For the complete debate with materialists see this
My good friend
Avijit Roy, the founding moderator of the Internet’s Bangladeshi forum
of freethinkers and rationalists www.mukto-mona.com
and a Research scholar of the National University of Singapore
wrote to me and announced that the Bangladeshi freethinkers have decided
to dedicate and celebrate the first day of March as the “Rationalist
Here is that
He was kind enough
to ask me for one of my articles on rational thinking to be published in
their forum for the occasion.
I feel honored for
the invitation. However since I did not have anything written
specifically on this subject I wrote the following:
What it Takes to be a Rationalist
By Ali Sina
Not everyone who rejects religion can be called
rationalist. To be rationalist one has to reject dogmatism. However,
what is dogma is not well defined.
The dictionary definition
of dogma is:
1: a religious doctrine
that is proclaimed as true without proof
2: a doctrine or code of
beliefs accepted as authoritative;
Dogma is not just the
domain of religion. Blind belief in the undisputed authority of any
thing is considered to be dogma. For example Marxism is a dogma even
though it denounces religion and claims to be based on science.
principle, belief, or statement of ideas or opinion, when it is
considered to be absolutely true is dogma. Once you accept something
without enough evidence or reject something despite the evidence because
it contradicts your notion of reality and truth you are dogmatic.
Is it possible for
rationalists to be dogmatic too?
Yes it is possible. Not
all those who claim to be rationalist are so. For example a Marxist
would vehemently deny being dogmatic. He thinks Marxism is the ultimate
form of rationalism. As a matter of fact no one, not even the most
close-minded religionist, thinks of himself as a dogmatic. Everyone thinks he is a
freethinker and rationalist.
If you deny
the evidence of things that you do not understand and try to dismiss
them, explain them away, intellectualize and justifying them denying the
evidences because they contradict your sacred belief, which in this case
could be your limited understanding of science, you are, of course,
dogmatic. In this case science or your limited understanding of it
Many, or perhaps it is
safe to say most, self-proclaimed rationalists and scientists fall into
this category. As a matter
of fact, true rationalists and freethinkers are rarer than diamond in a coal
mine. Now, of
course, this is not going to sit very well with the majority of the
delusional rationalist wannabes. Just as if you call a religionists,
"dogmatic" he will attack you, these self proclaimed
rationalists would lynch and pillory you if you dare questioning their
"religion" and their sacred belief.
Now what about the
scientists? Can scientists be dogmatic?
Of course they can. Take
the example of evolution. This is purely science. At the same time that
Darwin was presenting his theory of evolution through natural selection,
Jean Baptiste Lamarck was proposing a different concept of evolution.
His understanding of the fundamental mechanism for evolution was that
fluids move through the body to areas of activity and enlarge the most
active parts of an organism. As the result children inherit the changes
that occur in their parents. Now this theory is completely discredited.
The Nazis however, held Lamarckism as the dogma and made it the basis of
their campaign to create their utopian Superior Race, which led to tremendous
atrocities, as the history is witness.
I heard a reputed Iranian
who was a retired scientist at NASA say that once he saw himself a few
meters ahead with broken leg. He said I kept going forward and right in
the same spot I stumbled, fell and broke my leg. This was an anecdote
from his own life experience that he said when in reality he was
claiming that clairvoyance, telepathy or psychic power, are all jumbo
mumbo and one should not believe in them. It was ironic that he should
mention his own paranormal experience when in actuality he was
dismissing these things as nonsense. If that is not dogmatism then what
it is? Dealing with dogmatic people is all I do. With my line of
activity I am constantly debating with dogmatic people. No matter how
you look at it, this respected gentleman is a dogmatic scientist. When
you deny evidences that contradict your prejudices, that is
So as you see, even the
scientists can be as much dogmatic as religionists.
So what are the parameters
to define rationalism? How can we know whether we are truly rationalist
or we are dogmatic?
The answer is in the
definition of dogmatism. As self-proclaimed rationalists we can easily
dismiss the claim of the religionists that their belief is rational.
Once you believe in something without evidence, you believe in a dogma
and hence you can’t be called a rationalist. Take the example of
creationism, the resurrection of Jesus, the ascension of Muhammad to the
seventh heaven on the back of a winged steed, and many other religious
beliefs of this kind. They are all dogma because not only there is no
evidence for them; they are contrary to logic and science. It must be mentioned that the religionists' response is that their
belief is not irrational but it "transcends" rationality. I
have not figured out what this really means except being a save face and
a feel good factor. For example is trinity an irrational dogma or does
it transcend rationality. It depends whom you ask. The point is no
believer would want to be labeled as irrational.
