Materialism has an irresistible logic. How do we know something is real unless another person can independently verify it? Real stuff must be objectively represent-able. Measurability is the acid test for reality. Atoms and galaxies pass the test but mind doesn’t. Mind is a mere shadow cast by the complexity of brain chemistry. '
There are serious objections. Even the most mundane of experience is not the same as its description. Some of our feelings cannot be described in words at all. Reality appears to have a component that cannot be captured in objective descriptions.
That is all fine, the materialist would say. How do you prove such personal experience is real? How is your ‘spiritual experience’ different from mere hallucination? Can you point out the reality of your claims to a skeptic and convince him?
This is a very deep question – Are there real stuff that are truly beyond science? Does nature include aspects that cannot be understood objectively? This is answered in one of the following ways:
1. Yes. Nature has aspects that are beyond science (one must have faith in a supernatural God).
2. No. Science can completely explain nature, given enough time and resources.
3. We will never know, but all that is knowable is what comes to us through science and there is no point in speculating what lies beyond.
4. Yes. Nature has aspects beyond objective description. These are accessible to man through direct experience and there is nothing supernatural about it.
I have always felt the presence of unexplainable in my experience. It’s only my subjective feeling, yet too real to be ignored. How can I establish the reality of my ‘purely subjective’ experience?
Let us see how far we can go with the materialist position - measurable or quantifiable things alone are real. There is no mind stuff. What we call mind is an epiphenomenon, an echo of the chemical noise in the neurons. Yet there is one thing undeniable- the fact that we have all these knowledge. How did man come to have knowledge? What is the mechanism of knowing? Vision is associated with eyes and a complex mechanism involving cornea, lens, retina, optic nerves and vision neurons. Is there a similar mechanism for knowing?
‘Knowing’ has something to do with mind. But wait for a moment – we have ruled out mind as a mere echo. ‘Knowing’ has something to do with brain. Human brain must have a unique knowledge producing mechanism. Let us treat it as a black box. The gears and valves are hidden for the moment, but its output is real, objective knowledge.
How can this black box be studied?
Man alone, of all creatures, possess objective knowledge. How did man come have such knowledge? Where did this black box come from? Remember we are attempting to (objectively) know the mechanism of objectivity. One possibility is to look into its evolutionary history (I suspect this is the only way to avoid the trap of self-referencing. History offers another level of objectivity in this unique case of knower trying to know itself).
Evolution forms the background to understand everything related to living things – including knowledge. Do we see a history of knowledge in evolution? Other bodily functions such as vision have a history. Human eyes evolved from primitive light sensitive cells. How about the knowledge producing black box?
We have our theories of knowing, but such theories always begin with human civilizations. Our history of knowledge is the history of rationality. We find it unimaginable that reality can be effectively tackled without “getting out” and forming an objective view, yet this is how life flourished for 3.5 billion years. There are colors invisible to our eyes and sounds inaudible our ears. Is there knowledge beyond our black box?
An evolutionary worldview must have place for pre-rational modes of comprehension. A series of ‘tools of comprehension’ must have emerged in nature. Rational mind is the latest addition to this collection. If man is the product of a 3.5 billion year long evolutionary process, he cannot claim superiority for his ‘knowing’. It is just one of the ways to comprehend certain aspects of reality. On the other hand, ‘Science is the only way to knowledge’ sits much more comfortably with creationism. A world created by God is consistent with comprehension beginning with human beings.
We need to have an epistemology going all the way back to the first living cell. Direct experience and intuition should be recognized as valid modes of comprehension, supplementing rationality. This could be the way to a truly religious worldview.
Friday, March 9, 2012
Knowledge and Ignorance
Man is driven by the need to create patterns from his experience of reality. Pattern seeking is instinctive to human beings. It is the driving force behind our search for meaning and order. Individuals pick up a variety of ‘pattern forming techniques’ through education and social conditioning. Such skills are used to comprehend and connect the multitude of experiences, to form meaningful patterns out of the cacophony of sensory inputs.
Every culture has ground rules to guide its members in this task. For example, ‘survival of fittest’ decides the course of biological evolution has emerged as a key guiding principle in modern societies. Unfortunately, most popular of such ground rules contradict each other. It is not surprising because these are derived from mutually exclusive sources of scientific knowledge and religious faith. Experience is compartmentalized, creating conflicts in both personal and social interactions. Patterns emerging out of our times are distorted and contradictory.
Imagine an arithmetic system based on the assumption 1+1 = 3. Building up from here, no amount of hard work or ingenuity will produce results that truly correspond to reality. Mankind is facing a similar crisis today. Our problems originate from a cause that is too fundamental to be solved by present day scientific thinking. We are suffering the consequences of an epistemological error, a serious mistake in comprehending the relationship between Knowledge and Reality.
I believe this is the reason for our failure to integrate subjective and objective aspects of
experience into a meaningful whole. My inner sense of ‘being at harmony with nature’ is as real to me as the force of gravity. Why is it that science has no place for such purely subjective experiences? What is the significance of experiences that cannot be translated into objective expressions?
Any attempt to unify human experience should begin with the question of knowledge. What constitute knowledge and why is it so powerful? Last two centuries saw explosive growth in one type of knowledge, objective knowledge, in the form of science and technology. It is true that our lives are often dominated by 'subjective' knowledge, but we must begin by suspecting its validity. Scientists, using data and reason, can convince any intelligent person to see the truth of their findings. Poets or mystics cannot do that. On the other hand, reason may be truly limited in its explanatory power. What other options do we have? Nothing. Reason is the only path, even when the destination is its outer limits.
We must understand ‘knowledge’ as a product evolution. We must dig into its evolutionary history to understand how it came into being. This is the only way to study ‘knowledge’ objectively. Words such as mind or consciousness cannot be used to explain knowledge because we do not know what this ‘mind’ or ‘consciousness’ is. There is no mind to begin with, only the objective certainty of evolution.
Life evolved from simple self-replicating molecules to monstrously complex trees and animals over a period of 3.5 billion years. ‘Knowing’ simply was not around for almost the entire duration of this growth and proliferation. It is a very recent entry on evolutionary time scale. How did the transition from ‘unknowing ape’ to ‘knowing man’ happen? How did early humans perceive themselves and their environment?
I am sitting comfortably in my office room, typing these words into the computer. There is a beautifully painted jug on the side table. I am aware that it is shaped out of clay, fired in an oven, polished and painted to give me the comfort of storing water. Let me do a thought experiment. I want to travel back in time, to the irrational perplexity of my earliest ancestor. I forget the history of water jugs, chemical composition of clay, structure of atoms, and along with it every bit of knowledge that makes me a civilized human being. I stare at the jug through the emptiness of my mind. Isolated in pre-historic vacuum, far away from the origin of languages, my mind has lost its words. Universe is confined to this remarkably colored object and myself. How do I describe my experience? What is this thing I am staring at? I concentrate on its shape and color, hesitantly stretching hand to explore. I tremble at the feeling of contact with this strange object and withdraw, only to try again and again. What are the secrets of this jug's being? I don't know. Words have flown off, leaving only a smothering vacuum. I do not know how to express my perplexity. What exactly is the thing known to my civilized contemporaries as a jug? What is left in a jug if I empty it of all the ideas and associations that have got into it in the past ten thousand years? I am confronting the puzzle that haunted generations of primitive humans - the task of describing the thing-in-itself.
Our ancestors at the dawn of awareness encountered a puzzling world. This puzzle was partially solved with the invention of language. Emerging human rationality found that the easiest way to deal with a mystery is to cover it up. Early man attempted to tame the unknowable thing-in-itself by giving it a name. Act of naming is the most basic form of objective knowing. Names are objective entities for the group of people who share this knowledge. The wild, fearful thing that pounces on the hunter became an objective fact after it was named 'qxzitlntol' - something that can be spoken of and planned against. Real objects are mysterious and unknowable. Knowing is an act of de-mystification, a practical trick of concealing the strangeness of unknowns behind a veil called knowledge.
