Immiscibility Of Science & Spirituality Increasing Extremism

I always had a natural inclination towards science and maths. Perhaps the only domains of civilization today, where one seeks truth without fear of hurting sentiments, blasphemy, challenging earlier icons. Where truth is incremental, often contradictory. Where there is no probe on why I reversed my earlier approach. Where I build upon what has already been achieved. Where there is no glory in repeating the already established.

And yet all this happens in a rational manner. Not like some random epiphany of JNU scholars demanding Azad Kashmir one morning. Or a guru explaining how he can be at two places at same time taking recourse to some weird interpretation of Schroedinger Wave Equation. Whatever is there is thorough and analytical.

Even in academia, I find other fields that emulate this scientific approach through peer review, research process to still be very subjective and opinion based. Hence history is left or right. Sociology assumes certain foundations of human nature. I don’t blame them, because we have been unable to find a scientific basis for these.

But science and maths start with very basic axioms and laws. Those that don’t assume anything. Then they build a rigorous system of notations and definitions. Energy and force can be interchangeable in your political speeches but not in physics. Commutative law is commutative. Not about pardoning some prisoner. And then we preserve it all through peer review, documentation etc. Hence knowledge evolves. The scientific transformation is result of this discipline.

Of course there are gaps in this approach. Yes, epiphanies and serendipity find little place. But, with methods of simulations and smart design of experiments, even that is taken care of to large extent. Science evolves into technology and more fun begins.

I agree mystics who come with a completely out of world proposal like god-men have no place in this scientific world. But that is a blessing. We cannot leave our fate in hope of some god-men’s vision that none can either see or probe.

Science also needs a direction, they say. I disagree. Humans need a direction. Science is a framework, a tool. One who uses it needs to have purpose and goal, not the tool. If we try to put direction in tool, we will convert it into another epiphany of some mystic.
What science needs, especially in this analytics driven world, is full freedom from non-scientific pressures. Because a prime minister feels that solar energy needs to be promoted, you allocate funds from conventional energy research to solar energy and boost Chinese imports with little results. That is stupid and like putting a complex equation in a bracket and multiplying by zero. Instead let those scientists who have expertise decide these matters. Similarly, if my statistical analysis shows clear trends of demographics or faith being dominant variables with significantly low P-values, don’t ask me to kill my model. Don’t punish me for that. Don’t ask maths to lie. Accept what it says the way you accept what maths of image recognition gives you when you tag people on FB.

I have tried applying basics of this scientific approach in emotive fields like religion, culture, society, terror. The scientific framework never lied. Of course someone could come up and offer improvements. Even fights like Einstein vs Bohr, or Hawking vs Penrose, or Bayesian vs Frequentist would have been fun, meaningful fun. But here, rants of conspiracy follow. There are threats and challenges, allegations of being Pakistani spy or Hindu terrorist. One side is always angry. And the science student in me say, “What the hell is this. Back in IIT, they never slapped me if my project model was not accurate. At max, share your findings and publish your own research.”

To me, this hijacking of science by unscientific influences – politics, social activism, journalism, media etc etc is why we face terror, poverty and all nonsense we have. We end up applying science to less controversial and often trivial domains like porn, selfies, fashion, drama, etc, and fuel further unscientific attitudes. And a vicious cycle of unscientific control emerges.

An unbiased science will automatically evolve human as per the core inner drive that is inherently pure. In spiritual terminology, divine.
When I read Vedas, I find this spirit of evolution and am compelled to say, “Wow”. Sometimes I feel, let me throw away all the intermediary trash. And spend my life having fun with just Vedas and Science.

But then news comes – “Supreme Court refuses to probe into who killed a 1000 Kashmiri Pandits because it is an old matter.” And I wonder, “Why are we being punished because terrorists were prohibited from study of science in madrassas. And LLB course does not have a chapter on Bayes Theorem of Conditional Probability.”

