Decline in religious committment ..Good or Bad?

[Dr. Vijayan AP]

  Dear Friends ,

 

 

Many of our assumptions or common sense  are not evidence based.... We believe that we cannot be wrong......

 

Here I would like to examine one of our/my own  belief  for your opinion..

 

 

 

                            

Free thinkers seem to believe or hope that a decline in religious belief and a strengthening of scientific attitude and knowledge will save us from Astrology ,UFOs,God man , Medium,Telepathy,haunted houses,Palmistry etc.

 

In fact ,were there to be a decline in religion and religious commitment this would likely strengthen ,not undermine ,paranormal beliefs.

 

In addition  there is little evidence that astrology use is being affected by such factors as knowledge about science,exposure to general education or science courses or the prestige accorded to science.

This will explain many of the paradoxes or new phenomena we experience in Modern Kerala society.

 

Thank you.

 

drvijayan.ap

[Anand Nair]

Vijayan & others,

My perspective is slightly different.

I do not think that I have a "missionary" role to convert other people to rationalism, away from superstitions.

I base my own "beliefs" on available evidence, reason, and verification through the method of science. I am convinced that this approach is the most effective one to understand natural and social phenomena -- and this approach is also sufficient to lead a happy and successful life. I am also convinced that this approach has resulted in huge personal benefits to me in many ways over the years...

I enjoy sharing my views and explaining the rationale behind these to other intelligent and interested people. I am not particularly concerned whether or not they would end up agreeing  with me (after listening to my cogent and evidence based arguments). Hard luck to them, if they don't. And of course, I respect the political RIGHTS of people to hold on to belief systems that I regard to be stupid.

Personally, I am ALREADY saved "from Astrology, UFOs, God men, Medium,Telepathy, haunted houses, Palmistry etc."! Frankly, I do not think highly of the intelligence and wisdom of people who sincerely belief in such stuff -- but I happen to respect the rights of people to hold on to their stupid beliefs unless they seek to impinge my rights in the process. In the latter case, there is a political (rather than intellectual) battle ahead!

It is true that lots of otherwise intelligent people hold on to beliefs that I consider to be stupid. I have some theories on why this is so.

I would not agree with the popular perception that beliefs in the paranormal have increased in Kerala society during the past 100 years. According to me, the long term trend has been the reverse across the past few centuries -- particularly in Kerala, and generally in the world as a whole. The mis-perception (according to me) is due to the increased stridency and shrillness on public display by the "believers" in the past couple of decades.

Anand

[viswanathan chathoth]

>In fact ,were there to be a decline in religion and religious commitment this would likely strengthen ,not undermine ,paranormal beliefs.

I don't know whether Vijayan is serious or just joking .If he is doing this seriously, the word "fact" would need lots and lots of footnotes, and he is the only one who can  provide them, I think. I for one, is quite at loss to find even a single argument that would substantiate this outlandish argument.

However, I have a strong suspicion that this is just a ploy to make a few unsuspecting necks stick out ;-) as when he made this somber declaration  a few days ago:
"..after many years of constant training ,I learnt the bitter truth that in my life  I will never be able to enjoy music" .And , this when in fact this devil's advocate  really loves music!

And, why my suspicions? Just look at the objectives of Science trust, Calicut of which Vijayan is a founder member-and ( ? )current president
http://www.science.org.in/objectives.htm
If the convictions that Dr.Vijayan records in his present mail are for real, imagine the degree of cognitive dissonance he should feel!
As  for me, I  do believe that "a decline in religious belief and a strengthening of scientific attitude and knowledge will save us from Astrology ,UFOs,God man , Medium,Telepathy,haunted houses,Palmistry etc"
 I also believe that "astrology use is being affected by such factors as knowledge about science"
Viswanathan

[Dr. Vijayan AP]

YOu are absolutly correct Viswan...

 

 I  have a wonderful mind...

 

Thank you...

[Dr. Vijayan AP]

Dear Viswan,

 

As a person whom you all know,I  believe  religion is responsible for a lot of silly stuff,and if people would just come to understand and appreciate science ,much of this silliness would disappear...

 

 Recently I came across a good article based on a survey report and it's analysis..