Who does this covering up? We can identify an agent, a part of ourselves with the task of exploring and covering up the mystery of things. Let us call this agent 'demystifier'. Let us dump words such as consciousness, awareness and rationality into this black box. ‘Demystifier’ is functionally similar to other sense organs such as the eye or ear. We can possibly open up this black box and explore its contents later, after we are convinced about its reality and function.
We are not cooking up something mysterious here. There was a point in time, not far from the appearance of human species in the history of evolution, when objective knowledge did not exist. Contrast this situation with the present. What happened between these two points of time? We are looking for natural explanations and it is sensible to view objective knowledge as the output of an organ, similar to other sense organs we are endowed with. We do not know anything about the structure or mechanism of this sense organ at this point. It is a black box, definable in terms of its output, which is indeed real. Thus 'demystifier' is simply a label attached to a new function that evolved in human beings, possibly over few hundred thousand years. It evolved as the ‘organ of knowing’, just as eyes evolved as the ‘organ of seeing’.
Demystification proceeded in stages. Man mastered the trick of naming and extinguished the mystery of reality by naming everything around. Noun forms thus conceived were tied up at various levels of interrelationship, resulting in complex language structures. Names were useful in shielding infant awareness from the threat of unknowing. It helped survival by making communication possible. The roots of our knowledge go back to the primitive fear that confronted earliest man facing a world of things-in-themselves.
Knower grew bolder with accumulated experience of many generations and 'name covers' were slowly lifted to take a fresh look at the mystery behind. The substance named ‘clay’ was found to be a mixture of chemical compounds A, B, C etc, which were in turn smaller packets of mystery. Early science thrived on the identification of such constituent parts and patterns of their interaction. Unknowability was pushed back by another step. Subsequent stages of demystification have produced fruitful branches in the tree of science - Atomic physics and Quantum mechanics.
It is amazing that beautiful patterns emerge from such 'externalized knowledge'. That tells something about the nature of reality and its relation with the knower. Why is nature comprehensible to human observers? We should first gain some insight into the nature of the ‘demystifier’ before this all-important question can be explored.
We know that our eyes have a limited range. There are real things that would remain forever invisible to the naked eye. Is it likely that nature has properties that would remain forever beyond the ‘demystifier’? Such a conclusion appears reasonable if we accept the knower as a product of biological evolution. We are forever attempting to hold the unknowable thing-in-itself by grasping it with our tool of objective knowing. We detect newer patterns with every attempt, adding another layer to our interpretation of reality.
What exactly is going on? Unknowability goes into hiding behind the growing façade of certainty. Man has built his majestic edifice of knowledge on the foundation of a terrifying mystery. Our ancestors were aware of this fundamental ignorance. It was their wisdom, a legacy that modern man has disclaimed.
Every culture has ground rules to guide its members in this task. For example, ‘survival of fittest’ decides the course of biological evolution has emerged as a key guiding principle in modern societies. Unfortunately, most popular of such ground rules contradict each other. It is not surprising because these are derived from mutually exclusive sources of scientific knowledge and religious faith. Experience is compartmentalized, creating conflicts in both personal and social interactions. Patterns emerging out of our times are distorted and contradictory.
Imagine an arithmetic system based on the assumption 1+1 = 3. Building up from here, no amount of hard work or ingenuity will produce results that truly correspond to reality. Mankind is facing a similar crisis today. Our problems originate from a cause that is too fundamental to be solved by present day scientific thinking. We are suffering the consequences of an epistemological error, a serious mistake in comprehending the relationship between Knowledge and Reality.
I believe this is the reason for our failure to integrate subjective and objective aspects of
experience into a meaningful whole. My inner sense of ‘being at harmony with nature’ is as real to me as the force of gravity. Why is it that science has no place for such purely subjective experiences? What is the significance of experiences that cannot be translated into objective expressions?
Any attempt to unify human experience should begin with the question of knowledge. What constitute knowledge and why is it so powerful? Last two centuries saw explosive growth in one type of knowledge, objective knowledge, in the form of science and technology. It is true that our lives are often dominated by 'subjective' knowledge, but we must begin by suspecting its validity. Scientists, using data and reason, can convince any intelligent person to see the truth of their findings. Poets or mystics cannot do that. On the other hand, reason may be truly limited in its explanatory power. What other options do we have? Nothing. Reason is the only path, even when the destination is its outer limits.
We must understand ‘knowledge’ as a product evolution. We must dig into its evolutionary history to understand how it came into being. This is the only way to study ‘knowledge’ objectively. Words such as mind or consciousness cannot be used to explain knowledge because we do not know what this ‘mind’ or ‘consciousness’ is. There is no mind to begin with, only the objective certainty of evolution.
Life evolved from simple self-replicating molecules to monstrously complex trees and animals over a period of 3.5 billion years. ‘Knowing’ simply was not around for almost the entire duration of this growth and proliferation. It is a very recent entry on evolutionary time scale. How did the transition from ‘unknowing ape’ to ‘knowing man’ happen? How did early humans perceive themselves and their environment?
I am sitting comfortably in my office room, typing these words into the computer. There is a beautifully painted jug on the side table. I am aware that it is shaped out of clay, fired in an oven, polished and painted to give me the comfort of storing water. Let me do a thought experiment. I want to travel back in time, to the irrational perplexity of my earliest ancestor. I forget the history of water jugs, chemical composition of clay, structure of atoms, and along with it every bit of knowledge that makes me a civilized human being. I stare at the jug through the emptiness of my mind. Isolated in pre-historic vacuum, far away from the origin of languages, my mind has lost its words. Universe is confined to this remarkably colored object and myself. How do I describe my experience? What is this thing I am staring at? I concentrate on its shape and color, hesitantly stretching hand to explore. I tremble at the feeling of contact with this strange object and withdraw, only to try again and again. What are the secrets of this jug's being? I don't know. Words have flown off, leaving only a smothering vacuum. I do not know how to express my perplexity. What exactly is the thing known to my civilized contemporaries as a jug? What is left in a jug if I empty it of all the ideas and associations that have got into it in the past ten thousand years? I am confronting the puzzle that haunted generations of primitive humans - the task of describing the thing-in-itself.
Our ancestors at the dawn of awareness encountered a puzzling world. This puzzle was partially solved with the invention of language. Emerging human rationality found that the easiest way to deal with a mystery is to cover it up. Early man attempted to tame the unknowable thing-in-itself by giving it a name. Act of naming is the most basic form of objective knowing. Names are objective entities for the group of people who share this knowledge. The wild, fearful thing that pounces on the hunter became an objective fact after it was named 'qxzitlntol' - something that can be spoken of and planned against. Real objects are mysterious and unknowable. Knowing is an act of de-mystification, a practical trick of concealing the strangeness of unknowns behind a veil called knowledge.
Who does this covering up? We can identify an agent, a part of ourselves with the task of exploring and covering up the mystery of things. Let us call this agent 'demystifier'. Let us dump words such as consciousness, awareness and rationality into this black box. ‘Demystifier’ is functionally similar to other sense organs such as the eye or ear. We can possibly open up this black box and explore its contents later, after we are convinced about its reality and function.
We are not cooking up something mysterious here. There was a point in time, not far from the appearance of human species in the history of evolution, when objective knowledge did not exist. Contrast this situation with the present. What happened between these two points of time? We are looking for natural explanations and it is sensible to view objective knowledge as the output of an organ, similar to other sense organs we are endowed with. We do not know anything about the structure or mechanism of this sense organ at this point. It is a black box, definable in terms of its output, which is indeed real. Thus 'demystifier' is simply a label attached to a new function that evolved in human beings, possibly over few hundred thousand years. It evolved as the ‘organ of knowing’, just as eyes evolved as the ‘organ of seeing’.
Demystification proceeded in stages. Man mastered the trick of naming and extinguished the mystery of reality by naming everything around. Noun forms thus conceived were tied up at various levels of interrelationship, resulting in complex language structures. Names were useful in shielding infant awareness from the threat of unknowing. It helped survival by making communication possible. The roots of our knowledge go back to the primitive fear that confronted earliest man facing a world of things-in-themselves.
