In his essay "Is There a God? the great Philosopher
Bertrand Russell wrote:
Many orthodox people speak as though it were the
business of skeptics to disprove received dogmas
rather than of dogmatists to prove them. This is, of
course, a mistake. If I were to suggest that between
the Earth and Mars there is a china teapot revolving
about the sun in an elliptical orbit, nobody would be
able to disprove my assertion provided I were careful
to add that the teapot is too small to be revealed
even by our most powerful telescopes. But if I were to
go on to say that, since my assertion cannot be
disproved, it is intolerable presumption on the part
of human reason to doubt it; I should rightly be
thought to be talking nonsense. If, however, the
existence of such a teapot were affirmed in ancient
books, taught as the sacred truth every Sunday, and
instilled into the minds of children at school,
hesitation to believe in its existence would become a
mark of eccentricity and entitle the doubter to the
attentions of the psychiatrist in an enlightened age
or of the Inquisitor in an earlier time.
For hundreds of years there has been a struggle
between those who promote reason, tolerance, freedom,
and the basic human dignity of the individual on the
one side and religious fundamentalists on the other.
In a society dominated by religion, the men and women
who have tried to promote science, critical thought
and the spirit of inquiry and reform have often been
branded as the "bad people". They have been labeled as
heretics, enemies of God and hate-mongers. These
false accusations are slung by a system whose own
fetters of intolerance and bigotry has choked out the
freest of nations.
The history of religion has been that of conflict,
violence, and one atrocity after another, all in the
name of God. Throughout its course, religion has
been an impediment to human progress. Unlike a free
society which flourishes with the advancement of
knowledge, religion always hearkens back to a previous
age. It is founded on unchangeable dogma that has been
established in a far distant past. Its fixed ideas and
ideologies have become the enemy of progress.
It is no exaggeration to say that the future progress
of human society will be impaired by the continuing
influence of superstition, pseudoscience, and religion
in public and state affairs. What kind of World do we
wish to live in; do we wish to live in a World that
builds barriers and promotes violence and hatred in
the name of God? Do we wish to live in a World where
superstitions and myths continue to play strong roles
in the society? Must Religion be allowed to warp a
childs mind from being inquiring, or acquiring a
thirst for knowledge? Does freedom of religion mean
the freedom to impose religious dogma on society? Does
freedom of religion mean the right of religious
believers to use public forums, facilities and
resources to promote their irrational beliefs?
The methods of science are our best tools for learning
about the world. We live in an age when science and
technology touch every aspect of our lives, so why
then must we allow our public lives to be burdened
with the trappings of anti-scientific and religious
dogma? Science is the thought paradigm which has given
humanity the most. The advancement of the human spirit
can only occur in a state of freedom and in a society
where the mind of man is free from tyrannous control.
Only a progressive society can assure that individuals
are free to think, believe, and speak as they please.
Dr. Santosh Helekar has been a strong protagonist of
Science and, through his views and expressions on this
forum, has always waged a spirited campaign against
quackery, charlatanry and injustice whilst promoting
rationalism, social reform, and freedom of thought.
The constant evolution of human intelligence can only
happen through such scientific inquiry and through
consistent application of reason and it is here that
Dr Helekar has been doing such a great job. Society
must be indebted to individuals like him who
consistently devote their time and energies for the
greater good of mankind.
Science and religion are poles apart and they will
always be in conflict with one another. A
pro-scientific approach is therefore bound to sound
and appear as an anti-religious one. A pro-scientific
view will often lead to a war of words and there is
therefore no need for Dr Helekar or any progressive-
thinking individual to react defensively towards such
name-callings and mud-slingings.
In conclusion, let me quote Bertrand Russell once
again: Those to whom intellectual freedom is
personally important may be a minority in the
community, but among them are the men of most
importance to the future. We have seen the importance
of Copernicus, Galileo, and Darwin in the history of
mankind, and it is not to be supposed that the future
will produce no more such men. If they are prevented
from doing their work and having their due effect, the
human
