Books as Source of Truth


One of the comments I listed in my last blog raises an interesting point. The comment I refer to was this:
“There is a common ancient horridly flawed assumption often afoot that if something is written in a book, it must be true or will become so. There is zero basis for that assumption. The first book supposedly ever mass-printed was a bible. Enough said. Books were originally designed to spread words, period. They could be fact, fiction, opinions or folklore.”
Both points are true: most people do trust the printed word. Even though printed does not equal truth.

Now consider the other source of truth that most people trust: Wikipedia. Though we don’t realize it most of the time, even Wikipedia relies on other sources of truth, though not necessarily only printed books. In case you didn’t know it already, this is the Wikipedia philosophy:
“Wikipedia is not ‘truth’, Wikipedia is ‘verifiability’ of reliable sources. Hence, if most secondary sources which are taken as reliable happen to repeat a flawed account or description of something, Wikipedia will echo that.”

So is the truth value of Wikipedia the same as books? I’d say No, Wikipedia is a lot more reliable. Because Wikipedia can and does get corrected, way faster than any book. And when people quote information from Wikipedia, they don’t drop names as a “proof” of accuracy (the way most people drop names of famous books and authors). And (this matters a lot in case of subjective topics) while a book is just one person’s view, Wikipedia reflects multiple, often opposing, points of view. Which is why I think that the “In Wikipedia we trust” approach is way less likely to mislead you than trusting an encyclopedia or a book.

Now what does that say about most religions?

Comments

  1. KumarMay 3, 2012 at 9:37 PM

    It is true many people believe what is stated in books. It is also true that almost always religious teachers would assert, "What is stated in the scriptures has to be accepted." That is not good either. These preachers do damage to everyone, worse, to their own cause.

    Having agreed to these points, one can see: no book needs to be taken to be true - whether religious or secular.

    Strangely in Eastern mysticism is not for blind acceptance.

    Hinduism was ahead of the Buddha in making the same statement with the same clarity of purpose: "Don't have to believe. See the truth yourself." It doesn't come to limelight easily because of the all-round-noise of the Hindu system. The Vedas, the highest authority of Hinduism, declare to this effect: "No scripture, no stated doctrine, not even the Vedas, can express the Supreme Truth. You have to put in your own effort by turning inwards to discover the Absolute Truth. There is no other way." Many later saints of Hinduism have emphasized the same point too.

    What to do? Ordinary people want ordinary religion. Ordinary people run after superstitions. Ordinary people think only ordinarily. The essence of spirituality eludes them. Why, it very nearly eludes the advanced seeker too!

    Naturally rationalists usually hold a condemning attitude towards religions. It is unfortunate that they are also ignorant about what the core truth is, because they only use their mind to judge everything. They wouldn't admit that ordinary mind, even if rational, is a limited tool. Today's truth can be tomorrow's falsehood! It can be opposite of this too!!

    True religion, nay - true spirituality, transcends mind; and until we learn how to empty our mind in order to discover the Absolute, whatever it maybe, we speak about something which we have failed to discover. All that we do is expressing ignorance very knowledgeably!

    In spirituality this basis is true: "Discover and prove to yourself the Absolute Truth as it actually is - by emptying your mind. You will know most certainly it is valid" But the rationalist would go by the standard of evaluation set for external happenings. He has no standard at all available to verity the truths of the internal domain - the vast expanse of our mind. We never realize we can discover that our mind is indeed limitless. Unless and until you discover that your mind is limitless, how are you going to admit that my mind is limitless - a truth discovered by me? The rationalist has actually assumed that religions are invalid and he does not accept what he has made is just an assumption.

    I am not to make people believe in spirituality. I only state what I find: most rationalists believe in what they think is truth, limited by their bounded knowledge, their background or paradigm and their restricted ability. And they think material sciences' success is a trump card that is unbeatable. Let them hold on to their faith! Faith rules everywhere ;-)

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Student of the Year

Image
As a toddler, my daughter loved Alia Bhatt’s songs, esp. the ones from Student of the Year . (That movie did have many good songs and well-choreographed dances). Fast forward to present day, when she is 12 yo. She rarely watches Hindi movies now, but one of the few ones she likes of late, Raja aur Rani ki Prem Kahani has, yes, Alia Bhatt.   If I had any hopes that there was anything to be read in the name of her toddler-time favorite ( Student of the Year ), they have been dashed. Our conversations come exam time are perfectly captured by this photo and its caption: In fact, the pic below captures how she and I look at her answer sheets – me intently, she with an expression of “It’s over, so why are you even looking at it?”   Of late, we pull her leg and tell her that she isn’t showing any signs of academic prowess, she’d better find a rich guy to marry. Some time later, she showed us this meme on the Internet: “Me No Study, Me No Care Me Go Marry Millionaire If He Die
Read more

Animal Senses #7: Touch and Remote Touch

Instinctively, we think touch is based on contact. Not entirely true, explains Ed Yong in Immense World – there’s a more important aspect than contact: “These incredible feats are possible through movement. If you rest a fingertip upon a surface, you can get only a limited idea of its features. But as soon you’re allowed to move, everything changes. Hardness becomes apparent with a press. Textures resolve at a stroke.” As you run your fingers over a surface, they hit the tiny peaks and troughs and set off vibrations in the mechanoreceptors at their tips.   At the tip of its snout, the star-nosed mole has many pairs of hairless appendages. It uses them to touch things around itself. Alive or dead? Food or ignore? It does these movements at an insane speed. In the time it takes to blink our eyes, the star-nosed mole can probe, identify and swallow its food. “Light may be the fastest thing in the universe, but light sensors have their limits, and the star-nosed mole’s sense of
Read more

The Retort of the "Luxury Person"

Image
Coming up with biting and witty retorts. It’s something we dream of, but rarely manage to pull off. Worse, the more we stew over the offending remark, the more likely we are to come up with that dream retort, as Calvin ruefully points out: During our last holiday at the Taj Resort, seeing my wife carrying towels to our poolside chairs, one of the kids there mistook her for a member of the staff and asked for a towel. When my wife narrated this to us, I did not imagine that my 8 yo daughter would come up with her own retort. But a day later, my daughter recapped the incident, an incident that didn’t even involve her in the first place , and said, “You know what I’d have told that kid who asked for the towel?”. And without waiting for an answer, she told us anyway: “I don’t work here. I too am a luxury person who is living at this resort. Go get your own towel.” We were highly amused by the phrase she had coined: “luxury person”. It certainly captures the kind of holid
Read more