I have been musing a little bit about belief, especially after a couple of outraged comments on the previous post about the absurdity of the moon-sighting charade that occurs ever few months. We get similar comments every time we post something about the irrationality that seems to pervade the thinking of literalist followers of religion. There really is no way to argue against belief. If someone actually believes with all their heart that white is actually black or that the placement of Venus relative to Mars will affect your chances of finding true love, how do you argue against it? A belief, by definition, resists interrogation. A good part of religion involves blind trust - that a beneficient god (or gods) exists, that everything that occurs has a hidden, deeper meaning, that there is a goal to strive towards, and that the path to that goal as defined by the religion is the best route to achieve it.
I should point out that I have no issues with people's personal spiritual beliefs (it's their own space after all and human history shows us that everyone requires some sort of belief system to survive) and I do think that on the whole all major religions (all the ones I know of in any case) share a desire to create a better, more just society (even if their followers' interpretations can tend to lead one to conclude differently). The desire to believe in a power greater than ourselves, to bring meaning to apparent anarchic chaos, is deeply ingrained in the human psyche, and I am not one of those whose mission in life is to go around attacking religion in toto.
But problems do arise when personal belief systems are either imposed on other people who wish to have a different belief system or, as in this case, when belief is substituted for an argument even in the face of tangible evidence to the contrary. If someone really believes that God intended for us to order our lives only by looking upon the moon with a naked eye (as the maulvis of Pakistan seem to believe), there is little that logic can do. They will throw hadees (or hadith to you Arabophiles) at you as if that in and of itself constitutes any rational argument (and I'm not even getting into the theological issues of which hadees is credible and which suspect, that different schools of jurisprudence have different opinions on). Such is the power of irrational dogma that even recalling the fact that the Quran itself encourages, at numerous points, people to use their minds (i.e. logic, rationality) is brushed aside as irreligious.
I am not advocating that science has all the answers to everything - it doesn't, and the realm of the spiritual is not the domain of science in any case. But yes, science is a process through which we have come to understand more and more about the physical world around us and it posits theories based on evidence, not on mere belief. These theories, which may be overturned by new evidence, are the most plausible explanations at the time of how or why things are the way they are. You can well argue against a theory using evidence that contradicts it. But you cannot, repeat cannot, argue against it just on the basis that you believe something is different.
And this is my problem with the bizarre new post-modern dialectic that seems to pervade the world these days and which is evidenced in some of the comments we get on this blog. Everything is not equally valid, especially if it originates from different planes of thought like religion and science. (Personally, I don't even see the contradiction between being a Muslim and accepting the principles of science, and it seems to me a selective reading in any case, since mullahs use all sorts of products based on scientific principles when it suits them.) This is the new cop-out: claiming you can base analyses on nothing more than your feelings. A sort of 'I feel it therefore it's true.' But you just cannot pit your cherished belief as a valid counter to empirical evidence or reasoned logic. Or rather, you can if you want, but we will make fun of it.
Just in case you thought the irrationality of religious belief is limited only to places like Pakistan's Ruet-e-Hilal Committee, here's a handy reminder of how the whole world suffers from it. First see the following spoof video below and then follow it up with the real video that it satirizes...
Spoof:
Real:
Maybe somebody should enter Mufti Muneeb et al into the Miss USA pageant, based obviously merely on their rejection of logic.
I should point out that I have no issues with people's personal spiritual beliefs (it's their own space after all and human history shows us that everyone requires some sort of belief system to survive) and I do think that on the whole all major religions (all the ones I know of in any case) share a desire to create a better, more just society (even if their followers' interpretations can tend to lead one to conclude differently). The desire to believe in a power greater than ourselves, to bring meaning to apparent anarchic chaos, is deeply ingrained in the human psyche, and I am not one of those whose mission in life is to go around attacking religion in toto.
But problems do arise when personal belief systems are either imposed on other people who wish to have a different belief system or, as in this case, when belief is substituted for an argument even in the face of tangible evidence to the contrary. If someone really believes that God intended for us to order our lives only by looking upon the moon with a naked eye (as the maulvis of Pakistan seem to believe), there is little that logic can do. They will throw hadees (or hadith to you Arabophiles) at you as if that in and of itself constitutes any rational argument (and I'm not even getting into the theological issues of which hadees is credible and which suspect, that different schools of jurisprudence have different opinions on). Such is the power of irrational dogma that even recalling the fact that the Quran itself encourages, at numerous points, people to use their minds (i.e. logic, rationality) is brushed aside as irreligious.
