Tuesday, June 30, 2009

Abstract thoughts !

Once I was reading a religious article and there came a point when the writer describes Man as Ashraful makhlukhaat (the superior of the creation..literal translation!) and gave an argument that A FREE WILL and the ABILITY to REASON (Knowledge) are the most important virtues in human that makes him human. Everytime you try to argue, understand or reason out a situation is limited by the knowledge you have. I am seriously baffled by the genecist who argue that the prime purpose of human existence is the passing of genes like any other creation on this earth (even that is arguable). There was a point when humans learnt to make fire, homes, spades along with making babies. Had our mission be passage of genes we would have also been in the wilds doing same thing as animals on the face of earth. We need not create bridges, laptops, machinery,etc.

I have a special knack of deviating form the subject; coming back to topic: Isnt it amazing and astonishing at the same time that a group of same human can rule scores of other humans, cripple their minds or enlighten them, make them give or take lives? Any time wonder what makes them do that? Well keeping apart the leadership qualities, charming personalities, least I think it is the knowledge and rationalisability of the person, or the knowledge of the power of the person by the followers that make them do that. It is the knowledge that creates a clear rift between the wanted and the trashed. It is natural to reason. Human cannot take the anticipation of not knowing. We would try to build up any damn postulation or theory or hypothesis as long as it satiates our need for reasoning an argument. For instance, at the Galelio era ( i hope i aint wrong on this fact..if yes do correct!) there was a geocentric theroy of universe and it was followed as such for several years till heliocentric theory came to light. But during that era people did belief him because he came up with the best of answers at that time.

There might come a time in the future when everything we take for fact, whether gravity or genes may be challenged and replace with a newer fact but for now, we just take the answers we are getting because they have the best of reasons based on the amount of knowledge we have as yet. Well, lemme wind this up with one of my favourite quotes from Donald Rumsfield

" There are things we know we know, there are things we know we DONT know; but there are things we DONT KNOW we DONT KNOW" and the human nature is moving towards the quest of that unknown unknown.

4 comments:

  1. I would recommend Richard Dawkins' "The Selfish Gene". It would put to rest all your doubts about why we think and reason if our purpose is the carrying forward of genetic material. By thinking and reasoning, we increase our chances of survival, longevity, and thus effective procreation. This increases the chances that our genes are effectively passed on. Dawkins puts it much better than I do, of course.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Galileo did suggest the heliocentric theory. Also did Copernicus, who postulated a solar system with 5 planets (limited knowledge).

    As for your assertion that humans cannot take 'not knowing', I agree. We feel the need to explain the phenomena we perceive using the theories we have. When our theories prove insufficient (or they disagree with the phenomena), we double-check our understanding of the phenomena and then revisit the theory. Theories and hypotheses are natural scientific approaches to explaining certain issues. Why is there a stigma associated with wanting to know and explain the reason for everything we perceive? Isn't that the road to progress?

    Carl Sagan said, "How is it that hardly any major religion has looked at science and concluded, 'This is better than we thought! The Universe is much bigger than our prophets said, grander, more subtle, more elegant?' Instead they say, 'No, no, no! My god is a little god, and I want him to stay that way'"

    ReplyDelete
  3. There is no stigma to any hypothesis or progress...but whn u can take gravitational force, E=mc2 postulation and theories and of course a 0.05 % of alpha error whn doing such hypothesis....why is tht perception of the divine hypothesis cannot exist As far as your quote is concerned..its similar on the so called atheist end as as well. Limiting the existance of divinity becoz it doesnt fit ur still postulated theories ..evn u r little in ur ways.

    N thnx for suggesting book n i wud try to give it a read!

    ReplyDelete
  4. The 0.5% alpha error applies to both sides. Which is why every atheist true to science is skeptical about being completely atheistic. We also leave a 0.5% error to account for the idea that there probably is a god. Certitude is a facet of the extremely religious. A true atheist can at the most be almost certain, but no more.

    ReplyDelete