Generally, a temple should be located a place where earth’s magnetic wave path passes through densely.

Is there such a place? “Magnetic wave passing through densely” – just because this sentence sounds “science-y” doesn’t make it pertinent. And what exactly is a “magnetic wave”???

A Hindu temple in Colombo, Sri Lanka. Photo by Soman (CC BY-SA 2.0)

Now, these temples are located strategically at a place where the positive energy is abundantly available from the magnetic and electric wave distributions of north/south pole thrust.

Positive Energy? Let’s try to understand what is meant by this weasel word “Energy”. Borrowing Brian Dunnings’ words:

“Do you ever hear people talking about energy fields? What does that mean?

“Especially when the subject of New Age alternative medicine comes up, you’ll often hear people refer to energy fields. Life energy, spiritual energy, the body’s energy fields. That sure sounds pretty cool; is it actually a real thing that we can detect and use somehow? To answer that we have to start by understanding what energy really is. In short, energy is a measurement of something’s ability to do work. It’s measured in joules, after the 19th century physicist James Joule. Think of Einstein’s equation E = mc2. Energy is a function of mass. How much mass you can move a certain distance, is exactly how much energy you have.

“The electrical energy in this battery contains enough joules of work to move an electric train a certain distance. If I raise this weight, I input enough joules of potential kinetic energy to break six bones in my foot. That’s basically what ‘energy’ is. But that doesn’t seem to match very well with how we hear the word ‘energy’ being used. We’re told there are energy fields, that enlightened people can tap into and draw strength from. Like a glowing, hovering cloud of power, how you might envision a highly evolved creature from the original Star Trek series. That’s kind of what it sounds like an energy field is. New Age concepts like reiki or feng shui are entirely built upon the presumed existence of such fields.

“But the scientific definition of energy seems inadequate to explain these. Why is that? It’s because the word ‘energy’ has been hijacked for its scientific-sounding value. Real energy fields, like the electromagnetic field surrounding a magnet, the heat radiating from a warm body, or the gravitational field around a planet, have definite properties — and their strength, and thus their energy, can be precisely measured. On the other hand, New Age energy fields, like your bodies supposed ‘life energy’, have no describable properties, cannot be detected, and do no measurable work. We can’t say they don’t exist, but since they are undetectable, we can say that their existence is yet to be demonstrated.

“When you hear the word ‘energy’ being used in a sales pitch or an advertisement, pay very close attention to how it’s being used. If it’s anything other than a quantifiable measurement of work, the word is being misused and you are being misled. And now you have the tools to respond.”

In fact, the temple structure is built after the idol has been placed.

Does the idol draw all the “Energy” from that place or is it just placed in a place with full of “Energy”?  If it is the place that is important, then you accept that the idol is not important; and if you feel that the idol makes the “Energy” then you agree that the place was insignificant to begin with.

This *Moolasthanam* is where earth’s magnetic waves are found to be maximum.

Has anybody measured it? It’s really not all that difficult.

We know that there are some copper plates, inscribed with Vedic scripts, buried beneath the Main Idol. What are they really? The copper plate absorbs earth’s magnetic waves and radiates it to the surroundings.

Perhaps, worth only the value of copper (excluding any worth it may have gained as a result of it being an ‘antique piece.’  Copper is not attracted to magnets. Iron and perhaps Steel, Cobalt and Nickel are attracted to a magnet. Surely NOT copper plates. Perhaps Copper wire can be turned into a magnet, by passing electrical current; but surely NOT copper plates.

Thus a person regularly visiting a temple and walking clockwise around the Main Idol receives the beamed magnetic waves and his body absorbs it.

Once again, human body cannot receive magnetic waves (whatever they are) and surely the body cannot absorb it.  If that was the case, then imagine what would happen during every Magnetic resonance scan.

This is a very slow process and a regular visit will let him absorb more of this positive energy.

As clearly explained earlier, this is a flagrant, malevolent or (perhaps) ignorant but definitely a despicable act of hijacking the word “Energy” to make some woo-woo SOUND scientific; all a cheap attempt to beguile a credulous audience.

Scientifically, it is the positive energy that we all require to have a healthy life.

“Scientifically?” This again is a flagrant and malevolent misuse of the word Science to gain credibility.

The lamp that is lit radiates heat energy and also provides light inside the sanctum to the priests or *poojaris* performing the pooja.|

I wonder why they need the light and heat. Can’t they just use their divine powers? Why shouldn’t they simply pray to some “Light bagawaan” and “Heat bagawaan” for the same?  Perhaps, they know the futility of praying to Agni bagawaan if they resorted ONLY to prayers.

The ringing of the bells and the chanting of prayers takes a worshipper into trance, thus not letting his mind waver.

It’s only when you have already been led to believe during impressionable childhood into thinking of it in undeserved high regard that you feel that it takes you into a trance!

When done in groups, this helps people forget personal problems for a while and relieve their stress.

Ever wondered why the same effect NEVER happens whenever a christian/ muslim/ jew/ atheist enters a temple? Why is it that only the hindu finds the effect in a hindu place of worship? Such gatherings and rituals are sometimes, quite appropriately, called “Serotonin factories.” It might give you a high. But it is a false high.

The fragrance from the flowers, the burning of camphor give out the chemical energy further aiding in a different good aura.

There is that weasel word “Energy.”  For fragrance, going to a garden or a park is a far better experience. And camphor fumes are best avoided. It can only harm, and can never help.  It can cause seizures, hallucinations, confusion, etc!

*Theertham*, the “holy” water used during the pooja to wash the idol is not plain water cleaning the dust off an idol. It is a concoction of Cardamom,*Karpura* (Benzoin), zaffron / saffron, *Tulsi* (Holy Basil), Clove, etc…

Actually it is not plain water but contaminated water. If you want such a concoction, then it will be far better and safer to cook it hygienically in the kitchen.

Washing the idol is to charge the water with the magnetic radiations thus increasing its medicinal values.

“Charge the water with magnetic radiations?” As already explained, the idol or even the copper plates are NOT magnetic. And one cannot just “charge” the water with magnetic radiations. That hypothesis can be presented for a thorough peer review and scientific analysis. Also, such a water can only cause illness, it can never be medicinal.

Three spoons of this holy water is distributed to devotees.

Why only three? Why not 2 or 4? What is the sanctity of that number?

Again, this water is mainly a source of magneto-therapy.

Magneto-therapy is a scam. It is another form of quackery and already pointed out, medical quackery is one of the most odious of all charlatanry.

From 'A Treatise on Electricity and Magnetism' by James Clark Maxwell (image in public domain)

Besides, the clove essence protects one from tooth decay, the saffron & *Tulsi* leaves protects one from common cold and cough, cardamom and *Pachha Karpuram* (benzoin), act as mouth fresheners.

So, why not just take the clove essence to protect from tooth decay? It will be far better to just follow regular oral hygienic measures which are tried and definitely tested too. Saffron and Tulsi protect from common cold? Why not suggest these to all the people who are so paranoid about the common cold and especially against Swine Flu nowadays? After all, the H1N1 is also a common cold causing virus.  Who will be ready to forego vaccination in lieu of this holy “theertham”?

It is proved that *Theertham* is a very good blood purifier, as it is highly energized.

“Blood purification” is mainly the job of the kidneys and the liver. Unless they explain what they mean by such vague terminologies, these claims must be dismissed off contemptuously.  And ruthlessly too, for it is dangerous to fool people when it comes to medical and health issues.

This is why our elders used to suggest us to offer prayers at the temple so that you will be cured of many ailments.

This is secondary rationalization. The “elders” have never ever mentioned in any of the holy scriptures that THIS was the reason. You are just trying to beguile the innocent people. For your kind information, the so called elders had no valid ideas about what CAUSED the ailments.

When people go to a temple for the *Deepaaraadhana*, and when the doors open up, the positive energy gushes out onto the persons who are there.

What is the positive energy that gushes out?  Again that weasel word “Energy” is used.

The water that is sprinkled onto the assemblages passes on the energy to all.

How?

This also explains why men are not allowed to wear shirts at a few temples and women are requested to wear more ornaments during temple visits.

Why? Should only the men benefit and not the women? Once again goes to show how all religions are misogynistic to the core. In all probability the men are basically forced to be bare-chested so that they could identify who are all wearing the sacred thread and who are not. Nothing but organized, divinely codified and sanctioned discrimination.

Also, it is a practice to leave newly purchased jewels at an idol’s feet and then wear them with the idol’s blessings.

For what? And how does the idol bless the jewels and what is the effect of the blessing?

This act is now justified after reading this article. This act of “seeking divine blessings” before using any new article, like books or pens or automobiles may have stemmed from this through mere observation.

Well the article was nothing but a bunch of utterly baseless claims.

Energy lost in a day’s work is regained through a temple visit and one is refreshed slightly.

What is the energy lost and how does a temple visit help in regaining it?

The positive energy that is spread out in the entire temple and especially around where the main idol is placed, are simply absorbed by one’s body and mind.

How does one’s ‘body and mind’ absorb the ‘energy spread out?’

Did you know, every Vaishnava(Vishnu devotees), “must” visit a Vishnu temple twice every day in their location.

