Man's Fate and God's Choice by Bhimeswara Challa (feel good fiction books .txt) 📕

327 Time Magazine. USA. 11 October 1999. pp.14-16.

328 Richard Dawkins. Wikiquote. The Selfish Gene (1976, 1989). Accessed at: http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Richard_Dawkins

329 Stephen L. Talbott. Owen Barfield and Technological Society. The Nature Institute. New York, USA. Accessed at: http://www.natureinstitute.org /txt/st/barfield.htm

of mind, in effect, erodes the very autonomy of human existence, and makes man, what one might call, a ‘terminally tentative’ personality, disabled and incapable of doing anything by himself. The mind itself is a reflexive habit. Richard Soutar, the American pioneer in neurofeedback explains: “Our neurophysiological organization is such that we routinize our responses to all situations and once the routines are established to act reflexively or automatically to the fast majority of future situations unless they are novel. As a consequence we tend to become prisoners of our own habitual patterns.”330 Science may debate about the existence or absence of the ‘selfish gene’ or a ‘spiritual gene’ (the two need not necessarily be antagonistic), but nothing is worse than a ‘scientific almighty’ or ‘selfish science.’ What is truly terrifying about science-based technology is its transformational character, its ability to transform the mindset and mode of living of people almost effortlessly, to accentuate divisions and differences, and to empower ‘small numbers of people to kill ever larger numbers of people’.331 But the same power could be used for the good of the world.

Innovation and integrity

A long-standing debate concerns scientific innovation and integrity. The question is: does a scientist carry a heavier ethical responsibility than others because what he does as part of his work affects the lives of all of us? While what all of us do to eke out a livelihood affects others, the question is should some be held up to higher standards of integrity simply because what they do and how they do it as part of their work might carry greater implications for our well-being and even for the future of humankind? Opinions vary. Some argue that a scientist is not a free agent and he does what he is called upon to do, and that he cannot be held responsible for its fallout. The ethical and moral accounting has to be done by his masters, be it the state or university or any other institution. Others counter and say that creativity is god- like and there cannot be moral equivalence between the innovators and the rest. Clearly, there is merit in both propositions. And there are examples on both sides. Sometimes, one must draw a moral line in the legitimate pursuit of a noble ideal; crossing that line then transforms what is right into wrong. Clearly, there is awesome power in the hands of scientists, but they too are human; some of them perhaps are too human, caught in the same web of worldly life, of envy, ill-will, avarice and ambition, and of survival and success. After all, a scientist is not a saint; one should not expect higher standards of selflessness than from the best among the rest. Most scientists seem to think they are not morally responsible if the fruits of their work are misused or lead to questionable ends. Sometimes, the stream of history has been shifted by a single discovery. For instance, what would have happened if Einstein had not written that famous letter (which he regretted later) to Franklin Roosevelt about the awesome power and the feasibility of splitting an atom and of the work being done in this area by the Nazis? As it turned out, the Nazis were nowhere near making the atomic bomb at that time. Was it the hand of destiny that wrote that letter, and Einstein was simply the human medium? Was it the birth of the force that God chose for eventual human destruction? Was it, and is it, sinful for scientists to participate in research to make weapons of war and destruction, even though they play no part in their actual use? Are they like the executioners or hired killers, who have no ‘personal ill will’ and just ‘do a job’? Scientific research, once started, acquires its own

330 Richard Soutar. Waking Up the Automatic Self. Futurehealth Winter Brain, Optimal Functioning and Positive Psychology and StoryCon Meeting. Accessed at: http://brainmeeting.com/maxspeakers/reports/speaker2007_102.html

331 Dani Eder. What is This Singularity? Is it a Science-Fiction Thing Invented by Vernor Vinge? Can the Singularity be Avoided? Accessed at: http://www.aleph.se/Trans/Global/Singularity/singul.txt

momentum, often drifting towards undesirable directions, carried away by the ambitions of the scientists. Science has become, in the words of Ravi Ravindra, another “intellectual orthodoxy,”332 more dogmatic and intolerant than even religion. It prides itself on its objectivity, which, as Ravindra points out, is really “inter-subjectivity.” While science is propelled by its own momentum, its fruits fall into the laps of our rulers who use them to pursue their own interests and instincts. For instance, even if it could be argued that the atomic bomb was necessary to preempt Hitler and to bring the War to an end, there was no ethical justification for developing the far more destructive hydrogen bomb by Edward Teller and his ilk, which itself was partly an offshoot of the strained relations between Robert Oppenheimer and Edward Teller.

