Religion

Religion is the Plato's ship of fools where there is no true navigator, but only the shipowners (believers) and mutinous sailors (clergies). However, the god hypothesis is a great consoling tool for the passengers!

Whereof one cannot speak, thereof...

Logic is the basic thing, the very denial of which proves it. Philosophy employs it and we cannot help but use it.

Maths is the basic concept, that objectifies other concepts. Science operates it and we make use of it at the best.

Intuition is the subjective drive for the meaning of life. Religion expends it and we are falsely consolated by it.

Is Philosophy Dead?

 In the sphere of freethinking in Kerala, this is a heated discussion now. In fact, it's a binary question. But unfortunately, my answer is not closed-ended, as the very question is philosophical. It doesn't mean that my answer is affirmative. I reserve the answer till the end. However, I have seen both affirmative and negative answers from the freethinkers community, both arguing vehemently. The affirming people are argued to hold scientism, while the other group blames the limitations of science and the subjectivity of the answer. I think we need to have first principle thinking to arrive at an answer. Let's have a series of questions and answers.

To answer this, what are the first principles to understand?

• Philosophy, Science and Alternatives.

What are the alternatives available?

• As per my knowledge, Religion can be considered as an alternative.

What? How the hell is religion related here?

• All these (philosophy, science and religion) are related to reality.

Well, what is reality?

• Reality is what actually exists or anything with essence and existence. Here essence is objective and existence is subjective.

Now, what is object and subject in this regard?

• Object is a thing in itself. Subject is somebody who is aware of the other (object). Objective reality is devoid of subject's awareness. Subjective reality is the awareness of the subject about the object. That means objective and subjective realities are different, but object and subject can be interchanged.

Wait! Slow down! What is this awareness? Of subject?

• By the way, awareness is not the right word to be used in this context, but it is the limitation of my vocabulary. By awareness, I mean, the emerged property of a subject to grasp the reality. It encompasses information, knowledge, experience and so on. It is one of the emerged properties of a being.

Hm! What is being then?

• Being is the essence that exists. It means different things to different people.  It can be object or subject.

Again, what are essence and existence?

• Essence is what something is (what is), while existence is that it is (that is). But a close look at it make us understand that essence and existence are not different. The essence is the objectivity of reality and existence is the subjectivity of the reality.

Ok, which is really real? Objective reality or subjective reality?

• Both are real. It's all about from where you look at. If you are a realist, you see object only. If idealist, only subject. If neither, then you see relativism. The subject-object dichotomy is just a perceptive issue.

What is relativism?

• Reality is dependent on the observer or subject and is relative. At a bird's view, you can observe different subject realities and they all are real, just like the heavens of christians and muslims.

Interesting! Is heaven real?

• Hmm, again it depends on how you look at. Let's have a thought experience. Imagine of a pen devoid of your awareness, a pen just in your mind and a pen both in your mind and outside objectively. Which is real?

A question is not an answer. Which is real?

• All are real. The only difference is their truth values. A dinosaur devoid of our awareness is objectively real, but nothing to say about its truth value. Therefore, it has essence, but no existence. An unicorn only in my mind is subjectively real, but devoid of correspondence and thus no truth value. Whereas a mobile both on the desk and in our minds is also real and has higher truth value. In other words, it has both essence and existence. I may call it more real. At the same time, the mobile on my mind and your mind could be different. Therefore, it's relatively real, with higher truth value.

What is truth? And truth value?

• Truth is the conformity or correspondence of the subjective reality to the objective reality. The truth value is the rate of its correspondence. Therefore, the truth value of the heaven is almost zero. Though it's not true, it is subjectively real. Moreover, man uses such less truth value realities for building social fabrics called social constructs like money. That's how human became a social animal.

Ok, enough! How is reality related to religion? And philosophy and science?

• Well, till now all the questions were about reality or ontology. Now it's about the process of knowing reality or epistemology...

I don't care what ology it is. How are they related?