 

 

 

The survey is 2006 General Social Survey( GSS) a national probability sample taken every 2 years by the National opinion research Centre Probably the most widely used survey in the social sciences.

 

They administered questions like..

 

Human beings ,as we know them today ,developed from earlier species of animals .

Is that true or false ?

 

Do you ever read a horoscope or your personal astrology report?

 

Please tell me whether or not you think it should be possible for a pregnant woman to obtain a legal abortion it the woman wants it for any reason...

 

......................................................

.......................................................

.......................................................

........................................................

.......................................................

 

 

 

 

 

.............................................................

 

 

Then the respondents were divided into four groups.

 

People who believe in evolution and go to church frequently

People who believe in evolution and go to church les frequently

People who do not believe in evolution and go to church frequently

People who do not believe in evolution and go to church less frequently.

 

Three of these groups are exactly the same in their reported use of astrology .

In one group only a small percent has consulted their horoscopes.

 

Which group is it?

 

 

The survey results are really surprising..... for raw data please  visit the www.sda.betkeley.edu.

 

and the famous Author /social scientist who analysed the data can be reached   AlanOr...@yahoo.com

 

 

Thank youi,

 

drviajayan.ap

[Sashikumar kurup]

We do need a Devil's Advocate here if we are not to degenerate into a
Mutual Admiration Society ! I don't agree with Anand that holding the
thoughts that we do will and can lead to a successful life. The word
'successful' is in itself a most elastic, subjective conclusion. A
believer could very well claim to have had a successful life if his
life circumstances allow him to attain that state. So being
'successful' does not hinge on a person being a believer or otherwise.
So the word successful is not an entirely appropriate word to describe
a life, whether of a believer or a non-believer. The word is
subjective and so not subject to the rigour of pure reason and may not
be an adequate description of a life. Anand, with more accuracy, could
have simply stated that HE enjoys his life guided by reason and
Science. That would not lead to any contrarian arguments regarding the
implications of non-belief on success !.......sashi

[E. M. Muralidharan]

Dear Anand,

You said "....................but I happen to respect the rights of people to hold on to their stupid beliefs unless they seek to impinge my rights in the process. "

Just how do you determine the ways in which your rights are impinged?  I am of the opinion that many of my rights are seriously influenced by the actions of  people around me who have irrational beliefs.  Some examples: The noise pollution I have to endure from places of worship, the danger posed to me by elephants taken along the roads from festival to festival, the  overcrowded trains and buses and the increased traffic during the Sabarimala season( in Kerala), the pollution of water bodies during Ganesh Festival  in Maharastra, the damage to   pristine forests so valuabale to keep my world healthy  ( again in the Sabarimala area), my hard earned money that finds its way to the temple hundi through my believing members in my family because I show some indulgence  towards their  feelings, the danger posed to my wife health at the  hospital where she  underwent a surgery and where the next day on Navarathri, the ayudha puja was carried out (inside! ) the operation theater  and so on.

We have just learned to tolerate many of such things whereas we would be much better off in a world free of such irrational stuff.

I am not quite sure if I want  people to have the freedom to exercise "these" kind of rights. I would rather assume a missionary's role, however small and ineffective it is converting people back to rationality.

Murali

[Anand Nair]

Sashi,

It is NOT my stand that "holding the thoughts that we do will and can lead to a successful life". Nor do I correlate (positively or negatively) "success" or "happiness" with belief of this or that kind!

I fully agree that states of mind (such as success, happiness etc) are subjective. Which is why I had stated, "this approach is also sufficient to lead a happy and successful life".

I do not think that my statement suggests that "this approach" is NECESSARY to lead a happy/ successful life. This statement does not even mean that "this approach" will necessarily lead to success or happiness...

But definitely, "this approach" does not block out happiness or success -- and thus is a SUFFICIENT condition to achieve these.

Anand

[Anand Nair]

Murali,

You asked, "Just how do you determine the ways in which your rights are impinged?"

When I feel (subjectively) that my rights are impinged (by other individuals or by the State), I will need to seek remedies without impinging the rights of others. In situations where my rights are Constitutionally protected, I can seek legal remedies, and hope for the best.

Where my rights are not Constitutionally protected, I have the weak (cowardly) option to swallow this; or the brave option to join in a political struggle to institutionalize Constitutional protection of basic rights of individuals, minorities or otherwise weaker groups.

