Survival of Extremism

Religious extremism normally doesn’t survive when it collides with modern ideas. What is it then that keeps it alive in many Islamic countries? Scholars answer this question by listing politics, religious belief, poverty, a lack of education or some combination of these. There is no doubt that religious belief, in particular, is by far the most dominant when it comes to religious extremism. If you look at the case of Islamic terrorists a staunch religious belief is a constant, unlike poverty or lack of education. It is easy to find a terrorist who is neither poor nor illiterate. However, it is virtually impossible to find a terrorist who lacks religious belief or does not identify with his religion in some way.

If the root cause of extremism is so easy to find then why does the world find it so hard to deal with it? One major obstacle in successfully fighting extremism is the lack of freedom of expression in many developing nations. Not just Islamic countries but also countries like India.

A considerable number of people in many third world countries are very hostile to beliefs that they do not hold. Even in a more tolerant country like India, MF Husain, a painter and director, was forced into refuge in the UK because his paintings featured Hindu goddesses unclothed, upsetting the Hindu population. This intolerance of opposing ideas is not limited to religious conviction. In Mumbai, it is not in your best interests to criticize Bal Thackrey, a deceased politician, in front of his avid supporters. Arvind Kejriwal, a social worker-turned-politician was repeatedly slapped during speeches by people who supported a different political party. Last year, a group Of Kashmiri students were attacked in India because they dared cheer on Pakistan in a cricket match. If people cannot even tolerate someone supporting a different country in sports then how can we expect them to accept their deeply-held religious beliefs being criticized? I should add a caveat here: not everyone in the developing world is intolerant to opposing views, however, it is safe to say that the number of intolerant people is high enough to be a serious concern.

Developing countries, including many parts of Asia, Africa and the Middle-East, are culturally quite different when it comes to freedom of expression. A few years ago a teacher in India was attacked and both of his hands were severed by a group of Muslims who felt he had insulted the Prophet Mohammad. Astonishingly, many people, including government officials, blamed the teacher for provoking the religious sentiments of Muslims. So, in a sense, the perpetrators became the victims and the real victim became the perpetrator. The lack of freedom of expression has warped the sense of morality in many countries. There are many pernicious beliefs which go unchallenged as society considers them sacrosanct and beyond rational reproach. This is especially true of religious beliefs. How can we hope for extreme ideas to die if they are considered sacrosanct by society and never challenged? A lack of freedom of expression is the oxygen that keeps religious extremism alive in its collision with modernity.

Freedom of expression is not without its critics, especially if there is a chance it may lead to violence. In a debate with Christopher Hitchens, Shashi Tharoor, a leading intellectual in India, brought precisely this point. He advocated that it is not prudent to express certain ideas in countries such as India because society there is not at the same level of cultural sophistication as the US and other western countries. Expressing certain views in public can upset people and may result in unnecessary riots and violence. This view is shared by many Indians. Superficially it appears to be a pragmatic and valid argument. However, if you look deeply, there is a serious flaw with this line of thought. When Galileo espoused his heliocentric view of the universe many devout believers in Christianity, including the Pope, were upset. He was threatened with imprisonment and forced to retract his beliefs. Just imagine if Galileo thought like Shashi Tharoor and decided not to express his scientific views in order to avoid offending the religious community. Would it not have hindered humanity’s scientific advancement? No scientific theory has hurt religious sentiments more than the theory of evolution. So just imagine if Charles Darwin never expressed his views on Evolution.

Societies can’t progress if a fluid exchange of ideas is restrained. Freedom of expression is the engine that drives advancement. It is the single most powerful tool that we have to fight religious extremism and various other social issues. If we are to see a positive change, people will have to learn to tolerate opposing beliefs no matter how distasteful they are to them. Not only that, they will have to defend the right to express those beliefs.

Lack of freedom of expression is definitely a factor behind widespread extremism in the Islamic world. Some may ask why other religions, such as Hinduism, do not have as many extremists as Islam even though the countries they are practiced in have similar freedom of expression records. It is important to keep in mind that no two religions are same. The central doctrines of religions are different: some encourage obedience to each and every rule while others foster self-examination above all. It is easier for some religions to stay non-violent even in cultures where freedom of expression is not encouraged. It is not to say that Hinduism is without flaws. It definitely has. But they aren’t the same flaws as Islam and their social consequences are different as a result.

