Ethical dilemma

:Would science and technology prevail over religion?

History has shown that, Evolution favours religion; religious communities cooperate better than nonreligious communities and therefore flourish more readily. But that does not prove their imaginary gods are real!

Isn’t it true that a religion that ignores scientific facts and refuses to change its beliefs is like a fish stranded in a slowly drying pond and refusing to flip to deeper water?

Still, the larger question remains unanswered: Would you live in a world without medicine, electricity, transportation and antibiotics or the one without zealots waging war over fictional tales and imaginary spirits? What larger interests these traditional religions provide for the humanity?

Why should science be considered antagonistic to religious concepts? if religious beliefs are deemed required for societal development then why can’t it take its place ? What essential qualities science lacks for itself being put up on religious pedestal?

My elderly friend Sukumaran Thampi in a comment to one of my FB posts on religion had made a thought provoking statement:

Quote

Thr blind faith in God especially among less educated gives them courage and confidence to face the challenges and tragedies in life. If temples and the religious beliefs are destroyed, may one need large number of psychiatric treatment facilities due to mental ill health that insecurity in life would create.

Every little change in past rituals and practices need to be understood with relation to life and must then be given up, retained or replaced.

Unquote

Well said. It is true that if you have a person in the family or in the society, whose advice you follow without any wavering of mind, gives mental peace whatever may be the outcome. Blind faith in God may be palliative but yet beneficial! Unfortunately agnostics would be missing that option!

Sabarimala controversy

We are a complex society where countless faiths, beliefs and customs co-exist. The reason we are able to co-exist, mostly peacefully, is that we let our neighbours be. And as a state, by and large, we have been minimally invasive (so far) on issues of faith.

Sabarimala is a lesson in how unintended consequences can follow an intervention by an all-powerful institution which clinically applies principles of law and Constitution—or as it interprets them—on issues of faith.

The danger with an unconventional view on any contentious issue, is bound to be misconstrued. Whether women should be allowed in Sabarimala, or Sikh women go around on motorcycles without helmets or Triple talaq, an awful injustice to Muslim women, or the practice of Female genital mutilation is an abomination? All these need to go. But should we not leave it to social and political reformers from within to form the opinion before interpreting legally or making it a law. Some might compare ‘sati’ with these… but I totally disagree……??

Thiruvathira Thirunal Lakshmi Bayi, the XII Princess of the erstwhile state of Travancore, within which is situated the Sabarimala temple, narrates her impressions in her article in Sunday gaurdian:

There is an interesting legend that the local feminine deity, Malikapurathamma, leads the queue of prospective female wooers of the deity. Lord Ayyappa, so goes the belief among the believers, has promised to marry Her if there were no first time Sabarimala pilgrims in any year, something yet to happen.

The story apart, What makes a piece of stone divine are the esoteric rituals going back millennia that have been designed by the ancients to energise it into Godhead, to infuse the divine power of the universe within its form. To this is over time added the faith of millions of devotees who experience in themselves the energy and power of God in the vigraham sculpted by an artisan. Lord Ayyappa of Sabarimala has been worshipped for ages within the rules and rites of tradition that are particular and exclusive to Him.

A show of “devotion” to the deity sans respect for the unique, societally benign and age-old traditions and practices created around Him and for Him seems to many to be a sham. To behold Shri Ayyappa without devotion in the heart and veneration in the mind, as though gazing upon a portrait in a museum, would indeed be a travesty of the spirit of the worshipper who seeks to enter the temple.

In the absence of a separate statute in the Indian constitution for Hindu religion with polytheistic deities, inferences are drawn by the Indian judiciary, from cases in international courts where disputes on monotheistic religions are settled. SC rested its Sabarimala verdict on essential practices doctrine devised by US SC in Davis v Beason founded on Monotheism, imported into Indian jurisprudence thro Sirur Mutt case. Davis rule will not apply to polytheistic faiths. Unfortunately these interpretations are grossly inadequate representations of ground realities calling for either education on these matters for better appreciation to those who decide the matters or suitable enactments by the supreme parliament, if the millinium old religion has to be preserved with it’s sanctity.