These are the "political battles" that I talked about in my earlier mail -- battles that are intended to secure individual rights (and definitely not to impose "righteousness" according to my intellectual conception).

Such political battles may well involve me allying with those with religious beliefs, but who (despite their religious beliefs) stand for political democracy and rights of individuals. Such political battles will also involve my fighting for the freedom of belief of those with views that I disagree with...

I am all for a political struggle against noise pollution (including as a result of religious practices), and against dangerous or environmentally harmful religious rituals.

History shows that many politically enlightened people with deep religious beliefs too would happily support and join the atheists in such struggles to oppose odious religious traditions that impinge the rights of many others, but are still practiced by some people. (Gandhi, a religious person, was in the forefront opposing religious practices such as Sati, Untouchability and so on, along with atheists like Periyar and so many others)

Anand

[Anand Nair]

As for religious spouses putting one's hard earned money into temple hundis, my view is that we need to take a balanced view of this. Even if the religious spouse has no independent source of money, he or she deserves a small "pocket money" to be granted by the earning member. It may even be proper to regard such pocket money as reasonable compensation for numerous services rendered at home by the non-earning spouse.

Once we recognize the above principle, the next question is whether one should have "control" on how the spouse spends this pocket money. I would think it is churlish to object to part of this money being spent on pursuits that the earning member regards to be stupid!

(Even the kids in a family deserve some pocket money, and at least some amount of freedom on how to spent this!)

Of course, the earning spouse has the right to express contrary opinions, and even to ridicule stupidity in the name of religion. That is part of the fun in being married!

In extreme cases, where such differences are irreconcilable, legal annulment of marriage would seem a more civilised option -- rather than a curtailment of individual rights (and freedom of belief or disbelief) of this or that spouse.

Political tolerance is definitely a desirable attribute to possess -- even for atheists and rationalists!

Anand

[viswanathan chathoth]

Dear Vijayan,

>  Recently I came across a good article based on a survey report and it's analysis

Aha! NOW it makes sense to me!! Please forward the article to my personal mail--the link you provided does not work.
Quite interesting conclusions..
I saw the abstract of a 2002 paper (based on 1995 data) by Orenstein himself which says  "Greater religious belief is strongly associated with greater paranormal belief." and also "greater church attendance is strongly associated with lowered paranormal belief".(This must be a different paper, as you said the paper was based on 2006 data.)
http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/bpl/jssr/2002/00000041/00000002/art00008
. See a critique of that paper at 
http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/journal/118869117/abstract?CRETRY=1&SRETRY=0

Unfortunately, I have no means to access full text of these interesting articles. Anybody with access?
 Thanks, Vijayan!
Viswanathan

[Anand Nair]

Vishwanathan, Vijayan,

"greater church attendance is strongly associated with lowered paranormal belief"

Does this mean that many people visit churches for reasons other than the belief that this is the abode (or rendezvous point) of a paranormal God? This is quite possible.

I remember a friend confiding that as a teenager he used to wake up in the morning and go to the nearby temple -- not for a communion with God, but to steal glances at a girl whom he had an infatuation for.

Army Officers routinely attend the "temple parade", not necessarily out of religious belief, but as this is regarded as part of "good man management".

Anand

[E. M. Muralidharan]

Anand,
I agree with you on all the points. The point I was trying to make was that there are  always several  trivial ways in which irrational beliefs of others around us impinges on our rights and preferences. Quite a few of them are their "rights " and we have to endure them unless we want to make life miserable by pursuing remedies. Yet, in a more rational society there would be more willingness in the air to make corrections as soon as the problems are revealed and  discussed.

Yes, noise pollution due to religious practices is only a very small part of the larger problem that affects public health and one which  needs to be tackled by  all.

Murali

[E. M. Muralidharan]

Anand,
I  think I actually take a balanced view  on this issue. I don't lose an opportunity though, to explain to the people concerned, including friends, that the money deposited in the hundi might in all probability be appropriated by a few  unscrupulous individuals and precious little reaches the god ( or at least his current abode - the temple)  for whom it was intended.

