Viswanathan K's Thoughts

In Nexus , Yuval Noah Harari goes deeper into information networks involving humans. Early religions had a problem – how did one know whether the narrator/priest was indeed conveying the original instructions? What if he was changing things, accidentally or deliberately?   The invention of the book offered a solution. “After tens of thousands of years in which gods spoke to humans via shamans, priests, prophets, oracles and other human messengers, religious movements… began arguing that the gods spoke through this novel technology of the book.” In theory at least, all copies of the book could be identical.   Religions of the book (Semitic ones) though then ran into a new problem. “Who decides what to include in the holy book?” After all, the first copy didn’t come from heaven. But the faithful decided that a “once-and-for-all supreme effort” with the wisest and most trustworthy men could stitch the first book together. (It still led to debates on who would for...

One of the reasons Akbar was “so willing to look beyond Islam for truths and validation” was the relative recency of the conversion of the Mongols to Islam, says Ira Mukhoty in Akbar . Thus, as a group, they were “less tenacious in their allegiance to religion alone”.   As mentioned in an earlier blog, this trend existed from Babur’s time. Babur had pragmatically added many Hindustani noblemen into his court. Very strict adherence to sharia would have been “politically catastrophic”. Being a Muslim was not mandatory to be in the good books of the Mughals.   Further, Akbar encouraged the entry of Persian Shia and Hindu Rajput noblemen into the ranks of the Mughal aristocracy. Why? To reduce the “worrying influence” of one large clan in the existing setup.   Of course, Akbar went far beyond what those reasons alone could explain – he was almost “cavalier” in his attitude towards the ulemas ! This wasn’t entirely because Akbar was, to apply a modern word, secula...

The venture capitalist, Paul Graham, made some very interesting points about why anything related to religion and politics quickly turns into, er, a religious argument. For one, he says: “Politics, like religion, is a topic where there's no threshold of expertise for expressing an opinion. All you need is strong convictions.”   But why is that the case? “One possible explanation is that they deal with questions that have no definite answers, so there's no back pressure on people's opinions. Since no one can be proven wrong, every opinion is equally valid, and sensing this, everyone lets fly with theirs.” That’s a possibility, but then Graham points out the reverse isn’t true: “It's a mistake to conclude that because a question tends to provoke religious wars, it must have no answer.”   The key, he says, could be something else: “I think what religion and politics have in common is that they become part of people's identity, and people can never ha...

Now that we’ve seen the origin/ original meaning of ‘left’ and ‘right’ in politics, let’s take a quick look at the role of religion in these two groups in some of the major (English speaking) democracies. Why English speaking only? Because those are the countries whose news sites I can read and understand.   British politics today shows minimal signs of religion or religious groups having a huge say. (Before you applaud them too much, the keyword there is ‘today’ – in the past, politics and religions have mixed and interfered freely). Though there are signs of rising hatred of Islam in recent times – but that’s more an anti-Islam feeling than a pro-Christianity feeling.   In the US, on the other hand, Christianity is projected openly by almost all politicians (Even the Indian origin politicians who made national headlines like Kamala Harris and Bobby Jindal are Christians – it’s hard to find too many non-Christians rising high in American politics). Actually, America p...

What do the terms, “left” and “right”, as used in politics, mean? Let’s start with the origin of those terms because that gives a general feel of those terms – the underlying theme, so to say.   In The Righteous Mind , Jonathan Haidt says that the two sides diverge wrt a fundamental question of governance: “Preserve the present order, or change it?” In 1789, at the French Assembly, the delegates who favoured ‘preservation’ sat on the right, while those favoured ‘change’ sat on the left. “The terms right and left have stood for conservation and liberalism ever since.” From that, it is obvious why the terms “conservatives” and “liberals” are used as synonyms for the right (preserve) and the left (change) respectively.   The terms are a bit unfortunate because the word “conservatives”, even when used in a political context, gets mistaken for religious conservatism. Even though the side that favours retaining the existing system may not be religious at all. Somet...

One view of religions is that they are very good memes, ideas that are very good at spreading themselves. If you agree with this view, then it is correct to conclude that religions should probably be gotten rid of. (Note that in this view, we’re not bothered by what specific harm it causes; rather, the conclusion is drawn as there is no benefit and either a small or a high cost to the host/believer).   But what if that view isn’t right, wonders Jonathan Haidt in The Righteous Mind . What if religions evolved as “cultural innovations that spread to the extent that they make groups more cohesive and cooperative”? In this view, the “purpose” of religion was to persuade individuals to be less selfish, to convince them to work as groups with all the associated benefits and sacrifices. The gods “can be used to promote cooperation and trust within the group”. In such a setup: “The gods of larger societies are usually quiet concerned about actions that foment conflict and division ...