The women activists who entered surreptitiously might consider taking up another cause of women devotees after securing successful verdicts to gain entry into shani and Ayyappa temples from the honourable courts:

The little known Kongalli Mallikarjuna Swamy temple, on the Chamarajanagar-Erode border, which is 98km from Mysuru city, does not allow any female devotees as it is believed it would disturb the celibacy of the deity. Some claims that as the shrine is located in the middle of the thick forest, known for tigers, leopards, elephants, bears, etc. the ban may have been put in place keeping in mind the safety of women. According to the temple priest, this temple has a 1,200-year-old history and till now neither any woman has been allowed nor any woman tried to enter ‘forcibly’ inside the shrine!

Has the stage been very appropriately set for getting the much wanted media glare apart from gaining entry? or the temple is not that worth for the game?

There may be a sigh of relief in the devout followers of Ayyappan, with Subramaniam Swamy having softened his stance on the issue of permission to women devotees! He has requested to be briefed on agamas based on which certain rituals are followed in Sabarimala; it remains to be seen whether he would pick up the (cause) cherry. If anyone can ‘unsettle’ the settled issue in Indian judiciary, the inimitable maverick ‘Swamy’ is the last and the only one. He is capable of articulating in his own way to prove ‘his’ point! After all he is the one, who won the (weak) case for the Dhikshidars in chidambaram for the ‘ownership’ of Nataraja Temple!

Unfortunately it is a painful fact of modern civilisation that arguments only can win a case in courts, not necessarily the truth!

The arguments put forwarded by Senior Advocate Shri K.Parasaran in Sabarimala case were also outstanding:

The Supreme Court continued its hearing on a petition seeking the removal of ban on women entering into the Ayyappa temple at Sabarimala in Kerala on Wednesday (25 July). Senior advocate K Parasaran, appearing for the Nair Service Society, argued that Lord Ayyappa’s avatar as “Naishtika Brahmachari” is protected by the Constitution.

Stating that democracies must protect religion, the senior counsel said and argued that the basis for the practice of barring women is due to the celibate nature of the deity and not misogyny. Parasaran says that there are several other famous Ayyappa Temples in Kerala which allow entry of women without age restrictions. Therefore, the Sabarimala Temple is not a case of discrimination. Hindu shastras do not support misogyny and chastity is a greater obligation on men, he said, adding that Article 25 (2) applies to only social reform and not matters of religion.

During the hearing, Justice Rohinton Nariman, in his observation, agreed with Parasaran that Articles 25 (2) and 17 of the Constitution deal with caste-based untouchability and not gender. Even if it were to apply to women, it would be based on caste, he argued.

Even if Article 25(2) applies to women, it is only with respect to social issues and not religious issues, he says. Article 25(2)(b) is at best an enabling provision for the legislature, it doesn’t enable the judiciary.

Is Aluminium more precious than Gold?

History is stranger than fiction……

Can you believe that untill most part of 19th century, aluminum was the highly precious metal! It is More precious than even Gold and Platinum! Emperor Napoleon Bonaparte of France who reigned France between 1804 and 1814, reserved his few sets of aluminium dinner plates and eating utensils for his most honored guests while less privileged were served with golden cutleries! Fascinating – isn’t it?

Aluminium and not gold was selected as the material for the cap to sit atop the Washington Monument in Washington, D.C the construction of which was completed in 1888.

The Hall–Héroult process, invented in 1886 made this once ‘precious’ element so cheap that it is presently very popularly used as ‘inexpensive’ aluminum foils for food!

Looking back – doesn’t it look ludicrous? Next time – in case you are planning to invest in gold, be aware of the history to face surprises.

science and technology always fascinate…

Curbing gambling by legalising!

The latest law commission report on the recommendation to legalise gambling has stirred the air for an interesting debate. One of the arguments put forth is that this move would channel the money from underworld to legal channels. The society, evolving over millenniums of civilisation, proclaimed three vices as harbingers to the downfall of families and kingdoms: intoxicants, prostitution and gambling. Loosing control over mental balance, as these are addictive habits, is the guiding factor for the pronouncement in almost all cultures.

Are we going to set the clock back simply because it is becoming impossible to enforce the law? Isn’t it too frivolous to quote Mahabharat to sanctify a flagitious activity? Shouldn’t you have been enlightened by the sufferings of Pandavas caused by the weakness of Yudhishtar to this ‘vice’ instead of quoting as an example?

Some countries have enacted the definition of “Prostitution” without legalising. the civic model of legal prostitution in early Hindu kingdoms have been dispensed with the refinement of cultural values inspite of resistances based on perceived chaste Women’s safety with the ‘steam being let off’!