Knower grew bolder with accumulated experience of many generations and 'name covers' were slowly lifted to take a fresh look at the mystery behind. The substance named ‘clay’ was found to be a mixture of chemical compounds A, B, C etc, which were in turn smaller packets of mystery. Early science thrived on the identification of such constituent parts and patterns of their interaction. Unknowability was pushed back by another step. Subsequent stages of demystification have produced fruitful branches in the tree of science - Atomic physics and Quantum mechanics.
It is amazing that beautiful patterns emerge from such 'externalized knowledge'. That tells something about the nature of reality and its relation with the knower. Why is nature comprehensible to human observers? We should first gain some insight into the nature of the ‘demystifier’ before this all-important question can be explored.
We know that our eyes have a limited range. There are real things that would remain forever invisible to the naked eye. Is it likely that nature has properties that would remain forever beyond the ‘demystifier’? Such a conclusion appears reasonable if we accept the knower as a product of biological evolution. We are forever attempting to hold the unknowable thing-in-itself by grasping it with our tool of objective knowing. We detect newer patterns with every attempt, adding another layer to our interpretation of reality.
What exactly is going on? Unknowability goes into hiding behind the growing façade of certainty. Man has built his majestic edifice of knowledge on the foundation of a terrifying mystery. Our ancestors were aware of this fundamental ignorance. It was their wisdom, a legacy that modern man has disclaimed.
Sunday, March 4, 2012
On Why I returned to God
I am not religious in the traditional sense. I don't believe in a personal God or consider it necessary to visit a particular temple or church for prayers. Neither do I follow some religious organization. Yet I have formed a concept of God, which I consider the most important thing in my life.
I was born in a catholic family. Childhood memories bring vivid images of solemn sunday mornings and colorful church festivities. A loving God looked after us from his heavenly abode while we went about our human ways, laughing, crying, fighting and praying. I believed in such a God for many years.
This image of a Christian God was never at conflict with other possible Gods. In fact my earliest lesson on religious tolerance came from a catholic priest, who explained to our sunday class that 'God is like a fire burning atop a distant hill. There are many paths leading to the summit. Different religions are ways leading to the same final goal'. Together with our God in heaven, other ethereal beings such as angels, demons, djins and village spirits were realities of my childhood.
My irreverence began as an attempt to impress my classmates in our sunday catechism class. 'How can God create Light first and then the Sun?' I was excited at the attention I received as much as puzzled by this illogical act ascribed to my God. The book of Genesis says God created light on the 1st day of creation, but the sun and stars were created only on the 4th day!
Such nagging doubts continued throughout my adolescent years. I moved deeper into naturalistic explanations and new scientific discoveries. Years passed and the God I once loved and feared slowly turned into a distant memory, inseparably linked to other tender images of village life.
I was both saddened and relieved by these developments. Sad because I had a feeling that I am missing something beautiful in life. I had had many long arguments about God with my earliest teacher, my mother, who at first tried to explain God to me in her own simple ways, but later faced my doubts with an impenetrable smile. However irrational her faith appeared to be, it helped her maintain a healthy respect towards all forms of life and to find hope even in most difficult of situations. At the same time I felt relieved, because my juvenile exuberance had began to equate blind faith with intellectual dishonesty.
Later I discovered Charles Darwin. Science is a great liberator. Of all scientific breakthroughs, I consider theory of evolution as the most important because it provides a framework to understand life and ourselves. Earth, stars and galaxies are important subjects of study, but most important of all is life itself. Theory of Evolution establishes indisputably that we are linked to all other forms of life. It is a very powerful as well as beautiful explanation for life.
My doubts returned as I saw more of the world and read more about human history. From the beginning I had a powerful sense of inner meaning. There were brief moments when I felt an overwhelming sense of goodness and harmony. Even though I couldn't communicate this with other people, such experiences were as real to me as wind power or the force of gravity. Slowly I realized that there is no way of relating this subjective reality with the world of atoms and forces.
It took a long time, more than 15 years, to reach this conclusion. Life evolved, but not through natural selection as modern life scientists have us believe. The doctrine of Neodarwinism is a logical black hole. It is possible to understand both the objective and subjective worlds naturally, without invoking cumulative random mutations or a creator God perilously hanging from nowhere.
You could call it whatever you choose. Creativity, God or the universal Mind. This ‘ungraspable’ thing is a property of our universe. My apologies for stating it so bluntly but I cannot think of a better way to express it. Believe me, you could realize this yourself if you begin with an open mind and question your own fundamental assumptions. No need to visit a medium or shut-off your reason. I have tried to explain the path I took through a series of posts on this site.
Imagine digging into the remains of a long lost civilization. How would you feel If you come across a clay tablet engraved with E=MC2 among the ruins? Did this ancient people know about matter-energy relationship? Or did they unknowingly use these symbols to decorate edges of their clay tablets? Is it possible to know something without being aware of it? This is exactly how I felt when I re-read bible 20 years later. I saw that the garden of Eden, virgin birth and death on the cross are myths representing colorful reflections of the movement of biological evolution.
God created us. Like a parrot repeating 'one plus one is two', man for countless generations has been telling himself that God is his source. It is not an article of faith, but an absolute truth. There is no creator except the irrational creative drive inherent in matter. God designed eyes to see itself, hands to touch itself and awareness to know itself. Man must worship this God and make offerings to renew his sacred relationship.
A spider spins its web without realizing the meaning of its labor. If we somehow succeed in asking the spider what it is all about, we might receive only a bewildered look for an answer. Spider's intelligence cannot comprehend the fact that web is essential for its physical survival. Like spiders incapable of seeing the purpose of their web, modern man cannot comprehend the real function of his temples and churches. The activity of building a place of worship is instinctive. We build these magnificent structures without realizing their purpose. Unfortunately we cannot afford the luxury of a spider's bewilderment because we, unlike spiders, are self-aware. We carry the burden of providing rational justifications for our actions. Therefore we invent explanatory stories. Religious myths are such inventions. These stories will always contain some embarrassing twists because worship in fact has no rational justification.
This is my idea of God. I have tried to explain my logic to few others, but with limited success. Most people are too comfortable with what they have been taught to believe. But to keep on questioning with an open mind is a rewarding effort. After all, we spend only a limited time on this beautiful planet. Isn’t it terrible to drift through life without even making an effort to know the most beautiful of truths?
I was born in a catholic family. Childhood memories bring vivid images of solemn sunday mornings and colorful church festivities. A loving God looked after us from his heavenly abode while we went about our human ways, laughing, crying, fighting and praying. I believed in such a God for many years.
This image of a Christian God was never at conflict with other possible Gods. In fact my earliest lesson on religious tolerance came from a catholic priest, who explained to our sunday class that 'God is like a fire burning atop a distant hill. There are many paths leading to the summit. Different religions are ways leading to the same final goal'. Together with our God in heaven, other ethereal beings such as angels, demons, djins and village spirits were realities of my childhood.
My irreverence began as an attempt to impress my classmates in our sunday catechism class. 'How can God create Light first and then the Sun?' I was excited at the attention I received as much as puzzled by this illogical act ascribed to my God. The book of Genesis says God created light on the 1st day of creation, but the sun and stars were created only on the 4th day!
Such nagging doubts continued throughout my adolescent years. I moved deeper into naturalistic explanations and new scientific discoveries. Years passed and the God I once loved and feared slowly turned into a distant memory, inseparably linked to other tender images of village life.
I was both saddened and relieved by these developments. Sad because I had a feeling that I am missing something beautiful in life. I had had many long arguments about God with my earliest teacher, my mother, who at first tried to explain God to me in her own simple ways, but later faced my doubts with an impenetrable smile. However irrational her faith appeared to be, it helped her maintain a healthy respect towards all forms of life and to find hope even in most difficult of situations. At the same time I felt relieved, because my juvenile exuberance had began to equate blind faith with intellectual dishonesty.