Why should it be a MUST? Do you know that every muslim MUST perform the prayers 5 times a day at specific times. Is it be considered MORE powerful than the Vaishnava practice? Surely 5>2, right?

Our practices are NOT some hard and fast rules framed by 1 man and his followers or God’s words in somebody’s dreams. All the rituals, all the practices are, in reality, well researched, studied and scientifically backed thesis which form the ways of nature to lead a good healthy life.

“Well researched”? Can we have references please? “Studied” by whom? Can I please have access to the peer reviewed papers on this? “Scientifically backed thesis”?  Do you have proof for it being scientifically backed? In fact, this is the antithesis of science. Taking the name of science to garner automatic respect should be challenged head on!

The scientific and research part of the practices are well camouflaged as “elder’s instructions” or “granny’s teaching’s” which should be obeyed as a mark of respect so as to once again, avoid stress to the mediocre brains.

Mediocre brains? How can you automatically assume that all human brains are mediocre? Isn’t it condescending on your part? As elaborated earlier, there is NOTHING scientific in all the practices. In fact, they are all thoroughly irrational. And there is no proper scientific research in any of it. This talk of irrational statements being “camouflaged” is a cheap attempt at secondary rationalization. These were dogmatic dictates that one must follow and is so typically religious.

Wind energy converter. Photo by P0lyglut (CC BY-SA 2.0).

To sum up, whenever you hear the word “energy” being mentioned anywhere please substitute the word with “measurable work capability” and check if it still makes sense. If it does, then it is proper science (because that’s what it means in science); and if it sounds like nonsense then it indeed is nonsense and the person is trying to use the word “energy” just to sound scientific. E.g. “Positive energy”, “Negative energy”, “Spiritual energy” and “Divine energy”.

Similarly, whenever someone uses the word “vibration”, replace it with “uniform oscillation around a mean” or “a regular periodic variation about a mean”. If it still makes sense, then it is proper science (because that’s what it means in science); and if it sounds like nonsense then it indeed is nonsense and the person is trying to use the word “vibration” just to sound scientific. E.g., “Positive vibrations”, “Negative vibrations”, “Spiritual vibrations” and “Divine vibrations”.

Related posts:

1. The Art Of Pseudoscience (Featuring The Gayatri Mantra)- A Five Step Program
2. Pseudoscience: A Brief Introduction
3. Pseudoscience In The Stars: An Indian Rationalist’s Experiences with Astrology

“Our time is burdened under the cumulative weight of successive debunkings of our conceits…. We live in The Cosmic Boondocks.”

~Carl Sagan

The Cosmic Boondocks is the podcast started by Ajita Kamal for  promoting science, freethought and humanistic values in India.   Nirmukta hosts both open and closed hangout sessions. The time would be around 9-11 pm IST The open hangouts would be live-streamed at the facebook pages(1,2) , the blog and the channel and are often held at Google+ . And closed hangouts would be recorded,edited and composed to a podcast. To be a part of the closed hangouts  send an email to editor@nirmukta.com (If you prefer, your details will be maintained confidential) with the body of the message containing Brief introduction, Key area of expertise, Other areas/related fields of interest and Time-zone(in case not IST). Your suggestions for topics of discussions are most invited. This week we interview Bill lauritzen,author of  The Invention of God ,who explains how several features of religion reveal themselves to be invention of man and an outcome of attempts at understanding natural events. Bill Lauritzen is an educator, scientist, and visionary.  Among his other accomplishments, Bill invented a new number system, designed a modern-day Stonehenge, called SpaceHenge, and wrote a paper explaining the value of geodesic domes. He also wrote a book about the invention of religion and mythology called,The Invention of God.

More about Bill

Music for this episode

Rising Legends, by Epic Soul Factory

Linear System, by Grendjohn

Bust This Bust That, by Professor Klig

Earth, by David Schombert

Related posts:

1. The Cosmic Boondocks- Episode #7, Feb 18, 2012
2. The Cosmic Boondocks- Episode #6, Nov 1, 2011
3. The Cosmic Boondocks – Episode #2, May 22, 2011
4. The Cosmic Boondocks- Episode #1, May 15, 2011
5. The Cosmic Boondocks – Episode #3, May 29, 2011
6. The Cosmic Boondocks – Episode #5, June 21, 2011

Editor’s Note: This article is a part of the series Understanding Natural Phenomena.

The birth of our universe, namely the Big Bang, is described by scientists as a ‘quantum event’. What does that mean?

All natural phenomena are governed by the laws of quantum mechanics. However, much of our day-to-day activity and experience can be well-explained in terms of the laws of classical mechanics, propounded, among others, by Newton. Classical mechanics is a good approximation (but only an approximation) of quantum mechanics under certain conditions. Newton’s three laws of motion are examples of laws of classical mechanics.

When does the approximation become invalid, and it becomes necessary to invoke laws of quantum mechanics directly for explaining a natural phenomenon? One situation is when the spatial dimensions are extremely small. A tennis ball is so big that classical mechanics is adequate for describing its trajectory. An electron is so small that only quantum mechanics can explain its behaviour properly.

Is an electron a particle or a wave? Experimental evidence says that it is both. An electron has a certain mass and electric charge. If we apply an electric field, we can accelerate the motion of the electron, which we can correctly calculate by assuming that it is a particle having the known mass and charge. So it is a particle.

But now consider the famous double-slit experiment first performed by Davisson and Germer in 1927. They shot a beam of electrons through two parallel slits, and recorded the positions of the electrons on a flat screen on the other side. What they found was that the electrons behaved, not as particles moving in straight lines, but as waves, forming a diffraction pattern like the one you would expect from a beam of light. This established the wave-particle duality of elementary particles like electrons.

There are serious consequences of this conclusion. A particle can be assigned a certain position or ‘coordinates’ in space. But we cannot do that for a wave. Consider the familiar sound waves in air. As a sound wave travels, there is compression and rarefaction in air. Some of this vibration of air reaches your ears, and you sense the sound. But can you tell that the sound wave is here, and not there? No. It is everywhere; with different intensities, of course.

So, if an electron has wave properties, it means that it is everywhere at the same time! We say that it is delocalized. This is one of the shocks that quantum theory inflicts on us. There are many more. And yet, it is the most successful and the most thoroughly tested theory, or model of reality, ever.

The wave nature of electrons is a reality. Otherwise we would not have been able to build the very important and much used electron microscopes. In these devices, electrons do what is done by light in an optical microscope.

Just as electrons have wave properties, light can also behave as if it is a collection of particles called ‘photons’. This was established in 1905 by Einstein for an experiment involving the so-called ‘photoelectric effect’, and he was awarded the Nobel Prize for this work in 1921. We say that electromagnetic radiation (which includes light, as also X-rays, gamma-rays, etc.) exists as discrete packets of energy, or ‘quanta’, called photons.

Now consider an experiment in which an electron is more conveniently interpreted as behaving like a particle, rather than a wave. We can assign a position and a momentum (or velocity) to it. In a 1-dimensional situation, the position is, say, x, and the momentum is p_x. Let ∆x and ∆p_x be the errors or uncertainties in the measurement or specification of these quantities. In classical physics, it is possible for these errors or uncertainties to be arbitrarily small, even zero. Not so in quantum physics. There is this famous principle called the Heisenberg uncertainty principle, according to which the product ∆x.∆p_x cannot be less than a certain quantity of the order of the Planck constant, h. The principle says that ∆x.∆p_x ≥h/(4π). Of course, the Planck constant is a very very small quantity, but it is not zero.

This principle implies that if ∆x is nearly zero, then ∆p_x is extremely large, and vice versa. And large ∆p_x means large uncertainty in kinetic energy (because momentum and kinetic energy are directly proportional to each other).

There are several ‘conjugate’ pairs of quantities for which the Heisenberg uncertainty principle must be obeyed. Energy E and time t are another such pair, and the principle states that ∆E.∆t ≥h/(4π). This provides a very important loophole (!) in the principle of conservation of energy, because the uncertainty principle says that energy conservation can be violated by an amount ∆E, provided it occurs for a time less than ∆t.

Back to the Big Bang event. This was a quantum event because the spatial dimension of the system was extremely small: ∆x ≈ 0.

And this, in turn, means that ∆p_x, and therefore ∆E, could become arbitrarily large at the moment of the Big Bang. Our universe was born out of such a quantum fluctuation.

This energy fluctuation got sustenance from the fact that the gravitational interaction was born at the same instance, and the rest of the story is as given in Part 2 of this series.

Admittedly, this is a simplistic narrative, but should be enough to convey to the lay person how something could emerge out of ‘nothing’, without having to postulate the pre-existence of a Creator.

For those who can stomach it, here is an excerpt from a book by Seth Lloyd (2006):

Quantum mechanics describes energy in terms of quantum fields, a kind of underlying fabric of the universe, whose weave makes up the elementary particles – photons, electrons, quarks. The energy we see around us, then – in the form of Earth, stars, light, heat – was drawn out of the underlying quantum fields by the expansion of our universe. Gravity is an attractive force that pulls things together. . . As the universe expands (which it continues to do), gravity sucks energy out of the quantum fields. The energy in the quantum fields is almost always positive, and this positive energy is exactly balanced by the negative energy of gravitational attraction. As the expansion proceeds, more and more positive energy becomes available, in the form of matter and light – compensated for by the negative energy in the attractive force of the gravitational field.

