The Case for Reason: Volume One: Understanding the Anti-superstition Movement

by Narendra Dabholkar

To develop a scientific outlook, one does not need to be a scientist or even a science graduate. What is required is mere curiosity to know and understand the natural laws on the basis of which the whole physical environment around us operates.

One of these stories (the Jataka Tales, as they are popularly known) tells us that each one of us is given a key to open the doors of heaven; but the catch is that the same key also opens the doors of hell. Science is one such key; if we go to hell using it, the fault is ours, not that of the key.

According to modern science, the age of our Earth is 4.6 billion years. Humans, on the other hand, came into existence less than a million (ten lakh) years ago. Now, if we consider the age of Earth to be one year, then humans have existed here only for the last two-and-a-quarter hours and the period from the emperor Ashoka to this day extends to a mere eighteen seconds!

Knowledge is the exclusive gift of man. All other animals modified themselves to adjust to the environment. Their bodies made the changes necessary to adapt to their surroundings. But humans changed the environment to suit their own needs. Instead of being controlled, they acquired the ability to control their surroundings.

(According to Aristotle, we get the knowledge of objects or phenomena from the four causes related to them. They are: Material Cause, Efficient Cause, Formal Cause and Final Cause.)

The history of all nations has revealed that a society progresses in whichever field it promotes independent thought, observation and experience, and the knowledge based on these.

The scientific outlook method mandates that a new theory will retain its standing only until it faces a new puzzle that it fails to resolve.

Gopal Ganesh Agarkar, the editor of the journal Sudharak, had once said, ‘Sheer accumulation of knowledge is not enough; knowledge should make the individual courageous in his conduct.’

If the common people imbibe a scientific outlook, comprehend problems and decide their priorities, then the priorities of development before the nation too will change.

The scientific outlook does not aim to conquer nature; it aims to understand nature and its laws, and use them for the benefit of human beings. It seeks coexistence with nature.

Whether to use fire to cook food or to set the neighbour’s house on fire is a decision that relies on discretion and the ability to discriminate between right and wrong. The wisdom developed by a scientific outlook may not create the ability to make the right decision.

The soul, god and concepts of that sort are beyond human observation and experiment. Hence, the scientific outlook simply admits that it does not know.

All the pleasures and pains of a human life are bound to this planet. Yet the Earth has no place in a horoscope! The reason offered by astrologers for this lapse is that the Earth is at the centre of the solar system. Thus they refute in one stroke, all the progress made from Copernicus to date in the field of astronomy!

bhavachakra—the circle on which are traced the twelve signs of the zodiac, showing the twelve points of consultation in the horoscope. These twelve bhavas do not exist anywhere in space. It is said that they are momentarily impressed in the sky at the time of birth. At the moment of birth and at the spot where it takes place, the tenth bhava is impressed in the sky above the baby’s head, the first bhava on the eastern horizon and the rest in association with these two. Now, every second, four babies are born in the world, on an average. So, different bhavachakras get impressed in the sky every second. This means that in any one part of space, baby A has its first bhava while baby B may have its fifth bhava and baby C some other bhava. So their different bhavas overlap with each other. Now, astrology believes that the impact that planets have on human life change according to the bhava that happens to be in its range. The same planet, therefore, simultaneously happens to be in different bhavas—a completely illogical proposition.

Before independence, the average life of an Indian was thirty years. The efforts of the last sixty-five years have raised it to an average of sixty years. Does it mean that the configuration of the planets causing death has shifted in the horoscopes of all Indians to increase their life expectancy?

Humankind has already set foot on the moon. People will settle in lunar colonies in the near future. When a woman delivers a baby there, where will the astrologer place the moon in her horoscope?

Earth rotates on its axis and revolves round the sun is a known fact. But along with these two motions, there is one more motion of the Earth which is called precession. It means that, while rotating round its own axis, the Earth also wobbles round it. Very slowly, the axis of rotation then changes. It takes the Earth 26,000 years to complete one circle of wobbling through 360 degrees. Presently, its axis is pointed towards the pole star. But 11,000 years hence it will point towards the constellation Vega. Now, combining this fact with the imaginary division of space around it into twelve parts, we see that the axis of the Earth’s rotation moves from one constellation to the next in 2,200 years. The so-called science of astrology was also invented around that period, that is, 2,200 years ago. The constellations that were in the Vrishabha zodiac then are now in the Mithun zodiac. If this is accepted, which we should, the whole edifice of astrology turns topsy-turvy.

Barnum Effect When people believe that the conclusions drawn by an astrologer in their case are correct are subject to something called the Barnum Effect. P. T. Barnum, the proprietor of the ‘Barnum and Bailey Circus’, used to say that all people young and old alike like his circus, because they have something for everyone. The inferences of the astrologer work in similar fashion. The language used is woolly and vague enough to touch some aspect of every person’s life. When necessary, astrologers convince their clients about the veracity of their predictions with their ambiguous language.

The most objectionable aspect of this vastushastra is its clear espousal of the varnavyavastha (the caste system). According to this shastra, land that is whitish in colour, of sweet character and smells of ghee should be allotted to brahmins; land whitish in colour but pungent to taste and smelling of blood should be given to Kshatriyas; Vaishyas should get yellowish land, bitter in taste and smelling of food; while the Shudras should be given land that is black in colour, bitter like some decoction and smelling of beverage. Thus this so-called vastushastra is hostile to the values enshrined in our Constitution.