The Marxists' belief in the
dialectical materialism or the Nazis’ belief in Atlantis and the Super
Race are all based on improvable beliefs and although they are not
religious they are equally dogmatic and as we witnessed they were
equally dangerous. Dogmatism is an attitude.
Anyone can be dogmatic irrespective of his or her belief.
Well, how can we determine
whether we are dogmatic or not?
There is of course an easy way to find
out. Nevertheless, not everyone is able to acknowledge it. For example
it is very easy to prove that the religious books are fables,
irrational, unscientific and the belief in them, is dogmatism. But try
to convince a religious believer that he is dogmatic. What you think
would be his response?
Likewise, I can prove that
many self-declared rationalists and freethinkers are not rationalists or
freethinkers but are as dogmatic as when they were religionists. All
they have done is they changed their religion. Their religious attitude
of denial and belief is not changed.
Denial and belief are the
two characteristics of religious people. For example a religious person
would deny any thought that may be contrary to his faith and of course
would believe anything that agrees with it. A Christian fundamentalist
would categorically deny the evidence about evolution because it
contradicts what his sacred book says about creation. He is still
referring to evolution as a “theory”. This is denial. He also
believes that the first humans walking on Earth were Adam and Eve who
were created and molded by God in his own semblance and then kicked out
of paradise. There is absolutely no evidence for this belief, yet he is
not concerned about evidence. He would accept anything that is written
in his sacred book with no ifs or buts. This is belief.
Both denial and belief go
hand in hamd. They are the twin pillars of dogmatism. For a believer, his
sacred book is the ultimate measure of right and wrong. He would believe
anything that agrees with that book and rejects anything that disagrees
Dogmatism is not what we
believe; it is the attitude of denial and belief. For example, you may
believe that one day there was life on Mars even though you have no
proof for it. This is not dogmatism. The fact is that we
don’t know. This could be true as it could not be true. I suppose the
Spirit and the Opportunity; our two Mars-rovers, now safely landed on the
red planet, will tell us the truth eventually. Suppose I say there was life
on Mars one day but then I am proven wrong, that does not mean I am
dogmatic. However, if I insist that there is life on Mars, without
having any evidence to back up my claim, or deny the evidences found to
the contrary, I would be dogmatic. Dogmatism is not in what we believe.
It is in our attitude.
What is the name of the
Rationalists do not
believe in any religion. What we are talking about are the pseudo
rationalists who call themselves rationalists and skeptics. To them
science is a religion. Yes, indeed, science can be a substitute to religion. These
people have not renounced their religion. They simply have changed it.
They are still caught in denial and belief just as when they were
religionists. They are still as much dogmatic, as when they were
We already saw that you do
not need to believe in God to be dogmatic. The Marxists were atheists
and yet were just as dogmatic as religionists. Likewise, you do not need
to believe in a religion to be dogmatic. You may even renounce
religions, and remain just as dogmatic as before.
Dogmatism is an attitude
not a belief. Rational Thinking also is an attitude. It is the WAY you
think, not WHAT you think that determines whether you are a rationalist or a
dogmatic, a freethinker or a fanatic. What you believe or not believe is
irrelevant --it is your attitude. That attitude is denial and
belief. If you believe in anything or deny anything with no proof and
evidence, you are dogmatic.
The requisite for
rationalism is doubt. Doubt everything! Everything means everything. We
all know how to doubt things that we already do not believe. That is not
rationalism. To be a rationalist you have to doubt your own cherished
beliefs not someone else’s. Even a Christian fundamentalist can tell
you that he doubts the theory of evolution. That does not mean that he
is a rationalist. If you want to be a skeptic, you must be able to doubt your own beliefs not the
beliefs of others that you already dismiss as untrue.
You can’t be called
rationalist if all you can do is to dismiss the beliefs that you do not
agree with already. This is not what skepticism is about. If that were
the requisite for being a skeptic then everyone is skeptic of something.
What entitles you to be called skeptic when a Christian fundamentalist
also is skeptic of many things that you believe such as your idea in
evolution? You can only be
called a skeptic if you can doubt your own beliefs.
