My journey to atheism - part I

“Asto Ma Sadgamay!”

“From the darkness of ignorance, lead me to the illuminated world of knowledge” - a sentence from an ancient Sanskrit Shloka (prayer). It’s an irony that I should be using it to signify my journey from theism to atheism.

I have started feeling that I am a natural born atheist. I’ve been through the darkness of theism, true, and have also had the experience of what it’s like to be a fanatic Hindu, however, I feel that I am an atheist at heart. So much so, that I’ll go as far as claiming that Gita, if read with a proper perspective is the best handguide to atheism. No, not because it’s ridiculous - it’s not! But, because it emphasizes so much on karma and gives so little relevance to the existence of god. Go a little further, give no relevance to the question that whether god exists, and there you are - an atheist.

However, why would one want to associate no relevance with this question? Is it not avoiding the question that whether there’s a god? Is it not shrugging shoulders to avoid answering what you don’t know – avoid admitting what you don’t want to – something theists are so acquainted with doing when faced with the witty question asked by atheists? Well, perhaps yes, perhaps no! Look at it this way. Ask yourself this question – “Is there a unicorn?” Well, how would I know? I have never seen one, but that doesn’t mean there doesn’t exist one. Suppose I were on a yacht right in the middle of Atlantic with no shores in sight. If in such circumstances, I were to conclude that there is no land on earth, I would most certainly be wrong. Going by similar logic, if I conclude that there are no unicorns I could be wrong – note “could”, not “would”! And similarly, if I were to claim that there is no god – I could be wrong. Carry on in this manner and you might end up believing in an elephant that flies, an ant which exists and doesn’t exist at the same time, college professors who don’t follow any laws of Physics and disappear out of existence the moment you turn away your face from them – ridiculous isn’t it? How far are you willing to go?

Now consider this – the various notions of god you have ever encountered have come from many different sources, but there’s one thing common to all. There’s a set of belief system underlying all these notion – a belief system describing what god is, why we are here and some going as far as telling us what we should eat and what we should wear. We call these belief systems religion. Now, ask yourself, if you were living in a society where there is no religion – would there still be a concept of god? Perhaps yes, but not without answering why we are here. This brings us to another food for thought – science is taking over the role of religion as far answering temporal questions are concerned. How long would religion survive if suppose, science perfects itself? And if Psychology answers every subjective question you have? In other words, try to see how religion evolved over time, how it was needed to quench the thirst of a never-ending human curiosity. Also, try to read the Bible, the Old Testament particularly in context of the happenings taking place during that period. Read the Quran and Hadiths in context of Muhammad’s life and ask yourself if these books are really divine – or at least, are they outstandingly excellent in their perspective of describing the purpose of life?

Finally, ask yourself if ethics are absolute. While incest may be a sin in Christianity, some tribes in Africa may be practicing it quite frequently (ofcourse, it’s not good for the resultant offspring is another issue). Are you a European and you think that blowing your nose in public is absolutely normal – try doing that in an Indian crowd. Are you from Uttar Pradesh and take pride in spitting on roads – try doing that in Kerela. Are you an American and you think that staying in New York making good money for yourself but away from your sick-old parents in Pittsburg is an absolutely normal thing to do? Again, try doing that in India. Morals are as relative as culture is.

So, ask yourself the above questions and then choose the path of theism and atheism. Ofcourse, you still have to choose! In the end it boils down to belief – I “believe in” atheism, like some of you do in Jesus!

These were some of the questions I asked myself over a period of more than 2 years when I gradually changed from a believer to atheist. I do not intend to write about the whole journey, which was much longer, right now.

We'll miss ya Steve Irwin

"We'll miss ya Steve Irwin," is what 10 years old Matthew Cheek from Kissimmee, Florida, drew to pay his tribute to Irwin, who had a huge world wide fan following - many of which were children. Simple and yet apt, this drawing (taken without Matthew's permission - my apologies to Matthew for the same) conveys the exact message that underlines every big and snmall tribute paid to Steve.

Though, I never much read or knew much about Irwin, I felt a desire to pay my tribute to this outstanding, exuberantly enthusiastic wildlife conservator. With a population of 6 billion, and still growing we humans have certainly claimed more than what is reasonably ours from Gaia. In such times when we need many more Steves, losing the one we had is sure a tragic loss.