Related posts:

1. Understanding Natural Phenomena 2: The Big Bang
2. Understanding Natural Phenomena 1: Introduction
3. Quantum Quacks and Nano Scams
4. Philosophy With Selvi #2 – Understanding Logic
5. A Rational Approach to Understanding the Irrational Behavior of Indians
6. Victor Stenger on The Future of Naturalism

An inherited tyranny

Section 295A of the IPC pertains to insulting religions and religious beliefs. Made by our colonial masters to divide and subjugate their vassals, like many other provisions of the archaic laws made by them, this section too has been carried over into our laws and is being used now mainly to persecute and hound people who may have points of view contrary to those of the powers that be. The rationalist movement and other progressive forces have been mostly at the receiving end of persecutions under this, but the others have been no exception. The word ‘persecution’ has been deliberately used here as most of the cases booked under this section have resulted in acquittals of the accused and all they have had as punishment is the period of the ‘due process of law’ which can take several years to couple of decades to complete.

Sanal Edamaruku at Mumbai church (courtesy http://sanaledamaruku.blogspot.in)

A miracle gone soggy

The most recent case receiving media coverage in this issue is the attempt to prosecute a rationalist from Delhi, Sanal Edamaruku. He has been quite active on the TV channels denouncing superstitions and god men on them and has been a regular feature on many of them. The most recent controversy in which he has been involved is the one of a cement crucifix of Jesus Christ in Bandra, Mumbai dripping water from its feet. There were hot discussions of some TV channels about the veracity of this so called miracle and there was a heated exchange of words between him and others leading to complaints against him under the above-mentioned Section 295A of the Indian Penal Code for “deliberate and malicious acts leading to outrage religious feelings of any class” – here read as the Roman Catholic community. Again, the act does not pertain to the miracle of the dripping cross but other words used in the course of the discussions which have outraged the religious feelings of a group of people known as the Organisation of Concerned Catholics (OCC) and the Catholic Secular Forum (CSF)  who had lodged complaints against Sanal at the Juhu and Andheri police stations. It was said that Sanal’s contentions that the so called ‘miracle’ was promoted by the church to fleece gullible people and the prefix used for the head of the Roman Catholic Church by calling him Mr. Pope had angered these Catholics who chose to file this complaint. It was in the newspapers that the Mumbai police have summoned Mr. Edamaruku for questioning on this complaint. A committee to defend him under the leadership of the eminent Supreme court lawyer Mr. N.D. Pancholi has been formed and funds are being collected from all over the world for his defence.

Fatwas on literary translation

It is not the first time that this section is being used or that Sanal Edamaruku is the first one to be hauled up under this. A couple of years back one Krantikar from  Andhra Pradesh had been hauled up under the same sections and had been in prison for quite some time as he had refused to apply for bail. His crime – he had translated some write ups of Taslima Nasreen which had been published more than decade back and were available to the world at large on the web into Telugu and had published that in book form, which had again angered the local fundamentalist Muslims who were after his blood. The ruling Congress party in the state had brought all these sections upon him to please their so called ‘minority vote bank’! The way it was done it was pretty obvious that the case would be thrown out by the court but the ‘persecution’ part of it was more important for the government!

Recipe for mass starvation?

Just at the time of the Sanal case hitting the headlines a student of Hyderabad, Kartik had been arrested on the same grounds for reacting that there is no god to someone who had greeted him on Hanuman Jayanthi day. He had been arrested and was in police custody for having expressed his convictions and exercising his constitutional right! Again, the same law was used by a right wing student organisation to target a member of a rival organization. The saffron gang are experts in using this law to harass those who do not see eye to eye with them. In fact, they used it to file complaints against those who organised and participated in a ‘beef festival’ on the campus of Osmania University recently. Though one’s dietary habits are one’s personal business, one mans food can be another one’s religious sentiment! So, people could file complaints under section 295A for eating beef (Hindu religious sentiments), pork (Muslim religious sentiments), any non vegetarian-food (Jain religious sentiments) and so on ad infinitum! It could also be argued that even the menus of restaurants are publications which are deliberately and maliciously composed to hurt them and so on.

An idea whose time is past

Like many of the archaic laws made by our colonial masters have been relegated to the dust bin in their country, this law too deserves the same fate. In fact it has been advised by them that we should do so! Yet, we choose to have these which are an affront to the very concept of human rights. If a person has the right to propagate one’s religion we should also have the right to question the same. All the religions thrive by striking the fear of the unknown into the minds of people and by spreading superstitious beliefs and questioning any of them would be construed as hurting the religious sentiments and cases filed under section 295A! If those who do so are members of a movement like ours then it could be added that the intent was ‘malicious and deliberate’!

Supporters of Taslima Nasreen protest Kolkata Book Fair ban (image via The Hindu)

All in the family

I can recall some instances from the past when we have been threatened with this. About a decade ago, I had made a public statement about cows urine being the urine of animal like any other- for instance a dog! At that time a campaign was started by the peddlers of the concoctions containing ’ urine that it was an attack on the religious sentiments and I should be booked under this section. A big debate went on for weeks and finally a legal luminary concluded it by saying that though I deserved to be punished under that it could not be done as I was born in a Hindu family! If I were to be born in a family professing some other religion then I could have been prosecuted! He also added that criticism and reform was a salient feature of Hinduism! So, the whole controversy died a natural death. We have been threatened with the same when we questioned faith healers of Christianity- the excuse was that they were just conducting prayer meetings! The same was threatened when we exposed one Aslam Baba who was supposedly conducting surgical operations with tailors scissors! A couple of years ago when we had tried to investigate Mary’s flex prints shedding tears we had to struggle very hard to keep out any such allegations of ’hurting religious sentiments’ !

Does this law have a role in our society? Well let us take a look at Article 51A of the Constitution of India which deals with the duties of the citizen. It states that it is a “fundamental duty of every citizen of India to develop the scientific temper, humanism and the spirit of inquiry and reform”. With a constitution which states this and with a section of the IPC which is contrary, it is the article of the constitution which should prevail.

Flame wars

This has been also stated in the Hulikal Nataraj vs Govt of Karnataka judgment of the Karnataka High Court. In this case, a case was filed against him for making a statement at a placed called Madikeri in Kodagu district of Karnataka. He had stated in a public lecture that the so called miracle at Sabarimala at the Aiyappa temple area was man-made. It was about a flame called as Makara vilakku from a hill called as Ponnambala Medu which was opposite the temple.The locals who wanted to hound him and harass him had filed a complaint with the local police station and the station house officer had straightaway filed an FIR and a charge sheet and tried to arrest Nataraj who had gone to the High Court for quashing the case. After a couple of years the judgment came as an indictment of the whole system. In fact the judge called the Home secretary to the court and also withheld the increment of the Sub Inspector who had attempted to arrest Nataraj.

A question for the faithful

A couple of years ago when we had tried to investigate the phenomenon of flex prints of Mary shedding ‘tears’ at the church in Aluva, Kerala there were attempts to convert that too as clash between various sections and to convert it into a outraging religious sentiments issue as in the case of Sanal mentioned above. But, due caution on our part in that case, prevented any adverse outcome.

Laws like Section 295A have no place in a civilized society and need to be consigned with many of such to the trash bins of history. Finally after mulling over the legal issues and the secular aspects of the law, a philosophical question needs to be addressed - why does an omnipotent deity need the services of a mundane law made by puny human beings to set right alleged infractions of divine laws made by a higher force? This is for the religious whose feelings are ‘offended’ to answer!

No related posts.

Around 300 BCE, the pacifist Emperor Ashoka proposed alternative punishments to the death penalty in India., but did not ban it.

In Japan the death penalty was abolished in 818 AD by Emperor Saga and this lasted for 338 years until 1156.

Between the 9th and the 13th centuries, the Ukraine based Kiev Rus mostly replaced the death penalty with banishment, or payment of a fine.

China which today executes more people than the rest of the world put together once had a brief no death penalty phase between 1747 and 1759.

The Grand Duke Leopold II of Habsburg was so influenced by Cesare Beccaria’s 1764 work Dei Delitti e Delle Pene (On Crimes and Punishments), that he abolished the death penalty in the then-independent Grand Duchy of Tuscany.

In the US – a country where guns are freely available and where well over 20,000 persons have been killed by the state since 1608 –Illinois state banned the death penalty in 2011, Oregon adopted a moratorium on executions, Maryland and Connecticut are close to banning them, and California is likely to put a referendum on the state ballot in November that could abolish the death penalty.

While Iran routinely executes people for crimes committed as children, the US Supreme Court stopped this as a cruel and unusual punishment in 2005 in its judgement in Roper v Simmons.

The 2008 Maryland Commission on Capital Punishment commissioned the most comprehensive study of the US system. The report, which consolidated the results of 14 other studies and examined more cases than previous analyses, concluded that murderers sentenced to death will end up costing taxpayers three times more over the length of the case than if they were sentenced to life without parole.In a case that is eligible for the death penalty but where it’s not sought and the sentence is life without the possibility of parole, the average cost to the US taxpayer is $1.1m. But where a death sentence is given, the case in its entirety will cost an average of $3m.