Do you believe that
science has the answer to all the human questions? If your answer is yes
then you are a dogmatic? Science
is growing. The science of 100 years ago is not the same science of
today. We are constantly discovering new realities that were unknown to
us. The science is evolving and changing. What seemed to be science
fiction yesterday is a reality today. Recently scientists have found a
way to make living cells talk to computer chips. When I was a child I
used to watch the six million-dollar man and think of it as fantasy. Now
that fantasy can become a reality may be in my own lifetime. When I was
a child I was told that meditation is hocus-pocus and psychosomatics is
fairytale. Now, science is discovering new frontiers in the mind body
connection and medical science is beginning to take advantage of it.
As rationalists we should not dismiss
things that we do not understand. Rationalism is not yet another
religion with science as its dogma. Science is evolving and there are
realities that today’s science cannot explain, but tomorrow it may.
There are evidences of phenomena for which today’s science has no
answer. Take the example of aurora borealis. The early science was not
able to explain it. How they were created? Where ghosts playing with
flashlights? It was a phenomenon that was unexplainable. But it was
absurd to deny it just because that day’s science could not explain
Many people have witnessed phenomena that
today’s science cannot explain. There are those who claim to have seen
ghosts, UFOs, big foot or big snake- like creatures in the sea. Now most likely these are
all the product of human imagination. But are we sure? Is there a
possibility that any one of these apparitions could be true? If not, why
not? Here is what skepticism is needed. We have no proof that all these
claims are false. There have been many publicity-seekers and pranksters
that have forged “evidences” that can easily be dismissed.
This does not invalidate the claim of those honest and sane people who
say they have seen things that can't be explained scientifically.
What shall we do with these claims?
What should be the position of a true rationalist? Should he believe in
these claims? Where is the solid evidence? Should he dismiss them all?
Again where is the solid evidence? Are these claims absolutely
impossible? Is it impossible for a humanoid, ancient relative of man, to
have survived somewhere in the woods? Is it impossible that some
intelligent creatures, from a distant planet have made their way to our
planet, swishing in our skies with their flying spaceships that looks
like saucers? Is it impossible that there could be a parallel world to ours with
different dimensions. Is it impossible that the we may have a spiritual
dimension and that the ghosts apparitions are flashes of that spiritual dimensional world crossing our
three dimensional world? Is it impossible that a rare creature in the
depth of the seas is yet undiscovered but occasionally is spotted by
some seamen? The answer is, that all these phenomena are highly
improbable. But improbable does not mean impossible. Until we do not
have the evidence to dismiss them altogether, we should not deny the
possibility that they could be true.
Now a cynic may say then perhaps we should
not dismiss the possibility of the existence of two headed dragons, the elves
and the genies. Remember, we are talking about possibilities. Fairy
tales are impossible. The above examples are improbable but not
The point is that there is nothing
illogical or absurd in any of these claims even if they seem to be
outlandish. The fact that today’s science has no explanation for them
is no proof that they are hocus-pocus. They are improbable, but still
The closest solar system to us is four
light years away. It is very unlikely that creatures from other solar
systems could ever have made it to our system and our planet. Based on
what we know of science today, the interstellar travels are fantasies.
However, we do not know much of the science. The future science may
discover ways that would make interstellar travels a reality.
Improbable? Yes! Impossible? No! As rationalists we should know the
Is it possible that we humans may have another dimension to us that
could survive after we die? We have little proof for that. There is no
scientific evidence for that. However, can we dismiss this possibility completely,
mock those who claim to have had out of body or near death experiences,
or have witnessed ghost apparitions? Can we call all these people
lunatics, or accuse them of having active imagination?
How can we be so sure? You
believe in the science and nothing else when science is constantly
evolving and changing. Isn’t this dogmatism?
Isn’t this denial? If you dismiss anything that is contrary to
your limited understanding of science how can you blame the religionists
that dismiss anything that is contrary to their sacred book?
There are phenomena that
our science cannot explain. Take the example of the crop circles. These
circles have even appeared in frozen lakes with thin ice that would not
allow anyone to walk on them. Some people, for the sake of publicity
have made some sloppy circles and have shown how they made them. This is
not proof that all these crop circles are hoax. Some of these shapes are
so intricate that it is absurd to think they were made by humans,
overnight and without anyone seeing them. These designs appear
everywhere on the planet. The science has no explanation for them. What
should we do as rationalists? Should we just dismiss them, explain them
away with absurd and implausible theories? Should we attribute them to
some extraterrestrials? Are they natural phenomena? The correct answer
is that we do not know and therefore we should not try to pass opinions
of things that we do not know.