I enjoyed his shows a lot. His careless maneuvers while working with Snakes and Crocs, and other "dangerous" species inspired awe and admiration. While browsing through hundreds of channels they have on television these days, I would always get anchored to NGC or Discovery showing a Steven's show. I'll miss him, his shows and shall remain aware of this great loss to the programme of wildlife conservation. One only good thing that strikes me at the moment is that "Steve died doing what he liked best," to borrow from one his friends.

A four year long experience is difficult to jot down in one essay, especially when each and every moment of these four long years is cherished and treasured.

My life at IITK has been instructive, joyful, also a pain at times and a gradual journey from boyhood to manhood. I’m having the same feelings of nostalgia for IITK today that I had for my home four years ago. This place has started to feel so secure, so cozy that the grief of leaving this place sometimes overwhelms the joy of beginning a new life as an adult.

My first year at IITK was a difficult walk. Like many others, I joined the place to win more laurels in life, climb higher on the success ladder. IITK, to me, was a mere step towards success. And when I look back at those four fortunate years I’ve spent here, I realize how wrong I was back then. No sooner than I had accepted IITK as my home, life became much more easy and enjoyable. I started to enjoy every moment I spent here attending lectures, studying for exams, taking time off the campus and visiting the city for treats, regular ‘bulla’ sessions with my wing mates, those thrilled moments when I destroyed enemies in Quake III. Opportunities IITK provided me to interact with different people with varying interests helped me develop my personality and changed from someone who had absolutely no interest in world affairs to a well-informed global citizen. I found interest in fields previously alien to me. At IITK I learnt to have an opinion while also having consideration for others’ opinions. I went through the usual ups and downs of IITK life that everyone has to go through, but I can confidently say that I enjoyed the ride all along.

Some of the most cherished things I’m taking from IITK apart from a degree in Electrical engineering are lessons in philosophy and a "new me". I feel much more ready to face the world and its challenges then I did four years ago. I know myself much better than I did four years ago. I owe so much to this place which taught me not just how to live, but more importantly to live – a sentence I don’t expect others to understand.

As I now prepare for a new start, I know that I’m going to miss this place like hell; and it leaves my heart paining to even contemplate that I’ll be out of here soon. I never, realized during my four years here that it would be say difficult to say goodbye.

Functionalism

The claim made by functionalists is that what really is relevant in the mind and body problem is the functional role played by the hardware, which in case of humans happen to be brain, and in case of a machine, say computer it is the embedded structure of thousands of micro transistors. To analyze this claim in more depth let us first go back to from where we started – Cartesian’s Dualism, and then we shall come all the way arriving at the theory of functionalism.

In his theory of Dualism, Rein Descartes proposed that there exists a duality of mind and body – the first mind and the other being body! The latter he said is material or physical. What Descartes meant by physical was explained by him as follows: something which exists in the three dimensional space, i.e. which extends in space and also in time. It exists in space because it is matter and occupies space. By hypothesis of natural sciences then, given a material (physical) object existing in a region in space at a particular time, no other material object can occupy the same space at the same time(s). Now that we have a definition for time which claims the same to be relative, and this definition has also been verified against experiments, it seems obvious that this should lead to a complete downfall of the distinction between physical and non physical. However, it is not so. Even though time is relative it is not possible for an observer, no matter in which frame he is standing, to be able to spot two material objects at the same coordinates at the same time. Hence we have quite easily been able to come over this problem. Now to make our theory of dualism also compatible with the modern quantum mechanics equation which claim even energy to be some form of particles – particles which are mass-less and travel at the s[peed of light and are hence not matter or material objects to say the least. This does put a question mark on the issue of what is physical and what is not. We know that the unlike matter, energy does not follow the constraint of not being able to be present at the same coordinates at same time, even though it is quantized. Hence, let us relax the definition of physical to something which obeys the laws or axioms of nature, and which can be explained by the mathematical equations given by science. Then mind consists of thoughts – which cannot be brought down on paper and pen in the form of an equation and which follow no laws. Let us call this ‘the modern day theory of dualism’. However, quite obvious as it seems is that our thoughts bear a causal relationship with our actions. Now, this is a big blow to the philosophy of natural sciences. This would imply that apart form the natural laws which apparently govern nature, there exists another factor which cannot be quantified and which governs the happenings in our world. Yet, how accurately our laws predict the working of a rocket and that of our wrist watch. Hence we see that making the definition of physical compatible with present day Physics does not help dualism get rid of its earlier problem. Assumption of non physical distinct from physical has again got into trouble with science. It seems that there is something inherently wrong with this distinction. Perhaps, there is no distinction! Let us abandon this theory and move on to Identity theory. Considering the theory of epiphenomenalism is as good as considering the Identity theory and later on associating with the laws of science some factors which are non causal but exist. However, to detect the existence, interaction is needed, and interaction is just what we name as causality. Therefore, the concept of a non causal mind is even more absurd.

