FAQ on Rationalism, Science, Faith, Religion etc.
1. Secularism vs. Religion
Isn't Secularism itself a religion/dogma?
Doesn't Secularism have 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?
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 critcizing 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 "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 (A himan). 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 creatpr of a watch). We cannot extend inductive
arguments from the class of man made objects to natural objects
by rulkes of logic.
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
one, 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. On the other hand, an artist may have spilled
some color by mistake, but it may appear to be an impressive
work of by him to someone unaware of that fact of 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. 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 atheist should not be defined as one
who assert 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 claims that the proposition "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 proposition is meaningful
for 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 or by observation.
The playing field for logical proofs and disproofs are even.
But in case of propositions like "X exists" (e.g Prinagle exists)
the playing field for proof by observationis 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 the playing field of the proof by observation is
not even. So for such propositions it is the burden of those
who assert existence of X to prove it, not the burden of those
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 trianagle 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 foith 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,
disbleivers 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�says�that�the�proposition (2)�is�true
or probably�true with a high likelihood.
ATHEIST : If�and�only�if�one�says�that�(2)�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 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
| | (God-S) |
|-->Theist-->| |-->Apologist-->|-->Fundamentalist
| | |
|-->Theist-->| |-->Modernist
(God-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 subccategories
within that category:
Nontheists :
noncognitivist
atheist
agnostic
Theists :
theist (Theist-R):
fideists :
moderate
puritan
apologists :
modernist
fundamentalist
extremist
spiritualist (Theist-R)
Infidels:
Nontheists
Theists (relative to all religions other than their own)
Secular(Humanists):
fideist
nontheists
Rationalists
noncognitivist (Offcially)
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.
Quotes from the above references:
=> Zen and Brain: p-18
The sense of great Self (Mystical Experience) must come from the
brain, since it is the organ of the mind.
=> Aquili: 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 recent book "The God Part of the Brain", 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.