One of the most fundamental truths about the world that we are a part of is the existence and ineluctable nature of suffering in all things living.
- Gautama Buddha
Dawkins and atheism came up during a discussion with a group of friends yesterday. Though we never really argued about anything, a simple question was put forward to me by a friend. It was a question that one normally just whisks away asamatteroffactedly while cold-heartedly arguing about these things but it persisted in my mind this time and kept coming up later that night and during the next day. The question was the following- "Is it possible to rationalize about every aspect of our existence?"
The question is a naive one and theists and atheists would generally give 'no' for an answer without second thought and proceed to discuss more 'meat'. However, in the case of the atheist, a wager rests on her shoulders and that is the obligation to articulate and explain her position in the scheme of things. Before I begin to sound like an apologist, let me state here that I shall persist until I am proven otherwise on my belief of the non-existence of a supernatural intelligent power that governs my existence. But I do believe that the existential reasons that made my ancestors looked up to the stars for help and support were inescapable and are so even today. To take note of this fact and appreciate it was enunciated by the Buddha 2500 years ago when he warned the world against the dubious nature of extremism and brought to notice the inescapable nature of human suffering. The same message is echoed by an Amartya Sen when he begs economists (the same breed, who when placed end to end around the circumference of the world would not reach a conclusion, in Shaw's words) to place welfare above power and freedom above income. He asks us to admit the systematic nature of deprivation that exists in the world in spite of the unprecedented opulence around us. Suffering is primary, more fundamental than envy, love or even hunger.
While in the VT station waiting for my train, I spent a rupee in order to check my weight (a 79 kilo abomination) but couldn't get myself to spare another coin to a hungry child who came up to me later. I was hurrying up to catch my train. I don't give money to adolescents as a principle but I cannot help feeling bad about it hours after that. The irony is that he would have forgotten me and absolved me of my miserliness. This time he gets to do things asamatteroffactedly. Would I have felt better if I would have stopped and bought him a sandwich?
- Gautama Buddha
Dawkins and atheism came up during a discussion with a group of friends yesterday. Though we never really argued about anything, a simple question was put forward to me by a friend. It was a question that one normally just whisks away asamatteroffactedly while cold-heartedly arguing about these things but it persisted in my mind this time and kept coming up later that night and during the next day. The question was the following- "Is it possible to rationalize about every aspect of our existence?"
The question is a naive one and theists and atheists would generally give 'no' for an answer without second thought and proceed to discuss more 'meat'. However, in the case of the atheist, a wager rests on her shoulders and that is the obligation to articulate and explain her position in the scheme of things. Before I begin to sound like an apologist, let me state here that I shall persist until I am proven otherwise on my belief of the non-existence of a supernatural intelligent power that governs my existence. But I do believe that the existential reasons that made my ancestors looked up to the stars for help and support were inescapable and are so even today. To take note of this fact and appreciate it was enunciated by the Buddha 2500 years ago when he warned the world against the dubious nature of extremism and brought to notice the inescapable nature of human suffering. The same message is echoed by an Amartya Sen when he begs economists (the same breed, who when placed end to end around the circumference of the world would not reach a conclusion, in Shaw's words) to place welfare above power and freedom above income. He asks us to admit the systematic nature of deprivation that exists in the world in spite of the unprecedented opulence around us. Suffering is primary, more fundamental than envy, love or even hunger.
While in the VT station waiting for my train, I spent a rupee in order to check my weight (a 79 kilo abomination) but couldn't get myself to spare another coin to a hungry child who came up to me later. I was hurrying up to catch my train. I don't give money to adolescents as a principle but I cannot help feeling bad about it hours after that. The irony is that he would have forgotten me and absolved me of my miserliness. This time he gets to do things asamatteroffactedly. Would I have felt better if I would have stopped and bought him a sandwich?
7 comments:
The question is not "Is it possible to rationalize about every aspect of our existence?" but more of "Is it necessary?" or "Do you want to?" and I think it depends on person to person where he draws the line on trying to explaining things. People like us would like to rationalize almost everything, while some people just don't like to.
A nice point made by Amartya Sen. Is it really disturbing that half of America does not believe in evolution but rather in intelligent design or does it disturb you that 70% of India cannot care because they spend most of their time thinking how to get their next meal?
You're right about 'wanting' to rationalize as opposed to 'possibility' of the same. Forgive my imprecision. But in accordance with the feelings that I wanted to vent out and the thoughts that occupied my mind, I was concerned with the 'possibility' issue. I shall perhaps discuss the 'wanting' or 'need to rationalize' part sometime later when I begin to reflect on how an atheist, an agnostic, a theist and a mystic can live under one roof, be a part of the same family and relish each other's company at the same time :). I am obviously talking about my family. Thanks
@anirudh - 'Concern' is not a conserved quantity like momentum :). I can be disturbed by both. One disturbs my intellect and the other, my heart.
I think that the ultimate aim of pure science is to rationalize everything. However, there is only so much we can know. Every scientific theory is based on certain axioms that are just assumed. Science will continue to rationalize these axioms based on a further, more basic set of axioms and I can only wonder if there could be a theory that would not be based on axioms. Certain things are accepted on the basis of intuition and experiments, but such words are just not acceptable to a rationalist's brain who would like to know why an intuition should be right or why an experiment should repeatedly give the same results.
In conclusion, I think that the issue of possibility will only keep haunting the minds of us rationalists and is a never ending quest.
Suppose that the General Theory of Relativity is correct and we have no reason to say why it is true. We just assume it to be true and we can see that it helps us make accurate predictions about our real world. Is it disturbing that we don't yet know why GTR is true and this infinite regress must lead us to a higher "intelligent" authority (who is not susceptible to regress himself!) who "made" GTR true?
If the universe is governed by some fundamental laws (which we would accept as the axioms), must there be a lawmaker?
What you say is reasonable. Honestly I cannot competently oppose it; I have never been opposed to the concept of a maker as vehemently as I have been opposed to people using him as an excuse and legitimation for all kinds of unreasonable things that exist. If a theory like GTR is correct, we arrived at it because of years of cerebration, analysis and verification. It was not revealed to us on the day of reckoning by Paul the wise apostle. But, I repeat, my atheism is motivated by social concerns more than it is by scientific pigheadedness.
@sudeep:
I am neither proposing nor opposing the existence of the "Creator" just because we are assuming certain axioms. I was just commenting on the "possibility" of rationalizing everything.
I believe that these axioms are a boundary between what can and cannot be rationalized. What lies beyond this boundary is unknown and this is what differentiates a theist, atheist and an agnostic.
While a theist(not a religious believer) will believe that this gap is filled by god, an atheist believes that this is just empty. An agnostic on the other hand believes that what lies beyond this boundary is fundamentally unknowable.
Post a Comment