Now coming to Identity theory, let us directly jump over to the token identity theory. If we restrict ourselves to the type identity theory, it would mean that we are depriving any other being, if it exists, of the feelings we humans have and share. However, this is not the main concern as one could argue that perhaps yes! Any being without the same neuro-physiological composition as ours cannot experience emotions. But considering that just like us, even animals are capable of feeling pain. Now arguing that even though our neuro-physiological composition is not same as say that of a dog, both of us are capable of feeling pain. Then what is it that limits this difference only to the extent to which we are different form a dog? Nothing. If this is minor to us, than difference between the hardware of a human and a person from Mars could perhaps be minor to another higher being – just like difference between an abacus and a simple calculator made of transistors is minor to us. However here there is a point which the token identity theory and also the theory of functionalism overlook, and which we shall consider a little later. So, going by this argument, there is no reason why we should limit the identity between the feeling/thought and the hardware only till species having a neuro-physiological composition. This is precisely what token identity theory is. It says that the software is identical to hardware, i.e. in our case our mind is identical with our brain. Now here the dualists strike back with some valid arguments which are not being discussed here.

Finally, the functionalists say that we should rise above the petty issue of physical and non physical and discuss the problem in terms of the functionality of the object, without any reference to its ontology. However, please note that the theory of functionalism is answering an entirely different question from what the earlier two (four) theories were trying to answer. Functionalism says that the object be analyzed in terms of the role it plays. On a first account, the theory seems just too obvious to be even considered. However, functionalists say that even though the token identity theorists were able to explain the apparent paradox of the incapability of another being to be able to feel, but they do so only at the cost of remaining silent on a very important question. What is it that is common in the nervous system of a human, and say the mercury flowing in the veins of a Martian which allows both of them to share the very same feeling? How is it that two material objects appearing entirely different at the material level are able to realize the same feeling? The functionalists proceed to claim this thing to be the functional role. It is at the functional level, a level higher than the material level of objects, where the explanation to this problem of mind and body lies. But barely. The functionalists while drawing an analogy from objects like knife and computers forgot that there exists an agent – namely we the humans – who assign the role and meaning to that role in each of the examples the functionalists quote. There is no similarity what-so-ever between the five beads on a wire of an abacus and five volts at the terminal of the transistor unless there is a human to assign meanings to these quantities. A car is in no way similar to a bullock cart unless there is human to realize that both can be used for the same purpose of transport and hence they have the same functional role. We need an agent to prescribe roles and their meaning without ‘whom’ the whole theory of functionalism is absolutely absurd. So the question is that who is the agent, or rather what is the agent in our case? This is not an irrelevant question. For when talking in terms of higher concepts like functional roles, one cannot neglect the method used to assign meaning to that functional role. I understand that when only first two segments of the LCD in my calculator glow it is supposed to mean something which I understand as one. If I raise a finger, I understand that it denotes one, and so does the person to whom I am signaling this. We have a common understating or for the want of a better term, a protocol of what stands for what! Now if there is a C-fiber firing in the extreme right portion of my brain, and there is a fractal structure being formed by the mercury atoms inside the Martian, who is to tell us both that we are supposed to identify this as pain? If it is we ourselves, then hardware serves as no more than a signaling device to a conscious ‘me’. This is going back to dualism. At this point the functionalists could argue that we may still consider the functional role of objects irrespective of the agent assigning meaning to these roles. However, the question remains lurking and considering functional roles in absence of any explanation for the method being used for the assignment of roles is as absurd as dualism and identity theory seems to the functionalists. Hence, functionalists may talk in terms of functional role, but they do so only by remaining silent on a very important question. ‘What’ is the agent?

Narmada Bachao

If you ever happen to stumble across a site for ‘Narmada bachao’, this how their first prose would perhaps read like:
“The Narmada is India's largest westward-flowing river and is of immense religious and cultural importance to the people living on its banks.”

Then they would go ahead to name the proposed project(s) as ‘just another development tragedy’.