Later I discovered Charles Darwin. Science is a great liberator. Of all scientific breakthroughs, I consider theory of evolution as the most important because it provides a framework to understand life and ourselves. Earth, stars and galaxies are important subjects of study, but most important of all is life itself. Theory of Evolution establishes indisputably that we are linked to all other forms of life. It is a very powerful as well as beautiful explanation for life.
My doubts returned as I saw more of the world and read more about human history. From the beginning I had a powerful sense of inner meaning. There were brief moments when I felt an overwhelming sense of goodness and harmony. Even though I couldn't communicate this with other people, such experiences were as real to me as wind power or the force of gravity. Slowly I realized that there is no way of relating this subjective reality with the world of atoms and forces.
It took a long time, more than 15 years, to reach this conclusion. Life evolved, but not through natural selection as modern life scientists have us believe. The doctrine of Neodarwinism is a logical black hole. It is possible to understand both the objective and subjective worlds naturally, without invoking cumulative random mutations or a creator God perilously hanging from nowhere.
You could call it whatever you choose. Creativity, God or the universal Mind. This ‘ungraspable’ thing is a property of our universe. My apologies for stating it so bluntly but I cannot think of a better way to express it. Believe me, you could realize this yourself if you begin with an open mind and question your own fundamental assumptions. No need to visit a medium or shut-off your reason. I have tried to explain the path I took through a series of posts on this site.
Imagine digging into the remains of a long lost civilization. How would you feel If you come across a clay tablet engraved with E=MC2 among the ruins? Did this ancient people know about matter-energy relationship? Or did they unknowingly use these symbols to decorate edges of their clay tablets? Is it possible to know something without being aware of it? This is exactly how I felt when I re-read bible 20 years later. I saw that the garden of Eden, virgin birth and death on the cross are myths representing colorful reflections of the movement of biological evolution.
God created us. Like a parrot repeating 'one plus one is two', man for countless generations has been telling himself that God is his source. It is not an article of faith, but an absolute truth. There is no creator except the irrational creative drive inherent in matter. God designed eyes to see itself, hands to touch itself and awareness to know itself. Man must worship this God and make offerings to renew his sacred relationship.
A spider spins its web without realizing the meaning of its labor. If we somehow succeed in asking the spider what it is all about, we might receive only a bewildered look for an answer. Spider's intelligence cannot comprehend the fact that web is essential for its physical survival. Like spiders incapable of seeing the purpose of their web, modern man cannot comprehend the real function of his temples and churches. The activity of building a place of worship is instinctive. We build these magnificent structures without realizing their purpose. Unfortunately we cannot afford the luxury of a spider's bewilderment because we, unlike spiders, are self-aware. We carry the burden of providing rational justifications for our actions. Therefore we invent explanatory stories. Religious myths are such inventions. These stories will always contain some embarrassing twists because worship in fact has no rational justification.
This is my idea of God. I have tried to explain my logic to few others, but with limited success. Most people are too comfortable with what they have been taught to believe. But to keep on questioning with an open mind is a rewarding effort. After all, we spend only a limited time on this beautiful planet. Isn’t it terrible to drift through life without even making an effort to know the most beautiful of truths?
Wednesday, September 14, 2011
Scientific progress and the Pineal gland
I grew up in a village at the foothills of Western Ghats in south India. Set in the lush greenery of pepper and coconut groves, it was a community of over one hundred families. Every morning, children of the village walked to a school nearly two miles away. Some of my fondest childhood memories are linked to these daily walks through narrow hillside paths embedded in dense monsoon vegetation. Like most other kids, I never visited a doctor except the local homeopathy practitioner during my school years.
That was more than thirty years ago. My kids today enjoy much better physical comforts, but I often wonder about the price. They rarely get an opportunity to interact with nature the way my generation did. Can they survive without the liberal use of antibiotics doctors today consider normal?
Progress comes with a price. Our greed is poisoning the air and water meant for our grand children. Environmental degradation, depletion of non-renewable resources, disintegration of social institutions, people complaining about emptiness in their lives despite material comforts- these are the side effects of man’s quest for unlimited economic growth driven by science and technology.
Two eyes are essential for stereoscopic vision. Single eye vision will be flat, two-dimensional. This is the case with perception too. Human cerebral cortex has two halves. Left half deals with analytical and logical functions. Right half manages intuitive and holistic functions. Both left and right brains need to work in harmony for stereoscopic perception, to experience 'meaning' or 'depth' in the cacophony of inputs arriving through sensory channels. Evolution gave us two eyes and two brains. It is natural for us to see depth in what we observe. It is equally natural to perceive meaning in what we experience.
We suffer from an over-dependence on left-brain perception. Our right brain functions have atrophied as a result of three centuries of lopsided scientific progress. A dark, bottomless pit has appeared in the place that used to be our soul. We attempt to fill its emptiness with more and more possessions, more and more noise, but fail miserably.
Rene Descartes (1595-1650), French philosopher and mathematician, is often considered responsible for installing dualistic thinking at the heart of modern science. Descartes suggested that human body is like a machine. Its functions could be analyzed in mechanical terms using gears, valves and pumps. This fantastic machine has a creator, an omnipotent being called God. Mechanical analogies alone are not enough to explain man. There is another non-material entity 'soul' or ‘mind’, somehow integrated with the body-machine. Descartes speculated that body and mind interacted through the pineal gland (a small endocrine gland located near the center of brain). Separation of mind and matter into fundamentally different categories inaugurated a new way of looking at nature. Cartesian revolution firmly established matter as a topic of investigation in the laboratory but soul appeared non-existent when scientists studied its seat, the pineal gland.
Descartes was attempting to solve the riddle of universe as it was understood in mid 17th century, fusing his own insights with critical elements of Christian world-view. Like solving a complex jigsaw puzzle, he arranged pieces of different size and shapes to form a meaningful whole, a system of inter-linked ideas that provided self-consistent explanation for observed reality:
1) Universe is a gigantic clockwork.
2) Human body is a machine.
3) Physical body together with a soul residing in pineal gland makes up the human being.
4) Animals are machines without soul.
5) God is the creator of this clockwork universe and its inhabitants.
Some of these ideas appear weird to us today, but Descartes could explain observed reality in a meaningful and self-consistent manner using these hypotheses. Mind-matter complex was divided into independent entities mind and matter, but maintaining both material and non-material kinds of explanatory mechanisms compensated this un-natural division.
Scientific quest is ultimately a search for patterns. Modern scientists limit their search to well-defined areas of specialization, often forgetting that such specialized patterns with strict boundaries must eventually merge into a beautiful, borderless tapestry. The genius of Descartes saw it necessary to maintain God hypothesis for overall consistency of the pattern of clockworks.
Will the idea of a mechanical universe make sense without an omnipotent God as its creator? Would it have made sense to postulate human body as a machine without a mechanism for body-mind interaction? God and Soul were concepts that imparted 'meaning' or completeness to Cartesian worldview. Body-machine is a meaningful concept only with a non-material soul and a mechanism of interaction, however far fetched it be. Similarly universe may be treated as a clockwork if we could swallow the idea of a creator God.
Looking from another angle, introduction of mind-matter division was a masterstroke. It made science as we know possible. Early scientific explorers attempted to grasp mind-matter complex in its entirety but failed to make much progress. Descartes' insight of splitting the complex entity into a real 'material' part and imaginary 'mental' part was indeed revolutionary. Today, after three and a half centuries of 'lopsided' scientific progress, we can look back and realize that this division was a necessity.
Scientific progress could be seen as a process of gradual elimination of 'meaning' (ideas that appear wrong to our limited understanding) from overreaching thought patterns created by men of genius. This process of meaning elimination can be painful in the short term, but three and a half centuries is only an insignificant eyewink on evolutionary time scale.
We have now reached a stage were we can heal this division at the heart of man’s quest for patterns. We are almost ready to discard the supernatural 'meaning fillers' of Descartes, to move beyond the dumb solidity of matter and slippery vagueness of mind. There is no independent matter or mind. What exists is a unity or a mind-matter complex. Science is slowly but surely inching towards this realization. Key to this final step lies in figuring out the true nature of objective knowledge and its relationship with evolution.