Investigation of an argument for God

For some time now I have thought of writing in response to some of the strong and genuinely impressive arguments raised by theists to prove the existence of God. These arguments are sound and deserve respect from the atheistic and philosophical communities. I merely intend to investigate these arguments as honestly as possible and not let my atheistic worldview influence my analysis. Even though these theistic arguments are strong, keep in mind there are equally strong atheistic counter-arguments. To hold an informed opinion on these arguments, some of which trouble the foremost atheist thinkers, it’s imperative to analyze both sides of the argument.

The argument that I want to discuss first is a version of the Cosmological Argument called the Kalam Cosmological Argument. There are other versions espoused by philosophers such as Leibniz and Thomas Aquinas but all boil down to different versions of the first cause argument. I want to discuss the Kalam version since prominent modern theistic philosophers such as Willaim Lane Craig have done considerable work to defend it and atheists have considerable trouble answering it.

This argument is very strong and, even though it appears simple and intuitive at first, quite complex. I will write a series of articles to discuss all the premises and conclusion of this argument. In each, I will investigate one premise deeper and give my thoughts.

Before I proceed with this topic, I would like to clarify a few terms so as not to cause any confusion:

Empty Space – The region in our universe completely devoid of matter

Nothingness – Complete absence of everything. It’s different from empty space because empty space is part of our universe. Space and time both came into existence with the big bang. Empty space follows the laws of physics and even has a very low level of energy. But nothingness is completely absent of everything, including space and even the laws of physics. An incomprehensible state with no space, no time, no laws, no energy, no light and no darkness; absolute nothingness.

Now that we have these definitions out of the way, let’s lay down the Kalam Cosmological Argument. This argument has a simple but persuasive form: two premises and a conclusion. The argument is as follows:

1. Premise 1 – Everything that begins to exist has a cause
2. Premise 2- Universe began to exist
3. Conclusion – Therefore Universe has a cause

If we can prove that both premises are sound, then the conclusion follows validly. Atheists might question at this point that even if we grant the above argument is correct, how does it prove that God created this universe? For all we know, that cause could have been some impersonal force. This is a valid criticism to which theists have given some strong counter-arguments. But before we get to those, we should explore the two premises first. Let’s start with the first premise. Premise 1 states that:

Premise 1 – Everything that begins to exist has a cause

First of all, I would like to point out what Premise 1 is NOT saying. The premise is not saying that everything that exists has a cause. Because that would imply that God has a cause as he also exists. The premise is saying that everything that BEGINS to exist has a cause. Since God is eternal and never began to exist, he doesn’t need a cause.
But why should we believe that everything that begins to exist has a cause? Some theists cite the principle of causality in support of this premise. They say that every effect that is observed in the universe has a cause. Hence, the beginning of the universe must also have a cause. As some philosophers have pointed out, this is a logically fallacious statement. Just because parts of a whole have a property doesn’t mean the whole itself has the same property. To paraphrase from Bertrand Russell, just because every human has a mother doesn’t mean the human race has a mother. Similarly, just because parts of an airplane can’t fly, it doesn’t mean that an airplane itself can’t fly. Hence, just because everything in the universe has a cause, it doesn’t mean the universe itself has a cause.
Assuming the universe has a cause on the basis that everything in the universe has a cause is committing a logical fallacy, called the fallacy of composition. Philosophers such as William Lane Craig recognize this problem so he doesn’t use causality as evidence for Premise 1. They instead say that Premise 1 is based on our strong metaphysical intuition that nothing comes from nothing. If there was absolutely nothing at the beginning, then nothing would have emerged. In contrast, something cannot come from absolutely nothing. Let’s rephrase this assertion and label it for future reference:

Assertion 1.1 – Nothing comes from nothing

So we are using Assertion 1.1 to prove Premise 1. But why should we believe that Assertion 1.1 is true? Why should we believe that nothing comes from nothing? Theistic philosophers answer this by asking questions such as: “can a raging tiger ever pop out of nothingness?” or “can a house ever pop out of nothingness?” They state that we intuitively know that these things are impossible. Theists then conclude that since things don’t just come into existence from nothingness, it’s logically valid to say that nothing comes from nothing.