I am not advocating that science has all the answers to everything - it doesn't, and the realm of the spiritual is not the domain of science in any case. But yes, science is a process through which we have come to understand more and more about the physical world around us and it posits theories based on evidence, not on mere belief. These theories, which may be overturned by new evidence, are the most plausible explanations at the time of how or why things are the way they are. You can well argue against a theory using evidence that contradicts it. But you cannot, repeat cannot, argue against it just on the basis that you believe something is different.
And this is my problem with the bizarre new post-modern dialectic that seems to pervade the world these days and which is evidenced in some of the comments we get on this blog. Everything is not equally valid, especially if it originates from different planes of thought like religion and science. (Personally, I don't even see the contradiction between being a Muslim and accepting the principles of science, and it seems to me a selective reading in any case, since mullahs use all sorts of products based on scientific principles when it suits them.) This is the new cop-out: claiming you can base analyses on nothing more than your feelings. A sort of 'I feel it therefore it's true.' But you just cannot pit your cherished belief as a valid counter to empirical evidence or reasoned logic. Or rather, you can if you want, but we will make fun of it.
Just in case you thought the irrationality of religious belief is limited only to places like Pakistan's Ruet-e-Hilal Committee, here's a handy reminder of how the whole world suffers from it. First see the following spoof video below and then follow it up with the real video that it satirizes...
Spoof:
Real:
Maybe somebody should enter Mufti Muneeb et al into the Miss USA pageant, based obviously merely on their rejection of logic.
Posts
12 comments:
America has to be one of the most ignorant developed nation when it comes to Evolution.
I got through 1:25 of the "real" video before giving up. Couldn't do it.
One thing that really gets me is this whole "believe in evolution" BS. You can't "believe" in evolution. You can "accept" it or not. This is not a matter of belief, unlike say flying spaghetti monsters.
Terrific post. This is the first time I'm posting a comment here. I especially like this sentence:
"A good part of religion involves blind trust - that a beneficient god (or gods) exists, that everything that occurs has a hidden, deeper meaning, that there is a goal to strive towards, and that the path to that goal as defined by the religion is the best route to achieve it."
All of us(me included) who consider ourselves to be rational, non-religious, non-superstitious, or whatever, get it.
But for some reason, the majority of humanity believes in the opposite. Why is it so?
I think irrationality is a by-product of evolution. A rope in the dark being thought of as a snake versus thinking that human-like god(s) actually run things like the sun, moon, rains, thunder etc. I think Dawkins or someone else said that humans tend to look for agents(human looking) driving every aspect of their lives.
I'm afraid many at Cafe-Pyala are going to take their daggers against me - but I still have to get this out of my system.
.
"Such is the power of irrational dogma that even recalling the fact that the Quran itself encourages, at numerous points, people to use their minds (i.e. logic, rationality) is brushed aside as irreligious"
.
A) For all your hyperbole of rationality v/s relgion - your "Quran itself" reference more than clearly defines you. It shows that you will rather stick with what the Quran says - even if it goes against every humanistic, scientific notion.
B) Please quote the ayat, sirah - and describe the "scenario / circumstance / situation" in which the verse was revealed WITHOUT USING ANY HADEES (or hadith for the Arabophiles).
.
How will Quran-only Muslims contextualize any Ayat, Surah without the help of hadees/ahadith, tafseers and other literature? Now, if I ask too many questions, you will resort to using the term FITNA on me. Wouldn't you?
.
"Personally, I don't even see the contradiction between being a Muslim and accepting the principles of science"
.
That could only mean/indicate that you're way too ignorant about science or way too ignorant about religion (or, in your case Islam). Zaid Hamid & Hamid Gul are mere distractions when compared to the evil-incarnate named Zakir Naik; because the latter is a cunning, vile, disgusting hate-preacher using the guise of religion.
.