Exactly as you put, I don't really hold a grudge against my wife or other relatives spending some pocket money. With my wife there is even the understanding - that  there has to be a balance  in what we give away very reluctantly to the " fund raising " of the local wing of political parties or the occasional persistent beggar that turn up at our door.

BTW, if all that money from our donation was spent for  the upkeep of  the facilities that the devotee uses, I would gladly spend my money since  the  premises of  many temples (in Kerala at least ) are some of the most pleasant places I have been to. They need conservation- retaining the wood and plaster/stone construction instead of being replaced by concrete, polished granite, ceramic tiles, steel or enamel paint surfaces.

Murali

[viswanathan chathoth]

On regular church attendence...
I dug up a book I had read sometime back. "Blind faith-the unholy alliance of religion and medicine" by Richard. P.Sloan. It has a cautionary tale on interpreting data similar to those  Vijayan mentioned.

The study was done by Dr.George Comstock from the Department of Epidemiology at Johns Hopkins University.100000 residents of Maryland were surveyed and interviewed in 1963. In 1970, Comstock analyzed this data to find out whether there is any relationship between attendance at religious service and heart disease mortality.He concluded that there was a direct relationship between attendance and survival.The more frequent the attendance reported in 1963, the more likely it was that the respondents were still alive at the time of follow up.
Comstock actually  found that the death rate among the infrequent attenders was about twice that of those who attended more frequently.
Since I have read Sloan's book, I know why a conclusion (that is sometimes actually made) that attending religious services could extend one's life is wrong. Any guess?
Viswanathan

[Anand Nair]

Murali,

Of course, I understand that we are in agreement. I elaborate on some the points raised only to clarify my own mind....

I would love it if our society becomes more rational, less iniquitous, more just and so on. I also believe that the broad historical trend in the past few centuries (despite occasional local reversal) all around the world has been towards these.

In this connection, there is an interesting TED lecture that explains how the present times are the least violent compared to any other era in recorded history. Here is the link:-

http://www.ted.com/talks/steven_pinker_on_the_myth_of_violence.html

In the above, Steven Pinker charts the decline of violence from Biblical times to the present, and argues that, though it may seem illogical and even obscene, given Iraq and Darfur, we are living in the most peaceful time in our species' existence.

Yes, there are grounds for optimism...

Anand

[Sashikumar kurup]

Vish,
I haven't read tbe book, but willl hazard a guess offhand as you
desired. The infrequent visitors were probably ill at the start of the
study and so were infrequent by default. It is possible that healthier
relatives attended more times on their behalf instead. More data like
age groups etc are necessary. At this time I am reminded of a
scintillating reseanch conducted at one of the well-known Ayurveda
colleges in Kerala, related by Dr. Manoj Komath. Pulthailam was
applied to inpatients in a hospital ward in the night, and the
all-important survey was done next morning by students askiug a single
question , "how were the mosquito bites yesterday night ?" From the
answers, it was declared that pulthailam is effcctive in
preventing/reducing mosquito bites. the state of sedation of the
patient, the magnitude of his illness, nearness to windows and doors
and bathrooms, the presence or absence of sufficient clothing on the
patient, the response of patients in other wardsl floors of the
hospital etc are not important. This is cutting-edge research for you
in a public fuuded institution in the 21st century in Kerala
!.......sashi

On 19/08/2009, Anand Nair <asn...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Murali,
> Of course, I understand that we are in agreement. I elaborate on some the

> points raised *only to clarify my own mind....*

>
> I would love it if our society becomes more rational, less iniquitous, more
> just and so on. I also believe that the broad historical trend in the past
> few centuries (despite occasional local reversal) all around the world has
> been towards these.
>
> In this connection, there is an interesting TED lecture that explains how
> the present times are the least violent compared to any other era in
> recorded history. Here is the link:-
>
> http://www.ted.com/talks/steven_pinker_on_the_myth_of_violence.html
>
> In the above, Steven Pinker charts the decline of violence from Biblical
> times to the present, and argues that, though it may seem illogical and even
> obscene, given Iraq and Darfur, we are living in the most peaceful time in
> our species' existence.
>

> *Yes, there are grounds for optimism...*
>
> Anand
>
> >
>

[Anand Nair]

Murali,

Yes, you are right. We atheists would do well to highlight certain facts to those who may be blinded by their devotion. 