I think things are not that simple. I concede that a raging tiger or a house coming out of nothingness does seem impossible. But this sort of claim can also be made about empty space . Can you imagine a raging tiger or a house suddenly coming into existence in empty space? No, obviously not. But we know that certain subatomic particles known as virtual particles spontaneously come into existence in empty space for no apparent reason . Does it appear as strange to us as a house coming into existence in empty space? Not to me it doesn’t. So it appears that our intuition doesn’t have as much trouble imagining subatomic particles coming into existence uncaused in empty space. Can the same be said about nothingness? Can we imagine subatomic particles suddenly appearing out of nothingness? It still seems farfetched but is more intuitively plausible than a raging tiger coming out of nothingness.

Some theistic philosophers argue that empty space still has some properties. It still contains energy and is bound by the laws of physics. Hence, the spontaneous existence of virtual particles is still plausible as the necessary physical conditions exist. However, in nothingness there are NO physical conditions at all. No energy, no space, no matter, no laws of physics. Absolutely nothing! How can even subatomic particles come out of nothingness?

Why can’t we fly? Because the laws of physics prohibit it. Why can’t we just wave our hand and materialize a big rock out of empty space? Because the laws of physics prohibit it. A stone is made up of energy and, according to the laws of physics, energy can neither be created nor be destroyed. Therefore you can’t materialize a stone out of empty space by waving your hand. Even if you have raw energy, there is still a physical process involved to get a stone. But what if these laws didn’t exist or were different? Will the effect be different than we observe? Imagine if there was no gravity. What would stop us from flying? So it appears that a lot of limitations on what CAN be done in the universe are put in place by the natural laws. But in nothingness even the laws of physics don’t exist. So what will stop a stone from spontaneously materializing in nothingness? There is no law to stop it!!

Some might say that nothing will stop a stone from materializing in nothingness, but nothing will cause it either. Since nothing will cause it to exist, it will not start to exist. Put another way: nothing comes from nothing (Assertion 1.1) because everything that begins to exist has a cause (Premise 1). We are using Premise 1 to defend Assertion 1.1!! But it was Assertion 1.1 that was supposed to prove Premise 1. Isn’t it circular reasoning?? What exactly have we proven here? Maybe nothing? I don’t claim that things can just begin to exist without a cause, I honestly don’t know. However, I just want to show that premise 1 is not as obvious as many claim it to be.
Interesting questions can be raised if we assume that Assertion 1.1 is true and God exists. If nothing comes from nothing then how did God create the universe out of nothing? Some theists say that God can do everything because he is infinitely powerful. If we assume the theists’ claim to be true then we end up with the following assertion:

“Nothing comes from nothing unless God uses his power to bring something from nothing”

We can further reduce the above statement as:

Assertion 1.2 – “Nothing comes from nothing unless some special power is applied to bring something from nothing”

The above assertion directly weakens Assertion 1.1 on which Premise 1 resides. It eventually concedes that something can come out of nothing in special situations. So should we really cite Assertion 1.1 as conclusive evidence for the truth of Premise 1?

At this point, theists might claim that Assertion 1.1 might not be strictly true, but Assertion 1.2 certainly is. Something can’t come out of nothing unless special power is applied to it. Hence we can take Assertion 1.2 as evidence for the truth of premise 1. We should investigate this line of thought. Can we really use energy to conjure something out of nothing? Since nothingness is the absence of everything, including the laws of physics, I am not in a position to say what can or can’t be done in that situation. A better question to ask is: can we use energy to materialize a stone in empty space? I think the answer is no. Yes, there is a process by which energy can be transformed into a stone but that would be “transformation” and not “creation”. Is there any conceivable mechanism that can be employed to use power or energy to create something out of nothing? I can’t think of any. True creation of anything, even with energy, appears to be as intuitively implausible as something coming out of nothing.
This raises an interesting question. Even if we assume that God created this universe out of nothing, how exactly did he do that? If we assume that nothing comes from nothing, then it was impossible for even God to make this universe out of nothing. The only way out for theists here seems to be that God didn’t exactly create this universe out of nothing; he simply transformed a part of himself into the universe. While this conclusion can be acceptable to polytheists such as Hindus, to Christians and Muslims it is appalling. Monotheistic religions see God and his creation as two completely different, non-overlapping domains of reality. The idea that they can be one and the same is nothing short of blasphemy. However, I won’t pursue this issue further as it doesn’t have much to do with the topic at hand.
I would conclude that even though Premise 1 makes sense, it should not be seen as an inviolable fact. There are limits to our knowledge and understanding; we should humbly recognize our ignorance when we reach those limits.

