classical-music radio stations and
the look of lovely old cities. It does not include telemarketing
or Las vegas. Civilization is elitist; only occasionally does it
match the public taste, and for this reason it cannot prosper if
not supported by individual sacrifices or government action,
whether in the form of subsidy, regulation or tax policy."
(From Free Market Utopia)
p-254:(The Best and Brightest Utopia): "Power is not safe in the hands
of the elit, but it is not safe in the hands of the people, either.
To abandon all constraints on direct democracy is to submit
minorities to the tyranny of the majority. If it were not for the
elite judiciary, the majority in many states might still be
enforcing racial segregation, and at the very least would have
introduced prayer sessions in the public schools. It is the majority
that has favoured state-imposed religious conformity in Algeria and
Afghanistan and other ISlamic countries"
So what is the solution? Whom can we trust to exercise government
power? W.S. Gilbert proposed an admirably simple solution to this
problem. In the Savoy opera Utopia Limited, the King exercises all
power but is in constant danger of being turned over to the Public
Exploder by two Wisde men, who explain,
Our duty is to spy
Upon our King's illicities,
And keep a watchful eye
On all his eccentricities.
If ever a trick he tries
That savours of rascality,
At our decree he dies
Without the least formality
We just have to get used to the fact in real world there is
no solution, and we can't trust anyone. The best we can hope
for is that power be widely diffused among many conflicting
government and private institutions, any of which may be
allies in opposing the encroachments of others-- much as in
the United States today.
2. Excerpts from PHYSICS & PSYCHICS - Stenger:
|> Stenger(P&P): p-26-7, The new anomalies, when they are found will undoubtedly
result in the rejection of the current standard model. Possibly they will even
lead us to revoke the materialistic,reductionistic, and quantum mechanistic
view of the world that now works so well. But if this happens, it will be
because empirical evidence demands it, not simply because of pious philosophizing
or wishful fantasies based on superstitious beliefs of the prescientific age."
|> ibid p-45: Even a highly creative thinker like Feynman found it hard to believe
the proposal that EM & Weak forces are equivalent.
|> ibid, p-46: The prediction of W & Z bosons by EW gauge theory of SWG is a classic
case of scientific process at work. The prediction was clear and unequivocal.
The prediction was tested in 1983 and verified, so the theory was accepted.
|> ibid, p-57: In Platos' Theaetetus, a young Athenian tells Socrates "The sophists
claim that everything is true according to to each individual's measure of truth,
and thus all theories are equally true and false". Socrates astutely replies,
"Then I would say that they must admit that their own statement can be false too!"
3. Excerpts from UNCONSCIOUS QUANTUM - Stenger:
|> p-194: "One of my favourite examples is the magnetic moment of the electron,
which can be first calculated and then measured to one part in ten billion,
with the two results in perfect agreement. To characterize this spectacular
achievement as nothing more than a social convention is absurd."
|> ibid-193: However debatable its philosophical foundationss and moral value,
science works better than any other mode of thought we humans have been
able to invent so far.
|> Ibid-278: "The feeling of oneness experienced by the mystics is almost
certainly a delusion. One can find no independent evidence that the
claimed insights obtained in mystical state have anything to do with
objective reality. No one can point to a previously unknown discovery
made in a mystical state that was later confirmed by scientific
observation. On the contrary, virtually every claimed mystical,
non-trivial revelation about the nature of the universe and humanity's
place in it has proved to be grossly wrong"
|> Ibid-29: Conclusion of a 1987 inquiry by the National Research Council
of the U.S. National Academy of Sciences: After almost a century and
a half of study, "The best scientific evidence does not justify the
conclusion that ESP--that is, gathering information about objects or
thoughts without the intervention of known sensory mechanisms--- exists".