There are some subtypes of pseudoscience. They are pro-science, sick science, junk science, alternate science, fringe science, bad science and anti-science. Whatever the name they use, in reality they are like spurious duplicates of diamond jewellery.

Everyone who claims his or her finding as scientific must answer the question, ‘What specific evidence will disprove your theory?’ This is a very important test in science. To prove that one’s finding is science and not pseudoscience, passing the refutability test is essential.

Dr Sigmund Freud is considered the father of modern psychology. In order to understand mental processes, he conceived of a ‘structure of mind’. The crux of his theory is: In the mind of every human being, natural drives are present in their primitive form. They are called basic instincts and form the ‘id’—the core of the mind. Hunger, sexual desire, aggression and self-defence are some of these primitive drives. However, unlike animals, civilised people cannot express these basic instincts. All the same, the instincts, being natural, weigh heavily on their mind. Individuals grow up in a family and imbibe the dos and don’ts of behaviour from their surroundings and accept certain ethical rules. The part of the individual’s mind that develops in this process is the superego. These two parts of the mind—the id and the superego—are not only distinct from each other, but are actually forces that confront each other, creating tension in the person. But it is not possible for a person to withstand such constant tension. So, a part of the mind has to take responsibility for finding a way (in the shape of behaviour) to keep these two conflicting parts of the mind together by satisfying both to the maximum and hurting both to the minimum. These efforts to maintain accord between these two opponents generates the middle part of the mind, that is, the ego. The ego plays a number of tricks to satisfy both the id and the superego and keep their dissatisfaction to a minimum. These tricks ...

Agarkar writes, ‘99 per cent human beings are blind followers. They hate mental exertion much more than physical labour. Even the mind prefers the road much travelled. Most human beings do not want to think for themselves.

Primitive humans were bewildered by the phenomena they observed around them. Hence, they reasoned that there must be some power, some yatu, that is, magic. They felt it necessary to worship this power. This was how magic-religious beliefs originated. (Yatu later became ‘jadoo’ or ‘jadu’ in colloquial speech). Yatu kriya—magic-religious rituals—performed for favourable and promising outcomes, like adequate rain, plentiful crops or several sons, are called ‘shukla yatu’ or white magic; while those performed with wicked intentions, like getting hold of a neighbour’s stock of grain through magic, rendering a rival’s wife barren, or causing the enemy to die of vomiting blood, are called ‘krishna yatu’, ‘bhanamati’ or black magic.

According to traditional Yogashastra, the tailbone of every individual contains energy that is coiled up like a serpent in sleep, called kundalini. An individual can awaken his kundalini and obtain brahmagyan, the ultimate knowledge that can be attained only through arduous and long penance.

About 1 per cent of Indians are prey to grave mental illness. Mild mental illness is found in 7 to 10 per cent. But most Indians are not aware that the mind can fall sick; and those who are aware find it difficult to admit it. Sickness of the mind is equated is considered a blemish on an individual’s character. In addition, the facilities available for treating mental illness are abysmally inadequate and far too expensive.

The doctrine known as the karmavipak siddhanta states the following: ‘An individual has to suffer or enjoy the fruit of his bad and good deeds respectively.’ These deeds are classified as kriyamana karma, sanchit and prarabdha. Kriyamana karma means that, whatever we do in the present, the fruits of those doings are accumulated and added to what is known as ‘sanchit karma’, that is, the fruits of the deeds of previous births. A person is reborn in the present because he is obliged to suffer (or enjoy) the fruit of some of his accumulated deeds—his sanchit karma. These deeds of the past (to suffer which we are born in the present) forms our prarabdha karma. All Indian philosophies, except the Charvaka Darshan (the philosophy of the Charvakas), have accepted this theory of karmavipak; it has become a distinctive characteristic of Indian philosophy where karma siddhanta is recognised as a universal law.

Justice is not a natural phenomenon. Human social systems have long been in the making; and the idea of justice is only three to four thousand years old.

This was probably the most striking thing I read in this book. Justice is a man-made concept. Nature does not care about 'being just'. Justice has come from rational and thinking minds of humans, and it is upto us to define it, implement it (if we wish so) and sustain it, or not. This also means that there cannot be a universal definition of justice, and different human, and accordingly different human groups (societies, nations, ethnicities, etc.) have different ideas of being just & different means and modes to implement it. And this here, poses a problem for modern cosmopolitan politics.

In Mudrarakshasa (an ancient play in Sanskrit), the character Arya Chanakya says, ‘I don’t mind if my own people and my relatives leave me; let all those who flocked round me for my wealth leave, let the army desert me, let me lose all my money, I don’t mind. I care only for my intellect; my intellect should never desert me. That is all I need.’

Not sure I agree with this, as I find this line of reasoning just way too strong. I mean, intellect or the proper functioning of brain is at the end of the day, a physiological feature of human body, which will deteriorate with age. It's your kin and near and dear ones, who will stay with you then.

Regarding this concept of pollution (by touch), Swami Vivekananda has asked a very pertinent question, ‘How can those who get polluted by the mere touch of others purify anybody?’ He further says, ‘This notion of untouchability is a mental illness; beware of it. There is no gender discrimination in the “parabrahma” principle.’