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!