Knowing the Unknown: Part 6 - Religion, Science, and Empathy

Over the last few posts, I have attempted my best to provide a framework for a lot of actions that we perform in order to understand the unknown. This fundamental drive in us to do this, probably the result of the development of our frontal lobe in the brain (compared to other animals) has distinguished us from other living creatures in this world. I presented a two-path approach in attempting to solve the unknown. So, are fear and curiosity the only driving forces behind all that follows?

Like many problems, there is more than one angle to the solution. If I were to mention only one quality that differentiates humans from God (or God-like being), I would say that the one quality is 'perception'. A few years back, I heard a story (I believe of South American - Inca or Mayan - origin) that got stuck in my mind. I could not get to the exact source even after hours of searching the Internet (Google cannot search based on metaphors or analogies!), but will try to reproduce the essence.

"When God created man, man had all the qualities of God. He was all powerful. This power got to his head and he wanted to become the Supreme Being. God realized this and cursed the man to have limited vision and limited life."

Silly as it may sound - I find a deeper truth in this. If there is one primary thing that differentiates us from God, it is that of perception. While we are better than other animals, we still have limitations in our perception - be it our senses or our thinking. Maybe it is for this reason that rishis and yogis in ancient India have strived to extend both these limitations (life by means of yoga and perception by means of dhyana or meditation).

Faith and Rationale
Likewise, the problem I have set forth has different layers and can be perceived in different ways. Another way to look at the division of fear and curiosity is the feeling that arises due to address each - faith and rationale. Process of overcoming fear is driven largely by faith and the process of addressing curiosity is driven by rational thought. While most of the actions tend to have a combination of both, the ratio differs in each. The actions on the left are driven more by faith and those on the right are driven more by rational thought.

Interestingly, you can also see that as go up the tree, both of them end at a point and give way to arrogance or 'blind' faith. Maybe this is the reason also why ancient Hindu scriptures constantly reminded one of ahamkara (egotism) and the need to avoid the same, as such an egoism (I am always right) leads to the destruction of one's beliefs.

This begs another question: Does this mean that rational thought always leads to good things while faith-based thoughts always lead to more disastrous consequences? At least, this is one of the arguments posed by pessimists or even atheists to an extent. This thought is also prevalent in adolescents all around the world and particularly teens in the Eastern hemisphere, influenced by the 'modern' culture of the West, much to their parents' anguish.

My emphatic answer to this is "No". As we have seen so far, neither approach taken to address the unknown is correct or incorrect. They are just two different ways in attempting to understand the same issue. Faith and rational thought have their own place in the society - in some sense, like the Democrats and Republicans (not the current crop of politicians, but the more general ideology) having a place in the US Government. Both cater to a different type of audience with an ultimate aim to provide proper governance. One tends to take a more subjective route while the other tends to take a more objective route. And that brings me to the final facet of this diagram.

As the framework gave hints initially, faith-based solutions to unknown in many cases get converted into a more reason-based solution once additional parameters become apparent. Since we don't have enough parameters or perception to know everything in the world yet, there is still a role for the faith-based solution. It is quite possible that not all faith-based concepts will get converted to reason-based solution. But there is no harm in trying (which is what scientists do) and in a similar vein, there is no harm in still keeping the faith (as we still don't know all the answers). The key is in keeping an open mind that would allow for such a transition from faith to reason where applicable.

Empathy
Much like how a solution approach requires both a subjective and objective approach to a problem, understanding the more abstract unknown requires both faith-oriented and rational thought, and this aspect is personified by empathy.

Empathy (or feeling) increases as you move from a rational thought to a faith-based thought, which inherently is emotional. To me, the fundamental mistake that proponents of 'scientific' thought make is when they attempt to focus more on the rational aspects and either knowingly or unknowingly minimize the importance of faith. The prime argument made is that rational thought leads to an unbiased proof, which is what will prevail over time. While this premise is true, it ignores the fact that humans are emotional by nature. Ignoring an important factor in an equation while attempting to provide a solid proof is not true science. This is akin to stating to a grieving person that death is part of life. It's an obvious fact and person will come to terms with that fact, but that still will not negate the emotions he or she will have to deal with in the meanwhile. Failing to include that interim emotion is not only unscientific but will also make the other party more averse to such scientific thought.

As one of my friend's father put it more eloquently, "If you believe in God, no explanation is necessary and if you don't, no explanation is possible."

People who believe in faith don't have to ignore science, just as people who believe in science don't have to ignore faith. Both play an equal role in understanding as well as upholding human thought. Maybe since seers throughout history understood this balance between faith and rational thought, they promoted a healthy dose of both when it came to spirituality. Many Hindu scriptures, especially Upanishads are even structured this way - many of them start with an exploration of the unknown (in this case, the Brahman), but go in a fashion that mimics modern scientific problem solving. It's unfortunate that such balanced attempts have since then been overturned in favor of pure faith or pure rational thought, both of which are not helpful in finding the right answer.

This is why a scientist without empathy or a theologist without reason are both doomed for failure when it comes to understanding the unknown. The truth lies in the balance.

Before I conclude with my final thoughts, I want to mention one more aspect of understanding the unknown that I did not touch so far - and that's revelation. Revelation or Enlightenment is a powerful, albeit very vague concept (except for those who have had the revelation!). The difficulty in understanding enlightenment mainly lies in that enlightenment is experienced and not taught, and like many experiences, it cannot be put in words so that it can be taught to others.

This pure form of faith and reason (reason being known only to the enlightened being) has been the holy grail of many over the years. Those who are enlightened have been the source of religions and some others have more of a following. I personally consider it as part of spirituality, probably a more 'pure' form, although I am not as qualified to define the purity, just to identify it. The difference probably is that enlightenment is an offshoot directly from the unknown (or at most from curiosity) rather than from fear, as we've seen based on the seers of the past that they were not driven by fear but rather by the curiosity to understand the unknown (more by faith-based means than by empirical means).

In the concluding post, I will state what I infer from the framework that I have built so far.