By contrast, the cost of a death penalty-eligible case where death is sought but not awarded by the court is $1.8m.

In a most recent decision a court in the US has banned the import of Sodium Thiopental into the US on ‘health considerations’ of the person about to be executed. There is not enough drug now in the country to carryout executions. The judge must have read Orwell’s moving essay ‘A Hanging‘.

Image links to source

The Indian Scenario:

Chandigarh Sessions Court’s instruction to the SP of Patiala Central Jail to implement the scheduled execution of Balwant Singh Rajoana on 31 March has revived the debate on the death penalty in India. Rajoana was the back-up human bomb when Punjab CM Beant Singh was assassinated in 1995. Rajoana never appealed for mercy, but clemency petitions filed by the Punjab government and by Sikh groups who consider the unrepentant Rajoana a living martyr to the cause of the Sikh nation have led to a further postponement of the execution.

While some political groups bay for the blood of convicts they dislike (Afzal Guru and Pakistani terrorist Ajmal Kasab), and others ask for clemency for those they support (Sri Lankan nationals convicted in the Rajiv Gandhi assassination case — Murugan, Santhan and Perarivalan), on 29 March the Supreme Court of India took notice of death row politics in the country and asked some uncomfortable questions as regards clemency petitions and procedures. This is of great significance as there are currently 18 clemency petitions with the President’s office and over 300 people are on death row in the country.

In India, the crimes of murder, gang robbery with murder, abetting the suicide of a child or insane person, waging war against the nation, abetting mutiny by a member of the armed forces and large scale narcotics trafficking are eligible for the death penalty. The SC which in 1983 instructed that the death penalty should be imposed only in the ‘rarest of rare’ cases has recently recommended the death penalty for police officials who stage false encounter killings and for those who commit honor killings.

Is the death penalty a moral abomination or an effective deterrent of violent crime? Is it better for society to incarcerate a dangerous criminal forever, or is the ultimate punishment more justified for heinous crimes? How safe are death penalty convictions?

Providing a backdrop to the death penalty debate in India was Amnesty International’s latest report on the global use of the death penalty in 2011. The report recorded the positive trend that only 20 of the world’s 198 countries carried out an execution in 2011; 96 countries did away with it while 34 countries have been abolitionist in practice by observing official or unofficial moratoria. India has been abolitionist — the last execution took place in 2004.

From a distance, it appears that the world is slowly moving towards a more civilised system of criminal justice. In 1971 the UN General Assembly called for a restriction on the number of offences for which the death penalty could be imposed, with a view to abolishing it altogether. This will of the global community was reiterated in 1977 and again in 2010 in UN Resolutions with ever growing support from member nations. Today, no country can become a member of the Council of Europe or of the European Union unless they abandon the death penalty. Some African countries like Angola, Djibouti, Mozambique, Namibia and South Africa have abolished capital punishment. Gabon is the latest to join their ranks.

From close, the picture is less attractive. India, along with the US, Saudi Arabia and China, did not support the UN resolutions and more than 60 per cent of the world’s population today lives in regimes where the death penalty is still legal — 18,750 people remain under sentence of death worldwide, and at least 676 people were executed in the year. These figures exclude the statistics for China which keeps executions secret, but is believed to execute thousands of people every year. A sharp rise in the use of the death penalty was noted specially in Iran, Iraq and Saudi Arabia, who along with the US and China are the world’s top executioners.

Despite its wide spread use, can the death penalty ever be justified?

Article 5 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, that moral Magna Carta which sets universal standards for the global civilisation and in whose formulation India played an important role, affirms: No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment. The infliction of death as punishment is indeed a cruel and unusual form of punishment. It is in the spirit of retribution, not rehabilitation and militates against modern standards of justice.

From flaying alive to boiling in oil to the executioner’s axe, from the hangman’s noose to the lethal injection, the death penalty has seen many barbarous refinements, but has only inflicted pointless pain where a less severe punishment could have achieved the same purpose. As Victor Hugo pointed out, it is irrevocable, irreparable and indissoluble and hence has no place in human law. In Franz Kafka’s nameless Penal Colony the death machine kills the guard himself in the name of justice, in the same way that every death penalty kills our humanity and brutalises our society.

The time has come to hang the death penalty, not humans.

-

Notes:

- ‘Barbarous refinements’ is Camus’ phrase.

- The phrase ‘inflicted pointless pain where a less severe punishment could have achieved the same purpose’ is from the Furman v Geogia judgement.

Editor’s note: A part of this article first appeared in The Postnoon.

Related posts:

1. Euthanasia: A Death Wish

Editor’s Note : A translation of this article in Polish is now available at the Racjonalista blog.

An honest reflection on a draconian practice in our societies

It was the spring of ’05, in the beautiful valley of Karora village in Northern Haryana, when the sun had bid farewell and the full moon accompanying by a cluster of stars appeared in the darkness, Manoj had fallen for Babli. Although this Haryana lad couldn’t figure out the extent of his fall, he somehow got convinced that it had been a free-fall into the abyss, in love with Babli. At his first encounter with his lady love, he acted rude, for he had been stoic all his life, and his friends referred to him as ‘stone hearted’. To Manoj, she was just a woman, but as time passed, and seasons cycled, Cupid set his arrows to strike at Manoj’s young heart. It didn’t take long for Babli to feel the same; on the trajectory they had to encounter agony, grief, pain, distress and a load of sacrifices. A year later the young couple began to feel their souls in each other, and decided to love for a lifetime. Just as a means of formality, they had to turn to their elders for approval. However, the approval never seemed like coming.

Babli pleaded with her father, who was adamant about caste. Manoj belonged to a different caste, relatively “lower” than Babli’s. Desperately in love, the couples decided to elope. They did, but only a hundred miles away, where Manoj’s friends helped in the registration process. A week later, Babli’s brother Suresh found their whereabouts and coerced her to leave Manoj, with a threat of murder. Little did he know that, threat of death would send fear signals to landlords, mafia dons and politicians, but not for those in love. Babli bravely defied her brother’s threats. As social stigma spread in the neighbourhood, Babli’s father Charan Das ordered his son Suresh to fulfill the family’s wicked wishes and save the family’s “honour”. Not tough enough to handle the “shame” caused by Babli, her brother Suresh set forth to redeem the lost “honour”.

On June 9 2007, Manoj and Babli were found dead near a canal. The scene was terrifying as the couple was brutally slaughtered to death. The investigating authorities confirmed it was a cold-blooded murder. The electronic media for the first time, awakened to the enigma surrounding the motive behind the killing of newly wed couples; to their astonishment and largely to the world’s, they discovered it was an incredibly disturbing one. It was baptized with the name “Honour Killing” – a license to kill for the “shame” caused by the girl, as a pretext for preserving the family “honour”. In this case it was effortlessly carried out by Babli’s family members – her brother Suresh, her cousin and her uncle – with clear instructions from her beloved father Charan Das.

At his first hearing, Charan Das openly justified his actions, on the grounds of rituals that were practiced for centuries. To support his position, the self-proclaimed Panchayat legal body – the vicious ‘Khap’ panchayat – openly lauded the assassins, and protested against the civil bodies and human rights groups for interfering in traditional matters. The local bodies of law initially dismissed the case for lack of proof. But the extent of savagery on the part of the alleged were enough to evoke considerable media attention. Even though the Haryana politicians sought interference, hoping to submerge the case, the voices of sanity resisted with thrust. Three years later in March 2010, after raging outcry from civil society, human rights groups and the media, the accused were sentenced to capital punishment.

The Indian media and legal experts hailed it as a “landmark judgment”, a victory over the infamous assemblies which acted as parallel judicial bodies with impunity for years. After the judgment, in a Parliament session, Home Minister P. Chidambaram proposed a bill that included “Public stripping of women and extermination of young couples from villages and any act which is humiliating will be punished with severity”, and that would “Make Khap dictated honour killings a distinct offence so that all those who participate in the decision are liable to attract the death sentence”.

The iconic human rights organization Amnesty International says this about the concept of “Honour Killing”: “The regime of honour is unforgiving; women on whom suspicion has fallen are not given an opportunity to defend themselves, and family members have no socially acceptable alternative but to remove the stain on their honour by attacking the woman”. Over the years, this form of killing has taken centre stage in third world countries. Human Rights Watch reported that countries like India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Iran, Indonesia, Sudan, Egypt, Turkey and Saudi Arabia have a high degree of oppression of women, in the form of rape, torture, sexual harassment, verbal abuse, domestic violence, repressive societal norms, honour suicides (suicides generally by women victims of rape, to further protect family shame. In some cases, they are coerced to kill themselves by family members), public flogging and stripping, forced marriages and stoning to death.