Shajan Mathew
That was more than thirty years ago. My kids today enjoy much better physical comforts, but I often wonder about the price. They rarely get an opportunity to interact with nature the way my generation did. Can they survive without the liberal use of antibiotics doctors today consider normal?
Progress comes with a price. Our greed is poisoning the air and water meant for our grand children. Environmental degradation, depletion of non-renewable resources, disintegration of social institutions, people complaining about emptiness in their lives despite material comforts- these are the side effects of man’s quest for unlimited economic growth driven by science and technology.
Two eyes are essential for stereoscopic vision. Single eye vision will be flat, two-dimensional. This is the case with perception too. Human cerebral cortex has two halves. Left half deals with analytical and logical functions. Right half manages intuitive and holistic functions. Both left and right brains need to work in harmony for stereoscopic perception, to experience 'meaning' or 'depth' in the cacophony of inputs arriving through sensory channels. Evolution gave us two eyes and two brains. It is natural for us to see depth in what we observe. It is equally natural to perceive meaning in what we experience.
We suffer from an over-dependence on left-brain perception. Our right brain functions have atrophied as a result of three centuries of lopsided scientific progress. A dark, bottomless pit has appeared in the place that used to be our soul. We attempt to fill its emptiness with more and more possessions, more and more noise, but fail miserably.
Rene Descartes (1595-1650), French philosopher and mathematician, is often considered responsible for installing dualistic thinking at the heart of modern science. Descartes suggested that human body is like a machine. Its functions could be analyzed in mechanical terms using gears, valves and pumps. This fantastic machine has a creator, an omnipotent being called God. Mechanical analogies alone are not enough to explain man. There is another non-material entity 'soul' or ‘mind’, somehow integrated with the body-machine. Descartes speculated that body and mind interacted through the pineal gland (a small endocrine gland located near the center of brain). Separation of mind and matter into fundamentally different categories inaugurated a new way of looking at nature. Cartesian revolution firmly established matter as a topic of investigation in the laboratory but soul appeared non-existent when scientists studied its seat, the pineal gland.
Descartes was attempting to solve the riddle of universe as it was understood in mid 17th century, fusing his own insights with critical elements of Christian world-view. Like solving a complex jigsaw puzzle, he arranged pieces of different size and shapes to form a meaningful whole, a system of inter-linked ideas that provided self-consistent explanation for observed reality:
1) Universe is a gigantic clockwork.
2) Human body is a machine.
3) Physical body together with a soul residing in pineal gland makes up the human being.
4) Animals are machines without soul.
5) God is the creator of this clockwork universe and its inhabitants.
Some of these ideas appear weird to us today, but Descartes could explain observed reality in a meaningful and self-consistent manner using these hypotheses. Mind-matter complex was divided into independent entities mind and matter, but maintaining both material and non-material kinds of explanatory mechanisms compensated this un-natural division.
Scientific quest is ultimately a search for patterns. Modern scientists limit their search to well-defined areas of specialization, often forgetting that such specialized patterns with strict boundaries must eventually merge into a beautiful, borderless tapestry. The genius of Descartes saw it necessary to maintain God hypothesis for overall consistency of the pattern of clockworks.
Will the idea of a mechanical universe make sense without an omnipotent God as its creator? Would it have made sense to postulate human body as a machine without a mechanism for body-mind interaction? God and Soul were concepts that imparted 'meaning' or completeness to Cartesian worldview. Body-machine is a meaningful concept only with a non-material soul and a mechanism of interaction, however far fetched it be. Similarly universe may be treated as a clockwork if we could swallow the idea of a creator God.
Looking from another angle, introduction of mind-matter division was a masterstroke. It made science as we know possible. Early scientific explorers attempted to grasp mind-matter complex in its entirety but failed to make much progress. Descartes' insight of splitting the complex entity into a real 'material' part and imaginary 'mental' part was indeed revolutionary. Today, after three and a half centuries of 'lopsided' scientific progress, we can look back and realize that this division was a necessity.
Scientific progress could be seen as a process of gradual elimination of 'meaning' (ideas that appear wrong to our limited understanding) from overreaching thought patterns created by men of genius. This process of meaning elimination can be painful in the short term, but three and a half centuries is only an insignificant eyewink on evolutionary time scale.
We have now reached a stage were we can heal this division at the heart of man’s quest for patterns. We are almost ready to discard the supernatural 'meaning fillers' of Descartes, to move beyond the dumb solidity of matter and slippery vagueness of mind. There is no independent matter or mind. What exists is a unity or a mind-matter complex. Science is slowly but surely inching towards this realization. Key to this final step lies in figuring out the true nature of objective knowledge and its relationship with evolution.
Shajan Mathew
Saturday, September 10, 2011
Candles under the Bushel
Isn’t it amazing that human intelligence can send spacecrafts to remote planets but find no solution for more down to earth problems such as poverty? I am frankly puzzled by our philosophy of science. Why is science unable to address some of the most urgent problems of our time? Biosphere, evolved into its present form over millions of years, is crumbling under the weight of few decades of human greed. Isn’t greed, and every other questionable human activity, worthy of scientific attention?
Problems such as poverty and greed are thought to be outside the ‘scope of science’. I believe something is wrong with the way we draw such boundaries. Science is the fire that liberated us from the fate of animal obedience. We use its power to enhance our physical comforts in all imaginable ways. Where else do we turn for guidance to solve human problems such as greed and poverty? "Neither do men light a candle, and put it under a bushel, but on a candlestick; and it giveth light unto all that are in the house", says the bible. Hiding our precious light source under the bushel of materialist orthodoxy - this is exactly what we are doing.
In Greek mythology, Prometheus created man from clay, shaping him in the image of gods and blessing him with the knowledge of fire. Fire is important to cook food. It is also useful as a source of light showing the way out of darkness. Imagine Prometheus prohibiting man from using fire for anything other than cooking food! Human race would soon have degenerated into a bunch of savages, eating, drinking, defecating and re-producing around the warmth of their kitchen fire.
Unfortunately this comic image is a true reflection of mankind at the turn of 21st century. By some quirk of fate we have come to view science as equivalent to objectivity and religion as an expression of mass hysteria. Restricting science to objectively representable aspects of nature is as unreasonable as limiting the use of fire to cooking. Why can't fire serve as a source of light to make forays in to the darkness beyond?
How science could ever answer fundamental questions on ethical behavior or ultimate meaning? Well, studying rocks or atoms will not help directly, but studying Life will. In fact science has made significant progress with the theory of biological evolution. Isn’t it wonderful to know for sure that we are related to all other forms of life? Such awareness of the connectedness of biosphere should lead us towards answering ethical questions. What remains as missing link in this endeavor is an explanation for the driving force of evolution.
Most widely accepted explanation for evolution involves random genetic changes and natural selection. We are told that it is all about ‘selfish genes’ and 'survival of the fittest'. It is futile to look for a purpose or meaning in life. Work hard, reproduce and look for ways to increase the survival chances of your offspring. Everything is permitted, as long as you don't break the law of the land.
This is a Big Lie. Life is not about randomness and competition. Life is about creativity and meaning. Like a bewitched Prometheus, our scientific torchbearers help us with our physical needs, but deny the reality of our spiritual needs. They refuse to point the torch in the direction we need the most.
Creativity is a property of this universe. It is the driving force of biological evolution. I believe any rational, open-minded individual can reach this conclusion with a little effort. There can be a beautiful and meaningful explanation for life. Why are our biologists not recognizing this?
There are two reasons. One, science is dangerously close to its limits in studying life. The problem of self-referencing makes conventional scientific approaches largely useless. Biologists must ask ‘What is objective knowledge’ before they propose sweeping theories of life. Knowledge is a product of evolution and has no independent existence. This simple fact becomes deceptively complicated in the case of biological science.
Two, fear of the unknown. Lightning and thunderstorms were great mysteries to our ice-age ancestors. They were forced to take refuge in the safety of their caves when faced with nature’s fury. Biologists vehemently denying anything other than natural selection as the mechanism of evolution is driven by the same primitive fear. Ice-age man had no choice. Modern day biologist has a choice but fear of the unknown appears to be overwhelming.
