Dr. Indiresan spent a lot of time pretending to
be singing the praises of scientific pursuits of
the truth and rational thinking. But really he
bares in this article, filled with inane
arguments , his own inability to reconcile
rational thinking expected of a man of his
stature as a technocrat and educationist,
supposedly excelling in inculcating an ethos of
learning with a critical and analytical approach
required of technical/scientific studies, with
irrational dogmas camouflaged as a defence of
Hindu 'sentiments' from an unfair and/or
selective challenges to the irrationalities of
the faith's myriad myths. Dr. Indiresan is
attempting to have it both ways, sporting the
aura of a rational technocrat while spouting
irrational arguments in defense of 'feelings' and
'sentiments'.
Allow me to explain:
The same holds good in the case of Ram too;
there is no proof that he existed; neither is
there any >scientific proof that he did not
exist. That is where rational scientists drift
outside the scientific path. >They make
assertions about matters of faith, forgetting
their own principles. They can say, at the
most, >there is no proof that Ram was a real
person. They cannot proceed further and assert
that Ram was >not a real person.
*** Fair enough. Rationalists cannot prove or
assert Lord Ram was NOT a real person. But what
does that have to do with the issue at hand:
Whether Ram-sethu was built by Ram or his
minions? Should the likes of Dr. Indiresan , no
doubt someone endowed with wisdoms that shallow
rationalists are deprived of , NOT pursue the
question to its logical end? Or would it amount
to attacking a soft-target, thus out of bounds
for the wise rationalist?
*** Furthermore, a rational scientist /technocrat
would NOT stop at that. She would also dig deeper
to look at the REAL issue: Whether destroying
the geological features of the sea-bed referred
to as the Ram-sethu in Indian folklore is a
prudent thing to do, considering its many
ramifications that could be examined
scientifically. Is he doing that? Is he showing
any inclination to do that?
But why not tolerate the dogma of scientists
when no objections are raised about religious
dogma?
*** Scientific dogma is an oxymoron. While I am
acutely aware of Indians' proclivity for misusing
English words and phrases, often because it is a
foreign language, but many times willfully in
pursuit of less than noble ends; one would have
expected someone of the stature of Dr. Indiresan
to be a tad bit more careful. But it is a well
worn tactic to devalue and demonize objects of
one's dislike with clever use of words and
phrases when one is dealing with a paucity of
reason.
In the Indian context, rationalists become
dangerous, because they attack selectively. All
religions >survive on myths. Rationalists would
have been on more solid ground if they had
attacked myths of all >religions.
***This is Dr. Indiresan's coup-de-grace in his
devaluing of rational thinking on the matter. Or
so one might think unless one is careful to
analyze it.
Faith, even Dr. Indiresan would agree, is a very
PERSONAL thing. One does not have to be rational
about it, like he tells us. If so, it ought not
to be an issue to be injected into matters of
state, that affects ALL, regardless of their
faith/s; particularly to a state that is as
vastly diverse in its faiths as India is.
Furthermore, it is one thing to be analytical
about ones own faith; to question its beliefs,
its myths, its dogmas; but quite another to do so
about somebody else's. One would have expected
Dr. Indiresan to be mindful of such nuances of
ordinary propriety and courtesy that he implies
others of lacking. It is NOT unbecoming of a
Hindu, even a nominal one, to questions Hindu
myths or superstitions or prejudices. For he is
the one who is being affected by them. But it is
uncouth to go questioning others' faiths. The
Hindu, widely bandied to be tolerant, has no
business meddling in
somebody else's faith, UNLESS, they are meddling
in his lifestyle or well-being by imposing their
will on matters of state, which affect everyone.
That is the subtle but critical difference that
Dr. Indiresan fails to note. That is why his big
argument against the 'rationalists' in 'the
Indian context' is little more than yet another
foray into that twilight zone of foggy logic
where ordinary meanings of words and phrases no
longer operate, as in special Indian meanings to
"secularism", "democracy", "rationalist" and so
forth.
What Dr. Indiresan tells us here is that in
spite of his implied approval of rational
thinking in general, he is unable to accept it
when it is not applied 'fairly' to ALL religions
'in the Indian context' , as if it would somehow
rid Hinduism of its irrational burdens or absolve
the Ram-sethu issue of its irrationality. What he
demonstrates is his personal insecurity over his
own faith, unable to reconcile the dichotomy
imposed by injection of faith in affairs of state.
No wonder that so many Indian scientists,
technocrats and intellectuals can cite chapter
and verse
of the collective wisdoms of mankind acquired to
date, but are unable to apply them for the
well-being of their own.
cm
At 11:54 PM -0700 9/18/07, umesh sharma wrote:
http://www.expressindia.com/latest-news/Ram-science-and-religious-belief/218687/
New Delhi, Spetember 19: A week is a long time
in politics and the Ram Setu controversy may
soon die down. But even as it fades away
politically, it may linger intellectually.
