Based on the framework, I can come to the following conclusions.
- Religion and Science start with the same fundamental premise - an aim to know the unknown
- When more parameters become visible regarding an unknown, fear turns into curiosity
- While more unknowns may get transitioned from fear to curiosity, there are still quite a few unknowns which may remain for long time. For certain mental paradigms (such as What happens after death?) we may not get all the parameters ever
- Religion encompasses spirituality and rituals, both intended to address the same underlying fear - one being actionable and the other, thought-provoking. Taken in context, both can help one in handling the underlying fear appropriately
- Religion taken beyond one's own convictions can become dangerous. Expecting others to be convinced of one's own convictions can lead to misery. The same holds true of science as well. Happiness lies in letting others draw their conclusions by themselves
- Faith left unchecked can transition into 'blind' faith.
- Science without empathy is flawed. Any attempt in a finding a solution for problems intertwined with human emotions without empathy is bound to fail or be rejected. A more appropriate solution would be to factor in the emotions than just discard them.
- Faith and Rational thought are both required in order to understand the unknown. Lack of one may result in an incomplete or unsatisfactory solution on the whole.
- Science can co-exist with religion. Scientists can have faith and theologians can have rational thought.
- Not all rituals have or need to have a scientific meaning. Many may be symbolisms that must be admired and respected as such.
- Do not disregard a religion just because you don't accept the current interpretation of the rituals codified in it. For all you know, the original rituals have been transformed over time (mostly by different generations treating the symbolism coded within the rituals literally). Instead, try to analyze and understand the origins.
Such proofs fail scientific rigor in a few ways. First, they do not cite rigorous experimentation, but rather, more of heresy or empirical studies (remember, empirical observations convey only patterns which may be inaccurate). Second, they make statements that cannot be proved immediately (at least not with the current scientific equipment). Finally, they embellish and exacerbate the small kernel of truth on which the theory is based - kind of like a resume where a person claims he is an expert in a software that he may have read about in a magazine!
Some of the conclusions listed here may be obvious or even be something that you are intuitively aware of - the framework helps reinforce the obvious and bring to front the intuitive.
If you have been following this post for the last few days, thanks and I hope it was a good read. I don't expect you to fully agree with my framework or my conclusions, but I am curious to know if you had similar thoughts as well - so feel free to post a comment. You can also download the entire "Knowing the Unknown" series as a single PDF.
As the Upanishads say, "tejasvi nAvadhitamastu": May the light (of knowledge/understanding) shine upon our studies.
2 comments:
Ok atlast i was able to read your complete blog on this.
First a very impressive analysis and a well written conclusion, which makes it a interesting read.
If you look closely, most of all rituals were created either for physical or mental fitness, but people would follow those strictly only if it is created under the name of god with fear.
It is only upto people to understand those inner meaning of why would our ancentors or parents would have said those.
Just like for example there is a general saying in south india (atleast) you should not cut your nails in the evening, if u do so, it is not good for the family etc .. etc if you think closely why they would have said those, is because in those days when there was no electricity, people would relay on lamps or fire, it is very difficult to clean up if they cut the nails in the evening, over the time they created a fear in everybody if you do so.
Anyways now when i think back i was always a atheist and rationalist and i was listening to this song in Anbe Sivam which had lyrics like
aaththigam paesum adiyaarkeLLaam sivamae anbaagum
aaththigam vaesum naLLavarukkoe anbae sivamaagum
I hope you continue to write more and blog some interesting views like this one.
Thanks for taking the time to read and comment!
Examples similar to one you provided was the trigger for me to write this series.
As I see it, across religions, rituals can be broadly grouped into 4 categories:
1. Rituals created based on empirical observation without significant philosophy behind them (more primitive sacrifices) - This hopefully has largely diminished, although some still exist.
2. Social practices codified as rituals in order to coax people into following some best practices - your example comes under this category. Such rituals would need to be re-examined for applicability in the current context, but still be admired from a historic perspective.
3. Symbolisms codified as rituals that have since then been given a social interpretation - my 'sprinkling water' example falls in this category. It is easy, but dangerous to consider this as part of the second category. Most times, we may tend to categorize it as the second category, analyze it, and determine it as not applicable currently. However, in the process, we forget the original symbolism that was the cause for the ritual and hence may lose something potentially valuable.
4. Symbolisms that are currently not well understood, misunderstood, or many times, taken literally - Many ancient rituals fall under this category. The "surya namaskar" I mentioned earlier is a simple example and the complex one being the "Ashwamedha Yagna" (which means horse sacrifice - while it looks barbaric, a deeper analysis reveals that the 'horse' is actually a symbolism of various behaviors and not a 'literal' horse that is sacrificed) - Many 'elitist' thinkers of modern day tend to condemn rituals in this category, mostly for their own personal agenda or illiteracy. A lot of rituals are sadly ignored or in the process of getting lost over time due to this misinterpretation. The main problem in re-examining this category is that a theologian (such as my Dad) would put more emphasis on the 'faith' aspect of the symbolism, while a rationalist (such as an Atheist) would put more emphasis on the 'literal' aspect of the symbolism. What is needed is a mix - a 'scientific' interpretation of the symbolism with due respect to faith. I haven't seen too many such interpretations, unfortunately. For example, if you look at a song by Thyagaraja (of Carnatic Music fame), a theologian might be in awe over the bhakti of the saint, while a rationalist will admire the nuance of the composition and raga selection. But you really get the most benefit if you admire both - the composer's deep sense of faith along with his mastery - not just one or the other.
The lines from 'Anbe Sivam' you mentioned to raise the point that God is not necessarily just structural (idols, temples), but can also be behavioral (affection, love, compassion, empathy). However, in this particular instance, you should also keep in mind the background of the lyricist (vairamuthu) and the actor (Kamal) - both are self-proclaimed socialists/rationalist/atheists. Their hidden message is clear in the second line (aathigam vaesum nallavarukko - implying that people who condemn theism are good). Their underlying message is that "behavioral" Godness is more important than "structural" Godness, which I disagree with.
To me, both are important - it's up to a person to opt for an approach that suits him. The danger comes in proclaiming that one is better than the other. Similar arguments have been made elsewhere such as "Spend money on eradicating poverty and not in constructing temples". This is similar to saying "spend money in implementation and not research", without realizing that research is long-term and implementation is short-term. You need both for a sustainable civilization.
Post a Comment