I will discuss Premise 2 of the Kalam Cosmological Argument in my next article.

– Pankaj Mohan Mishra

Terrorism

Originally written on Tuesday, December 29, 2009

Last week, a 23 years old Nigerian Islamic fundamentalist tried to blow up a plane in the US carrying 278 passengers. These kind of incidents have become commonplace now a days. I was talking to a friend about it and he pointed out that ever since America invaded Iraq and Afghanistan, more and more people are being drawn towards terrorism. These people are just normal individuals, living a very normal lifestyle. Some of them are very young and go to college and live like an average college kid. However, US invasion of Afghanistan and then Iraq has enraged these otherwise normal people and forced them to take extreme steps. America went to Iraq and Afghanistan to fight terrorism but it has only made things worse. Its the US who is directly or indirectly responsible for all these young people being drawn towards terrorism.

I have heard similar arguments from many people. These people either ignore or are unable to see a very simple point. The person who tried to blow up the plane was NOT from Iraq. He was a Nigerian. If US invasion pushed people towards terrorism, it should have pushed Iraqi people towards terrorism. Why is a Nigerian trying to blow up the plane? Iraq and Nigeria are NOT the same country. They are not even neighbors. They are far away from each other. US never invaded Nigeria. Then why is a Nigerian so mad at the US ?

Some people might argue that obviously if the US attacks a country for unjustified reasons, people will get mad. That might be true. But where was this Nigerian when China attacked Tibet ? He didn’t try to blow up a Chinese plane. Apparently he didn’t care much when Tibetans were being shot by Chinese. What’s so different about the US invading Iraq ? Why are so many non-Iraqi Muslims around the world mad at the US when US didn’t even invade their country ? The answer is very simple and obvious to everyone, because Iraq is a Muslim country and Tibet is not.

Now some people who try to be open minded might argue that its understandable that Muslims are angry at the US for invading a Muslim country. After all its their religion. US should have known that people are sensitive about their religion and invading a Muslim country might piss other Muslims off. On surface it looks like a valid argument but its not. Just consider the following scenario.

Lets assume that for some reason Italy, which is a Christian majority country, goes to war with Saudi Arab. Now, if a Christian from America tries to blow up a Saudi plane simply because Saudi Arab went to war with a Christian majority country, will it be justified ? It wouldn’t be. The American will be considered a bigot and will be condemned by everyone. The same open minded people that are sometimes sympathetic to Islamic fundamentalists wouldn’t be as sympathetic to an American Christian fundamentalist trying to blow up a Saudi plane.

Now I might be wrong. Some open minded people might claim that they are sympathetic to both, Christians and Muslims. I will ask them to just consider another scenario.

Lets say a black and a white guy get into fight. Now, if another white guy comes and starts beating the black guy because he is fighting a white guy, will these open minded people have any kind of sympathy for the white guy ? I bet they wouldn’t, they will call it blatant racism. But isn’t it the same thing as a Muslim looking out for another Muslim? Members of KKK look out for other white people because they belong to the same race, Muslim fundamentalists look out for other Muslims because they belong to the same religion. The reason for hatred in both cases is identifying with a group while ignoring others as if they are lesser of humans. Basic reason for hatred in both cases is the same. Why is it that racist people are anathema to these open minded people while Muslim fundamentalists are looked at with sympathy ?