Not everything should fit
into our mold of thought and preconceived ideas. Just as the
religionists should be humble and admit that their sacred book does not
have answer to everything, we, the rationalists, must humbly accept that
our science is at its infancy and it does not have the answer to all the
The Soviets used to send
their dissidents to the psychiatric hospitals. Anyone who disagreed with
their dogma was considered to be insane and needed treatment. Today the
self-proclaimed rationalists are just as arrogant as the Soviet rulers
were during the cold war. They mock anyone who claims having seen
something that they do not understand and their sacred book of science,
does not have an answer for.
You can’t just call
yourself a rationalist if you do not know the principles of rational
thinking? If you BELIEVE, you are not a rationalist. The content of your
belief is irrelevant. You could believe in a religion, in a god, in many
gods, in no god, in no religion or in science. As long as you are a
believer you are not a freethinker and hence you are not a rationalists.
This does not mean that
you should accept things that are proven to be false. For example
Muhammad certainly did not ascent to heaven riding on a pony. This is
illogical. It is absurd and ridiculous. Where is that heaven? How he
could get there with a winged horsy? He certainly did not split the
moon. These are fables that he concocted to fool the gullible people of
his time. We do not have to doubt whether a belief is true when it can
easily be proven to be false. Anything that can be proven to be
false is false. End of the argument.
What about the existence
of God as a person or a being?
This is a belief that also can be proven
to be false. The belief in God as someone who listens to you, someone
who answers your prayers and cares for you is not tenable logically? In
a catastrophe such as in an Earth tens of thousands die, the few who
survive say God saved them. Isn't this absurd? Why God did not save
others? Where is God when so many innocent people, including children
die of AIDS, famine, violence or natural disasters?
can easily prove that such "personal" god does not exist.
Consider for example the Epicurian riddle:
Is God willing
to prevent evil, but not able?
Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he able, but not willing?
Then he is malevolent.
Is he both able and willing?
Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able nor willing?
Then why call him God?
This simple logic is
A pseudo rationalist
reader of mine tried to dismiss this logic and wrote:
"As an atheist,
even I can answer this: Muslims basically do think that their God is
malevolent, since he makes disbelievers drink boiling water. If you want
to change his name from God to Satan, that's fine by me. This in no way
constitutes proof for the absence of a God. He may well be malevolent,
or maybe he can do only one thing at a time. E.g. if you have kids, are
you able to control all your grandchildren all the time? Who knows. What
you CAN say is that if there is a God, there is no evidence to suggest
that he interferes on the earth."
This is the typical
irrational and dogmatic reasoning we can see in religionists. As you can
see even the self-proclaimed rationalists are not immune to irrational
First of all Muslims do
not think that their God is malevolent even though Allah is definitely a
malevolent god. Muslims think that their god is merciful and all the
sadism attributed to him in the Quran are not seen as cruelties by
Muslims but as divine "justice". After all Muslims are the epitome
Secondly, all the
believers in God think that their God is omnipotent. Therefore according
to them their god is multi tasking and does not need to abandon some of
his kids to attend to his other kids. So the premises presented by my
"rationalist" friend to refute the above argument is baseless.
This is how irrational people justify their irrational beliefs --their
premises are often wrong.
We can dismiss God as a being, logically. I don't believe in
God because it just makes no sense. It is contrary to reason and logic.
I do believe, however, in a principle underlying the creation. This
universe must be governed by a set of laws, or perhaps a single law that
is expressed in many ways. This does not imply that there must be a
lawmaker per force.
2+2 = 4. This is a natural law. Do
we need a legislator to make this into a law? Suppose there was no
universe, no God and nothing existed. Would in that non-existing world
two plus two add up to anything else but four? Laws can exist, even if
the universe and God do not. And since the laws governing the universe
can exist independent of God, the existence of God becomes redundant. It is
much more logical to believe in the self-subsistence of the laws of the
universe than in a god making those laws. If you can’t accept the laws
could exist on their own without someone making them, how can you accept the
existence of a god without a creator?