• All the three are different methodologies of knowing the reality. They use different tools to know the reality and look at different aspects of reality.
• Science deals with objective reality. It is the process of subjectifying the objective reality through tools like observation, verification, abstraction, falsification and so on. Mathematics is the language of science.
• Philosophy deals with relative reality. It is the process of objectifying the subjective reality through tools like reasoning. Logic is the language of philosophy.
• Religion deals with subjective reality. It is the process of subjectifying the subjective reality through tools like story. Intuition is the language of religion. The least truth value and thus the most dangerous methodology we have is this.

If religion is subjectifying the subjective reality, how is religious community possible?

• Actually it's just a make-belief. Because we have zero truth value and no objective reality, each subject has their own reality, though claimed otherwise. Never think my Budha is same as yours. But human beings are so good at averaging and creating social constructs, assuming we all have the same reality. However, religion at its core is divisive, thanks to this zero coherence and correspondence.

So, you sound like an atheist or agnostic?

• It's a very irrelevant question in this regard. Theism, atheism or agnosticism is related to the concept of God. What I subscribe to this concept is purely based on your concept of God. If you are a pantheist, I'm a theist and otherwise, I'm an atheist.

What? Are there different concepts of God?

• Again, you are switching to ontology and didn't understand the nature of the reality we discussed so far. God is the subjective only reality and has zero correspondence and naturally no two subjects would have same concepts of God. However, we can broadly categorise into few, like monotheism, polytheism, pantheism, panentheism, deism, animism and so on.

By the way, why not an agnostic?

• Again, there is no absolute answer for a subjective reality like God. However, for all the gods that I'm aware of, I'm not agnostic for certain. All the known concepts of God are contradictory. Therefore, it's subjectively also impossible.

Ok, I'm least bothered about God at the moment. Why does no one question science?

• Scientific realities are the highest truth value in the ladder. It's descriptive in nature. Thanks to its objectivity and falsifiability, none dare to challenge. If anybody does, its their depth of ignorance in its methodology and tools. The direct result of the scientific methodology is technology that nobody can deny. 

Again, it's not our concern now. What about philosophy?

• It's the process of rationalising subjective reality to be objectified. It's prescriptive in nature. It has got a very strong foundation of logic as a language and reasoning as a tool. However, truth value is low, if not zero.

Is the subjective reality real and relevant?

• It's relative.

Finally, is philosophy dead?

• For practical reasons and social well being, we may or ought to use philosophical methodology. Social laws and policies, moral codes, cultural rituals are some practical utilities of the such reality, though there is low or no true value. Therefore, it's not dead for sure. It's much live, if not in ventilator!
• However, my take on this is question of philosophy is two folded. Either revisit your philosophies based on the their truth value and filter them to use or include formal and social sciences to the natural science to shred off no true value fields of philosophy. Both are same. You decide how you want to look at it, because it's a way of life or view point.

Scientism

 I don't subscribe to any ism, so is scientism. However, if your scientism encompasses formal sciences and social sciences, then I don't mind supporting your scientism... Who the hell are we to decide the subject matter of the science? It deals with the reality, not just certain reality... no matter what it's physics or metaphysics... anything real! it's about the methodology, not subject matter! Hell with so called philosophism and religionism!

വിശ്വാസം

തെളിവില്ലാത്ത ബോധ്യം ആണ് വിശ്വാസം (faith). എന്റേതാണെങ്കിൽ സത്യവിശ്വാസം; അപരന്റേതാണെങ്കിൽ അന്ധവിശ്വാസം. രണ്ടും ഒന്നുതന്നെ!

തെളിവുള്ള ബോധ്യം ആണ് മനോനിശ്ചയം (trust). ഇത് ശാസ്ത്രീയം ആണ്; വ്യാജമാക്കാവുന്നതും (falsifiable) യുക്തിപരവും (reasonable).

ഞാൻ ഒന്നിലും വിശ്വസിക്കുന്നില്ല; പകരം ബോധ്യപ്പെടുകയാണ് ചെയ്യുന്നത്!

ഇന്ന്

ഇന്നലെ യെ കുറിച്ച് വ്യാകുലപ്പെടുന്ന

നാളെ യാണ് നമ്മുടെ

ഇന്ന്!