The largest river development project in the world, the Narmada Valley Project envisages the construction of thirty large and hundreds of small dams along its length. The Narmada bachao andolan is more or less an organized form of protest against the implementation of these projects. Here I have tried to bring before you the related facts and analyze them to find out whether we are actually loosing anything by “saving” Narmada!

About
The Andolan
Ms. Medha Patkar, an environmentalist, spearheads the Narmada Bachao Andolan (Save the Narmada Movement, NBA), one of the largest non-violent people's movements in the world. The NBA is the voice of hundreds of thousands of indigenous people and peasants who are supposedly losing their land and livelihood due to large dams on the Narmada River. This struggle led by Adivasi and farming villages is one of the most influential in the world, and has reached as far as Washington DC and made policy changes in World Bank and multi-lateral funding agencies.

Synopsis
To analyze a few of the criteria these environmentalists give in support of their stand. The NBA has identified certain ‘flaws’ in the rationale for the Sardar Sarovar dam, which promises to displace hundreds of thousands of people and submerge hundreds of kilometers of the richly forested valley, for very dubious and questionable "benefits" to be realized by the people of Gujarat. Two of the largest proposed dams, Sardar Sarovar and Narmada Sagar, are already under construction, the former supported by a US$ 450 million loan from the World Bank. Between them the dams will displace 300,000 people, largely poor peasants and tribal, and cause immense ecological damage through the inundation of forests, including prime habitats of rare species.

How far should it be allowed to go?
The cons
The internationalization of the Narmada Bachao Andolan, or Save Narmada Movement, has had a great impact on India's state sovereignty. International environmental NGOs, such as Oxfam, the Environmental Defense Fund and the International Rivers Network, took advantage of the porous nature of the state's territorial and national borders. International actors intervened in the domestic affairs of the Indian state and built up the fire of the Save the Narmada Movement. The NGOs took part in enormous amounts of information exchange, proving that the state is unable to maintain “absolute control over territorial borders.”(Brown 1995: 15) Also, these interactions caused new, transnational identities to be formed, eroding the state identity. Thus state sovereignty was compromised as a result of the internationalization of the Narmada Bachao Andolan.

Intimately connected to the transfer of information between the local and international movements is the development of new identities. The nature of the debate produced strong local identities, which grew in opposition to the state. The mantra of the Narmada Bachao Andolan became “Hamara gaon mein hamara raj” (Our villages, our rule). Such strong local identities fused with the environmental NGOs, producing a strong antidevelopment movement. The internationalization of the issue also led to a delay in the procurement of the loan needed, and earned India a lot of criticism in the World Bank. The movement’s name ‘narmada bachao’ may also be identified as a publicity stunt to win the sympathy and votes of people. This movement is indeed proving to be a bottle neck to the country’s technological developments and a big obstruction in a major technological breakthrough in the country. Building of the dams would not only resolve our existing power deficit problem, but would also earn India a good name. Successful completion of this (these) project(s) shall boost investments in various other public sectors as well. Needless to say that there are schemes for resettlement of the displaced residential. According to a decision given by the Supreme Court decision of August 1990, 'ousters' (the people to be displaced by the reservoir) should be properly resettled at least six months before submergence of their homes or lands. Another point of concern being that the project would be failure like the earlier similar projects is equally groundless. For, there has been a significant improvement in the techniques since last India when built a dam, and units installed now are of much better efficiency.

There is a lot to be gained from the completion of these projects. Building a network of secondary canals from Sardar Sarovar dam totaling 75,000 km (46,600 miles) in length has been planned to deliver the irrigation water to farmers of Rajasthan. The project proponents claim that SSP will solve the severe drought problems of Kutch and Saurashtra, the two driest parts of Gujarat. The power benefits are huge too. SSP is to generate a 1200 MW from the powerhouse at the dam and a 250 MW from a powerhouse at the head of the canal. Though the immediate profits from the project would fall a little below the estimated values according to an evaluation by the World Bank, but it surely is a profitable project for a long term investment.

Just contrast the situation in India with that in China. The three gorges project after completion will be the largest of its type in the whole world. And the number of people it is displacing is 1.5 million. The only purpose remaining to justify the Narmada bachao andolan is the religious importance of the river, and now it lays on our discretion as to what we consider more important – meting the ever increasing power demand or preserving a culture which promises no more than a ‘ghat’ to say your daily prayers at. To end with, I would just like to add that to achieve something big and great, some short term losses have to be overlooked. The Narmada valley project is in the interest of the whole nation.

shoot!

My blogging career starts here. Stay tuned for interesting stuff.