The former is logical, the latter is a dogma.
everything”, does not license everyone to hold fast unto their spurious beliefs because they might one day be proven to be true? That is
not rationalism at all. If something is proven to be false, then
upholding it is irrational. The Earth is round. This is a fact and is
proven to be true. You can’t doubt the roundness of the Earth and
claim that since we have to doubt everything, then we should not dismiss
the possibility that the Earth could be flat. Once something is proven
to be a fact then we do not need to doubt it anymore.
The same thing can be
said about the evolution. Even though the evolution, when first was
presented, was just a theory, it is no more. We have ample evidence and
proof that evolution is a fact. We can’t doubt evolution anymore
because the evidence is overwhelming. We do not believe in evolution nor
we doubt it. The evolution is now part of our knowledge. We KNOW
We must doubt things for
which we have little evidence but once the evidence is presented,
whether in support or against it, then there is no room for doubt
anymore. At that time we
leave doubt and enter the domain of knowledge -- not faith, but knowledge.
By the same token, we
can’t dismiss things that can’t be proven or disproven. As long as things are not entirely illogical or
impossible, there is a chance, even though that chance could be minimal,
based on what we know of science today, that they could be true.
In other words, if you
disbelieve in ghosts, UFO’s, or big foot vehemently, you are just as
much dogmatic as those who believe in them. When there is no evidence
neither in support nor against something, the right attitude is not to
hold any unwavering belief.
The challenge facing us
rationalists is not to dismiss things that we do not understand or
things that do not fit into our mental mold. Our challenge is to get rid
of “belief” itself and learn to doubt. Our job is not to uphold the
infallibility of the holy science when we know that science is yet at
its infancy and there are many things that we still do not understand.
Our job is to think out of the box. Yes, even out of the box of the
science and accept the fact that there may be realities that are simply
out of the realm of today’s science.
These realities, should not contradict logic or science. If they do, they must be
dismissed, but if they don’t they should be considered as
possibilities. Event though these possibilities are improbable, as long
as they are possible they are valid as such. Science should not fall
into the quagmire of dogmatism. We can’t just dismiss things that we
do not understand.
the claim of the existence of a spiritual realm, psychic power,
telepathy or other paranormal phenomena be proven scientifically?
A society of some self -proclaimed
skeptics has offered a million dollars to anyone who could prove any
paranormal claim "scientifically". That is ludicrous. It just
shows the limited imagination of these believers in the dogma of science
disguised as skeptics. They can be likened to someone challenging you to
measure the temperature with a measuring tape. Science can measure the
world of matters. It can't scale things that may be of immaterial
substance for example feelings. This is no proof that paranormal is a reality that should be
taken seriously. We have no evidence to make such claim. My purpose here
is to show that the believers in science are no more rational thinkers
than their religious cousins.
Recently I was talking
with one of my readers about dreams, telepathy and the fact that some
psychics seem to be able to contact with dead people.
I told him about a
program I saw on CCN's Larry King Live where the guest, James
Van Praagh received tens of calls during the show and he
could tell them personal things about the dead person they were enquiring
about that the callers could recognize. Not all his “readings” were general
descriptions that could be applied to everyone. For example, he told Larry King that his father had died
in a factory. Considering, in so many places a person can die, this must
have been a really good guess. Larry King was of course impressed. I
thought the chance of this person just guessing things about all his
callers was really slim. As a non-dogmatic rational thinker, I cannot
dismiss this as coincidence. My dogmatic pseudo rationalist friend was
unable to admit that there could be something that could defy the
conventional logic of the materialistic rationalism. He insisted that it
must have been coincidence, even though the odds are extremely low.
I told him that many
police departments use the services of some good psychics to solve
crimes. If they did not have any result they would not do such thing. He
had no answer to that.
People like him can always bring the example
of a charlatan posing as a psychic to prove that psychic power does not
I told him about a
strange incidence that happened to myself when I was a university
student. One summer night I was reading a book while my sister was
sleeping in the adjacent room. I heard noises coming from her room. She
was groaning as if having a nightmare. I went to her room to wake her
up. What I saw took me by surprise. I saw a globe of orange light about
three feet in diameter suddenly moving away from my sister's bed and hovering in the middle of the room. I stood at
the door watching this strange thing. I got the impression that this
thing was also startled. This thing seemed to have a thought of its own.
For a moment we both were paralyzed gazing at each other. Then the thing
zoomed out of the window and disappeared in the adjacent field
practically in thin air. I woke up my sister and told her what I saw.
