Creationists have surely given a very hard time to evolutionary biologists. This is not because the arguments of creationists are rational, but simply because of the opposite reason. And given the important positions that many creationists occupy in the social ladder, it is not even possible to just ignore them and move on. Creationists are, basically, religious people who like to adhere to their beliefs in all circumstances irrespective of the fact that exists evidence that falsifies their beliefs. However, all religions of the world are not opposed to the idea of evolution. This fact tempts one to conclude that religions belonging to one set are more scientific than the religions belonging to another. But, as of now, there is no data available to verify this statement. Also, in the history of mankind, many great scientists, specially mathematicians, were actually very religious.
As I see it, the religious people who oppose evolution do not do so because they are less scientific, but because the religion they belong to was itself a product of creation. And the religious people who do not oppose evolution, do so simply because the religion to which they belong to was a product of evolution. So, its not a case of being less scientific or more scientific, but merely a case of securing the original cause.
Religions that were created
Christianity and Islam are two major religions of this world that belong to this category. Christianity was created by the disciples of Jesus and Islam was created by the disciples of Muhammad.
The reason why people belonging to this set of religions will always find it difficult to accept evolution is not because they are less scientific, but simply because accepting evolution will force them to have less faith in their own religion. Again, this is not simply because there are specific statements in their scriptures which are against the basic idea of evolution.
Religion aims at providing an explanation for life itself. It is not a theory of physics which aims at explaining how the matter interacts, or a theory of biology which aims at explaining how living organisms behave. Deeper than these physical questions, there is the question, "Why are we here? How did all this come about?". And religion aims at explaining these deep questions that deal with our very existence. A theory of religion that aims at explaining these questions based on evolution, can never be created. And a theory of religion that aims at explaining these questions based on creationism, can never evolve. If this sounds a bit confusing, think about it later (over a cup of coffee!).
Religions that evolved
Hinduism is one of the religions that is a product of evolution. Even the word Hindu is a recent one, and is never used in any of the ancient Hindu scriptures. The scriptures always referred to their body of knowledge as Sanatana Dharma, which can be roughly translated as The Perennial Philosophy.
Though some religions are a product of evolution, their trajectory is in some sense negative compared to the positive trajectory followed by biological systems. What is meant here is that biological systems evolve to something more complex and more superior that leads to much greater functionality. Religious systems also evolve to become more complex and add more functionality, but they don't necessarily evolve to be superior. The higher complexity and functionality of evolved religious systems is merely in terms of the more elaborate rituals that get associated with them. Hinduism is the best example of such a system.
Upanishads are one of the most revered Hindu scriptures and also one of the most ancient. In these texts, what we find are some of the great philosophical thoughts accessible to mankind. There is no mention of anything that sounds even remotely religious. This hints that there was a time, when people were not really religious but used to follow a system of life based on the highest philosophy in which there was no room for irrationality. However, as time went by, these great ideas lead to something that was more religious in its outlook. One view could be that there was a decrease in the rational capability of people. But this is hard to believe since the process of biological evolution should only lead to higher and higher mental capabilities of the human race. As I see it:
Religion emerged as a statistical property when the number of people in this world exceeded a certain critical limit.
Religion: A statistical limit
One of the hallmarks of rational thinkers is that they disagree with each other on many critical issues. And not only in social science, this is also true in hard sciences. When the number of people in a certain region is less than a critical value, it is possible for people to do things based on rational principles. This is because, in such a scenario, it is possible to hold arguments and try to arrive at conclusions. Even if one cannot arrive at a conclusion, it is still permissible to do things based on one's own rationale. And since the scale of things is small, the cost of making mistakes is well within one's control.
However, when population grows, one cannot really afford to allow people to do things based on their own rationale. This is mainly because it is no longer possible to hold arguments among people and try to understand each other's points of view. And one also cannot afford to make too many mistakes, since the impact could be very costly. Thus, when the scale of things grow, it becomes important to formulate certain rules and regulations to which people must adhere. And it is this necessity that leads to evolution of religion in a society that was originally based on rational principles.