May be it is not right to blame the biologist. Life’s solution doesn’t lie in the laboratory, but in scientist’s thought process. Unfortunately our scientists are not trained to look into their own thinking. The question ‘What causes evolution’ can be answered only after the thought process of observation and its relationship with what we call ‘knowledge’ is correctly understood.
This is not an empty philosophical argument without practical consequence. I believe our inability to understand evolution is a much bigger long-term threat to civilization than religious terrorism. Scientific materialism is the slow cancer eating into the spirit of man. Religious terrorism, in comparison, is a minor skin blister. Man still finds it necessary to turn to pseudo-gods and false prophets because natural philosophy has failed to provide meaningful answers to his deepest cravings.
Imagine you are caught in a complex maze of walls. You were given a set of instructions, such as 'three steps forward, turn left, five step forward...' with the assurance that you will reach the exit if these instructions are followed religiously. It is dark and you have no other means of finding your way out. You follow blindly since there is no other way.
What if there is a source of light illuminating the maze? You can possibly ignore 'blind following' and use your eyes and brain to get out. We, in early 21st century are in a transition stage. We have a set of instructions, extracted from the collective experience of generations that went before, to help us navigate through this journey. We also have a source of light slowly rising above the horizon, beginning to illuminate the maze in its full complexity. There are a lot of passionate arguments going on about the superiority of 'forging ahead with confidence' as opposed to 'blind following'. Blind following can still lead you to the correct exit in partial vision, but forging ahead may knock you down if interplaying light and shades deceive the eyes.
Scientific and religious ought to be kept separate only with the realization that such a separation is artificial, a temporary arrangement of convenience. The instruction set could be discarded once the light of reason gains enough strength to illuminate all the corners and trap doors of this complex maze of reality. I believe we are almost ready to do that, if only we open both eyes and see that life is not a battle for survival, but a graceful dance of non-linear movements.
Problems such as poverty and greed are thought to be outside the ‘scope of science’. I believe something is wrong with the way we draw such boundaries. Science is the fire that liberated us from the fate of animal obedience. We use its power to enhance our physical comforts in all imaginable ways. Where else do we turn for guidance to solve human problems such as greed and poverty? "Neither do men light a candle, and put it under a bushel, but on a candlestick; and it giveth light unto all that are in the house", says the bible. Hiding our precious light source under the bushel of materialist orthodoxy - this is exactly what we are doing.
In Greek mythology, Prometheus created man from clay, shaping him in the image of gods and blessing him with the knowledge of fire. Fire is important to cook food. It is also useful as a source of light showing the way out of darkness. Imagine Prometheus prohibiting man from using fire for anything other than cooking food! Human race would soon have degenerated into a bunch of savages, eating, drinking, defecating and re-producing around the warmth of their kitchen fire.
Unfortunately this comic image is a true reflection of mankind at the turn of 21st century. By some quirk of fate we have come to view science as equivalent to objectivity and religion as an expression of mass hysteria. Restricting science to objectively representable aspects of nature is as unreasonable as limiting the use of fire to cooking. Why can't fire serve as a source of light to make forays in to the darkness beyond?
How science could ever answer fundamental questions on ethical behavior or ultimate meaning? Well, studying rocks or atoms will not help directly, but studying Life will. In fact science has made significant progress with the theory of biological evolution. Isn’t it wonderful to know for sure that we are related to all other forms of life? Such awareness of the connectedness of biosphere should lead us towards answering ethical questions. What remains as missing link in this endeavor is an explanation for the driving force of evolution.
Most widely accepted explanation for evolution involves random genetic changes and natural selection. We are told that it is all about ‘selfish genes’ and 'survival of the fittest'. It is futile to look for a purpose or meaning in life. Work hard, reproduce and look for ways to increase the survival chances of your offspring. Everything is permitted, as long as you don't break the law of the land.
This is a Big Lie. Life is not about randomness and competition. Life is about creativity and meaning. Like a bewitched Prometheus, our scientific torchbearers help us with our physical needs, but deny the reality of our spiritual needs. They refuse to point the torch in the direction we need the most.
Creativity is a property of this universe. It is the driving force of biological evolution. I believe any rational, open-minded individual can reach this conclusion with a little effort. There can be a beautiful and meaningful explanation for life. Why are our biologists not recognizing this?
There are two reasons. One, science is dangerously close to its limits in studying life. The problem of self-referencing makes conventional scientific approaches largely useless. Biologists must ask ‘What is objective knowledge’ before they propose sweeping theories of life. Knowledge is a product of evolution and has no independent existence. This simple fact becomes deceptively complicated in the case of biological science.
Two, fear of the unknown. Lightning and thunderstorms were great mysteries to our ice-age ancestors. They were forced to take refuge in the safety of their caves when faced with nature’s fury. Biologists vehemently denying anything other than natural selection as the mechanism of evolution is driven by the same primitive fear. Ice-age man had no choice. Modern day biologist has a choice but fear of the unknown appears to be overwhelming.
May be it is not right to blame the biologist. Life’s solution doesn’t lie in the laboratory, but in scientist’s thought process. Unfortunately our scientists are not trained to look into their own thinking. The question ‘What causes evolution’ can be answered only after the thought process of observation and its relationship with what we call ‘knowledge’ is correctly understood.
This is not an empty philosophical argument without practical consequence. I believe our inability to understand evolution is a much bigger long-term threat to civilization than religious terrorism. Scientific materialism is the slow cancer eating into the spirit of man. Religious terrorism, in comparison, is a minor skin blister. Man still finds it necessary to turn to pseudo-gods and false prophets because natural philosophy has failed to provide meaningful answers to his deepest cravings.
Imagine you are caught in a complex maze of walls. You were given a set of instructions, such as 'three steps forward, turn left, five step forward...' with the assurance that you will reach the exit if these instructions are followed religiously. It is dark and you have no other means of finding your way out. You follow blindly since there is no other way.
What if there is a source of light illuminating the maze? You can possibly ignore 'blind following' and use your eyes and brain to get out. We, in early 21st century are in a transition stage. We have a set of instructions, extracted from the collective experience of generations that went before, to help us navigate through this journey. We also have a source of light slowly rising above the horizon, beginning to illuminate the maze in its full complexity. There are a lot of passionate arguments going on about the superiority of 'forging ahead with confidence' as opposed to 'blind following'. Blind following can still lead you to the correct exit in partial vision, but forging ahead may knock you down if interplaying light and shades deceive the eyes.
Scientific and religious ought to be kept separate only with the realization that such a separation is artificial, a temporary arrangement of convenience. The instruction set could be discarded once the light of reason gains enough strength to illuminate all the corners and trap doors of this complex maze of reality. I believe we are almost ready to do that, if only we open both eyes and see that life is not a battle for survival, but a graceful dance of non-linear movements.
Friday, September 9, 2011
Christian Faith as a Reflection of Nature
What are religions?
Religions are fascinating wonders of the natural world. I am not referring to the subject matter of faith but the fact of people believing. I look at religions with awe and respect, from a safe distance, as I would observe a fuming volcano. Religions are neither good nor bad. They are just there, like volcanoes, an integral part of the reality we experience. It is true that religions have contributed to enormous suffering in the world, but so have volcanoes.
Christians believe in a God who walked on the earth as a real person and conquered death on the cross. Anyone living in 21st century is expected to know this is impossible in a physical sense, but millions hold onto this belief with utmost conviction. This is what I find fascinating about religions. I don’t think those who believe are ignorant or deluded. I am baffled by the fact that people find it necessary to believe.
Evolutionary biologists explain the persistence religious faith as a ‘side effect’ of other ‘meaningful’ adaptations. This is correct in a limited sense. I may stand in the morning sun with the primary intention of warming myself, but that would always create a shadow. The shadow is a side effect of myself getting warmed in the morning sun. Religion is a side effect of the freedom to know objectively, a consequence of the knower trying to remember its own history.
