(Note from Mahendra: This came as a comment from my close friend Zita but was too long to publish as one and I have posted it separately)
By Zita Perera-Subasinghe
This is an impromptu reply to
your most profound assessment of Science, religion and myth, on the existence
of the world, of man and the conclusions and assessment of where everything is
going and how it is going to end.
I have yet to find someone
managing to address all these dilemmas in one question and even rarer to find
the questioner seeming to have a satisfactory answer by way of the annulment of
previously held theories on these profound beliefs.
If I were to answer the above
in a few words, I have to say, you are right in everything you say and
everything you surmise about religions, beliefs, myths. You are also right in your
assessment of the past, present and the future of the world. How can I say such
a thing to a convoluted, problem involving history, religion and the sciences?
The very fact that you
summarised the existing problems and conundrums in the way you did and my very
acquiescence to your reasoning shows one thing, and that is, that this is a very knotty, convoluted problem so much so that the very unravelling of it is
impossible and that person who sat in the opposite camp i.e. thinking religion
is right, there is a supreme being who created all this and there is a promise
of reward or punishment at the end of life, finds the easiest way is to agree
with you.
Surprised? Well, let me enlarge on what I just
said above. To a believer, there is a supreme being, God,
who created man and this world and he has given clear guidance about what is
right and wrong and there is reward or punishment according to how the creature
acts. To those who did not grow up with religion,
belief in God and afterlife is an unprovable myth and is propagated by Theists
who in turn have been influenced by their own teachers who gave them these
beliefs and so on as far back as you want to go. To scientists and thinkers who rely on
observation, proof and an evidence base, this is all that matters and that what
they hold is the ultimate truth.
So, how come, I seem to say, they are all
right?
Actually, I am not saying they are all
correct.
What I am thinking is that these questions,
observations, theories and explanations you have so carefully and clearly
outlined in your article are so logical and evidence-based and believable that
there is no way anyone can dispute what you say.
Then, what on earth am I saying? Am I
babbling like a nincompoop?
Well, listen to me, a person
brought up in a Catholic home with believing parents and educated in faith-based
schools. What we each believe is what we are exposed to from our birth
especially if brought up by loving parents who held the same beliefs and felt
they were doing the best they could for their children to bring them up in
their faith, which they believed ‘is the utmost truth’. So what am I saying?
Let each one believes what they want and they can hold on to that belief and
that’s ok and that’s right?
Well, I am not saying those
very words. It is just that Faith is a strong force, such an indestructible
factor in our upbringing.
What I really think is that nobody knows the
truth. After all, there can’t be truth 1 and truth 2 and truth 3. Truth is
truth, and nobody can say what they are holding to is IT! Nothing else is going
to counteract that. There is no way, we can uphold one ‘truth’ and make
everyone believe it. That is impossible. And it is not necessary. It is fine to
hold what you have been taught and it is also fine if later on you were
convinced of some other way is the truth and you changed completely.
Just as we are white, black, brown, tall,
short, intelligent or dull and so on to other characteristics, we can hold to a belief which we think is right. Who knows whether the believer or non-believer
achieved what they believed in and found out that they were right? No one comes
back to tell us what happened once they depart this world. So, it’s fine to
hold what appeals to you most! If you read Mahendra’s article and your mind
changes and your convictions change, that’s fine! That’s allowed!
All I am trying to say is that we only have to
look at the history of this world to realise there are a hundred or more ways
of one accepting one belief and a way of life that seems nearest to one’s
reasoning, or if ‘reasoning’ is not important to the person, well, whatever one
has been led to believe by parents, teachers and others who shaped their lives. In the meantime, science goes on advancing,
knowledge goes on increasing, mysteries to go on baffling, and it’s all in the
game! I ask, can anyone give the questioner a really
acceptable, provable, undeniable answer to these profound questions?
So, I say, hey! It is ok to believe what you
are convinced of. Follow your heart and your mind. Do what you believe in,
provided it keeps in with the law.
There you are! That’s the crux of the matter.
You have to obey the law, which is there to protect us, which is laid down by
the government or other authority. So, within that framework, you can believe
and do anything as long as you are within the law!
Zita
Many thanks for your honest and personal approach. In essence what you say is that on practical terms, what matters is the advantages and comfort religion brings to a person and that this matters much more than intellectual merits of my arguments. You also add the rider that although people can hold on to their seemingly illogical views, they must ensure that they stay within the law and do not cause any harm to others in exercising their choice. This is a sentiment I completely agree with. I may add that ordinary people of other religions with no immediate aspirations to reach emancipation but are focusing on leading a happy life till the inevitable end, would also benefit by leading lives with morality and simplicity within a community of family, friends and community, not being to concerned with what might happen after death,
ReplyDeleteI accept that there cannot be many "truths" if by Truth we are referring to an universal theory of sorts explaining everything that operates in this Universe ( akind of Inified theory of Eberything!). My point is that none of the phiosophies and religions have offered a robust, defendable and evidence based "Truth". Although I did not state it explicitly, I remain convinced that Science has the best chance of coming up with such a theory. Science so far has not provided such an answer but has shed light on a whole range of phenomena. The absence of an acceptable "truth" does not mean that a person examining the options offered is left with the option of having to accept one of those thatare being offered. He/she could reject all on the basis that they do not stand up to valid objections and adopt the position that the "Truth" is as yet unknown. It is perfectly logical to discard a "truth" on the basis that it is incompatible with facts. On the other hand, when it comes to relying on a Religion or Philosophy for help in leading your life as happily as possible, it is perfectly understandable to use it.
ReplyDelete