Apart from the necessity to create rules and regulations, these things also evolve (get created) with time as the population grows. This is because of the following reason. In a set of people in any region, some are more wise than others. And the ones who are less wise generally seek the counsel of the wiser ones. If the population is small, the wiser ones usually get to interact more with each other and with the other's set of followers and a lot of ideas cross-over from one side to the other. This leads to positive evolution in one sense, since bad ideas are weeded out and good ones flourish. Upanishads must have been a result of such a process of positive evolution. However, when population grows beyond a certain limit, the wiser ones don't communicate with each other so often, and also hardly get to meet the other one's followers. This leads to a stagnant system and bad ideas tend to flourish in such a system. And thus, the process of positive evolution turns to a process of negative evolution. This reminds me of the famous Bell Shaped Curve.
The Future
The next obvious question to ask is, "What is the future of religion"? The religions that were created may remain as they are or may evolve into something different while retaining their core beliefs so as to minimize friction with scientific theories. The religions that evolved will keep evolving and may either keep evolving negatively or may encounter a second phase of positive evolution. The possibilities are many. But one thing for sure is that we are never going to have a world without religion. This is because, as discussed above, religion is a statistical property that emerges when the population of this world exceeds a critical limit. In periods of time when the world population is low enough, we may experience more pronounced rationality, but this will not last for ever. As soon as the population grows, religion will emerge.
One evidence in support of the above ideas is that in recent times, the world has been witness to the evolution of a new kind of religion. One might call it the religion of science. There are numerous cases when scientists have published false data just to get more world-wide attention and more funding (eg. Climategate). There are also many instances where scientists have adhered to the an incorrect idea for decades without bothering to verify its correctness. And some have even gone one step further to attempt at providing proofs for these incorrect scientific beliefs. This has not happened because scientists have suddenly become less rational, but only because the number of scientists has exceeded a certain critical limit.
Religion is not just about believing in a God. Religion is also not about having unverifiable beliefs. In a more general sense, religion is about having beliefs and being unwilling to verify them. It is not a belief in God, but the degree of unwillingness that makes a person more or less religious. Thus, an atheist can be religious too if he is unwilling to repeatedly question his own disbelief in the existence of God. This is very important to understand in the context of our modern world. Religious fanaticism has caused a great damage to this world and will probably cause a lot more damage in the future. If we want to solve this problem, or at least reduce it to some extent, it is very important to identify the root cause. It is not a belief in God that leads people to cause destruction, but an unwillingness to repeatedly question their beliefs. One good example of this is the fact that both China and Pakistan consider India to be a big threat to their sovereignty.
As I see it, the religious people who oppose evolution do not do so because they are less scientific, but because the religion they belong to was itself a product of creation. And the religious people who do not oppose evolution, do so simply because the religion to which they belong to was a product of evolution. So, its not a case of being less scientific or more scientific, but merely a case of securing the original cause.
Religions that were created
Christianity and Islam are two major religions of this world that belong to this category. Christianity was created by the disciples of Jesus and Islam was created by the disciples of Muhammad.
The reason why people belonging to this set of religions will always find it difficult to accept evolution is not because they are less scientific, but simply because accepting evolution will force them to have less faith in their own religion. Again, this is not simply because there are specific statements in their scriptures which are against the basic idea of evolution.
Religion aims at providing an explanation for life itself. It is not a theory of physics which aims at explaining how the matter interacts, or a theory of biology which aims at explaining how living organisms behave. Deeper than these physical questions, there is the question, "Why are we here? How did all this come about?". And religion aims at explaining these deep questions that deal with our very existence. A theory of religion that aims at explaining these questions based on evolution, can never be created. And a theory of religion that aims at explaining these questions based on creationism, can never evolve. If this sounds a bit confusing, think about it later (over a cup of coffee!).
Religions that evolved
Hinduism is one of the religions that is a product of evolution. Even the word Hindu is a recent one, and is never used in any of the ancient Hindu scriptures. The scriptures always referred to their body of knowledge as Sanatana Dharma, which can be roughly translated as The Perennial Philosophy.
Though some religions are a product of evolution, their trajectory is in some sense negative compared to the positive trajectory followed by biological systems. What is meant here is that biological systems evolve to something more complex and more superior that leads to much greater functionality. Religious systems also evolve to become more complex and add more functionality, but they don't necessarily evolve to be superior. The higher complexity and functionality of evolved religious systems is merely in terms of the more elaborate rituals that get associated with them. Hinduism is the best example of such a system.