4. Excerpts from GOD PART OF THE BRAIN - Alper:
|> p-100: "In order to counter this fundamental angst, humans are
'wired' for God" - Herbert Benson* in "Timeless Healing", p-198
* Harvard Cardiologist
|> p-112 : "The mystical experience can be explained in physiological terms"
James Leuba "Psychology of Religion" p-229
|> p-113: "The spiritual contents of consciousness can be accounted for by
the effect of excitation of the frontolimbic forebrain" - p-445, "The
Comprehensive Textbook of Psychiatry" - Kaplan and Saddock, 7th ed
|> p-114: Jeffrey Saver and John Rabin of the UCLA Neurologic Research
center found historical documentation to suggest that a significant
number of the world's spiritual prophets and leaders were sufferers
of temporal lobe epilepsy. The list they composed included, among others
such notable religious figures as Joan of Arc, Mohammed, and apostle John
|> p-128: "It is highly probable that in due course it will be possible
to explain the 'mystic experience' in terms of neuro-biology; it is
highly improbable that neurobiology will ever be explained in terms
of 'mystical experience'" p-335, The Conscious Brain - Steven Rose
|> p-132: "At birth, a baby's brain contains 100 billion neurons"
- from p-50, in Fertile Minds, Time, Feb 3, 1997 by Nash, M
"Out of these 100 billion neurons, there already exist more than
50 trillion connections(synapses)" - p-30, How to build a Baby's
brain by Sharon Begley in Newsweek, Special Spring/Summer ed'1998
|> p-152: "Near death experiences can be induced by using the dissociative
drug ketamine" - p-64, Dr. Karl Jansen, "Using Ketamine to induce
the near death experience".
|> p-156: "Scientists and humanists should consider together the
possibility that the time has come for ethics to be removed temporarily
from the philosophers and biologized" - E.O.Wilson in Sociobiology, p-287
|> P-165-6: Morality stems form the prefrontal cortex, as was illustrated
in the damaged prefrontal cortex of railroad worker Phineas Gage in 1848.
Studies by Antonio Damasio of U of Iowa confirmed that. (As reported by
Stein, Rob, Sociality, Morality and the Brain, Monday Oct 25, 1999, A13
|> p-194: Raj Persaud, God's in your cranial lobes - Financial Times,
May 8/9, 1999
|> p-187: "Only those willing to submit themselves to the rigorous
constraints of scientific methodology and to the canons of
scientific evidence should presume to have a say in the guidance
of human affairs" - by sociologist Auguste Compte, from p-5 of
Masters of Sociological thought - Louis Coser (1997)
|> Temporal Lobe instability is behind the mystical or religious
experience - "Neuropathology and the legacy of Spiritual Posession",
Skeptical Inquirer 12-3-248, 1988
|> Human mind did not evolve in order to create a race of philosophers or
scientists - "Is Belief in Supernatural inevitable?" by Bainbridge,
Skeptical Inquirer, 8:21 ('88)
* Right Parietal Lesions --> loss of body consciousness
* Entheogenic drugs (e.g Soma)
* Journal for the scientific study of religion
* International journal for the psychology of religion
5. Excerpts from DREAMS OF REASON - Pagels:
|> p-48: Evolution and human behaviour are linked by cause-effect relationship.
|> p-182: A deep theory of cognition is unlikely to exist unless it is
directly founded upon the actual material structure of the brain or
computer.
|> p-260: "Night Thoughts of a Classical Physicist" - Russell McCommach
|> p-261: Likens Kuhn's paradigm shift with that in high fashion world
of N.Y or Paris. Thats because Kuhn's P.S ignores the invariant aspect
of scientific discovery and focuses on its social aspect only.
|> p-228 : Ben Libet, neuroscientist at UCSF, discovered that doing
precedes awareness of a conscious act of brain.
|> p-288: John G Kemeny, a mathematician once remarked about
Principia mathematica that it is "A Masterpiece that is discussed
by practically every philosopher and read by practically none". It is
full of abstract symbols, and one does not get to the proof that
1+1 = 2 until the second volume.
|> p-263: "Many people, who ought to know better, develop and popularize
the view that science is simply another social enterprise. This
misconception, like occultism, deserves rebuke. I insist that scientific
ideas, because of their special vulnerability to failure imposed by
the actual order of nature, are subject to a unique, self-imposed
selective pressure, a criterion for survival that is transcendent to
the particular culture in which these scientific ideas originate."
|> p-328: Fundamentalism is a terminal form of human consciousness in which
development is stopped, eliminating the uncertainty and risk that real
growth entails."
|> p-311-2: The hands on approach is the key to success in modern science;
people who don't want to get their hands dirty have no business in science.
Once I was carrying a viewgraph projector to a lecture room to be used by
the afternoon seminar speaker. A colleague with a distinguished and noble
Asian ancestry noticed me carrying the projector and asked why I was doing
this, I said that since I was in charge of seminars that year, I had to
provide the visual aids for the speakers. My friend looked concerned. Then he
said that since next year he was in charge of running the seminars he would
have to get a secretary to carry the projector; he wasn't going to do it. I
responded, "That, my friend, is one big reason that modern science began in
the west instead of the east". He grasped my point immediately, and the next
year I did see him conspicuously carrying the projector without complaint.
|> p-330: The new sciences of complexity and the perspectives on the world
offered by computer modelling may teach us things that we did not realize
about the values we hold. Science cannot resolve moral conflicts, but it
can help to more accurately frame the debates about those conflicts.
Take for example, the act of lying. We hold the telling of truths as a
value; we are not supposed to lie. Yet if everyone told the truth all the time
so that one could have complete trust in what one is told, then the advantage
that would accrue to a single liar in society would be immense. This is not
a stable social situation. On the other hand, in a society of individuals in
which everyone lied all the time, society would be unworkable. The equlibrium
state seems to be the one in which people tell the truth most of the time
but occasionally lie, which is how the world really seems to be. In a sense,
then, it is the liars among (and within) us that keep us both honest and on
our guard. This kind of scientific analysis of lying can help us understand
why we do it.
Michael Shermer from "How we believe", p-xvi
"No religion could come close to the epic narratives told by
cosmologists, evolutionary biologists, and social scientists
about the origins and evolution of the cosmos, life, behavior
and civilization"
p-8: Martin Gardner = Fideist
p-34: Eaglerock, Ca. JFK stone in Hawai,
Time, April 8, 1966 "Is God Dead?"
Shermer says, Time says "yes" confirming Nietsze
p-38: Spandrel (Gould/Letonon's idea: Necessary byproduct of
architectural design. (Analogy to evolution)
|> Brain: (1) Belief in the false
(2) Disbelief in truth
(3) Belief in truth
(4) Disbelief in false
To design (3) and (4), (1) and (2) are inevitable
like spandrel
Only those (1) and (2) survive which are neutral, not
anti-adaptive
|> p-44: Superstition is proportional to Average Life Expectancy(LE)
During the plague, L.E <= 30 years, so superstition was high
|> p-21: a 1996 gallup poll by WSJ on Jan 30 reported 96% belief in God,
90% belief in heaven, 79% in miracles, 73% in hell, 72% in angels,
and 65% in devils !
|> p-22; George Barna's 1996 Index of Leading Spiritual Indicators
report 93% belief/faith, in 1995 poll 87%
In 1997 Pew research Center Survey reports that 71% American do not
doubt the existence of God,, a 1991 LA times poll reported a 91%
belief in God, 67% in Life after death, 67% in heaven.
|> Conservative actiion group: The promise keepers. i.25 million
members in 1997 . Arranged the largest religious rally (1/2 million)
on October 4, 1997 in Wash DC.
|> p-70-1: Jews are never into aggressive preaching, hence their
numbers is stable Worldwide, around 13 million. Members are not
encouraged to prosletyze.
|> p-94: Nature is not so perfect, python's hind leg, totally
useless, whales' flipper has useless humanlike upper arms,
forearms, hand and finger bones ( a by product of mammalian
evolution).
|> p-98: Refutes the morality argument for Gid by asking "What would
you do if God didn't exist?" -- either answer leads to loss
|> Believers argue that reason is not enough, not the ultimate route to
..., and then in the next breath, refer to 10 reasons to believe!
|> p-108: Quotes Smolin (Life of teh cosmos), saying that the ultimate
question why their is something rather than nothing, is unanswerable.
|> p-113: Transitional fossil: Ambulocetus Natans (b/w quadruped
land invaded(?) mesonychids and the distant ancestors of modern
whales, the archaeocetus) It has a bad design for swimming,
undulating & paddling with hindlimbs.
=============
Date: Tue, 23 Apr 2002 00:53:34 -0700 (PDT)
From: "Ashraful Alam"
Subject: Re: [M-M] Does God exist? Most probably not
Paranormal Sourcebook - Jenny Randles
|> p-216: "Synchronicity" was coined by Pauli & Jung, who collaborated
in their book by the same name
|> p-218: Anthiny Hopkins was to act in the movie "The girl from Petrovka".
Couldn;t find the book (To prepare). Found a copy of the book on a bench
in London tube. Then when he flew abroad to make the movie he met the
author of the book. Said he lost the book after lending to someone in
London. Same book!(Synchronicity).