Distant memories of a billion year long journey, from primeval mud ponds to self-aware existence, are reflected on human psyche in a variety of ways. Religions are the most complex forms of such reflection. Like a fuming volcano reflected on the calm waters of a deep blue lake, human mind sees itself and its evolutionary history in religious myths. We look at the reflection and pass judgments. It kills people, it is bad or it is only a delusion. In fact it is just there as a natural consequence of our rational self rising above the threshold of awareness.
My speculations may appear meaningless or even stupid. The urge to make sense of the whole range one’s experience can be a torturing experience. How can you be resigned to the fate of disappearing forever without even attempting to make sense of what you experience? Only 60 or 70 short years of self-aware existence and no second chance! What follows is a model that appears to me as the most logical and satisfying. I take the example of Christian faith as I am more familiar with it, but the argument could be extended for other religions.
Hidden patterns
Scientific evidence indicates that earthly life began about three and half billion years ago as relatively simple molecules. Complex cell colonies, plants and animals emerged from primitive molecular life through a slow and gradual process of genetic change and natural selection. There is no place for a supernatural soul in this description. Evolution of life is a fact supported by well-researched and documented evidences.
Bible offers a different perspective. God’s act of creation lasted only six days according to book of Genesis. Soul, which has no material basis, forms the essence of man in Christian thought. God shaped the first man Adam from dust and breathed life into his nostrils. Eve, the first woman was made from Adam's rib. They were allowed to roam freely in the Garden of Eden on condition that they do not eat from one particular tree at the center of the garden. But the first couple disobeyed God’s instruction. They were coaxed by a cunning serpent to taste the forbidden fruit and were expelled from Eden. All human beings are born with the burden of this original sin. Fortunately God did not abandon man forever. A promise of redemption was made and God sent his own son, Jesus Christ, to save mankind. Jesus preached the kingdom of God and those who wish to enter eternal life in God's kingdom must follow him. Jesus suffered and died on the cross for our sins. Mankind is saved by this supreme act of sacrifice. He conquered death by resurrecting on the third day, and ascended to heaven to be seated with the Father.
Literal interpretation of these articles of faith lead to conflict at many levels. Disagreement with science is unavoidable. It also leads to conflict with other religions because apparently non-Christians are doomed. I believe the meaning implicit in these stories become evident if we look at them from a slightly different angle.
The central tenets of Christianity are not statements relating to historical events but elaborate reflections of the movement of biological evolution. All major religions contain elements of this reflection. Christianity is an especially interesting case because its imagery internalizes one of the most bizarre events in the history of life: emergence of self-awareness.
To understand the patterns emerging out of the juxtaposition of science and Christian faith we should begin by questioning what it means to 'know objectively'. I have attempted to explain this thought process here. I will summarize the key points of my argument:
1) Creativity is a fundamental property of nature. It is the driving force of biological evolution. Evolution is not intentional or purposeful, but an expression of creativity, its reward being the pure joy of being. Physical survival is the most basic and self-actualization the most evolved forms of creative expression in living things.
Religions are fascinating wonders of the natural world. I am not referring to the subject matter of faith but the fact of people believing. I look at religions with awe and respect, from a safe distance, as I would observe a fuming volcano. Religions are neither good nor bad. They are just there, like volcanoes, an integral part of the reality we experience. It is true that religions have contributed to enormous suffering in the world, but so have volcanoes.
Christians believe in a God who walked on the earth as a real person and conquered death on the cross. Anyone living in 21st century is expected to know this is impossible in a physical sense, but millions hold onto this belief with utmost conviction. This is what I find fascinating about religions. I don’t think those who believe are ignorant or deluded. I am baffled by the fact that people find it necessary to believe.
Evolutionary biologists explain the persistence religious faith as a ‘side effect’ of other ‘meaningful’ adaptations. This is correct in a limited sense. I may stand in the morning sun with the primary intention of warming myself, but that would always create a shadow. The shadow is a side effect of myself getting warmed in the morning sun. Religion is a side effect of the freedom to know objectively, a consequence of the knower trying to remember its own history.
Distant memories of a billion year long journey, from primeval mud ponds to self-aware existence, are reflected on human psyche in a variety of ways. Religions are the most complex forms of such reflection. Like a fuming volcano reflected on the calm waters of a deep blue lake, human mind sees itself and its evolutionary history in religious myths. We look at the reflection and pass judgments. It kills people, it is bad or it is only a delusion. In fact it is just there as a natural consequence of our rational self rising above the threshold of awareness.
My speculations may appear meaningless or even stupid. The urge to make sense of the whole range one’s experience can be a torturing experience. How can you be resigned to the fate of disappearing forever without even attempting to make sense of what you experience? Only 60 or 70 short years of self-aware existence and no second chance! What follows is a model that appears to me as the most logical and satisfying. I take the example of Christian faith as I am more familiar with it, but the argument could be extended for other religions.
Hidden patterns
Scientific evidence indicates that earthly life began about three and half billion years ago as relatively simple molecules. Complex cell colonies, plants and animals emerged from primitive molecular life through a slow and gradual process of genetic change and natural selection. There is no place for a supernatural soul in this description. Evolution of life is a fact supported by well-researched and documented evidences.
Bible offers a different perspective. God’s act of creation lasted only six days according to book of Genesis. Soul, which has no material basis, forms the essence of man in Christian thought. God shaped the first man Adam from dust and breathed life into his nostrils. Eve, the first woman was made from Adam's rib. They were allowed to roam freely in the Garden of Eden on condition that they do not eat from one particular tree at the center of the garden. But the first couple disobeyed God’s instruction. They were coaxed by a cunning serpent to taste the forbidden fruit and were expelled from Eden. All human beings are born with the burden of this original sin. Fortunately God did not abandon man forever. A promise of redemption was made and God sent his own son, Jesus Christ, to save mankind. Jesus preached the kingdom of God and those who wish to enter eternal life in God's kingdom must follow him. Jesus suffered and died on the cross for our sins. Mankind is saved by this supreme act of sacrifice. He conquered death by resurrecting on the third day, and ascended to heaven to be seated with the Father.
Literal interpretation of these articles of faith lead to conflict at many levels. Disagreement with science is unavoidable. It also leads to conflict with other religions because apparently non-Christians are doomed. I believe the meaning implicit in these stories become evident if we look at them from a slightly different angle.
The central tenets of Christianity are not statements relating to historical events but elaborate reflections of the movement of biological evolution. All major religions contain elements of this reflection. Christianity is an especially interesting case because its imagery internalizes one of the most bizarre events in the history of life: emergence of self-awareness.
To understand the patterns emerging out of the juxtaposition of science and Christian faith we should begin by questioning what it means to 'know objectively'. I have attempted to explain this thought process here. I will summarize the key points of my argument:
1) Creativity is a fundamental property of nature. It is the driving force of biological evolution. Evolution is not intentional or purposeful, but an expression of creativity, its reward being the pure joy of being. Physical survival is the most basic and self-actualization the most evolved forms of creative expression in living things.
2) Human rational self is a relatively recent outcome of evolution. Objective knowledge cannot 'grasp' creativity because the observer itself is a form of creativity.
3) The relationship between rational self (man) and the substrate from which it evolved (God) is the key to understanding human condition. Man, by his very nature, fears and distrusts God. This is the uneasy relationship between the active knower and its passive, unknowable source. Faith evolved as a safety device to protect man from God. It was an evolutionary necessity during early stages of human development. Man had to believe in God with absolute certainty before he could proceed with his war to conquer nature.
4) Scientific progress over the past few centuries has taught us enough to recognize the true nature of God. The safety device of faith has outlived its purpose and should be replaced with knowledge.
Christian God and creative evolution
Bible describes the act of creation thus:
'And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth. So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them”--Genesis 1, 26-27.