While Some western societies regulate gambling, no one has attempted regulating ‘Narcotics’; the prime debate in the present regime, whether the choice of individual shall prevail over the common societal progress, would again hit the headlines.

Legalising an illegal activity because of inept enforcement, would be last resort of cowardly governance!

Is apple (seeds) poisonous?

Is apple (seeds) poisonous? There was a very recent murder case in Australia where an Indian woman killed her husband by giving him crushed Apple seeds. She & her lover have been convicted and sentenced for 22 years & 25 years in prison.

Many would be surprised that apple seeds indeed contain Cyanide. I searched for the info & was surprised to find that apple seeds do contain Cyanide. May be this is also one of the reasons why insects hardly hit an apple crop!

Though it might be very scary, at least it is best to weed them out without seeds while giving to Children anyway.

A bit of maths on the lethal proportion (data courtesy google God):

One gram of finely crushed or chewed apple seeds may deliver up to 0.06-0.24 mg of cyanide.

Consuming 0.2-1.6 mg of cyanide for each pound of body weight (0.5-3.5 mg/kg) may lead to severe poisoning, causing a coma, paralysis, heart and lung failure or even death

For a 60kg adult, 30-210 mg is the lethal dose: that is 0.5 – 2 kg!!! As a result, eating two cups of ground apple seeds might be fatal. At the very least, it could make you sick.

Why to take a big risk? Instead of driving the doctor away, (by giving a whole apple a day) why to rush to clinic on emergency???

Why not ensure that the seeds are removed before eating apples? Specially children should not be given whole apple. You have to pay dearly for your laziness? Instead cut, remove the seeds before giving it to them!!

Religions and Human Evolution

What is a religion? What is its role in human evolution? Yuval Noah Harari gives an interesting and convincing explanation in his book ‘Sapiens’:

It is a system of human norms and values that is founded on a belief of a superhuman order.

The foragers of the second millennium BC would have believed in several spirits to placate, such as a fig-tree spirit lest the sickness of his child would not be cured; the evolution of foragers to agricultural society needed many gods to mediate between humans and the mute plants and animals; the religious liturgy consisted mainly of sacrificing lambs offering food to divine powers in exchange of abundant harvests and fecund flocks! This led to the evolution of polytheistic religions based on the belief that the world is controlled by a group of powerful Gods such as fertility Goddess, the rain God, the war God etc., Thus the emergence of polytheistic religions! While monotheistic belief considered the existence of a single supreme, polytheistic religions believed in several Gods with specific powers but under the command of a supreme God.

Two thousand years of monotheistic brainwashing in certain religions, caused the ‘rationale thinkers’ to see polytheism as ignorant and childish idolatry! Is that true: history speaks otherwise!

The polytheistic religions are generally tolerant to other religious beliefs unlike the monotheistic: the examples of Greek, Hindu or Yoruba of west Africa rarely engaged in mass religious massacres such as that in Christianity (between Protestants and catholics or the St Bartholomew’s Day Massacre in 1572). The least you speak about of the upheavals in the Middle East and its impact crossing the ocean boundaries in the recent history, the better!

Why so? Polytheism believed in a supreme power controlling the smaller ones and hence there is no difficulty for the devotees to accept the existence and efficacy of other Gods; after all the religions are founded in superhuman order! and hence they are open minded and rarely persecuted ‘heretics’ and ‘infidels’!

Could there be a world order without distrust arising out of religious contradictions? after all, all these religions are out of mythical beliefs? Are there not more pressing problems that need attention?

what is the reason for the countries in the East, China, India, Egypt or Rome who were culturally, economically and religiously supreme till the late 17th centuries, faded away? How is that the near non existent Americans and those insignificant Europeans rose to rule the world after the 18th century?

Why the golden era of Ottoman Empire did not fuel the technological progress? Is it that a peaceful life would only propel fine arts and not pursuits in knowledge? Why scientific education and institutions did not flourish in the east while small western countries such as England, Austria, Germany, Italy attracted scholars from around the world: Many of them flourished on corporate funding rather than public funding. Government funded only when it had to rely on these expertise during wartime.

Those in the east saw no reason to change their quiescent life style which made them merely complacent; they over relied on their age old traditions and refused to rationally innovate which could have made them scientifically inquisitive!