Murdered Couple in Haryana (photo courtesy Outlook)

It is estimated that nearly ten thousand people are killed in neighboring Pakistan every year, for the alleged crime of causing “shame”. Salman Rushdie’s upsetting and brilliant psycho-profile of Pakistan, in his 1983 novel Shame, rightly laid emphasis on the crucial part played by sexual repression in those regions. And that was before the Talibanization of Afghanistan, and of much of Pakistan, too. It is popularly called “Kharo-Kari” in Urdu. Author and journalist Christopher Hitchens summarizes the situation of a backward Pakistani Muslim society like this: “Here is a society where rape is not a crime. It is a punishment. Women can be sentenced to be raped, by tribal and religious kangaroo courts, if even a rumor of their immodesty brings shame on their menfolk. In such an obscenely distorted context, the counterpart term to shame which is the noble word ‘honor’ becomes most commonly associated with the word ‘killing’. Moral courage consists of the willingness to butcher your own daughter.”

The story of India doesn’t appear bright either, at least a thousand people have been done to death each year owing to “honour” killings and the country needs to introduce stringent legislation to deal firmly with the heinous crime. The website www.honourkilling.in is exclusively dedicated to raise consciousness about this issue and halt this barbaric crime once for all. It uses such beautiful phrases like the one that says “No Honour in Killing” and “Don’t try to be God if you are not one”. On that note, there is possibly nothing more that anyone could offer to cure this draconian ailment. The other worrying trend, that most human rights organizations virtually suspect, is the flow of such thoughts into the veins of educated urban societies. The pressing need of the hour lies on counseling the youth, raising public awareness, schooling on reason and rationalism and formulating stricter laws.

Women are arguably the worst victims of social stigmas, faith based dogmas, wars and tyranny for ages. These evils peaked in the dark ages in Europe, the horrifying stories of ‘witch-hunts’ and ‘burning of adulterers’ will haunt us forever. In these days, feminism has drastically failed in some parts of the world; Afghan women are forced to surrender to the brutality of obscurantist male folk, while the situations have worsened in the radically charged tribal belts of Pakistan, where women are sentenced to caning for alleged “immodest behavior”.  A French government study shows that, women make a negligible number in acts of crime and terror; shockingly over 95% of suicide bombers and militants in the world comprise of men. At the same time, there is a tremendous rise in atrocities against women all over the world. It is important for the world media and civil society groups to stand united against misogynistic societies and governments. Only when women are free from the chains of social repression can we possibly claim to be living in a civilized world.

Related posts:

1. A Murder In The Holy Shrine

Image credit : Bala Bhaskar

I have no invisible authority
I am not mentally enslaved,
I am not an unworthy sinner
Who is waiting to be saved.
My actions are my own
Responsibility for which I will take,
Credit for the good and penalty for the bad
The payment for my deeds only I can make.

I’m not the innocent, confused child;
‘Humble’ messengers try to find,
I’m a skeptic with adult reasoning
Who has left Faith behind.
The answers gifted by logic and reason
Are far more appealing to me,
I keep searching for the still unknown
Not fitting baseless assumptions dishonestly.

Morality for me is not derived from an ancient book
With tiring tales of brutality and occasional verses of love,
To be good and to care for my fellow beings
I don’t need promises of gifts from above.
The knowledge and wisdom accumulated by science
Sincere and provable, without disguise,
Is what I find more comforting and reality revealing
Than ones given by power-hungry cults fighting over lies.

I’m not someone who thinks women
Compared to their men, are any less,
When her right to say ‘No’ is violated
I don’t blame it on her dress.
Her body is her own, her character not just her face
Rather than a world of fear and suppression,
They deserve a better place.

Things that others do without harming anyone or you
Are reason enough to make some disgusted or depressed
But when I come to know he loves another ‘he’,
I find myself hardly distressed.
It is better to judge people based on their actions
Not for ‘what’ they are,
Whether your genes played well or decided to change the rules
All of us are equal humans, who’ve managed to come this far.

I don’t believe that the Universe was ‘designed’
With a specific purpose, keeping any of us in mind,
A creator-free Universe is not uninteresting or colourless
But a lot more spectacular with added wonders to find.
Meaning is what we derive from the things that we strive
To achieve during our brief stay on this dot,
Knowing that none is bestowed with any special privileges
How many less battles would have been fought..

My love for this world and concern for its inhabitants
Is not restricted by any boundary line,
Whether you’re from the West and I’m from the East
We’re still on the same beautiful planet
So ought we not to get along fine?

I respect your right to believe what you want
I respect your right to choose,
But at times when what you believe and choose has a bearing on me
Don’t expect me to keep shut or not refuse.
As you read these words, if you find yourself offended
And feel that you need to complain,
I hope you’ll first pause for a second and try not to forget
How not being allowed to say it had once led our species
Into the Dark Ages of suffering and pain.

Related posts:

1. The Autobiography of a Secular Humanist
2. Further Thoughts on Why I Criticize Hinduism
3. Thoughts And Questions On Homas And Yagnas
4. A Rationalist’s Dilemma: Thoughts On The Future Of The Rationalism Movement
5. Yogi In Politics: A Rationalist’s Thoughts On Baba Ramdev
6. My Experiences at the Humanist Congress held in Oslo

(First published in Sandhan (Journal of Centre for Studies in Civilizations), Vol. VIII, No. 1 , Jan.-June 2008, pp. 165-173 (New Delhi). )

Homeopathy is one of those things that arouse immediate reactions, indeed passions, in most people. A Google search for homoeopathy yields two million, six hundred and thirty thousand hits in fourteen-hundredths of a second. Modifying the keyword to homeopathy produces no less than twenty-three million, three hundred thousand ‘results’ in sixteen-hundredths of a second, showing that the American spelling of the word is by far the preferred version for aficionados. While this is understandably less stupendous than the Google results for sex (a staggering three billion five hundred thirty million in eighteen-hundredths of a second!), it is still quite impressive. There can be no doubt that homeopathy is quite a preoccupation of sizeable segments of the human race.

There are really two very different questions involved in any discussion of homeopathy: (i) Does it work? (ii) Is its formulation consonant with modern scientific methodology as we understand the latter phrase? These questions are only loosely related to each other. If we understand that clearly at the outset, almost all of the heat and noise that usually accompany  the debate can be avoided.

A basic problem is that homeopathy has been formulated like a dogma. It is not self-correcting or inclusive like normal science is. The latter keeps expanding its boundaries, and does not hesitate to back-track and correct its earlier stance when new evidence comes in. homeopathy, on the other hand, is largely based on Hahnemann’s ‘insight’ or ‘revelation’, as laid down by him—and as amended with equal arbitrariness by several subsequent followers, when they found that some of his ‘principles’ were too patently absurd for even the most credulous adherent to swallow. It is obvious that the dilutions (‘potencies’) involved in the medicinal prescriptions of homeopathy, like one part in ten raised to the power of two hundred, are not merely preposterous, but just plain silly. There are nowhere near ten raised to the power of two hundred elementary particles in the entire known universe. So—all right, perhaps he was mistaken about that, it’s just a small error (it is by no means small), and maybe it should be just one part in two hundred, or two thousand, or twenty thousand, or something? Does it matter? With this kind of shifting goalpost and convenient alteration of interpretation, what are we talking about?

A more candid précis of homeopathy could well be something like: “Here is a more-or-less random set of compounds that seem to work in the case of some ailments. The precise active ingredients are unknown, but they’re present—or probably present, or maybe present—who knows, what does it matter—in various strange places ranging from tree bark to dried buffalo tails. So we thought we’d process them into tiny little round white sugar-coated balls and label them with Latin names so you’ll think they’re exotic and therefore powerful, and sell them to you, after patiently listening to you describing your symptoms at length. You see, we know that the other kind of doctor doesn’t let you get in a word edgewise, but only goes on prescribing more expensive tests, so you already think we’re giving you a much better deal. Now do be sure take the little sugary balls every day before dawn and after sundown so that the sun’s rays don’t make them lose their ‘power’, and you’ll feel a lot better. If you don’t, come back and tell us and we’ll just change the ‘potency’. But if you do feel better, we know you’ll automatically have this irresistible urge to tell all your friends, and that kind of purely anecdotal recommendation is the staunchest advocate and strongest advertisement we could ever have asked for!”

More seriously: the obvious phenomenon that comes to mind as the one that could be involved in many ‘successful cures’ is catalysis. Maybe even extremely small doses of heavy metals and ions could have large effects on the incredibly complicated biochemistry that goes on inside ourselves? This is not only possible, but also a demonstrable fact. And maybe the homeopathic (‘homeopathetic’ would be a low blow!) principle of viewing the symptoms as the disease, and basing the ‘cure’ on the symptoms alone, is not an altogether outlandish one— because symptoms arise when the body makes an effort to protect itself from further damage, and the immune system starts taking steps to cure the body; therefore, inducing further production of antibodies or whatever by the catalytic action of something that imitates or even exacerbates the symptoms isn’t such a bad idea after all? Maybe. But it certainly can’t be the whole story. And it’s all done by most of its practitioners in such a scientifically sloppy manner, and in such a curtly dismissive ‘I’m a seasoned adept, and I have an intuition about these things that I can’t be bothered to formulate explicitly’ fashion, that it reduces to little more than a cult, and many serious would-be investigators get turned off.