The circumstance that part of the funds that devotees contribute  to temples get appropriated by a few  unscrupulous individuals (rather than go for upkeep of the temple) ought to be as disturbing to the believers, as this is to atheists. But they may miss this point due to the "blindness" of faith. 

Often, when I talk to a "believer", my main aim is to EXPOSE the person to alternate views. This exposure, by itself, only very rarely would cause that person to give up his cherished faith. But hopefully, this will have sowed some doubts in the deep recesses of his or her mind. Younger people do tend to change their minds more readily...

Anand

[viswanathan chathoth]

Dear Sashi,

Thanks for the response.

>The infrequent visitors were probably ill at the start of the
study and so were infrequent by default.

PRECISELY. Sloan's conclusion: "..Thus, the relationship Comstock found between the attendance at religious services and mortality really was attributable,not to an effect of attendance on health,but rather to the fact that people who were too sick to attend services were also the ones who were most likely to die.Rather than religious attendance influencing health,it was health influencing attendance."

>Dr. Manoj Komath
I have read with great interest the series of bold and incisive  articles on Homeopathy by Dr.Manoj Komath, published in Sastragathi.His were the words I had in my mind for a long time, but never put in print :-)

Viswanathan

[Dr. Vijayan AP]

Dear Viswan,

 

Alan Orenstein ..some other interesting observations.

 

{The article interested me (even though it not about the reasons of  unreasonable belief in astrology...)as  it gives insight to the unhappy fact .... many 'scientific people'  around Amma,Baba,Sree Sree ,Shabarimala etc..}

 

 

Those who are religiously committed may believe a hundred unlikely things before breakfast,but their commitment inoculates them against a thousands other impossible things..It is because only about a quarter of the Americans is religiously committed that so many people are free to explore and believe in things for which there is little or no evidence..The situation may be worse in countries like India.

 

 

Can science replace religious commitment ,as skeptics hope?.If this were so,we should find that a belief in science suppresses the exploration of alternative belief systems,just as religious commitment does.However ,there is precious little evidence to suggest that this is true.

To start with education ,which supposedly exposes people to science ,the correlation between years of schooling and horoscope use is approximately zero..................................................................................................

 

.......................................to keep someone away from the paranormal send them to church than schools..!

 

One of the most interesting results comes from the item.

 

Would you say that astrology is very scientific,sort of scientific ,or not at all scientific ?

Only 5 % said of very scientific 27% sort of scientific and most people said not at all scientific..68%

 

Majority of those who say that astrology is not at all scientific also consult their horoscope....

Whether something is considered scientific or not does not seem to be as meaningful to the general public as it is to the skeptics..

 

 

Dear Viswan..

 

The beauty of the world is the unpredictability of the moment just in front of us...It will remain so fo rever....next mements unfold the  secrets ..surprising poor man..!.. He does not want to live like that ...as a mere slave of the nature.....at it's mercy!

 

It makes most of the  human beings uncomfortable......

 

As long as the future remain invisible to human beings ,the world is beautiful..Is it aa challenge to human intelligence..? Science is a tool that helped him to predict something ..but not everything...

 

 

Thanking you

 

drvijayan.ap

[viswanathan chathoth]

>Those who are religiously committed may believe a hundred unlikely things before breakfast,but their commitment inoculates them against a thousands other impossible things..

Dear Vijayan,
True. The faithful do remain faithful to their faith.As Dawkins would say, compared to  Christians (or Muslims or Jews..) who are atheists as far as thousands of other gods are concerned, an 'atheist' is a person who happens to believe   in just  one god less. But I think,  a rationalist/bright should go beyond this point and should be able to see that the real problem is the propensity to BELIEVE. I would quote a two year old letter posted in this forum by one of our younger members, Archana:( I wonder whether she still reads posts here....)