Whether its a matter of race, religion or country, identifying with a group results in division among people. Its identifying with the group that has made Al Qaeda a multinational terrorist organization with its root in several countries. Religious divisions are far more dangerous than anything else because religions are considered pure and divine and segregation resulting from them is accepted by even the brightest of our society. As soon as people start saying god bless Muslims or god bless Christians, they stop being a human and are merely reduced to a Christian or a Muslim. By merely saying that they show that they just care about their own group of people. If you have to pray, pray for every living thing in the universe. Not just for the people of your religion, country, race or species. I don’t mind people for criticizing US for going to war. However, I also want them to criticize those who hate the US just because US invaded a Muslim country. If a person criticizes US for going to war against Iraq with the same passion as he criticizes China attacking Tibet, I wouldn’t have a problem.

Author : Pankaj Mishra

Politics of Religion

Obama’s religion has been a cause of concern for many Christians who believe that he
is not a true Christian. However, with so many different denominations in Christendom,
every Christian in the world can be labeled “not a true Christian” by a dissenting
denomination. Hence, criticizing Obama’s religion is nothing but religious dogmatism
and shows how little regard is given to ideologies with even slightly different perceptions
of God. Nevertheless, the purpose of this article is not to determine whether Obama is
a true Christian. The purpose of this article is to demonstrate that such qualifications on
a political leader eventually lead to a democratic society fragmented into irreconcilable
religious groups.

Why do so many Americans insist on having a Christian president? What can a Christian
president do that non-Christians cannot? Are non-Christians somehow inferior to
Christians as leaders? Are Christians more moralistic than non-Christians? Mahatma
Gandhi was a Hindu. Was he less moral than any Christian? Besides world leaders, there
are numerous top-notch scientists, doctors and economists who don’t follow Christianity.
In fact, just 7 percent of leading scientists admit to belief in a personal god. Does not
believing in Christianity make them any less qualified to do their job? No, obviously not.
Non-Christians are as moralistic and qualified to do any job. Then why can’t they run for
president?

The job of a political leader is to run a country. In a democracy, a leader’s ability to
run the country efficiently is the only qualification that should concern people. While
an individual’s religious belief might be important for running a Church or Temple, it
has no bearing whatsoever on the performance of a president. There are usually two
types of decisions that a president has to make: decisions having economic, political
or administrative implications and decisions having moral implications. For example,
whether a president should allow foreign investment in the country has economic
implications. It can bolster the country’s economy, keep it the same or weaken it.
To be able to make the right decision, a president should have a good understanding
of economics, trade and foreign policy. He or she should probably consult with top
economists and policy makers. It will be absurd of a president to turn to the Bible or the
Koran for answers. Consequently, religion has no role to play when it comes to making a
decision on economic or political issues.

What about moral questions? Questions like abortion, gay marriage, stem cell research?
Should a president or government turn towards religions for guidance? If so, which
religion should the government turn to? This question is hard to answer objectively when
we are talking about democracies. While ardent believers will claim that their religion
has all the answers, objective thinkers will immediately see the problems that arise. Any
government that tries to pander to different religious groups is well on its way to dividing
society.

The major religions often contradict each other. For example, the issue of gay marriage
might be a serious issue for Christians and Muslims, but it isn’t for Hindus. If a
government passes a law prohibiting gay marriage, it will prohibit gay Hindus and
atheists from marrying. Similarly, Hindus despise the beef trade. So a ban on beef
might draw resentment from non-Hindus as they have no problem eating beef. Some
religious groups want polygamy to be legalized while others do not. Many Muslims
want to implement Shariah law while it’s anathema to non-Muslims. There are countless
contentious issues where different religious groups and the irreligious (atheists and
agnostics) clearly disagree. So what should governments do?

One might suggest a common sense approach. By following only those religious laws
that are compatible with the moral values of the modern world, some uniformity can be
achieved. The problem with this suggestion is that common sense is not absolute. To one
person, banning gay marriage is perfectly acceptable but it’s a sin to others. Similarly,
stoning an adulterous woman to death is perfectly acceptable to some people, while to
most it’s disgusting. There is no man or women in the world whose common sense would
be acceptable to everyone. We can never agree upon common values unless everyone
gets rid of his or her religious dogmatism and, since the majority of people in the US are
still quite religious, it is impossible to reach a consensus on such issues.