"religious belief is limited only to places like Pakistan's Ruet-e-Hilal Committee"
.
Of course not. It's pretty obvious & common-place in various locations across the globe. And it's absolutely not something specific to one religion (Islam in this case). However, Islam stands miles apart (or should I say below) than all other filthy disgusting stupid moronic faith-systems all over the world (& that includes Hinduism, Xianity, Buddhism, Jainism, Sikhism, Taoism, Atheism, et cetera) - why, you ask?
.
The reason is quite simple & obvious. There is no other inhuman barbaric cultist faith-system in the current world that discriminates humanity - prohibts a majority from entering an entire CITY - Mecca. No religion indulges in such religion-based discrimination in such a massive scale as Islam does. Islam stoops to the lowest levels possible & prohibits the majority of human beings from even setting foot on an entire CITY - MECCA.
.
Islam is also the most hypocritical of all filthy religions. Why, you ask? Because, while it appears to (or puts up an act of) ANTI-IDOLATORY, it indulges in the worst & most unhygenic form of idolatory behaviour. All hajj-performing muslims kiss a filthy, dirty, stinking black stone - which probably was used by Arab nomadic bedouins to clear their arses after excretion. When you are against idolatory behaviour, why ask your followers to indulge in the same?
.
Having said all this - I should accept that I was born to a hindu family. And my contempt for the hindu religion is far more potent & acerbic that what I outlined for Islam. Hindu religion had supported Caste system, Sati & was (& even currently is) responsible for a plethora of social evils. So, all those comment-ers who might want to indulge in insulting hinduism - please feel free to do so, you will be doing a good work (as far as I am concerned).
.
MN
PS: Nothing personal on anyone - I'm only talking about religions - and I treat each of them for the vile & evil entities they are.
Hi,
The problem with religious thinking is also, IMHO, that which permeates the thinking of many that oppose religious zealotry.
Now, before you yell, "Troll!", please let me explain - the insistence that non-faith and faith are apples and oranges leads to bad blood, for the simple reason that it blocks off agreement on terms and definitions.
Theists believe in the possibility of, primarily, an omniscient and omnipresent being(s), which atheists summarily reject. Hence the lack of any common ground between both parties. In moral terms, this constitutes an inability to imagine how the other person's universe works, and what it takes to keep it running. Not that that is such a bad thing - humans fail to imagine how the other party thinks all the time, and this is a valuable source of conflict and creativity. Still, though, the tactics followed by both parties in such conflicts tend to converge, and the result is comments as found on your last post -or indeed, your last comment.
Our last commenter thinks all religious vile and evil, and rejects the role they played in human aspirations such as justice and fair play. He/she also considers the nexus of religion and superstition to be inarguable, while neglecting the fact that many of the greatest scientists practiced variations on these 'vile, evil entities'. I would suggest that talk of rubbing stones with arses, or similar cloacal diversions, is simply a sign of a lack of moral imagination - in other words, of whining because it isn't fair.
Of course it ain't. But one of the ways to make it fair for both yourself and the other person is to stop acting as though your particular version of the truth entitles you to be an ass. You may be right, but you don't have to be a dick (Dawkins) about it.
Ali Manzil
For Ahsan:
Sure you can believe in evolution. You can believe in evolutionary models just as strongly as you can believe in financial models, with similar cognitive dissonance when you find out they don't account for outlying phenomena. This isn't up for debate - the human mind is notoriously bad at being able to imagine alternative scenarios in complex situations.
Take Dawkins' insistence on the analogy of the selfish gene. It led to outright dismiss the Gaia theory because he "couldn't imagine" a situation in which Earth would evolve such a system. Well, it did. It did it in spite of Dawkins' insistence that he found it unimaginable. Similarly, he found it difficult to believe Lynn Margulis' theory of endosymbiosis - and eventually was persuaded of its truth by the massive acceptance of the theory by his peers. This makes neural sense too, because the mechanisms for belief are in all of us - the things we believe in may be different. In the fact that we may be persuaded to change our minds lies what little hope we have.
Ali Manzil
You Rock XYZ,@MN your a little sicko
@ Ali Ahsan,
.