"I was 10 years old when it hit me
that religion and the CONCEPT of God is a farce... but it wasn't at
least till i was 13 years old that I told anyone.. Even then, when i
tried explaining to people that it ISN'T that i have faith there is no
god, but rather it's faith itself that i have a problem with" (emphasis mine)

When people are unable or unwilling to overcome this 'will to believe', all they do (when they do) is to just change their faith- from Ayyappan to Allah or from Jesus Christ  to Joseph Stalin. And all kinds of blind faith are pernicious, I feel.A father who would sacrifice his son before Jehovah or Kali; a leader who would not hesitate to decimate whole populations because they do not fit in with his grandiose visions of future ....most avoidable  horrors humanity has endured so far may be traced to this  tendency towards blind faith.
(BTW, did you see the video where Obama satirizes the biblical story of Abraham sacrificing Isaac? I should admit that my opinion about the American public improved after seeing this. He can say such things in public, and still get elected as the president!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B2Kh-xzerjE  This is part of a long speech, and he talks sense, throughout.)

>If this were so,we should find that a belief in science suppresses the exploration of alternative belief systems,just as religious commitment does.However ,there is precious little evidence to suggest that this is true.

I think what Anand said earlier in this thread is true. "According to me, the long term trend has been the reverse across the past few centuries -- particularly in Kerala, and generally in the world as a whole." Johannas Kepler (1571 to 1630) worked as astrologer for his king, Isaac Newton (1643-1727) was 'highly religious', and believed that 'God governs all things and knows all that is or can be done'.In our country,things may still be somewhere near, but in western countries at least, a lot has changed over time.
Below is a note on a study on the religious belief of scientists (Not Indian, of course!) which shows the positive long term trend:
from :http://www.lhup.edu/~dsimanek/sci_relig.htm

[Summary of a paper that appeared in the 23 July 1998 issue of Nature by Edward J. Larson and Larry Witham: "Leading Scientists Still Reject God." Nature, 1998; 394, 313.]

Larson and Witham present the results of a replication of 1913 and 1933 surveys by James H. Leuba. In those surveys, Leuba mailed a questionnaire to leading scientists asking about their belief in "a God in intellectual and affective communication with humankind" and in "personal immortality". Larson and Witham used the same wording [as in the Leuba studies], and sent their questionnaire to 517 members of the [U.S.] National Academy of Sciences from the biological and physical sciences (the latter including mathematicians, physicists and astronomers). The return rate was slightly over 50%.

The results were as follows (figures in %):

     BELIEF IN PERSONAL GOD          1914   1933    1998

     Personal belief                 27.7    15       7.0
     Personal disbelief              52.7    68      72.2
     Doubt or agnosticism            20.9    17      20.8


     BELIEF IN IMMORTALITY           1914    1933    1998

     Personal belief                 35.2    18       7.9
     Personal disbelief              25.4    53      76.7
     Doubt or agnosticism            43.7    29      23.3

Note: The 1998 immortality figures add up to more than 100%. The misprint is in the original. The 76.7% is likely too high.

The authors elaborated on these figures:

Disbelief in God and immortality among NAS biological scientists was 65.2% and 69.0%, respectively, and among NAS physical scientists it was 79.0% and 76.3%. Most of the rest were agnostics on both issues, with few believers. We found the highest percentage of belief among NAS mathematicians (14.3% in God, 15.0% in immortality). Biological scientists had the lowest rate of belief (5.5% in God, 7.1% in immortality), with physicists and astronomers slightly higher (7.5% in God, 7.5% in immortality).

>Whether something is considered scientific or not does not seem to be as meaningful to the general public as it is to the skeptics..

May not be as meaningful, true. But there definitely is an ongoing trend to package old superstitions and tribal practices in wrappers marked 'scientific', by the peddlers of such stuff.Does not that indicate the  acceptability of science among general public?

>Alan Orenstein..
If you have a soft copy, please send..

Thanking you,
Viswanathan

[Anand Nair]

Vijayan,

You stated, "In fact, were there to be a decline in religion and religious commitment this would likely strengthen, not undermine, paranormal beliefs."

On what grounds do you conclude thus? Isn't religion itself all about paranormal beliefs? Such as the belief in God (as a paranormal entity, possessing intelligence), in Soul (as a paranormal entity that can survive the death of a living being), in Rebirth (as transmigration of the paranormal soul of a dead person on to a new born)...

 

You went on, "In addition  there is little evidence that astrology use is being affected by such factors as knowledge about science, exposure to general education or science courses or the prestige accorded to science."

