Scientists and God: The Indian Scenario
I published an article ‘A Scientific View of the God Delusion and its Implications‘ online at Nirmukta in July 2009. The drafting of this article (started long ago) was spread over a few months, and I had completed the writing by June 2008. I had emailed it to a large number of my colleagues and friends, mostly scientists, inviting their reactions. I present here a summary of over one year of data collection regarding their responses. I list the responses in a decreasing order of frequency.
1. Stony silence. This was the most frequent response. Or: ‘Oh, I just could not find time to read it fully.’ I could notice a sense of embarrassment in some cases, perhaps because my article has the statement that, personally, as a scientist I should do nothing that insults the spirit of the scientific method. And they all know what the scientific method demands.
2. ‘No matter what you say, there is a power up there.’ I have already dealt with this attitude in great detail in my article.
3. ‘There are things about life and the universe that I am incapable of understanding.‘ This reaction came from some of the very bright scientists, and was also an expression of their humility. I can understand that many of them strongly believe that science has only a limited domain of applicability, and that the God concept lies outside that domain. I do not agree with this, and the onus is on them to argue why they think so. They are scientists, and must argue why they think that the God hypothesis is a good hypothesis. They surely know what constitutes a good hypothesis.
4. ‘I am a borderline case.’ I think they are the people who have done very little reading of the rationalist literature. They have not heard of Richard Dawkins, Daniel Dennett, Carl Sagan, Steven Weinberg, perhaps not even Bertrand Russell.
5. ‘I am too busy to find time for such things.’ I some cases I could sense the insinuation that, whereas they are busy doing worthwhile things, I have nothing better to do than rake up the God question!
6. ‘Who am I to question the existence of God Almighty?’ This is something remarkable (and very disturbing) that organized religion has been able to achieve. It not only makes statements which must not be questioned, or are falsifiable, it also instils at a very young age the fear of God. Of course, there is an immediate reward for those gentle ‘souls’ which accept this: They are labelled as people who are ‘pious’ and humble, and therefore ‘noble’. Organized religion has a self-perpetuating feature.
7. ‘What a refreshing worldview! Thank you very much!’ Such a response was invariably from the younger age-group of Indian scientists.
8. Outright offence. I noticed that such people are mostly from a particular caste.
9. ‘I am a rationalist, but I also care about the sensibilities of my wife.’ There is an important question of parenthood here. They think that it would be difficult for them to instil moral values in their children in a ‘Godless’ home. Now this is a serious issue. The Brights’ Net has taken a major initiative in this regard. Their October 2009 bulletin reads as follows:
‘How well-grounded in current scientific knowledge is The Brights’ Net’s supposition that human morality has natural underpinnings (no recognition of any supernatural foundations)? The Brights’ “Reality about Morality Project” was launched in 2006 to find out. Could we achieve authentication of this supposition by researchers in the field? The four assertions Brights drafted have been reviewed and shaped by seven noted scientists and ethical philosophers, and so we can now issue some scientifically defensible declarations. The statements, grounded in current scientific knowledge, can become a foundation for developing educational materials and media strategies. We want to build a broader understanding of morality first within the constituency. Then, with interested and knowledgeable Brights at hand, we can subsequently turn out attention to educating the general public. Look for a special emailed announcement on this topic in mid-October. By then, final statements and associated “substantiating studies” will have been posted on the website along with a panel-recommended listing of background readings. Any Brights wishing to become better versed in demonstrating that “morality is natural!” will surely be interested in those readings.’
While I look forward to what they are going to announce, I feel that we Indians should evolve our own answers to the question of morality vs. irreligion. I invite readers to come forward with their views.
10. Lastly I want to mention the response of Hindu scientists who said that they are least worried about any possible ‘onslaught’ from rationalism. They pointed out that the Hindu worldview has a place for rationalists also. They say that there are so many ways of ‘realizing’ God, and questioning his existence is one of them. This philosophy is so sure of itself that there is no doubt in the mind of the Hindu that every nonbeliever will end up being a believer! What do you think?
Nonresident Indians (NRIs) face a peculiar situation. They are worried about the morality of their children, particularly daughters, in the ‘wicked West’. Most of them oppose any talk of rationalism, and are convinced that only a religious upbringing is good for the welfare of their children. Readers may like to comment on this.
Another question is regarding the mental state of a person who has, say, recently lost a loved one, or who is suffering from a life-threatening disease at a young age. Where can such an atheist go for a support system? Pantheism (‘sexed-up atheism‘) or ‘religious naturalism’ provides some answers.
Albert Einstein
A scientist’s job is to explore and investigate Nature and discover its secrets. In 1998, Richard Dawkins published a book: Unweaving the Rainbow: Science, Delusion and the Appetite for Wonder. I am certain that most scientists are not even aware of this book, which is a pity. In this book Dawkins faces and answers the question: Did Newton ‘unweave the rainbow’ by reducing it to its prismatic colours, as Keats contended? Did he, in other words, diminish beauty? Dawkins’ answer is: ‘Newton’s unweaving of the rainbow led on to spectroscopy, which has proved the key to much of what we know today about the cosmos. And the heart of any poet worthy of the title Romantic could not fail to leap up if he beheld the universe of Einstein, Hubble and hawking. We read its nature through Fraunhofer lines – ‘Barcodes of the stars’ – and their shifts along the spectrum. The image of barcodes carries us on to the very different, but equally intriguing realm of sound (Barcodes on the Air); and then DNA fingerprinting (Barcodes of the Bar), which offers the opportunity to reflect on other aspects of the role of science in society.’ Mysteries do not lose their poetry because they are solved: the solution often is more beautiful than the puzzle, uncovering deeper mysteries.