" variations on these " - so, that explains that there is something inherently not okay with any / all organized religion. These *variations* you are talking about are what I respect - but the generic stupidity that is advocated by Swamis, Gurus, Mullahs, Maulvis, Priests, Church-fathers and other assorted idiots is what I'm completely against.
.
Religion should be strictly confined to the 4 walls of a person's home - it should be completely personal - between the devotee & his/her god. When it becomes organized & begins to influence the thinking & actions of groups of individuals, that's when it's become vile, evil. Example: the crusaders who indulged in mass genocide, and many such assorted criminals that utilize religion to influence *sheeple* (people that are herded like sheep - my favorite term for the hindus of my nation).
.
If we look at it from a certain perspective even the genocide committed by British imperialistic armies all across the globe will have had many positive results - that doesn't make those genocides any less vile, less disgusting or less evil. Even cyanide might have some positive effects - but it's still a harmful poison. We can't fill up a glass of milk with just one spoon cyanide because cyanide has some good qualities. Similarly, we can't fill a society with even a table-spoon amount of religion (the organized ones) - because it will poison the humanity as a whole.
.
"the role they played in human aspirations such as justice and fair play"
.
Could you enlist some? Blasphemy laws? Heresy laws of the old church? Manu-smriti based stupidities of Bharath? Which one are you referring to? Human aspirations had developed INSPITE of religious efforts to fight them to the teeth. What is justice? If a person who has lost an arm & a leg chooses to steal X quantity of something, is it JUSTICE to remove one more arm? What is "fair play" - allowing a man to have 2, 3 or 4 wives - while forcing a woman to have only one husband? In the hindu religious field too there are enormous such social evils that have been propagated by RELIGION (organized religion).
.
I attribute the goodness of what our ancestors achieved & left to us to THEM - those people, those ancestral mothers & fathers of our both nations. No doubt both of them were Buddhist-Hindus - but it was never buddhism or hinduism that lead them to develop great structures like mohenjadaro & harappa. It was inspite of religious fanaticism that our ancestors were able to progress - and not due to organized religion.
.
Finally, thank you for not resorting to ad-hominem personal name-calling or using invectives. You are a genuinely good individual for choosing to attack what I stated rather than attack me.
.
@ Sohail,
.
"MN your a little sicko"
.
There is a difference between YOUR & YOU ARE (or YOU'RE). And thanks for indulging in ad-hominem name-calling. This is along expected lines.
.
@ All,
.
See how Sohail choose to name-call me - rather than refute anything I stated. That's what (organized) religion (s) does to human beings. The humans become zombies - like the crusaders and like Mohammed Atta & like the millions of Swamis & Gurus that cheat sheeple in Bharath.
.
NOTE TO ALL: This will be the last response I make on this post. Any further adhominems or arguments will not be responded to. My blog (refer to my previous comment to visit my blog) is available for any further *meaningful* discussions; however, name-calling will not be entertained.
.
MN
when it comes to ones individual beliefs and matters of faith, it is best to leave each to his own - cherish your beliefs but also leave in peace those who are free of these beliefs to live their lives as they see fit
message from भारत
@MN@Anonymous, you are not what you preach "@ Sohail,
.
"MN your a little sicko"
.
There is a difference between YOUR & YOU ARE (or YOU'RE). And thanks for indulging in ad-hominem name-calling. This is along expected lines.
.
@ All,
.
See how Sohail choose to name-call me - rather than refute anything I stated. That's what (organized) religion (s) does to human beings. The humans become zombies - like the crusaders and like Mohammed Atta & like the millions of Swamis & Gurus that cheat sheeple in Bharath."
If one little spelling mistake makes you hoping mad imagine what a religious person goes trough when some one is offensive toward the religion they follow.
You shall invent a new religion where people write correct English and I'm sure people who are unable to utter a correct sentence in English would see YOUR YOU'RE wrath .
I found it interesting that when some Pakistani Muslims on the internet started a long process to call me to Islam (I'm a fundamentalist Christian, therefore a creationist), they started out with many HY creationist videos. I wonder if I were a liberal, evolutionist Christian would they have started out at different way, or if that particular group does that with most Americans Christians.
@Anon, 7:17 pm was by FCFP (FloridaChristianForPakistan)
Post a Comment