I agree that huge numbers of people continue to consult astrologers - despite their background education in science. I also agree that many people do reject astrology even without formal science education. That shows that science education is neither necessary nor sufficient for a person to have developed scientific temper. But I have no doubt that awareness of the methods of science (as opposed to being aware of the "laws" of science as learnt by rote in schools and colleges) helps to develop a rational attitude.

The point is that those who believe in astrology and such stuff, do so contrary to the unambiguous stand of science on this. They are being unscientific in their stand -- who cares whether or not these people have technically availed of formal science education? What is obvious is that they have not internalised the scientific temper. Nor understood the methods of science.

We may argue that in schools and colleges, what is currently taught as "Science" consists of cut-and-dried "scientific" factoids, as if these are immutable laws of nature that no one can question. Science thus gets packaged as yet another religion that needs to accepted on faith.

What needs to be taught in educational institutions is the method of science -- the skeptical attitude, acceptance of theories ONLY based upon available evidence, the tentative nature of scientific knowledge, the principles of consistency, falsifiability and parsimony...

Anand

[Aravind Natarajan]

Nicely put, Anand!

>> What needs to be taught in educational institutions is the method of science -- the skeptical attitude, acceptance of theories ONLY based upon available evidence, the tentative nature of scientific knowledge, the principles of consistency, falsifiability and parsimony...

Came across this lecture by Feynman where he talks about integrity in the scientific community, how scientific experiments should be thorough, the errors creeping into the system etc. May not directly relate to the topic being discussed but i found it to be a nice read for a Science enthusiast.

http://www.lhup.edu/~DSIMANEK/cargocul.htm



---- On Mon, 24 Aug 2009 04:53:09 -0700 Anand Nair <asn...@gmail.com> wrote ----

[Dr. Vijayan AP]

Quite interesting perceptions Viswan,

 

 

 

 

                        What is the nature / percentage of the quality " being faithful" in any given human society ?.! Is it a constant or a value amenable to positive human interventions? Personally I feel ,it is a constant...A small constant percentage of society who is always faithful ( they may switch from one faith to other or share the same) while the rest of it's members explore various other or all extreme options..

 

or better it can be viewed as a spectrum of Faith.....Faithful atheists and religiously committed occupying one end and extremely uncommitted  occupying the other end...

 

A healthy combination of all shades of faith may be necessary for the progress of human society ( "the faithful " make sure the stability of society, while  uncommitted people the progress ) !

 

( I fully agree with Anand nair's ..that  science can not be static ..But here I am not talking about actual 'science' .....but the propensity to believe in science.!  )

 

 

(Alen Orenstein ..no soft copy available..

The Article is available in " Atheist" August issue.)

 

Thank you,

 

drvijayan.ap

[Anand Nair]

Aravind,

That was an interesting lecture by Feyman. Here is a link to a letter that Richard Dawkins wrote to his young daughter:-

http://anandnair.sulekha.com/blog/post/2007/06/good-and-bad-reasons-for-believing.htm

Anand

[Anand Nair]

Vijayan,

You are absolutely right that a "percentage of society" may always remain superstitious. But NOT that this percentage is a "constant", nor that this percentage would necessarily be "small"!

A society where every individual is "rational" may not be stable. To understand this, I will give a well known example (from game theory):-

In a society where everyone is genetically pre-disposed to be honest, a mutant who can adopt the strategy of cheating will benefit greatly. In this situation, cheating would be an objectively effective strategy. This will cause the increased "selection" of the mutant gene (that pre-disposes cheating). But as cheating becomes more and more widespread, cheaters will start to increasingly become victims of others too who would cheat! And honest people would develop skills to detect and deal with cheaters. These cause the effectiveness of cheating (as a strategy) to diminish, and thus the selection pressure in favour of this strategy starts to diminish or even to reverse. 

Moving in the other direction -- the effectiveness of the strategy of being honest will diminish as this gets widespread beyond a threshold point! After this threshold point, the cheaters would start to gain, making suckers of the honest. Without a background with some cheats, the "immune-system" to detect and deal with cheats too will weaken. 

According to Richard Dawkins, the percentage of cheats and honest individuals within a society often tend to balance each other at a "Evolutionary Stable State" (ESS).