ജീവിത പരീക്ഷ

 ജീവിത അദ്ധ്യാപിക എന്നും

ആദ്യം പരീക്ഷ നടത്തും,

പിന്നെ പഠിപ്പിക്കും!

മതം

Religion is, in simple terms, the mummification of cognitive, cultural, political, emotional, spacial and temporal progress.

Time Machine

ചരിത്രത്തിന്റെ തീവണ്ടി കയറി പിന്നിലേക്ക് പോകുമ്പോൾ ഏതു കവലയിൽ ഇറങ്ങണം എന്നത് പലർക്കും ഒരു പ്രശ്നം തന്നെ ആണ്. പലപ്പോഴും അവരവരുടെ നിറം കണ്ടാണ് ഓരോരുത്തരും ഇറങ്ങുക. അവർ അറിയുന്നില്ല, ആ തീവണ്ടി ചരിത്രത്തിൽ നിന്ന് ജീവശാസ്ത്രത്തിൽ പോകുമെന്നും അവിടന്ന് രസതന്ത്രത്തിലേക്കും അവസാനം അത് ഭൗതീക ശാസ്ത്രത്തിലും എത്തിച്ചേരുന്നു എന്ന്! ഇവരെയൊക്കെ ആരു രക്ഷിക്കാൻ...

സ്വതന്ത്രനായി!

 അയ്യോ! എല്ലാ കുട്ടകളും ചുമന്നു ചുമന്നു വയ്യ... അവസാനം തത്വചിന്തകളുടെ കുട്ടയിൽ നിന്നും ചോദ്യങ്ങളെ എടുത്തു സയൻസിലെ ഉത്തരങ്ങൾ കിടക്കുന്ന കുട്ടയിൽ ഇട്ടു, അഭിപ്രായങ്ങളുടെ (മതത്തിന്റെ) കുട്ടയും തത്വചിന്തകളുടെ കുട്ടയും വലിച്ചെറിഞ്ഞു, സ്വതന്ത്രനായി നടന്നു നീങ്ങി.

Profileability: A neglected software capability

While preparing a recommendation report for a reputed product as an assignment, I had to plunder on some capabilities that any enterprise level application should encompass at the design phase itself. Though our industry is matured enough to design and implement any scale of software solution with abilities like scalability and availability, I believe, we do not consider one aspect of the design with due diligence. I call it as profileablity. As I've not seen this terminology being used anywhere so far, let's start by defining the very term.

The term profileablity is coined from the self-explanatory words namely 'profiling' and 'capability'. Profiling, in software sphere, is a process of measuring the performance metrics of a software solution, mainly in terms of the space or time complexity. Therefore, profileablity is an intrinsic capability of any software solution to be performance-measurable. In other words, it measures how performant a system is.

Performance metrics can be of different categories. The main category would encompass metrics like Average Response Time, Request Rate, Error Rate.

Being a purely technical and performant concern, profileablity can be achieved by design and tooling.

By Design
When it comes to performance of any system, measurability of the system metrics is crucial. And it is effective only when the system is modularised, and the individual SLAs are defined.

Along with the measurable eco-system, we should devise a system for metrics collection (like JMX) and extracting meaningful readings out of it.

With Tooling
As we have specialized players in the profiling sphere, making use of such tools would be a wise approach. However, a balanced methodology of system capability and external enabling is a preferred way. 

Is God Falsifiable?

In a recent heated discussion on me becoming an atheist, I was articulating the thin line between agnosticism and atheism. Though I was emphasizing the importance of knowing scientific methodology and some theories like evolution, big bang, quantum, relativity and so on, a deeper contemplation made me revisit the very idea of God in the light of scientific methodology. When I was agnostic for at least a decade, my main argument was how somebody could deny the existence of God, or anything that is beyond our empirical knowledge, for that matter. This is a write-up to put forth my own answer (that made me an atheist) to the question, with minimal philosophical jargons. Therefore, I'm not here to address the first and major bunch of people called theists (unfortunately hopelessly), but the second lot namely agnostics.