In his brilliant book, Homo Deus , Yuval Noah Harari talks about the new religion in town, Dataism. What follows may seem tongue in cheek, but it also reflects present day reality and may well be where we are headed. What are life forms, including us humans? “The life sciences have come to see organisms as biochemical algorithms.” Dataism is just Algorithm 2.0, says Harari: “(Dataism) expects electronic algorithms to eventually decipher and outperform biochemical algorithms.” Like all religions, Dataism can “explain” all of human history in a nutshell by giving parallels with its core concepts data and data processing: 1)       More processors -> More population 2)      More variety of processors ->Rise of specialized occupations 3)      More connections between processors -> Writing, money, trade 4)      More freedom to move along existing connections ->Transportatio...

When you have a guy like Yuval Noah Harari who is well versed in multiple fields and who can communicate brilliantly, the books he writes are inevitably awesome. Like his recent book, Home Deus . Among the hunter gatherers, religion, says Harari, was animist in its world view: “They believed that there was no essential gap separating humans from other animals… People talked with animals, trees and stones, as well as fairies, demons and ghosts.” Then came the religions of the post-agricultural era, like Christianity, by which time man was into agriculture and used cows and horses as tools: “While animists saw humans as just another kind of animal, the Bible argues that humans are a unique creation… (In a book full of miracles) The only time an animal initiates a conversation with a human is when the serpent tempts Eve to eat the forbidden fruit of knowledge.” Harari thus concludes that religions reflect the relation between man and nature at the time of foundation of t...

MIT’s Technology Review talked about this study that claims that “Using the Internet can destroy your faith”. As expected, this was a lightning rod for Slashdotters . Peragrin said: “great. now the christians are going to call the internet the tree of knowledge and get it declared forbidden in their quest for religious zealotry.” Would that make Steve Jobs the devil? After all, Apple computers and Apple phones are used to surf the Net! This guy with the ID, Opportunist, demo’ed his knowledge about well, knowledge: “Lucifer, as Satan is often called, can easily be translated as "he who brings the light" or "he who carries the light (to someone)", deducting from "lux", light and "ferre", carry, bring. His story is not too different from that of Prometheus, who served that role in the Greek mythology. And they're by far not unique. In other words, they were "evil" enough to bring light and enlightenment to human, rather th...

And so we have yet another terrorist attack in France, this time in Nice. As Ghulam Rasool Dehlvi wrote : “This time, they chose to attack on Bastille Day, the very symbol of freedom, liberality and democracy, abhorred by the extremist Islamist outfits and their Salafist ideologues.” So will the reaction be any different this time? Of course not. It will be the usual meaningless statements of solidarity by world leaders, the changing of profile pics on Facebook to have French colors, and, what Sreemoy Talukdar points out : “The prevalent discourse around terrorism is rendered ineffective and ultimately useless by the mind-bending political correctness and an obdurate denial to link it to Islam.” And the best worst part of this denial? “Even when perpetrators repeatedly evoke their unflinching faith in the greatness of god during the very acts of violence — as, for instance, they did during the Charlie Hebdo attacks or the present tragedy in Nice — there is stout insisten...

As part of the verdict on the allowing women to the Sabarimala temple, the Supreme Court stated: “In Hindu dharma there is no denomination of a male or female. A Hindu is a Hindu.” Now, don’t get me wrong: I am in favour of the verdict and am opposed to all such discrimination against women by all religions. That said, is that statement true? Not according to the Vedas, says Gayatri Jayaraman : “The Vedas contain entire texts devoted to women… To say Hindus have no gender and are but Hindus, makes a mockery of much great philosophy.” And rightly points out: “The Supreme Court also seems to be reducing Hindu philosophy to a single absolute certainty. Something Hindu sages, the progenitors of the philosophy themselves, never did. ” So she pours her scorn on the judge: “He had clearly studied it, decoded all the caste links and structures, schools of knowledge, expounded it, and was only thus explaining it in open court. Which is an amazing feat, considering all comm...

Remember that line from a Bon Jovi song: “Darling, you give love a bad name.” After yet another terroristic attack, this time in Brussels, isn’t it time we said: “Islam, you give religion a bad name.” But of course, “secularism” and political correctness won’t allow that to happen any time soon. But things have gotten so bad that this Dilbert strip isn’t too far off most people’s idea of that religion anyway: Remember water boarding, that (in)famous form of torture devised by the US after 9/11? Sarah Palin, a religious nut  job, who was the Vice-Presidential candidate in the last US election, had then remarked: “Well, if I were in charge, they would know that waterboarding is how we baptize terrorists.” Upon which the comedian Jon Stewart made this brilliant remark: “That is Sarah Palin giving a speech where she is somehow conflating a sacrament of her faith with torture, in order to somehow bring the fear of God to religious extremists.” Ha ha! ...

On Christmas day, Neil deGrasse Tyson, the popular astrophysicist, tweeted birthday wishes to Isaac Newton: “On this day long ago, a child was born who, by age 30, would transform the world. Happy Birthday Isaac Newton b. Dec 25, 1642” It became his most popular tweet…and also the most contested one. Big surprise! The objections were on two grounds: 1)       The obvious set who felt he was taking a shot at baby Jesus; 2)      Ancient calendars are so misaligned with present day ones that the dates wouldn’t match at all. Tyson responded to the backlash. The short version (aka another tweet): “Imagine a world in which we are all enlightened by objective truths rather than offended by them.” The longer version of his response came on, where else, Facebook ! I loved this line from his response: “If a person actually wanted to express anti-Christian sentiment, my guess is that alerting people of Isaac Newton’s birthday woul...