Richard Dawkins
Carl Sagan was another eminent scientist (an astronomer of great standing) who brought out the same aspect of the scientific worldview. He pointed out that the actual grandeur of the cosmos is far greater than that visualized by any religion.
Carl Sagan
Why is it that most Indian scientists subscribe to the ‘conspiracy of silence‘? Why is it that for many of them a scientific career is just another way of earning a livelihood? They do science in ‘office’ or laboratory, and then go home and forget that they are scientists. Why?
Related posts:
- Science and Scientists
- SWEARING BY GOD: An Atheist’s Experiences In Indian Courts
- Growing up with Indian Mythology
- Announcement: Indian Atheists Meets in Delhi and Chennai
- 1000 Indian Freethinkers Event: A Conversation With Tom Clark On Worldview Naturalism
- The God Delusion in Action: My Indian travelogue.
This post was written by:
Vinod Wadhawan - who has written 27 posts on Nirmukta.
Dr. Vinod Wadhawan is a scientist, rationalist, author, and blogger. He has written books on ferroic materials, smart structures, complexity science, and symmetry. More information about him is available at his website. Since October 2011 he has been writing at The Vinod Wadhawan Blog, which celebrates the spirit of science and the scientific method.
Subscribe to RSS
Follow us on twitter
Follow us on facebook
Flickr
Youtube
I’m of Indian origin, living in the UK. After a lifetime of living as a Hindu and amongst Hindus (I’ve been an atheist for about 2.5years now) I think I can pick up the argument as far as ‘NRI’s are concerned.
Indians have gained a reputation in the West as being hard-working, entrepreneurial and reliable. They excel at school, university and in the workplace. You would think by now that much of the Fortune 500 companies in the world would be dominated by Indian intellect, acumen and talent. This is not the case. Why?
I believe that as Indians have settled around the world, they have successfully compartmentalised. They have compartmentalised their society, their personality and behaviour, and also their intellect.
I can’t speak for the US, but if you were to come to the UK, one of the first things you’ll notice is how certain cities have become virtual apartheid towns. Leicester has areas in which the populations are virtually exclusively Indian, Bangladeshi, Pakistani etc. (The reason for this may have initially been economic – i.e. 30+ years ago.) You can live in these areas with virtually no knowledge of the language, culture or events occurring in the larger city or country.
As you point out, a certain motivation for this is the keep the ‘wicked West’ at bay. Along with the desire to keep the West at arms length of course is the paradoxical need to be part of the Western world, its opportunities and benefits.
So on with the compartmentalisation where you have to live ‘Indian’ at home, and be ‘part of the team’ at work, changing your dress code, language, accent and even behaviour so that you can ‘fit in’ in both worlds.
All the while amongst many Indians is this troubling silent conviction that their ancient religion, culture and philosophy (not that most people actually understand or think deeply about any of them) beats Western morality, culture and philosophy hands-down. On one hand there’s an inferiority complex in the desire to be Western in the world of work, but a superiority complex about our culture.
And the virus of this compartmentalised thinking/living is endemic and passed down to every new generation. True it is getting more and more diluted, but there is enough inertia (for now) to keep it going for a few more generations yet.
And those who choose to break free and question this order of things instantaneously feel the accumulated pressure of immediate and extended family, friends and neighbours to conform.
I make no secret of my atheism, but I don’t advertise it either so most relatives have no idea that I am no longer a Hindu. Eventually a major event is going to come along which requires some ritual – I expect the sparks to fly.
1. The ‘compartmentalization’ you mention is a reaction to how the natives treat the migrant Indians.
2. Self-respecting Indians should do what they can to make India strong. If we succeed, the problems that you mention will then disappear automatically!
Your lucid and persuasive posts deserve to attract far more posts than they do. In fact, I wish your site was at least as popular as Outlook online magazine – which perhaps is India’s only public journal on political issues.
The silence or indifference to science or absract issues derives from, in my opinion, the continuing failure of most Indian elites (mostly Hindus) to come to terms with modernity and its key constituent, rationality. They seem averse to structures that call for critical thinking – they are more at ease with rituals, gods and gurus that require no intellectual effort. (Naipaul said in his early writings that myth and magic are an Indian need that provides comfort amidst unending poverty and misery).
Hindus have been praying to their many gods for thousands of years but the country remains impoverished, unhealthy, chaotic, corrupt. When I have asked some Hindus (in London where I live) why they continue to depend on their gods instead of themselves, they may get emotional but can offer no reasoned answer.