Let me start by understanding couple of terms here. God is a torn word and idea by now. However, to find a common ground, except Indian philosophy (or spirituality), the term God can be defined roughly as the supreme being with attributes like omnipresent, omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent and with functions like creator, sustainer, destroyer, judge. Hope this definition is self-sufficient and well-understood. However, in the eastern thought, it's a very vague and gray idea, that has been interpreted differently and mostly contradictorily. As far as I understand, the main stream of thought in Indian subcontinent interprets it as a process of self-realization, not an entity in itself, mainly because the pursuit of Brahman leads to one's self (aham brahmasmi). Therefore, it's an epistemological way of life, thus needing no mention in this regard.

The other term I would explore is falsifiability. Nevertheless, it needs a background. After the dark ages of religious and philosophical dogmas, the light of the Renaissance started flashing in the 12th century. With the work of his predecessors like Nicolaus Copernicus and Galileo Galilei, the English reformer Francis Bacon could lay the foundation of scientific thinking. However, the scientific explosion of today has started with the formal methodology devised by Karl Popper. And, for me, one of the greatest discoveries is his scientific methodology of falsification. According to this, any statement, hypothesis, or theory is scientifically valid, only when it has falsifiability (or is falsifiable). But it need not be true or moral. That means, validity is important to be scientific. Bertrand Russell had popularized this concept with his teapot. In a nutshell, any valid discussion starts only from a falsifiable statement, hypothesis, or theory.

Though Russell's teapot is famous and self-sufficient, let me explain this with my own (mimicked) example. Suppose I say, "I've a travel machine in my backyards using which I go to moon for morning walk everyday, but at the same time nobody else can see or experience it.". In this case, anybody talking about this to me is merely waste of their time. Because it's simply not falsifiable. That means, my assertion could not be proven wrong in anyway. On the contrary, the statement that "All swans are white" is absolutely valid. Because this belief can be very well falsified by showing one non-white swan and it happened in the history. Ok, let's come to the point. Is God falsifiable?

The answer completely depends on the definition of God. But unfortunately, we don’t have any unanimous definition in this regard. However, as I previously took the luxury of categorizing the two schools of thought, we can see the oriental approach of self evolution and western dogma of creationism. In the former, the definition of God is very vague and invalid with the principle of falsifiability. I know this is not satisfactory and calls for debate. However, the scope of the writing doesn't allow me to elaborate the vague idea. Now, what about the later approach? As far as the Semitic God is concerned, it's more concrete. But is it valid? If I reiterate the definition, it is the supreme being that is omnipresent, omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent and that creates, sustains, destroys, judges. If I justify with the definition of God, then it's valid for me. When I'm able to show a creator who is neither omnipotent nor omniscient nor omnibenevolent, it's falsified and therefore it's falsifiable, and thus valid statement too.

However, being a valid definition, is it a true statement or theory? The answer to this question made me an atheist. There are already thousands of reasons (by different people) why this theory of God is falsified. Let me reiterate few reasons here. A God who allows evil/imperfection in his creation is neither omnibenevolent nor omnipotent. Please don't come with the argument of Thomas Aquinas like "evil is not a presence, but absence of good". It's very old unrealistic understanding of reality. We know people born of inabilities (though you may call it 'with different abilities'). The famous laryngeal nerve of the Giraffe by Richard Dawkins proves that the creator should not be omniscient. To falsify the said definition, I can go on and on. Again, that's not the point of discussion.

All I'm up to is two-folded. Are you talking about a God who is falsifiable? If not, keep mum (be a happy agnostic!). If yes, see if you are able to falsify or not. If you are not able to, come to me. I'll convert you to an atheist (hopefully not over confidence!). Secondly, when somebody comes to you on any healthy discussion, validate if the statement, hypothesis, or theory is falsifiable. If not, avoid such discussion (if not that person). The method of falsifiability saves your day (or life). As Ludwig Wittgenstein says, "Whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must be silent."

A lament about religion!

The greatest disaster of all, that religion brought in to the humanity, is that it killed the innate capacity for wondering at the universe.
The only one tool, we have got to defend it, is a sense of scientific temper that we could cultivate, at least in the promising next generation.

It's Her Day!

Another 'women's day' has passed reminding that she is not yet free! Why do I think so, sitting inside the giant bird? Maybe, it's because of the man who pushed the air hostess, not even caring she is a human being.