What are we to make of a ‘system’ of medicine that, till fairly recently, didn’t think that anatomy had anything to do with medicine, but only symptoms did? The grudging nod given to subjects like anatomy (let alone more advanced ones like surgery) in more recent ‘schools of homeopathy’ have more to do with the desire for acceptability as a science (by a public that is nowadays more exposed to the technological tools developed by science, and hence imagines itself to be more scientific than its predecessors), than the actual development of the subject of homeopathy as a science, if that were at all possible.

The second problem is that, contrary to what one might guess offhand, it is remarkably hard to collect significant statistical data in a scientific manner on the efficacy of fringe medicine of various kinds. This is especially so for data on comparative studies of different systems of medicine, especially vis-á-vis conventional medicine. A precise description of the problem would involve going into the details of the protocols that are required to be set up for meaningful studies of this kind. For the purposes of illustration, however, let me describe in rather naive fashion the kind of study that would be entailed in comparing conventional medical treatment of some common ailment with, say, the treatment of the same ailment by homeopathy. We would need a sufficiently large number of patients in nearly the same physical condition, to be observed over a fairly protracted period while under different treatment regimens. For example, we might start with four hundred patients all suffering from essentially the same ailment, and separate them into four groups A, B, C and D of a hundred each. (Fifty each would be too small a number, and five hundred each might be much more difficult to line up.) Group A is then treated by conventional medicines, group B by placebos for such medicines, group C by medicines prescribed by homeopathy, and group D by placebos for these medicines. Additional safeguards such as double blinds must be incorporated. Careful monitoring of all the patients and recording of the data must followed by a rigorous statistical analysis of the results. You can readily imagine how difficult it will be to get everybody involved to agree upon the details, and to even set up such an elaborate study.

Unfortunately, the practitioners of conventional medicine also contribute in some measure to the difficulties just described. One cannot help getting the impression that a section of the medical fraternity itself operates in some respects like an exclusive guild, loath to expose too many of its ‘secrets’ to open and unbiased scrutiny. As a trite manifestation of this tendency, haven’t we all faced doctors who don’t really like to explain things in detail to lay persons, and who think that the rest of us are basically too dense to understand the deep mysteries of their subject? It is not unusual to get a patronising brush-off when one asks questions that are more penetrating than a meek and hoary: “Should I take this tablet before food or after food?” And the practitioners of fringe medicine are even more secretive, paranoid about being questioned, and aggressively defensive (and evasive) about their particular recipes and panaceas—perhaps with good reason! At any rate, getting together whole groups of people with such strongly divergent views, for an objective and impartial study by knowledgeable neutral observers, would probably be even more difficult than running  a peaceable interfaith meeting among a gaggle of monomaniacal religious leaders. Even within the framework of conventional medicine, given the vested interests of diverse players including rival pharmaceutical firms, distributors, financiers, advertising agencies, doctors, hospitals, research funding agencies, research laboratories, and other sectors of the medical world, arranging for reliable, unbiased clinical trials of an experimental drug is difficult enough, as a long-suffering public has learnt, to its cost.

The fact is that the empirical content of medicine as a discipline is still quite high. There’s actually nothing wrong with that, per se. Sound empirical knowledge is the starting point for a sturdy science. But, unfortunately, many medical specialists themselves seem to feel, rather needlessly, that this empirical component somehow diminishes the scientific credentials of their discipline, and makes it less high-brow than it deserves to be. Therefore, in order to keep up the notion that their particular form of medicine is completely scientific, these experts feel that they must constantly remind lay persons that all but the broadest details of their speciality are too complex to be explained easily to a non-specialist. Such evasions are made easier, and more persuasive, by the fact that most people visit doctors only when they are already in a rather helpless situation and a vulnerable state of mind, which makes them psychologically less discerning than usual. What is being missed here by both parties is that empirical knowledge does not make medicine unscientific, but merely less deterministic than a subject with a more developed analytical framework. But the very hallmark of a developing science is the gradual replacement of empirical content by a methodological structure that enables greater predictability and control. In this sense there need be no misgivings about the scientific nature of modern medicine.

If this is the state of affairs even with conventional modern medicine, it is no wonder that the ambivalence of identity is much more pronounced in the case of various fringe or ‘alternative’ systems of medicine—all too many of which are no more than purported systems of medicine. Nor is it hard to understand why such systems are even more reluctant to subject themselves to serious, objective, unbiased, third-party evaluations and tests under carefully-documented and controlled conditions. Most of the claims of these systems would not withstand rigorous scientific scrutiny at even a cursory level, let alone deep and sustained probing.

We now come to the argument in favour of homeopathy that is trotted out most frequently: “But it really worked in the case of my nephew’s jaundice, or my aunt’s asthma!” No doubt it did, as far as one can tell. Or maybe something else did (naturopathy, acupuncture, …. take your pick, for the litany of sad tales of human gullibility is as fascinatingly varied as it is long). Or maybe what did it was a combination of prayer, homeopathy, bland food, the sympathy of relatives, the pleasant company of friends, calming music, and a regular regimen and plenty of fresh air and sunshine and the stoppage of antibiotic overdose. And let’s not forget the most helpful de-stressing effect of sincere belief in the efficacy of those little sugary balls in contributing to the eventual cure! The truth is that we have no sure-fire, foolproof way of knowing, or finding out, precisely what did it, notwithstanding the most sincere protestations of the patient himself and the sworn testimony of those around the patient. The veracity of the patient is not under question here, nor is the probity of the witnesses. It is just that these qualities do not suffice to yield, and cannot replace, truly objective scientific experimentation and observation. Such is the level of rigour and control demanded by the uncompromising procedure of data acquisition in science.

It is obvious that we have barely scratched the surface of the mountain of knowledge of what our body and mind can do in tandem with each other. We simply don’t know enough about what the subtle mechanisms are, where they lie, and exactly what triggers them. We haven’t even figured out how the immune system itself, a sort of mobile in situ ‘brain’ located all over our bodies, really works. When we do discover all these things, and we’ll surely do so eventually (maybe in another hundred or two hundred years), matters will look a lot less mysterious than they do now. Meanwhile, what about homeopathy to cure this ailment or that? Should one take recourse to it? Well, if it works for you, or if you think it works for you, or if you think it will work for you because it worked for a friend whose word you trust, or if you think you have nothing to lose by trying it out, why shouldn’t you do so—provided you aren’t imprudent enough to neglect a truly serious and threatening health situation for which there does exist a scientific method of treatment? But there’s no need to swallow (along with those little sugary balls) the accompanying hype about its being a scientific mode of treatment, because it just isn’t so. Caveat emptor!

The dilemma that seems to arise (at least for the small segment of the population that prides itself on being rational in all matters) is whether one is then being unscientific in practice, while professing to adhere to scientific principles. This is a more difficult question, but the answer is simple and virtuous. It is quite evident that everything we do in daily life is not necessarily scientific—often because there are as yet no satisfactory scientific underpinnings or theories for those things! As obvious examples, we have the enjoyment of fiction, of literature that speaks of purple skies and fairies in the garden, of poetry that swears that girls’ eyes look like stars. Do we really want to point out to poets that girls’ eyes can’t possibly be related to enormous aggregations of hot gas undergoing nuclear fusion? On a more serious note, we have psychology and sociology and economics and finance, and the myriad other expressions of consciousness and free will for which we haven’t even begun to frame the questions in the proper scientific manner. Does this—should this—preclude us from acknowledging their existence, experiencing their functioning, and enjoying their fruits? I should think not. But all of us can contribute to the desideratum of an ethos enhanced by a scientific and rational temper:

• We must refuse to encourage or accept ‘explanations’ that are mere mumbo-jumbo clothed in scientific jargon, as if this suffices to make them respectable, let alone correct.
• We need to recognise that the world around is a hierarchically organised progression into increasing complexity: from quarks to atoms and molecules, through biomolecules, cells and organisms, to humans and society, to … who knows what?
• We ought to allow for the fact that science as we understand it is less than four hundred years old, which is—incredibly enough—just about a dozen human generations or so, when you think about it. This is less than a blink of an eye on evolutionary time scales, let alone geological time scales, much less cosmological time scales. It is rather negligible even compared to recorded history. For all those who admonish: “Don’t think science knows everything or can answer all questions”, I say: science does not think it knows everything, and we do need to give it a little more time! We must be alive to the possibility that scientific explanations may exist (and emerge one day) for most things, perhaps even all things, rather than get into a mystic mode and declare dogmatically that ‘there are things beyond science’. They may indeed be beyond today’s science, but how can anyone be so presumptuous as to declare that something will be beyond the ken of rational enquiry forever? Science is nothing if not eclectic, in the best sense of the word.