Most scientists, especially in the Western world, are atheists or agnostics. The history of the Church obviously contributes to that situation, the poster child for which is Galileo. But far more than that, I think it’s a philosophical clash between the approaches of science and religion that makes scientists pick the former over the latter. As Richard Feynman described it: “How a scientist can take a mystic answer I don’t know because the whole spirit (of science) is to understand.” Feynman elaborated on what would happen when you applied the most basic of scientific principles (to doubt, to question) on religion: “Once you start doubting, just like you’re supposed to doubt, you ask me if the science is true. You say no, we don’t know what’s true, we’re trying to find out and everything is possibly wrong. Start out understanding religion by saying everything is possibly wrong. Let us see. As soon as you do that, you start sliding down an edge which is hard to recover from ...

Pope Francis is ruffling feathers within the church. For instance, can you believe he said this in an interview? “Proselytism is solemn nonsense, it makes no sense.” Or that politics: “ has its own field of action, which is not that of religion. Political institutions are secular by definition and operate in independent spheres.” Imagine the implication on laws on homosexuality or abortions in the West! And then the Pope criticized capitalism: “The worship of the ancient golden calf has returned in a new and ruthless guise in the idolatry of money and the dictatorship of an impersonal economy lacking a truly human purpose…(the absolute autonomy of the marketplace) reject the right of states, charged with vigilance for the common good, to exercise any form of control. ” That criticism reminded me of this 1999 article by Harvey Cox , a professor of divinity at Harvard University, who compared religion (Christianity in particular) with capitalism. This line sums up his...

Recently, Richard Dawkins tweeted: “All the world’s Muslims have fewer Nobel Prizes than Trinity College, Cambridge. They did great things in the Middle Ages, though.” If you take the tweet at its literal meaning, Noah Millman’s response would make sense: “Here’s a handy-dandy little fact to throw out there: 20% of Nobel Prizes have been awarded to Jews. This despite the fact that Jews are only 0.2% of the world’s population... At first glance, it would seem that if the “it’s all culture” folks mean what they say, the implication would be that we should all become Jews.” Or you could take Isaac Chotiner’s approach: be tough on Dawkins for such a generalization, but also consider a more nuanced reading of the tweet: “Dawkins was (I think) trying to say that a belief system human beings choose to follow has impaired their development. ” I think the phrase “choose to follow” hits the nail on the head. The United (or Disunited) States of Islam’istan are not exactly kno...

Almost all of the reactions to Steve Jobs’s demise lie in one edge of the spectrum: the lavish praise to hagiography (worshipful biography) end. Yes, even hagiography. Kind of apt, given that the anticipation for his next, new product always bordered on religious fervor. Take this byline in one of the articles on Jobs base on Apple’s logo (pic above), “Steve Jobs turned Eve's apple, the symbol of fallen humankind, into a religious icon for true believers in technology. But can salvation be downloaded?” And it’s not as if only others talk about Jobs that way. Take these lines, for instance: “No one wants to die. Even people who want to go to heaven don't want to die to get there. And yet death is the destination we all share. No one has ever escaped it. And that is as it should be, because death is very likely the single best invention of life. It's life's change agent; it clears out the old to make way for the new. Right now, the new is you. But someday, not too long f...

“The more refined and intellectual our needs become, the less they are capable of satiety.” Is that the reason why most religions advocate belief over proof and intellect? I mean, is their reasoning (I guess they don’t like that word, “reason” either because it is an output of some thought process) that if the needs of the intellect are insatiable, then surely pursuing them can never lead to a feeling of fulfilment? Or at least, that’s the attitude most religions seem to take. I think Arthur Schopenhauer noticed the same thing when he wrote, “All religions promise a reward ... for excellences of the will or heart, but none for excellences of the head or understanding.” But is the alternative that religions propose (abandon the intellect) a fulfilling option either? Can one truly feel happiness if one has to suppress a natural tendency: to think, to question, to analyze?

It’s amusing how religious edicts have had an impact on the banking sector through the ages. Both Christianity and Islam forbade the charging of interest on loans. This was done with good intentions: to prevent excessive interest charging by the likes of moneylenders and loan sharks. But they seem to have forgotten to consider the practical impact of not charging interest. First, there’s inflation that eats away the purchasing power of money as time passes. Charging interest had been a way to compensate for inflation while issuing loans. Second, there’s always a risk of someone being unable to pay back the loan, willfully or otherwise. Charging interest was and is a way to compensate for that risk. So when Christianity and Islam forbade their flocks from charging interest, they effectively killed the entire lending industry in their communities. Enter the Jews to fill the vacuum. Judaism only prevented Jews from charging interest from fellow Jews, so apparently the Jewish God was OK wi...