Western culture believed nothing is infallible while east continued to dwell on its unshaken faith on traditions and the infallibility of the scriptures; could this be the magic behind the catapulted growth of west in the late 18th century? This might have provided a fertile ground for the accelerated growth of science and technology additionally fuelled by the intervening world wars.

Is the clock now turning a full circle? Are the giants of 17th century, China and india, returning to rule the new world? It could possibly so with both of them in the stunning resurrected growth trajectory…

Religion is no more relevant in this new world: it is economics, trade and commerce… Though these countries are pursuing their growth path in different political directions, the goal is the same…minor distractions would not deter the two giants in reaching the goal!!!!

Agitate or Perish?

Agitations are a democratic way of expressing an opinion. The impact it creates to those in executive positions helps in formulation of policies or in legislation of new laws or in the amendment of existing laws. They can range from very peaceful means without disturbance to public routines to violent arson involving immolations or deaths in cross fire. When they are violent, some have coined the word ‘terrorism’.

The present day values of life have been degraded so much that the impact of the success of an agitation is measured in terms of the extent of disruption and loss of life.

The opinion makers, may it be politicians or media, do not feel the guilt but appears to be gloating when there is turmoil.

Take for example the present turbulence in tamilnadu on the implementation of a court order: when there was reduction in the quantity of allocation to tamilnadu, there were celebrations in Karnataka; they could have accepted for an implementing authority; that could have been a civilised approach which would have been a win-win situation. Instead, the trouble making politicians, found a way of cashing on the sentiments for elections: if you accept the order you would be deemed anti-karnataka. Why? If you loose the control of dams, then in future you may not be able to get your share which might get reduced; also even the present allocation can be dilly-dallied if you retain the control. appears sinister isn’t it? The unethical and unscrupulous politicians of the states are keeping the life in tender hooks…. would it not affect the comradeship between the natives and the migrants and can risk their life and property? Some crazy fools are talking of secession and burning the national flags? can we call them Irresolvable idiots?

In such a tricky situation, the political exigencies would abdicate executive decisions and shift those responsibilities to judiciary to take the blame. Now that the dates have been fixed can’t you wait a short while? Having waited so long can’t you wait for court’s hearing which has promised resolution? Should you not cool the tempers of ill-informed? I believe even saner souls are worried in making publicly such opinions as there is a risk of being named anti-Tamils and doomed…?

No.. we want to keep the pot boiling and get some political mileage and one up-manship.

Who is getting fooled??? When are we going to get a statesman as our leader…??

Which is superior – knowledge or faith?

Knowledge, the one based experimental evaluation and methodical reasoning; faith is one traditionally followed over generations; faiths are sacrosanct – anything to analyse and interpret could be construed as a ‘revolt’;

It is also true that once knowledge understands and interpret, those faiths will sustain in the long run; while faith when proved ‘mystic’ by the knowledge, would unfortunately not disappear quickly but would take at least a few generations to disappear as those hardened in it, would refuse to change their belief. But those faiths that could not be disproved beyond doubt by the existing knowledge would thrive and ‘haunt’ the society.

It is inevitable that any society would be a mix of both the philosophies since there is always a mortal fear of unknown that haunts even the rational and knowledgeable individuals.

But relentless pursuit of knowledge shall never be let lost, in the loud dins of those blind faithfuls, in a vibrant and progressive civilisation.

Missing Objective Reality in today’s world

I was reading the famous book ‘Atlas shrugged’ by the author of ‘the concept of objectivism’, Ayn Rand. Though it was written in 1957, some sixty years back – but it is pronouncing gospel eternal truth. I wish to quote her and dwell on the subject of courts and justice – May I reproduce verbatim the text of the thoughts of the protagonist sitting in the courtroom awaiting the pronouncement of verdict:

‘They all know the verdict in advance and they know its reason; no other reason existed for years, where no standards, save whim, had existed. They seemed to regard it as their rightful prerogative; they acted as if the purpose of the procedure were not not to try a case, but to give them jobs, as their jobs were to recite the appropriate formulas with no responsibility to know what the formulas accomplished, as if a courtroom were the one place where questions of right and wrong were irrelevant and they, the men in charge of dispensing justice, were safely wise enough to know that no justice existed. They acted like savages performing a ritual devised to set them free of objective reality.’

How true it is! Does it not slap on your face? Wilfully looking for the woods and knowingly missing the forest? Can we still dream to be in a civilised world?