When it comes to society, scientists are, as it were, a breed apart; there are important differences among them, ranging from atheism to different perceptions of divinity. If they can be inspired collectively to strive for the common good, their contribution could have a profound positive effect on the human condition. But if they are holed up in an Ivory Tower, cut off from the concerns of the common man, and use their enormous creativity for competitive gain and esoteric or irrelevant purposes, it would have disastrous consequences. Whether good or bad, what they do and what they do not do has a ripple effect. The entry of the corporate sector into scientific research has further compromised the integrity and credibility of science. With more and more resources diverted for scientific research, the bulk of global research projects is focused on military-related purposes. Comparatively, little is directed exclusively towards human betterment, and science now has little time and fewer resources to serve as a tool of transformation. If man cannot control technology, can technology control itself? Is there a natural limit to technological advancement, as mass has  at the speed of light? For the foreseeable future, one has to work on the assumption that science and technology would not self-correct themselves internally, given the sort of winnowing they need, nor would scientists and technologists or their masters make any serious effort to change their course. Also, science would not be a tool to lift the marginalized or to ameliorate the human condition. Such a possibility could have a chance only if the lay public or the common man, not the social elite or the rich and powerful, are actively involved in setting the scientific agenda. There is also a need for global surveillance of scientific research for which an appropriate institutional framework might be required. If the impact of research is not limited to a country or a region, then its dynamic and direction should not also be limited.

Religion and its future

Perhaps the biggest and weightiest question the world faces today is about how religion will impact on our lives and on the future viability of the human race. While it is too late to imagine how the world would have been without religion, it is opportune now to consider what needs to be done to make religion and its attendant attributes soothing, benign, and unifying. Could we ever have a single religion and a single codified scripture? All religions profess to be based on direct divine revelation or sanction, and although there may be many gods in some religions, there is, all scriptures acknowledge, only one Supreme Being, only one God. The attributes of that God in all religions are the same — omniscience, omnipotence, omnipresence, and omnibenevolence. Even in the so-called polytheistic

332 Ravi Ravindra. Science and the Sacred. 2000. The Theosophical Publishing House. Adyar, Chennai, India. p.154.

religion, Hinduism, the core conception of God is no different from that of the monotheistic religions like Judaism, Christianity, Zoroastrianism, and Islam. Brahman, the Supreme God of the Upanishads is described as the One that is beyond description, indestructible, imperishable, an all-embracing, all-pervasive force, and other than which there is nothing else in the cosmos. The Kena Upanishad333 amplifies:

“That which cannot be expressed in words but by which the tongue speaks — know that to be Brahman. Brahman is not the Being who is worshiped of men.

That which is not comprehended by the mind but by which the mind comprehends — know that to be Brahman. Brahman is not the Being who is worshiped of men.

That which is not seen by the eye but by which the eye sees — know that to be

Brahman. Brahman is not the being who is worshiped of men.

That which is not heard by the ear but by which the ear hears — know that to be

Brahman. Brahman is not the Being who is worshiped of men.

That which is not drawn by the breath, but by which the breath is drawn — know that to be Brahman. Brahman is not the Being who is worshiped of men.”

Many of these attributes figure in Islam too, about Allah. For example, it is said that Allah is One, without any partners. He has no sharers in His essence, attributes, actions, or rulings. He is the sole Creator of all that exists, has existed, and will ever exist. Everything other than Him is His creation… He alone controls all events, causes, and effects, and no power exists independently of His power. Nothing happens outside of His will… He is not qualified by the laws of His creation.334 The description of God in the New Testament is the same; He is described in such terms as the One pure in spirit, perfectly free, creator of the world, holy and good, all-powerful, and worthy of mankind’s love and worship. In fact, there are more differences between the attributes of God in the Old Testament and the New Testament, than between those given in the Qu’ran and the New Testament. All religions preach the same in terms of how we should conduct ourselves on earth; to show love, kindness, compassion, charity, altruism; not do to others that which we do not want done to us; and that what we do on earth has a bearing on what happens after our death. No doubt there are important differences: for example, Hindus worship God as an idol, and Islam prohibits it. But there exist vital differences within the same religion — between Catholics and Protestants, in Christianity, and between Shias and Sunnis, in Islam — and sometimes more animosity towards other sects of the same religion than towards outsiders. What is truly incomprehensible is why, with so much in common, religion evokes such intensity, animosity, and vitriol, sufficient to murder a neighbor or a friend or a child. The one casuality of religious virulence is the very morality that all religions prescribe and preach as the human essence. And although the fangs of acerbic religion are sharper and its fallout deadlier, this is not a new phenomenon. It is as old as the birth of religion, which means it has distorted the human personality and consciousness for several millenniums. And why is the ‘Almighty, All-merciful, All-good God’ keeping silent and letting such horrors happen for ‘His sake’?

Does it matter to Him that so many of His ‘believers’ of one religion are committing so many sins to ‘save’ Him from the ‘believers’ of another religion? Does it bother Him that, when He

333 Swami Prabhavananda and Frederick Manchester (trs.). The Upanishads: Breath of the Eternal. The Kena Upanishad. Spiritual Writings, Atma Jyoti Ashram. Accessed at: