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-96-98: ------- "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. 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)