Everyone is agreed that the battle is between
scientific attitude and faith. As Francis Bacon
argued nearly 500 years ago, the scientific
spirit requires that we accept nothing as true
unless it can be verified by experiment. Karl
Popper goes on to say that the purpose of
scientific enquiry is to disprove a hypothesis,
not buttress it. As Thomas Kuhn has explained,
science re-writes its textbooks all the time.
In stark contrast, religious texts are sacred;
they are unalterable. Science holds a hypothesis
untrue if it does not satisfy even one out a
hundred conditions. For the faithful, belief is
sanctified even if it comes true only once in a
thousand times.
In modern times, the proposition that science
will replace faith has become an attractive one.
Much that was a mystery earlier has now been
rationalised through scientific discoveries.
Inevitably, many more mysteries of the present
will also get explained in years to come. But
science has its limitations. For example, it can
theorise how the universe began with a Big Bang,
but not explain what agency caused it.
Scientific theories are also fickle. Five years
ago, hormone replacement therapy was the
cure-all idea for older women. Now, it is
anathema. Science propagates knowledge; it does
not necessarily confirm wisdom. That is why
stories about mad scientists remain a recurrent
theme in cinema!
There is no scientific proof that God exists;
neither is there any proof that God does not
exist. The same holds good in the case of Ram
too; there is no proof that he existed; neither
is there any scientific proof that he did not
exist. That is where rational scientists drift
outside the scientific path. They make
assertions about matters of faith, forgetting
their own principles. They can say, at the most,
there is no proof that Ram was a real person.
They cannot proceed further and assert that Ram
was not a real person.
The reality is that many people believe in God.
The reality is ideas of God are many and lead to
fierce fights, including mass murder.
Admittedly, there is, at any one time, far
greater unanimity about scientific truths, but
all those truths are merely hypotheses liable to
be superseded in the future. Rationalists are
right in condemning superstition as dangerous
and harmful. They overstep when they assert
science has all the answers. As of today it does
not. Nothing becomes a scientist more than
humility.
But why not tolerate the dogma of scientists
when no objections are raised about religious
dogma? In the Indian context, rationalists
become dangerous, because they attack
selectively. All religions survive on myths.
Rationalists would have been on more solid
ground if they had attacked myths of all
religions. Unfortunately, Indian rationalists
attack only Hindu myths. This is politically
dangerous. This has, in turn, led to a worrisome
development. The attacks have only induced
orthodox Hindus to become more irrational,
rather than more rational. Tolerance of
diversity has been the hallmark of Hindu
culture. What rationalists are doing is to take
advantage of that tolerance of diversity to
destroy the base of that tolerance.
Hindu myths are liable to suffer more than those
of other religions because there are so many
more of them. Nevertheless, isolating Hindu
myths alone is not rational. One suspects that
Indian rationalists have confined themselves to
attacks on Hindu myths because Hindus are soft
targets; others are not. If that is true,
rationalists are cowards. A cowardly soldier is
a danger to the army; he can lose battles.
Cowardly intellectuals are even more dangerous;
they can destroy an entire society.
Since the days of Jawaharlal Nehru, there has
been no respite from the attacks on Hindu
beliefs. That itself would not have mattered if
Hinduism alone had not been isolated for such
treatment. As a result of this bias, orthodox
Hindus feel more and more threatened. In their
fear, they are becoming less logical; they are
giving up their culture of tolerance. The
long-term risk of all this is not being
adequately understood even by well-meaning
intellectuals and media persons. The real issue
is not Ram vs rationality; it is rationality vs
selective rationality.
(The writer is a former director of IIT, Chennai)
Umesh Sharma
Washington D.C.
1-202-215-4328 [Cell]
Ed.M. - International Education Policy
Harvard Graduate School of Education,
Harvard University,
Class of 2005
http://www.uknow.gse.harvard.edu/index.html (Edu info)
http://hbswk.hbs.edu/ (Management Info)
www.gse.harvard.edu/iep (where the above 2 are used )
http://jaipurschool.bihu.in/
Yahoo! Answers - Get better answers from someone
who knows.
<http://uk.answers.yahoo.com/;_ylc=X3oDMTEydmViNG02BF9TAzIxMTQ3MTcxOTAEc2VjA21haWwEc2xrA3RhZ2xpbmU>Try
it now.
_______________________________________________
assam mailing list
assam@assamnet.org
http://assamnet.org/mailman/listinfo/assam_assamnet.org
_______________________________________________
assam mailing list
assam@assamnet.org
http://assamnet.org/mailman/listinfo/assam_assamnet.org