Weird Science - Michael White
p-44 Cocktail Party Syndrome: Where one hears one's
name even when whispered in a noisy cokrail party (Evolutionary
adaptation for survival)
p-298: Michael Gaucqueline placed an ad offering free horoscope to
anyone 150 responded. He then asked each applicant about their
opinion. 94% said the horoscope was accurate. What Gaucqueiline
didn't tell them was that they had all received tha same
horoscope , that of Dr. Petroit, an infamous French mass
murderer.
p-299-00: Astrologer Linda Goodman boasted that astrology has survived
for centuries intact, because it is truth, eternal. Author points
out that signs of zodiac change every 200 years due to precession
of the equinoxes, but astrology doesn;t, so there is an inconsistency!
====Newcomb's paradox
Newcomb's Paradox
Newcomb's paradox, named after its creator, physicist
William Newcomb, is one of the most widely debated
paradoxes of recent times. It was first made popular by
Harvard philosopher Robert Nozick. The following is based
on Martin Gardner's and Robert Nozick's Scientific American
papers on the subject, both of which can be found in
Gardner's book Knotted Doughnuts. The paradox goes like
this:
A highly superior being from another part of the galaxy
presents you with two boxes, one open and one closed. In
the open box there is a thousand-dollar bill. In the closed
box there is either one million dollars or there is nothing.
You are to choose between taking both boxes or taking the
closed box only. But there's a catch.
The being claims that he is able to predict what any human
being will decide to do. If he predicted you would take
only the closed box, then he placed a million dollars in it.
But if he predicted you would take both boxes, he left the
closed box empty. Furthermore, he has run this experiment
with 999 people before, and has been right every time.
What do you do?
On the one hand, the evidence is fairly obvious that if you
choose to take only the closed box you will get one million
dollars, whereas if you take both boxes you get only a
measly thousand. You'd be stupid to take both boxes.
On the other hand, at the time you make your decision, the
closed box already is empty or else contains a million
dollars. Either way, if you take both boxes you get a
thousand dollars more than if you take the closed box only.
2.
Newcomb's Paradox
Newcomb's paradox goes like this: A psychic claims to have
the ability to predict your thoughts and actions days in
advance. Like most psychics, he does not claim total
accuracy. He is right about 90 percent of the time. You
have agreed to take part in an unusual test of the psychic'
s powers. A TV news program has provided the facilities and
put up a large sum of money; all you have to do is abide by
the conditions of the experiment. On a table in front of
you are two boxes: A and B. Box A contains a thousand-
dollar bill. Box B either contains a million dollars or is
empty. You cannot see inside it. Of your own free will (if
there is such a thing), you must choose either to take box
B only or to take both boxes. Those are the only options.
The catch is this: Twenty-four hours ago, the psychic
predicted what you would choose. He decided whether to put
the million dollars in box B. If he predicted that you
would take only box B, he put the million dollars in it. If
he foresaw your taking both boxes, he left box B empty.
Personally, you don't care whether the psychic's powers are
proven or discredited. Your only motive is leaving the
experiment with as much money as possible. You are not so
wealthy that money means nothing. The thousand dollars in
box A is a lot of money to you. The million dollars is a
fortune.
The conditions of the test have been and will be enforced
scrupulously. You need entertain no doubts that box A
contains the $1,000. Box B can contain only $1 million or
nothing at all, based on the psychic's prediction. No one
is trying to trick you on that score. A trusted friend was
present at the time the psychic made his prediction, and
made sure he obeyed the rules about putting the money in
the boxes.
Just as certainly, you will be prevented from circumventing
the rules. Armed guards will prevent nihilist acts like not
taking any box. Nor can you cheat the psychic by basing
your decision on something other than your own mental
processes. You can't decide on the basis of a coin toss or
whether the number of shares traded that day is odd or even.
You have to analyze the situation and decide on the most
profitable of the two options. Of course, the psychic has
anticipated your analysis. What should you do-take both
boxes or just B?
==voter's paradox
All Voters (100 percent of those who did vote)
49 Voters 48 Voters 3 Voters
1st Choice Clinton Dole Perot
Preferences 2nd Choice Dole Perot Dole
3rd Choice Perot Clinton Clinton
(49 percent) (48 percent) (3 percent)
It is also important to notice that IN THIS EXAMPLE Dole could make a good
argument that he is truly the favorite among the voters. Dole could argue
this way: 1. Clinton is last among a majority of voters. 2. If there were
points given for each place, say 3 points for a first place vote, 2 points
for a second place vote and 1 point for a third place vote, then Dole would
get more points that any other candidate. This is because Clinton would get
198 points (49 times 3 plus 51 times 1), but Dole would get 248 points (48
times 3 plus 52 times 2). Perot would get 154 points. Thus Dole has a "stronger
showing" in the ranking polls.