Upanishads are one of the most revered Hindu scriptures and also one of the most ancient. In these texts, what we find are some of the great philosophical thoughts accessible to mankind. There is no mention of anything that sounds even remotely religious. This hints that there was a time, when people were not really religious but used to follow a system of life based on the highest philosophy in which there was no room for irrationality. However, as time went by, these great ideas lead to something that was more religious in its outlook. One view could be that there was a decrease in the rational capability of people. But this is hard to believe since the process of biological evolution should only lead to higher and higher mental capabilities of the human race. As I see it:
Religion emerged as a statistical property when the number of people in this world exceeded a certain critical limit.
Religion: A statistical limit
One of the hallmarks of rational thinkers is that they disagree with each other on many critical issues. And not only in social science, this is also true in hard sciences. When the number of people in a certain region is less than a critical value, it is possible for people to do things based on rational principles. This is because, in such a scenario, it is possible to hold arguments and try to arrive at conclusions. Even if one cannot arrive at a conclusion, it is still permissible to do things based on one's own rationale. And since the scale of things is small, the cost of making mistakes is well within one's control.
However, when population grows, one cannot really afford to allow people to do things based on their own rationale. This is mainly because it is no longer possible to hold arguments among people and try to understand each other's points of view. And one also cannot afford to make too many mistakes, since the impact could be very costly. Thus, when the scale of things grow, it becomes important to formulate certain rules and regulations to which people must adhere. And it is this necessity that leads to evolution of religion in a society that was originally based on rational principles.
Apart from the necessity to create rules and regulations, these things also evolve (get created) with time as the population grows. This is because of the following reason. In a set of people in any region, some are more wise than others. And the ones who are less wise generally seek the counsel of the wiser ones. If the population is small, the wiser ones usually get to interact more with each other and with the other's set of followers and a lot of ideas cross-over from one side to the other. This leads to positive evolution in one sense, since bad ideas are weeded out and good ones flourish. Upanishads must have been a result of such a process of positive evolution. However, when population grows beyond a certain limit, the wiser ones don't communicate with each other so often, and also hardly get to meet the other one's followers. This leads to a stagnant system and bad ideas tend to flourish in such a system. And thus, the process of positive evolution turns to a process of negative evolution. This reminds me of the famous Bell Shaped Curve.
The Future
The next obvious question to ask is, "What is the future of religion"? The religions that were created may remain as they are or may evolve into something different while retaining their core beliefs so as to minimize friction with scientific theories. The religions that evolved will keep evolving and may either keep evolving negatively or may encounter a second phase of positive evolution. The possibilities are many. But one thing for sure is that we are never going to have a world without religion. This is because, as discussed above, religion is a statistical property that emerges when the population of this world exceeds a critical limit. In periods of time when the world population is low enough, we may experience more pronounced rationality, but this will not last for ever. As soon as the population grows, religion will emerge.
One evidence in support of the above ideas is that in recent times, the world has been witness to the evolution of a new kind of religion. One might call it the religion of science. There are numerous cases when scientists have published false data just to get more world-wide attention and more funding (eg. Climategate). There are also many instances where scientists have adhered to the an incorrect idea for decades without bothering to verify its correctness. And some have even gone one step further to attempt at providing proofs for these incorrect scientific beliefs. This has not happened because scientists have suddenly become less rational, but only because the number of scientists has exceeded a certain critical limit.
Religion is not just about believing in a God. Religion is also not about having unverifiable beliefs. In a more general sense, religion is about having beliefs and being unwilling to verify them. It is not a belief in God, but the degree of unwillingness that makes a person more or less religious. Thus, an atheist can be religious too if he is unwilling to repeatedly question his own disbelief in the existence of God. This is very important to understand in the context of our modern world. Religious fanaticism has caused a great damage to this world and will probably cause a lot more damage in the future. If we want to solve this problem, or at least reduce it to some extent, it is very important to identify the root cause. It is not a belief in God that leads people to cause destruction, but an unwillingness to repeatedly question their beliefs. One good example of this is the fact that both China and Pakistan consider India to be a big threat to their sovereignty.
To lead the world into a rational future, we do not have to abolish the God in Heaven, but rather the Satan who sits within each of us!
Dear Sir, one question do you pray to god?
ReplyDeleteI believe that there are certain positive forces in this world and I do pray to them for more strength and wisdom. But this is quite different from praying to God. I don't believe in the existence of an all powerful omniscient personal entity called God. I am curious to know your reason for asking this.
ReplyDeleteBest,
Kushal.