Now I will dig out some evidence that will be ignored because Home Minister has to love “Kashmiriyat” – another unscientific jargon that influences what digital signal processing maths should be used to flash his smiling pic with Kashmiris. And my tryst with Vedas and Science and Maths will be interrupted.

Wild Guess Syndrome

No one can prove ‘what happens after death’. No one came back with video recordings of ‘what happens after death’.

And yet, we ruin the whole world by dividing people on basis of ‘our’ and ‘their’ wild guesses on ‘what happens after death’. We give this ‘Wild Guess Syndrome’ the name ‘RELIGION’.

And then we choose to feel superior, fight, abuse, kill, plant bombs, conduct suicide attacks & hate in name of Religion aka ‘Wild Guess Syndrome’.

This ‘Wild Guess Syndrome’ has become the number 1 nuisance of the world. It has indeed made us ‘wild’.

Direction of Life

Either life has a purpose or life does not have a purpose.
If it has a purpose, then every action of life must be evaluated on benchmark of being relevant in serving the purpose or not.
If it does not have a purpose, then there is no benchmark to judge any action to be better or worse than any other action. Whatever you do – kill, loot, rape, drink, steal – is no way wrong. And sacrifice, kindness, respect, discipline are no way right.
If eventually the life has to end in an eternal blankness, how does it matter – what we do and what we do not?
One may say that one is free to do whatever he wants to do so far he does not hurt someone else. This philosophy sounds good on paper. But it is riddled with major flaws:
A. No one can do anything without impacting others. From a breath of clean air to clothes, travel, food and luxuries – each of us is hopelessly dependent on others. The only way to not hurt someone else is to live in a spaceship in interstellar space. Even then you would be dependent on others to build you a spaceship. Knowingly or unknowingly you would have impacted innumerable lives despite being a freedom loyalists.
The chain of human dependence goes way beyond our imaginations. The world was designed for collaborative living. There is no scope for independence. You cannot even blink if you were to take permission from others.
I got hurt due to carelessness while walking down the stairs. So I sprained my leg. I could not go out. Hence the meeting I was to chair got canceled. Therefore salary of my employees got delayed. He postponed his purchases. Therefore another salesman could not meet his target and got fired. His wife got upset. There his wife’s sister got upset. She fought with her husband. Husband got agitated. He showed carelessness in driving. He hit a boy on road. The boy died. My carelessness killed a boy.
This chain can go even further. Every good or bad action has an impact on everyone else in ways we cannot imagine.
Our freedom is conditional.
B. Eventually everyone will end up in an eternal blankness if there is no purpose of life. Then how does it matter what happens to whom. The end result is decided beforehand. How is human life different from bubbles in water that eventually end into nothing? All I know is that I feel happiness and pain at this moment. So how is the urge to maximize my happiness in present wrong? Why should I bother about others who are bound to end in blankness in any case?
C. Who passed the principle that one must care for others? Was he yet another bubble in water who is no more? Why should I believe in his philosophy? Just because millions other believe so. Then millions other also get angry and tell lies. Then why is telling lie wrong?
It is clear that if one believes that certain acts are good and certain bad, then life must have a purpose. Life that ends in blankness has no relevance of good and bad.
If purpose does not exist, then there is nothing good or bad. Then the only religion of human being must be to maximize the pleasures of life – be it by killing others or fooling others or whatever.
And if purpose exists, other actions of life must also agree with the purpose. Then there is no scope of “My Life My Choice”. It always has to be “My Life Purposeful Choice”.
The question arises though – what is the purpose? Who will tell me the purpose. Well Vedas say – you may never know the purpose till you get to the climax. But you definitely can know what is NOT the purpose.
– Since we live in a hopelessly collaborative world, anything that does not bring greatest good for most is NOT the purpose.
– Anything that deviates anyone from purposeful responsible living is NOT purpose.
– Anything that aims to bring pleasures against laws of nature is NOT purpose.
– Human brain is the most plastic organ. You can mould it anyway simply through thoughts. You can do it in any age. More you practice, more the flexibility in brain. Anything that does not utilize this plasticity to become purposeful is NOT purpose.