It could be argued that even though Christianity is the dominant religion in the US,
people of other faiths still have their freedoms intact. They can practice their religion,
hold any job and live anywhere they please. On the surface, it seems like a valid
argument. But US laws are still skewed towards pleasing Christians and Non-Christians
cannot dream of becoming the US president no matter how qualified they are. This has
been pointed out by holders of the highest office time and time again:

“I don’t know that atheists should be considered as citizens, nor should they be
considered patriots. This is one nation under God.” —George H.W. Bush, 1987

Laws regarding issues such as gay marriage and embryonic stem cell research are clearly
religiously motivated. On the other hand, the US constitution is truly secular and gives
non-Christians the same rights as Christians. There appears to be religious harmony,
the country is generally peaceful and without much religious strife or violence, unlike
other democracies such as Pakistan. Because of the relative calm, it is understandable to
wonder what is wrong with maintaining the status quo. What is wrong with Christians
continuing to root for a Christian as the US president, if it has turned out fine so far?

There is an important reason behind the lack of religious strife in the US. Around 80
percent of the US population is Christian or Jewish. Around 12.1 percent are unaffiliated
with any religion. 4 percent identify themselves as having no religion at all. Those
unaffiliated with or having no religion are not likely to turn to violence due to their
displeasure over certain laws. So, it is safe to say that around 98 percent of the US
population, though likely to express displeasure, are not liable to turn to violence or take
drastic action over grievances. On the other hand, religious groups that have said they
would use physical harm, such as various Islamic groups, are so small in number that
they see no hope to bring about change by violence.

The US population is becoming more and more heterogeneous. The proportion of other
religious groups is bound to increase. As this happens, we will start seeing clashes
between different religious groups. India and Nigeria are a case in point. Even though
Muslims only constitute around a fifth of India’s population, there have been numerous
riots and hundreds of thousands of people have lost their lives. The most recent incident
is the 2012 Jaipur Literature Festival where Islamic protestors said they would use
violence if Salman Rushdie (author of The Satanic Verses) showed up in person or on
video. The country has been devastated by religious divisiveness and corrupt politicians
exhorting the religious sentiments of people. The Indian government calls itself secular
but is involved in sponsoring religious trips for Muslims to Mecca. Actions like these
anger Hindus and eventually result in religious disharmony. Many policy decisions
made by the Indian government, from foreign policy to economic, are aimed at pleasing
different religious groups. For example, some political parties have started advocating affirmative actions for Muslims in an attempt to gain Muslim vote. They know it full well that it might create even more rift among Muslims and Non-Muslims but they don’t care about it. This kind of opportunistic attitude has hindered India’s progress to a
great extent and the country is heading towards greater disasters in the future. Religious riots in Nigeria have claimed thousands of lives in just the last 10 years with increasing tensions arising since Boko Haram’s appearance. India and Nigeria are not the only or the most extreme examples. They are the inevitable result of a society dissevered into incompatible religious groups.

A secular society is indispensable for a country in which people follow different
religions. Mixing religion with politics often leads to catastrophic consequences.
Accepting a non-Christian as president is a challenge that Americans will have to
overcome to ensure a united, peaceful and strong America in the future.

Authors: Carl Densem, Pankaj Mishra

Welcome!!

Welcome to our blog!! I have been thinking about starting a blog for a while. I and Ziggy have had numerous discussions on some very ctitical issues, such as religion, morality, terrorism etc with some very interesting people. Most of these discussions/debates have taken place in person and on Facebook. Since we dont live in the same town anymore, face to face discussion is impossible. While Facebook is an excellent place to hold discussions, things do tend to get lost over time. Some people dont like to dicuss these issues on Facebook for various reasons as well. So we decided to start our own blog where we can post our articles/thoughts and discuss them with others. Since Ziggy started grad school and I moved to Oregon, things have been slow. Our discussions/debates have completely stopped. We are going to restart them. We have planned to start working on various articles and post them over here. Any question/comments/feedback will be appreciated. Please fee free to criticize us. We never take any objective criticizm personally and view it as something that pushes us to search for even more answers.

Pankaj Mishra