That’s the whole point—what it doesn’t know right now, science will eventually find out, and incorporate into its accumulated body of knowledge. That’s equally true of medicine, naturally. One day we will surely find out exactly how asthama or eczema or other allergies can be controlled, and how and why little sugary balls containing a little arsenic, perhaps, and called surefirecura mysteriosa or something like that, may actually have helped trigger a cure in some cases. While not decrying the utility of this apparent magic in some instances for some individuals at some time, let’s not confuse it with science. There is no real need to do so! Likewise, there is no need to take seriously the purveyors of apparently scientific explanations of why homeopathy works—and such theories emerge out of the woodwork with tireless regularity. Recent ones include the attribution of long-lived ‘memory’ to water molecules, and the invoking of a quantum mechanical phenomenon called entanglement. (Quantum mechanics seems to hold as fatal an attraction for pseudoscientists as the proverbial flame does for moths.) Meanwhile, the most recent careful studies of the efficacy of homeopathy seem to indicate that it is essentially comparable to, and consistent with, that of placebos. The deep neurological and psychological reasons for placebo action are yet to be fully understood, but it is a real and well-documented phenomenon.

The probability of Materia Medica replacing molecular medicine texts in the year 2100 is near zero, if things go well. But should it happen, we can also be sure that our descendants of that day will be wearing rough animal hides and rubbing stone against stone to produce fire, while they discuss the relative merits of goat hair and bat droppings for relieving joint pain. In that case, none of this will matter. May that never come to pass!

(Prof.V.Balakrishnan is a theoretical physicist working in IIT, Madras. He is a popular teacher of Physics. His engaging lecture series on Classical Physics and Quantum Physics are available on youtube and are highly appreciated. )

Related posts:

1. A Scientific View of the God Delusion and it’s Implications
2. Randi Explains Homeopathy

Editor’s Note: This article is a part of the series Understanding Natural Phenomena.

How and when did our universe begin?

According to the most acceptable scientific model at present, our universe was born ~13.7 billion years ago. A so-called ‘Big Bang’ occurred at the moment of the birth of the universe, and this moment was also the Time Zero for our universe.

But how can something emerge out of nothing? Is that not a violation of the law of conservation of mass and energy? Was there not a Creator involved? No.

A proper explanation requires reference to what is called quantum field theory. But I shall attempt a simple explanation here, just to convey the point that there was no net creation or annihilation of mass/energy involved.

We all know about the force of gravity that the Earth exerts on all objects. If your mass is m, then your weight is mg, where g is ‘acceleration due to gravity’. The mass is a measure of the quantity of matter. The weight is a force; the force the Earth exerts to pull you towards its centre. [Newton's second law of motion says that force is equal to mass multiplied by acceleration: F = m x a; and a is the same as g in our example.]

Your weight on the Moon would be one-sixth what it is on Earth because the Moon has a lower mass than the Earth, with a correspondingly lower value for its g.

The gravitational force or interaction is one of the four fundamental interactions of Nature. It is an attractive interaction (rather than a repulsive interaction). There is a force of gravitational attraction between any two objects. It is directly proportional to the product of their masses, and inversely proportional to the square of the distance between them. For example, if the distance is doubled, the gravitational force of attraction becomes one-fourth.

Consider an object (say of mass m₁) that is so far from everything that there is no gravitational force on it. This is really not possible, but just imagine it as an idealization. We say that it is a ‘free’ object, free from any gravitational force acting on it.

Next, consider another object, of mass m₂, at a certain finite distance from the first object. The two attract each other. Physicists speak of this as a negative-energy configuration, because (positive) energy needs to be spent to take the two objects so far away from each other that they are free of each other’s force of attraction. By contrast, a positive–energy configuration would be one in which the two objects repelled each other, rather than attracting.

So, the gravitational interaction makes a negative contribution to the overall energy.

The other big idea I have to introduce here is that mass and energy are inter-convertible. This fact is embodied in the famous Einstein equation: E = mc². Here c is the speed of light in vacuum. The equation says that if a mass m disappears, an equivalent amount of energy E would be produced or released.

This is how energy is produced in our Sun (by thermonuclear reactions). The mass of two atoms of hydrogen is a little more than that of an atom of helium. In the interior of the Sun, conditions are right for the fusing of two atoms of hydrogen and the creation of one atom of helium, and the balance mass appears as energy. We receive some of this life-sustaining solar energy on Earth.

Similarly, in a fission-based nuclear reactor we produce energy by losing a little mass of, say, uranium. The nucleus of an atom of uranium captures a neutron to form a ‘compound nucleus’. This then splits (fissions) to two different nuclei the sum total of the masses of which is a little less than the mass of the compound nucleus. The balance mass appears as kinetic energy (same as heat energy) of the particles involved.

What happened at the Big Bang was that there was a simultaneous emergence of the gravitational interaction. There was an explosion of sorts, in which radiation (and, a little latter, matter) emerged. The universe has been expanding ever since then. Expansion means an increase in the distances between the celestial bodies. Such ever-increasing distances mean a build-up of negative energy, which gets compensated by the creation of an equivalent amount of matter.

This is how mass gets created out of ‘nothing’, and there is no violation of the law of mass/energy conservation. This ‘nothing’ is actually a vacuum, which has some remarkable properties which can be described in the language of quantum mechanics only. Further, according to Einstein’s theory of gravitation (to be described in a future post), the existence of a certain ‘cosmological constant’ can endow empty space with mass/energy.

But let us not get into those details yet. For the time being, suffice it to say that our universe emerged out of nothing, and this did not require the intervention of a Creator. The book by Hawking & Mlodinow explains that in some detail.

Of course, there are other models which compete with the Big Bang model, and the final word has not been said yet. Science is open to all ideas, subject to rational analysis and experimental verification. One such model postulates a cyclical set of events, involving an endless series of Big Bangs and Big Crunches. But then, in such a model, there is no need to argue how matter can emerge out of nothing.

Image Source – https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Universe_expansion2.png

Related posts:

1. Understanding Natural Phenomena 3: Quantum Mechanics
2. Understanding Natural Phenomena 1: Introduction
3. Philosophy With Selvi #2 – Understanding Logic
4. A Rational Approach to Understanding the Irrational Behavior of Indians

“The 21st century should be an Age of Reason, yet irrational, militant faith is back on the march. Religious extremism is implicated in the world’s most bitter and unending conflicts…Even as we live in the shadow of holy terror, our Government wants to restrict our freedom to criticize religion. Science, we are told should not tread on the toes of theology.”

It is on that ominous note of foreboding that Prof. Richard Dawkins begins his documentary “Root of all Evil”. What will it take to reclaim this century for Reason? Outnumbered by an apathetic majority, outshouted by a violently voluble cohort of bigotry and outlying to the myopic priorities of incumbent governments, do today’s freethinkers even stand a chance in correcting the courses of their regressing nations? Today, they may lack numbers, a ready audience and government backing, but advocates of Reason remain convinced custodians of the hope expressed by American anthrophologist Margaret Mead thus: “Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed citizens can change the world. Indeed, it is the only thing that ever has.”

It is an intrepid few who will venture to take the lead and walk the talk, when the ground is yet to be laid and veritable minefields sprawl ahead. Where speech is not genuinely free, even talking the talk comes at a cost, which we must find the resourcefulness to bear. Victory in this campaign is not merely a matter of a popularity vote, but the wages of victory will include both the one vote that we have and all the popularity we can muster for our cause.

Staking our vote

Freethinkers are a minority but not a votebank. A vote is a citizen’s exercise of franchise, but a votebank is an institutionalization of groupthink, which is antithetical to freethought. It is by an aggregation of votes that most policy change is mediated in a democratic society and freethinkers have a compelling reason to use their vote to nudge the polity towards more secular and humanistic policy. But what if the polity is a majoritarian juggernaut heedless to any shoving, or a catatonic puppet oblivious to these nudges? Prof. Dawkins in his TED talk on militant atheism makes an observation which is as true about India as it is about America:

“So, we’ve reached a truly remarkable situation, a grotesque mismatch between the American intelligentsia and the American electorate. A philosophical opinion about the nature of the universe, which is held by the vast majority of top American scientists and probably the majority of the intelligentsia generally, is so abhorrent to the American electorate that no candidate for popular election dare affirm it in public. If I’m right, this means that high office in the greatest country in the world is barred to the very people best qualified to hold it — the intelligentsia — unless they are prepared to lie about their beliefs. To put it bluntly, American political opportunities are heavily loaded against those who are simultaneously intelligent and honest.”

The choice for a conscientious voter in India is often between resigned support for the ‘lesser of two evils’ so that the vote ‘at least counts’, or assisting in the losing battle of a rare candidate who is intelligent, honest…and unelectable. Isn’t throwing away one’s vote on a worthy candidate who is all but guaranteed to lose, a waste?. The answer, according to recent political scholarship is, “Yes and no.” It is indeed a waste, if the motive to vote was ‘instrumental’, that is, with an intent to influence the electoral outcome. It is anything but a waste, if the motive was ‘expressive’, to make a statement of conviction. Quoting from the article “Expressive Political Behavior: Foundations, Scope and Implications” by Alan Hamling from the University of Manchester and Colin Jennings from the University of Strathclyde published in the British Journal of Political Science:

“Any ‘instrumental’ calculus that focuses on the expected benefits associated with the outcome of the election, and admits that voting is at least somewhat costly, is therefore likely to show that voting is irrational. By emphasizing aspects of the act of voting, or of voting for a particular candidate or option, that do not depend on the outcome of the election, voting maybe portrayed as individually rational; and such aspects have been labeled ‘expressive’.