By and large, Indians tend to be poor communicators on more abstract matters and can rarely provide a logical, coherent explanation or fresh perspective. The British colonial rulers were aware of a cognitive deficit. British scholars who tried hard to learn about Indian contributions to astronomy and maths failed to find any native scholar to enter into a fruitful exchange.
Hindus have developed a deep inferiority from a thousand years of conquest and occupation – first the Muslims, then the British. The Moghuls certainly brought in civlisation to a largely backward people with few refined tastes, social graces and building skills. First emperoe Babur has written eloquently on what he saw.
Naipaul said that every concept and institution have been borrowed from the British . There was no education, legal or administrative systems. The so called Fathers of the Nation (Gandhi, Nehru, Tagore) would have been country bumpkins without English ideas and education. PM Singh acknowledged this when he was honoured at Cambridge. If Singh had stayed with his Punjab Uni degree, he would have been more like Desai or Shastri.
Even today, PM Singh can only be speak in a brand of bureaucratic English using stock words. He keeps droning on about ‘growth rate’, ‘democracy’ and such but can he elaborate? Most Indian leaders get tongue-tied in the West snd journalists know they have nothing original to say. At the G20 Summit last year in LOndon and in Toronto this year, PM Singh made no memorable public statement or initiative, as usual.
Poor India must abandon the elitist illusion of global power. In the absence of communication and critical thinking skills, India will remain a client or lackey of the West as of now, grovelling before the West but terrorising its helpless native citizens.
Above all, India desperately needs new young leaders with a grand, inclusive vision and compassion for the weak and vulnerable. The new leaders should also upgrade the decaying national insitutions and promote a culture of excellence and rational debate. Then Indian science, theory and innovation may take off – at last. (Sorry for rambling on.)
Mr. George, I find that most of your statements are factually correct. But you forgot to mention one thing: We Indians are very good at berating ourselves. The British certainly gave us this and that. But they also took away a lot, not to mention the damage they did by introducing a certain kind of education system, designed to make the ‘natives’ hate their culture and history, and admire things ‘English.’
Personally, I am more interested in the question: ‘Where do we go from here?’ The approach of President Abdul Kalam has much to commend itself. We have to begin by telling ourselves that WE CAN DO IT. And that means, among other things, that we as a nation should first learn to highlight our achievements, rather than our failures.
Intellectual honesty and objectivity are great, but one also needs optimism to succeed, especially when it comes to galvanizing a whole country into a mission mode.
I fully agree with you that a rational approach is a must in everything we do, as also a culture that values excellence. And we should try to think as Indians, rather than as Hindus and Muslims etc.
Not to mention that the British often fail to note that India was actually wealthier than most of Europe during the mid 17th century when India and China were the manufacturing centers of the world (excluding the Spaniards, Portuguese and Dutch, who had already gained much wealth through plunder). India and China were forced by the colonial powers to give up their leading edge in manufacturing. The industrial revolution and the enlightenment were products of colonialism (and of course, the reformation, which didn’t stop the Christians from “spreading the word” elsewhere). Its easy to see the world as it is now and forget how Europe got wealthy and funded the enlightenment, and how Asia and South America lost their wealth. Of course, modern science is a product of the enlightenment, but without the Indian number system and zero, where would modern science be now? Using alphabets to denote numbers? The point here is that progress is cumulative, and history offers insights that can help avoid wanton generalization.
Although I have come out aggressively against the pseudoscience perpetuated by the Hindu propagandists, there are more atheistic and philosophical works in the Indian tradition than any other ancient culture save the Greeks. Lack of ability for abstract thought indeed. I wonder how much abstract thought we’d see from the English if they were all forced to speak German as the international language of communication (in science and politics) and English at home.
I agree with Prof. Wadhawan. India needs to wake up from its current slumber and shake off the shackles of superstition and religion. Creative and innovative thinking programs are needed, and philosophy and science needs a strong push. But the most important thing India needs is to believe that we are capable of rising above the past 400 years of oppression by the West (yes, it is still going on, something that’s a matter-of-fact observation by social scientists studying the long-term effects of colonialism). The best way to do this is to remind ourselves that reason is not an invention of the West.
very good points everyone, putting it all in historical context. I was reminded of Jared Diamond’s work
Guns, Germs and Steel Part 1 of 18
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bgnmT-Y_rGQ
where he quite convincingly concludes that it was all a matter of geography as to why certain people became the masters of the world. Having seen the physical superiority of the Africans, I tend to think that if they had the better breaks, they would have been the masters of the world now.
Some Indian scientists may have a more exalted understanding of God, but for most it is a matter of compartmentalization.
They do their jobs but that is all to it — a job where they have to use certain tools but it is not neccessary to understand those tools. Outside the lab life is all about astrology, rituals, believing that vedas have all this stuff already, not questioning established authority: the kind of things they learned at their mother’s knee.
Our horrible school system is mostly to be blamed for this — scientists and everyone else get degrees but not how to think critically.
Scientists have the home advantage that they know the basics of the scientific method, as also the basic vocabulary of science. It should be easier for them to understand what science has to say, e.g., about the evolution of life out of nonlife. What saddens me is that many of them do not even want to try to understand.