It reposted the question in my mind. Is man essentially moral? Or just taught?

Man must be moral. Even mother dog feeds her puppies. She didn't read any bible. Then what about the man in the final chain of evolution.

Is it not just natural instinct, that she feeds her kids?

No. Then why does she not feed other puppies, other than hers own? So, it's not just instinct.

Then what? If man is moral, why is he killing others? Why is he doing evil?

Yeah, he is socially moral.

What? Are you changing your stand? Essentially to socially? What is this social?

It means... man can't but be moral thanks to his social constructs. If you are not moral, you can't expect others to be so. Therefore, the evolution inculcate morality into our brain.

Brain? Morality in brain? Shouldn't be it in heart?

No. Heart is just a mechanical body part with chemical reactions.

What are you trying to prove?

That man who pushed the air hostess went against his will. Again it's from the patriarchal social arrogance that he gained the immoral social construct.

It's the strong melodious NO, that brought me back into my external senses. The lady in my back row politely rejected the offer to be seated in executive row, as it was women's day.

I think the day is worth observed. At least one lady understood that it's not about speciality, but equality!

എതിരാളി

ഒരുനാൾ
വലുതാവാൻ തീരുമാനിച്ചപ്പോളാണ്
മനസിലായത്,
എനിക്ക് ഒരു എതിരാളി ഇല്ലെന്നും
എന്നിലെ എതിരാളി നിഷ്പ്രഭനാണെന്നും.
അതുകൊണ്ടാവാം
ഞാനിത്ര ചെറുതായത്...

Reality!

Religion is imagination (intuition/story) of reality.
Philosophy is idealization (subjectivity/reason) of reality.
Science is materialization (objectivity/falsification) of reality.
And I found myself to be a materialist!

ക്യാൻസർ

ക്യാൻസർ...

കോശങ്ങൾ അനിയന്ത്രിതമായി വളരുന്നതാത്രേ...

അല്ല, വളരുന്നത് നല്ലതല്ലേ?

അതിനു നമ്മൾ മെലിഞ്ഞ ശരീരം ഇഷ്ടപ്പെടുന്നവരല്ലേ?

അപ്പോൾ ശരീരത്തിനുപകരം

ക്യാൻസർ മനസിന്‌ വന്നെങ്കിൽ അല്ലേ?

പൊരുത്തം

Tinder-ൽ photo-ഇല്ലാത്തതിനാൽ ഞാൻ ഭർത്താവിനെയും അവൻ എന്നെയും date-നു ക്ഷണിച്ചപ്പോൾ മനസിലായി, ഞങ്ങൾ തമ്മിൽ ഉത്തമ പൊരുത്തം ആണെന്ന്...!

സ്വപ്നങ്ങൾ!

നാം കാണുന്ന സ്വപ്നങ്ങൾ, അതിലെ കഥാപാത്രങ്ങൾ ചിന്തിക്കുന്നതായിരുന്നെങ്കിൽ എത്ര നന്നായേനെ... നിർഭാഗ്യവശാൽ അത് നമ്മുടെ വെറും ആഗ്രഹങ്ങൾ മാത്രം ആയിപ്പോകുന്നു!

ഒരു മുത്തശി നുണക്കഥ

പണ്ട് പണ്ട് ഒരു നക്ഷത്രം അവന്റെ അമ്മയോട് ചോദിച്ചു അത്രേ, അവന്റെ അച്ഛൻ എവിടെ എന്ന്. അവന്റെ അമ്മ ഇങ്ങു ഭൂമിയിൽ ചൂണ്ടി പറഞ്ഞത്രേ, മരിക്കുന്ന നക്ഷത്രങ്ങൾ ആണ് പിന്നീട്‌ ഗ്രഹങ്ങളും മനുഷ്യരും ഒക്കെ ആയിത്തിരുന്നത്... ഇത് കേട്ട മുത്തശിയാണത്രേ ഒരു നുണക്കഥ ഉണ്ടാക്കിയത്!

1. If death is a full stop in a sentence, birth is the first letter in the next one! Nerveless, the language could be very different!