The basic idea here seems clear enough; voting, or voting in a particular way, may ‘express’ some aspect of the voter’s beliefs, values, ideology, identity or personality, regardless of the impact that the vote has on the outcome of the election, and such ‘expression’ maybe valuable to an individual in its own right and so provide sufficient motivation to vote.”

Your vote may not immediately influence government policy to be more secular. However, a conscientious vote for secular values at least reinforces your own secularism even if not the government’s in any discernible way. At first sight, doesn’t this suggestion seem irrationally solipsistic and a resort to self-talk when the public discourse does not go our way? The authors of the article assure us otherwise: Quoting again from the British Journal of Political Science article:

“Expressive motivations open up a new area of study which allow rational choice techniques to be employed in ways that more accurately reflect the meaning and symbolic significance of much political behavior”.

The authors make due note in the article that the ‘endogeneity’ of much political behavior, that is, how a great deal of political deliberation is private to the individual and that even not-so-visible expression by means of an inconsequential conscience vote in a secret ballot has utility in this regard. Widening the discussion beyond simply voting, the authors also consider other examples of expressive behavior in a civic context :

“Consider a situation in which an individual decides to write to a local newspaper to complain about some feature of local life and perhaps to suggest a remedy. How might this behaviour be explained? The standard instrumental line would have to be that the individual sees this as a means of generating a desirable outcome: perhaps the implementation of the suggested remedy. But the expressive line would suggest that the behaviour is best understood simply in terms of venting dissatisfaction, or identifying with the critical position, and that the observed behaviour might be expressively rational even if the individual knew in advance that writing to a newspaper would have absolutely no impact on the situation complained about.”

A vote may not win us a seat, but it can definitely help us take a stand. While your vote may have little impact on the immediate election, it is not to these elections alone that a vote’s impact is limited. While lamenting the lack of options for an Indian voter that are neither radical, sectarian nor dynastic, historian Ramachandra Guha hopes for ‘a new party altogether’:

“Based on the aspirations of the expanding middle class, this party could throw away the baggage of the past by constructing an agenda suited to the circumstances of the present. As a modern, or even post-modern, party, it should be open to all, regardless of caste or religion, and promote policies that are likewise not oriented to a particular sect or ethnic group. Anticipations of such a formation are already available, in the activities of such groups as Loksatta and the Professionals Party of India, both of whom shall put up candidates in the forthcoming elections.

These candidates will lose, but a decade or two on, some of their successors may actually win.”

If and when they eventually win, the victory will be owed in part to the votes cast for them conscientiously in every losing battle earlier. There is no telling when a merely ‘expressive’ vote will turn ‘instrumental’, but so that there is a chance at all of this happening, we must continue to express, conscientiously and consistently.

Illustration: Bala Bhaskar

Staking our popularity

So is casting a vote with a half-chance of change a generation from now, all we can do to push for secular policy? Is there no hope for change unless we take the plunge and form our own political party? There is at least one historical case study which shows how a campaign can produce change well within a generation, across the board and more widespread than any partisan mobilization. Sam Harris describes the decline of racism in America thus, in his talk at AAI 2007:

“Racism was about as intractable a social problem as we have ever had in this country. Now, I am talking about deeply held convictions. I am sure many of you, or all of you, have seen photographs of lynchings in the first half of the 20th century, where seeming a whole town in the South, thousands of men, women, and children; lawyers, doctors, newspaper editors, church elders, even the occasional Congressman and Senator, would turn out, as though for a carnival, simply to watch some young man or woman be tortured to death and strung up on a tree or a lamp-post for all to see. And even if you have seen these pictures, realize that the pictures themselves are a poor indication of the horror of these episodes. Realize that these genteel people, otherwise quite normal, we must presume they were unfailingly religious, often took souvenirs of the bodies home to show their friends and family….teeth, ears, fingers, toes, and often displayed them in their places of business.

Now of course, I am not saying racism is no longer a problem in this country; but anyone who thinks that the problem is undiminished, has forgotten or never learnt how bad a problem it was. Now, my question to you is…’So we’ve done something to racism. The KKK was battered to the fringes of society; we’ve had the Civil Rights movement; we changed our discourse about race; our major newspapers no longer write flagrantly racist editorials and articles as they did less than a century ago. But how many people have had to identify themselves as ‘Non-racists’ to participate in the process? Is there a Non-racist Alliance somewhere for me to join?”

Americans did not vote to end racism. They began to choose, first individually, then collectively, to judge themselves by the content of their character rather than the colour of their skin. They did not need to attach a badge of ‘non-racist’ to themselves to proclaim their commitment. They did not view their mission as simply legislative and did not simply call the political classes into account, but viewed it as transformative and began first of all with self-examination. Their successes which are in evidence today, are owed not just to political campaigners, but in great measure also to every lawyer who volunteered expertise in the service of justice rather than simply the letter of the prevailing law, and to every journalist who chose to voice conscientious objection rather than echoing the conventional folly of the times. The conversations they began, are in a deep sense still unfinished and still ongoing, and  continue to serve us a reminder of the persistence and sensitivity that is demanded of any advocate of lasting change.

The lasting social change we struggle for today, is less about the ballot or badges, and more about our conduct and the conversations that we must begin by staking our popularity. We cannot afford to forget that the first individuals who spoke out against racism got not a hero’s welcome but a heretic’s censure, or even more often, the silent treatment. Reason is too important to be left to just the rationalists, and human rights too important to be left to simply the humanitarians, for us to think that the conversation with those who do not yet share our convictions can wait. Some of these conversations will be confrontational, but this is a necessary ‘exposure therapy’ we must undergo as a society so that we do not respond in panic in the manner of phobics when political upheavals bring our differences to the fore. Much as we disagree with our ideological opponents, we agree with the Hindutva-leaning historian Koenraad Elst that ceasing conversation is not an option, when he says “Ideological confrontation is the best and ultimately the only way to prevent physical confrontation.” In our commitment to fight ideas rather than people, we can even agree with BJP leader Sushma Swaraj, who, quoting Urdu poet Basheer Badr in a Lok Sabha debate said “dushmani jamkar karo lekin yah gunjaaish rahe; jab kabhi ham dost ban jaayen to sharmindaa na hon” (Fight me like a worthy foe, but let us not the chance throw;That if we become friends some day, shame does not come in the way!)

Count Leo Tolstoy, had he lived to see the change in America, would have witnessed an illustration of the following lines from his book ‘The Kingdom of God is Within You’:

“…how are we to suppress by force acts committed in the midst of our society which are regarded as crimes by the government and as daring exploits by the people?
To exterminate such nations and such criminals by violence is possible, and indeed is done, but to subdue them is impossible.
The sole guide which directs men and nations has always been and is the unseen, intangible, underlying force, the resultant of all the spiritual forces of a certain people, or of all humanity, which finds its outward expression in public opinion.”

Tolstoy’s book, notwithstanding its name, is an important and instructive historical document for freethinkers too, especially since it has in nascent but already recognizable forms the concepts of ‘community organization’ and ‘consciousness raising’ as means of social change, not to mention its acknowledged influence on Satyagraha. While Tolstoy may indeed have drawn his inspiration and his vocabulary from religion, the high regard he places on human life, his rejection of violence as a means to social change and his recognition that lasting social change is brought about only by changing minds and deeds as a society, remain things which citizens of today would do well to remember. The title of Chapter X of the book reads: “Evil cannot be suppressed by the physical force of the Government. The moral progress of humanity is brought about not only by individual recognition of truth, but also through the establishment of a public opinion.”

A means to ‘establishment of public opinion’ as a motivation of ‘expressive behavior’ could be one reason for its appeal to a rational agent. The authors of the British Journal of Political Science article make the point that it is by no means irrational to treat ourselves as our own audience of our advocacy to start with. However, our ideas will become harder and harder to ignore when we continue to express them with conviction and without compromise. The ballot may well be secret, but our participation in civic discourse outside of the polling booth need not be. We may not yet win votes for freethought, but we seek to win voters for freethought. We seek to win over a group of thoughtful citizens, however small, who are committed to the moral progress of humanity and being the change they wish to see.

Laying the ground and clearing the way

It is on each one of us that this moral progress depends, and on every conversation where we will break conspiracies of silence and every conscientious objection we will raise against arguments from tradition. To begin with, we must at least talk the talk at every opportunity, at home, in travel and in the workplace, braving the raised eyebrows and bracing for the verbal brickbats. We do not yet have a bully pulpit to make our call from, but we can continue to speak up at the coffee-machine, in ticket-queues and in drawing rooms. We cannot continue indefinitely to be deterred to walk the talk simply because the ground isn’t laid yet or is strewn with mines. We must continue to lay the ground, inch by inch, through every attempt to help freethinkers organize in local communities and build mechanisms to collaborate and campaign. We must continue to be minesweepers of discrimination in any form, detecting and destroying prejudice when it is still subterranean and subliminal, so that what was once hostile territory for some, becomes common ground for us all, where we can take a stand, together, for Reason and Compassion.

Related posts:

1. The Autobiography of a Secular Humanist
2. Unraveling a ‘Secular’ Hoax
3. A Secular (“Priest-less”) Marriage Ceremony At Shimoga, Followed By A Rationalists’ Meet!