Analogously, being "rational" may also be seen as a strategy that people use to get along effectively in life. There may well be an ESS at which the percentages of rational and superstitious people within a society would balance each other in a stable state.

But ESS need not be a constant. This would naturally shift depending on social conditions that affect the "pay-off" for adopting the strategy of being a cheat, of being honest, of being rational or of being superstitious. As social conditions change, the ESS too can be expected to shift...

Anand

[viswanathan chathoth]

Dear Vijayan,
Thanks for the response, and for bringing in more food for thought...

>What is the nature / percentage of the quality " being faithful" in any given human society ?

Anand has already addressed this question .I concur with what he said: "There may well be an ESS at which the percentages of rational and superstitious people within a society would balance each other in a stable state."

>Is it a constant or a value amenable to positive human interventions?

I firmly believe :-) in the latter.I believe that nearly anything is possible in human affairs.If there is enough hard work put in, the ideological state any society is in can be changed to nearly any other.(Of course, other things being stable....) Look at Afghanistan under Taliban or Iran under the Mullahas, for example.  See how the committed work of the fundamentalists could change the  atmosphere in these two societies  in just a few years! The genetic make up of populations would not have altered much  in say 1000 years, and the proportion of hawks and doves would have been more or less stable.In hawkish times, even doves look like,feel (more or less) like  and speak like hawks,I think. In Dovish times, even hawks become more or less Dove-like.

The image that suddenly comes to mind is the character played by karamana janardanan in Adoor Gopalakrishnan's Mukhamukham. This man, who was a minor functionary in charge of fund collection for the party unit during the struggle period, becomes a rich and powerful politician in the post-struggle years, whereas the front-line leader of the struggle  shrivels into a withdrawn, silent,drunkard.What I am trying to show is that even people who are by nature conformists, manage to get into pioneering groups that  are committed to an agenda of social change.Just as in the Hawk-Dove analogy..

So, we must continue to work.In whatever small way we can.Every effort is worthwhile, I believe.The ideological climate in a society is certainly amenable to human intervention.

>or better it can be viewed as a spectrum of Faith.....Faithful atheists and religiously committed occupying one end and extremely uncommitted  occupying the other end...

Quite likely.My analogy is an oversimplification, and a great majority in the population would be genetically speaking, a crossbreed between doves and Hawks :-)

Viswanathan

[Anand Nair]

Vishwanthan, Vijayan,

I too would think that in the matter of attitudes (such as towards honesty, superstitious beliefs etc) genes would only contribute towards predisposition (and not towards predeterminism). Human beings are quite capable to act against such genetic propensities, based on environmental or social pressures, and based on perceived self-interest.

As an example, some people have the genetic predisposition (more than others) to develop tooth cavities -- but they can counter this in-born tendency by adopting the strategy of extra tooth-care, such as brushing the teeth after every meal and before going to bed, yearly dental check-up and so on.

Thus, even if an individual has a genetic tendency to be superstitious, he or she can get rid of this through training and so on.

As social conditions change, the ESS (determining the percentages of people who would choose to adopt rational and superstitious attitudes) too would shift. The moot question is -- what sort of social conditions would motivate people to adopt a rationalist attitude, and to abandon superstitions? 

I suppose celebrity endorsement would be effective. Perhaps the fact that Nehru (a charismatic leader of our freedom struggle) was openly atheistic caused many young people in that period to doubt religious tenets. Bertrand Russel, Abraham Kovoor and others too had similar impact on people at large. Dawkins, Dennet, Harris and other modern day atheists too are having a big impact. Well planned campaigns, such as by Brights, too would definitely contribute towards this cause.

Anand

[Aravind Natarajan]

Thanks for the link, Anand. Have heard of this letter before but found time only now to read it in full. liked the concluding part:

Next time somebody tells you something that sounds important, think to yourself: "Is this the kind of thing that people probably know because of evidence? Or is it the kind of thing that people only believe because of tradition, authority, or revelation?" And, next time somebody tells you that something is true, why not say to them: "What kind of evidence is there for that?" And if they can't give you a good answer, I hope you'll think very carefully before you believe a word they say.

---- On Mon, 24 Aug 2009 08:21:10 -0700 Anand Nair <asn...@gmail.com> wrote ----