Table 5-1
POLICY OPTION
INDIVIDUAL A B C
Aaron 1 2 3
Blair 3 1 2
Clarice 2 3 1
According to the preferences presented in Table 5-1, Aaron ranks the policy
options as A, B, and C from top to bottom. Blair, however, likes B the best and
A the least. Clarice, meanwhile, favors C over the others and thinks that B is
the worst policy. Now suppose that policies A and B come up against one another
for a vote. Given the choice between A and B, Aaron and Clarice will both vote
for A, because both prefer A to B. Given the choice between B and C, Aaron and
Blair will form the majority that vote in favor of B, because both prefer it
to C. Now consider the choice between C and A. In this case C wins the majority,
because Blair and Clarice both prefer C to A. Thus, although a majority of voters
prefers A to B, and a majority prefers B to C, a majority also prefers C to A!
Even though the preferences of each individual are transitive, the preferences
of the majority are intransitive--they are not logically consistent. Arrow's
work implies that the use of the democratic voting process to formulate "correct"
economic and social policies can lead to contradictory results.
Similarly, the Arrow Impossibility Theorem suggests that
whether runoff elections are permitted may play a crucial
role in who wins an election. Suppose, for example, that
voters' preferences among three candidates for office are
as shown in Table 5-2.
Table 5-2
Voter Rankings of the Candidates
Candidate First Choice Second Choice Third Choice
A 15% 40% 45%
B 40% 60% 0%
C 45% 0% 55%
Candidate C is the first choice of 45 percent of the voters, but is the second
choice of none of them. Candidate B, meanwhile, is the first choice of only 40
percent of the voters but is the second choice of all the other voters. Finally,
assume that candidate A is the first choice of 15 percent of the voters. If
there is a three-way election, each person will vote for his or her first choice
and candidate C will be elected, even though C ends up with only 45 percent of
the vote. But if runoff elections are required when no candidate receives a
majority, the outcome may be very different. In this example, only B and C are
allowed in the runoff, and all of A's supporters will vote for candidate B,
giving B a total of 55 percent of the vote and thus victory.
====Prisoner's dilemma:
score: 4=best 1=worst
1. Both coperate with each other (i.e not confess guilt)
both =3
2. If both defect (i.e both admit guilt) both =2
3. If one defects, then defector=4, non-defector=1
If you defect you can get either either 4(best) or 2(worst)
but if you dont defect then you can get 3(best) or 1(worst)
so by logic you will choose to defect
so if both prisoners are logical they both get=2
worse than they would have got had they both coperated(3)!
====Addenda:
Most of the religious
scientists including Einstein and Salam fall into this category who have
this instinctive belief in God. As I said there's nothing in Salam's writing
or speeches that ever indicate any absolute belief in all the details of
scriptures and revelations. He never prefaced every sentence he uttered
with quotes from scriptures He was a spiritual man with the passion for
the hard science based on the rigorous rules of natural science. He never
believed that religion can explain science or that science has to be rooted
in religion as so many orthodox apologists constantly emphasize. Salam
should be an inspiration for all the Muslim nations. But he was not. He
has been neglected in his own country. None of the Muslim country ever
gave the due recognition where the Western nation bestowed him the much
deserved Nobel Prize. That speaks a lot about the price one has to pay
for not being a dogmatic religionist. He championed secular ideas and
beliefs instead of religious dogma. A person is often judged by what and
how he speaks. One just need to read the entire article by Salam at
(http://www.chowk.com/bin/showa.cgi?salam_jan0598)
and contrast it with the religious apologetics and see the difference
between them. He is very sparing in his quotes from the holy book and only
does so to add a metaphoric inspiration to his ultimate passion for the
pursuit of scientific knowledge, not to preach us to follow and believe
in the revelations themselves or to try to relate the verses with the
scientific truths themselves. In fact he was even opposed to it.
All the religious books, Koran, Gita, Bible allows enough latitude to
anyone to pick and choose verses to provide reinforcements and inspirations
for a pursuit that one feels passionately for. Salam did that by emphasizing
the quotes of the "unseen" "unknowable" part to emphasize the mystery of
the universe that one can unravel and get closer and closer to the ultimate
mystery by the pursuit of scientific knowledge. Please read the following:
(http://www.chowk.com/bin/showa.cgi?salam_jan0598)