This puzzling account of creation by an omnipotent God makes sense if we realize that God is the creative force inherent in nature. The primary substance (what we call matter) propelled by its own creativity, wanted to see it-self, hear it-self, and above all know it-self. Evolution is primary substance's journey of self-discovery. An optimal set of 'tools’ or organs evolved as aids in this journey. Eyes help the primary substance to see it-self and ears to hear it-self. Survival is the greatest of all creative needs and hence the earliest organs were optimized for increasing chances of physical survival.
This puzzling account of creation by an omnipotent God makes sense if we realize that God is the creative force inherent in nature. The primary substance (what we call matter) propelled by its own creativity, wanted to see it-self, hear it-self, and above all know it-self. Evolution is primary substance's journey of self-discovery. An optimal set of 'tools’ or organs evolved as aids in this journey. Eyes help the primary substance to see it-self and ears to hear it-self. Survival is the greatest of all creative needs and hence the earliest organs were optimized for increasing chances of physical survival.
Human rational self is another tool that evolved out of this creative thrust for novelty and participation. God created man in his own image (rational self is the reflection of nature's creativity) and granted him dominion over other creations (the power of reason and objective knowledge). The story of man’s origin in the book of Genesis is an allegory of the emergence and separation of rational self from primitive wholeness.
Christian faith is primarily about the emergence of the rational self and its integration with rest of nature. Stories about creation form the background for this very important development.
The new man
'And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul' -- Genesis 2, 7.
What is man? What is this 'I' that stands for myself in all my thought and speech? Man is in fact a conglomeration of many entities. Rational self is just one of the parts, but this verbal, expressive fragment dominates all aspect of life today, often to the exclusion of other parts. Man-the-animal gradually took possession of this powerful tool that alienated him from everything else in nature. The word 'I' stands for our rational self.. This ‘new man’ emerged over a period of 200,000 or more years before the dawn of civilizations. Looking back, human mind is tempted to project this pre-historic process into a dramatic event such as ‘LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul’
In the beginning man-the-animal was one with nature, like beasts of the wild. He was not self-aware or his consciousness was not differentiated. Flowering of biological complexity reached unprecedented levels about 250,000 years ago with the appearance of a new form of life, self-aware man. This is the ‘Man’ that the book of Genesis speaks about.
There were no supernatural interventions. Self-awareness evolved from un-aware life through entirely natural processes, like a volcanic island rising from the seabed. We could speculate that a tendency for awareness existed in earlier life forms or even in non-living matter. Undifferentiated whole contained seeds of self-awareness and this emerged into the light of the day in human species.
Human race survived as the suckling infant of mother nature for thousands of years. Emerging self awareness slowly realized its proximity to an unknown force and reacted through the defense mechanism of fear. Why is man afraid? Man in his bare essence is a primitive restlessness to know. Knowing is a dangerous proposition when the knower is seated on the lap of an unknown force. Life thrived for millions of years, surviving, seeing, hearing and tasting reality. Knowing was the next phase of creative evolution, and rational man emerged as nature’s organ of knowing.
This primitive restlessness that manifested in human beings as the will to know reached a critical force about 6000 years ago when new religions, new ways of comprehending the rational self in relation with its source, became necessary. The suckling infant had grown into a confident but over ambitious young man. This new man’s troubling relationship with his source is symbolized in the story of expulsion from Eden. God prohibited Adam and Eve from eating fruits of the tree of knowledge, but man proceeded against this warning to taste the forbidden fruit. Their 'eyes opened' and they became 'fully aware of their own nakedness'.
Christ symbol - An apology and a statement of triumph
What is man? What is this 'I' that stands for myself in all my thought and speech? Man is in fact a conglomeration of many entities. Rational self is just one of the parts, but this verbal, expressive fragment dominates all aspect of life today, often to the exclusion of other parts. Man-the-animal gradually took possession of this powerful tool that alienated him from everything else in nature. The word 'I' stands for our rational self.. This ‘new man’ emerged over a period of 200,000 or more years before the dawn of civilizations. Looking back, human mind is tempted to project this pre-historic process into a dramatic event such as ‘LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul’
In the beginning man-the-animal was one with nature, like beasts of the wild. He was not self-aware or his consciousness was not differentiated. Flowering of biological complexity reached unprecedented levels about 250,000 years ago with the appearance of a new form of life, self-aware man. This is the ‘Man’ that the book of Genesis speaks about.
There were no supernatural interventions. Self-awareness evolved from un-aware life through entirely natural processes, like a volcanic island rising from the seabed. We could speculate that a tendency for awareness existed in earlier life forms or even in non-living matter. Undifferentiated whole contained seeds of self-awareness and this emerged into the light of the day in human species.
Human race survived as the suckling infant of mother nature for thousands of years. Emerging self awareness slowly realized its proximity to an unknown force and reacted through the defense mechanism of fear. Why is man afraid? Man in his bare essence is a primitive restlessness to know. Knowing is a dangerous proposition when the knower is seated on the lap of an unknown force. Life thrived for millions of years, surviving, seeing, hearing and tasting reality. Knowing was the next phase of creative evolution, and rational man emerged as nature’s organ of knowing.
This primitive restlessness that manifested in human beings as the will to know reached a critical force about 6000 years ago when new religions, new ways of comprehending the rational self in relation with its source, became necessary. The suckling infant had grown into a confident but over ambitious young man. This new man’s troubling relationship with his source is symbolized in the story of expulsion from Eden. God prohibited Adam and Eve from eating fruits of the tree of knowledge, but man proceeded against this warning to taste the forbidden fruit. Their 'eyes opened' and they became 'fully aware of their own nakedness'.
Christ symbol - An apology and a statement of triumph
Human mind is the only instance where creativity becomes self-aware. Man is the realization of God's quest for knowing himself. In that sense God himself scripted the act of disobedience in Eden. Self-awareness marks the culmination of a creative process that began with swarming molecular life in primeval mud ponds, or even earlier with the big bang. God forced man into this precarious position because this was the only way he could know himself. The serpent represents the other side of God.
Primitive man realized that he is surrounded by a world of unknowns. He proceeded to wield his new tool, rational self, to extinguish this unknowability. But ‘knowing’ or the act of de-mystification tears man away from his source. It is a war against the unknowable and hence anti-God. A disastrous existential war was about to erupt as the knower matured in confidence, a war that could have lead to the extinction of man. A way had to be found to accommodate self-awareness within the natural order. Its power needed to be harnessed for the good of the species. At the same time, it had to be made subservient to the creative wisdom in nature. Jesus Christ is the symbol of this reconciliation.
Man owes nature a debt for being what he is. Knowledge comes with a huge responsibility. The burden of this debt is his original sin. Death and resurrection of Jesus offers man a new freedom to use his knowledge without destroying himself or nature. Unfortunately, most of those who heard the good news took it literally, they saw the freedom but not the responsibility that came with it, reducing it meaningless repetitive rituals.
Jesus died for the sins of mankind, rose from the dead and ascended to heaven, to be with God, the Father. Christ is ‘word made flesh’ or reason opposed to the old animal ways of blind following. But reason is ultimately inferior to a more fundamental reality and must surrender to its authority. Death of the new man on the cross is a symbol of this surrender.
The story of Jesus is an apology and a statement of triumph at the same time. It is nature’s apology to mankind for the sufferings and fragmentation inherent in rational existence. At the same time it is a statement of triumph because ritual sacrifice of reason is the only answer to human condition. How can polar opposites rational self and irrational whole occupy the same time and space? This puzzle has only one solution – man, the rational self need to serve his master, a deeper, irrational wisdom inherent in nature. Jesus showed the path for all future generations by sacrificing himself on the cross, surrendering his individual will to the wisdom of his source.
Many Christians believe there is no salvation outside the church. This is a highly corrupted version of an archetypal truth about human existence. Reconciliation of the rational and irrational, as exemplified in the symbolism of Christ’s death and resurrection, is the only way for human race to move forward. Of course this in no way means that one should belong to a religious organization, Christian or otherwise. Christ symbol is part of our collective inheritance, just as Krishna, Buddha or the Hebrew prophets. We must re-invent the true meaning of these luminous symbols by complementing our scientific knowledge with an awareness of the patterns extending beyond our tiny self, both in time and space.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)