She said she was having a bad dream and in her dream a bad being wanted
to hurt her while someone good had come to her rescue. Well, people have
dreams and nothing is strange about that. However, what to me seemed to be
strange is that I possibly saw one of the protagonists of my sister’s
dream. Even if that is not the case, that thing was strange on its own.
I have no explanation for
that thing and I do not attempt to speculate or comment about things I
do not understand. I know I saw something. I know it was real. But I do
not know what it was. However, the explanations
given by some pseudo rationalists seems to be less convincing than those
given by Muslims trying to explain the absurdities of the miracles attributed
to Muhammad. It is simply disappointing to see so many, otherwise
intelligent people, are so dogmatic that they are genuinely unable to
acknowledge that it is possible that they could not know everything.
And that their notion of truth could be utterly distorted and
incomplete. These people are not rationalists. They are believers in the
My friend’s response
“Ali, there's a
scientific explanation for all these things, even if you don't
immediately know it. It is for this reason that I am a skeptic,
waiting for science to explain it, rather than immediately jumping on
the paranormal explanation (as has been done for millenia).”
I shook my head over the irony that this dear friend calls himself a skeptic.
We know there must be an answer to all these things. The point is no one
knows that answer yet. So why is it that the pseudo rationalists think
they know what is the answer and try to "enlighten" everyone
else with their benighted answers? Their answer is that all these things
are hoax, coincidences or human imagination. I have heard that answer at
nausea and I do not consider it to be a satisfactory answer.
I wrote to him: "Yes dear P…. Certainly
there is a scientific explanation to all these unexplainable phenomena and when the science
evolves enough and is able to explain how the Prophet Muhammad split the moon, how
the creation actually took place, how the flood filled the Earth at the
time of Noah and how Jesus raised from the death, it will also find a
scientific answer to all that. Meanwhile, all you have
to do is to keep your faith alive. One day, you and all other believers
will be vindicated by science. Just don't lose faith. Until then, keep
believing. There is a great reward for those who believe."
Not surprisingly, after
this gentleman failed to convince me with his repetitious denials, he
started insulting me. True to his dogmatic nature till the last
People, who are unable to
think beyond the box of religion, science or whatever is their doctrine, have no right to call
themselves freethinkers and rationalists. They are believers no matter
how you slice them.
As custodians of
freethinking and rationalism, the wannabe rationalists should not adopt a
religious attitude when dealing with science. People who hold views that
cannot be demonstrated with today’s science are not heretics. As long
as their views are not contrary to science and logic, these
“heretics” could be actually pioneers. Not all pioneers come to new
discoveries. But it would be a gross mistake to dismiss them altogether.
Think about homeopathy,
acupuncture, relaxation, shiatzu, hypnosis, aromatherapy or other
alternative medicines that today have gained respectability and are
practiced in many reputable hospitals across the world. Only a few
decades ago all these fields were considered to be quackery by the
modern science. Even today, science cannot explain them completely. Yet
they work and they are recognized as alternatives to the traditional
Make not of science yet
another religion. Let doubt guide our way. Our greatest challenge as
rational thinkers is to fight against belief itself. The object of our
belief is not important. Our beliefs are constantly changing, even
though they are based on science. One day the scientists tell us
caffeine is bad for you, the next day they say it is good for you. One
day they tell us margarine is better that butter, the next day they say
it is worse than butter. As scientists and rationalists we are
constantly discovering new realities and constantly changing our views
of the universe. It is the belief itself that we must fight against.
Everything is possible, unless proven otherwise.
there is a spiritual dimension to this world do we miss anything if we
All lies when blindly
believed as truth and vehemently defended are potentially dangerous. As
I mentioned above, the Marxist belief in dialectical materialism or the
Nazi’s belief in Super Race are logically erroneous beliefs.
Nevertheless the problem with these doctrines is not that they are just
false but they are extremely dangerous. The belief in Islam is the cause
of hate amongst people that have cost hundreds of millions of lives
throughout its bloody history and still counting. The belief in
Christianity brought inquisition and the fratricide between Catholics
and Protestants. The fact is that any false belief is potentially
dangerous. The peace of mankind can only be protected when people stop
The belief in the
absolute authority of science is no less dangerous than the belief in
other lies. Many people have had experiences that cannot be explained
scientifically. The response of the pseudo rationalist is denial. This
is the official position of these self-proclaimed custodians of rational
However, many people have
had first hand experience with what can be called as paranormal that
science cannot explain. You can’t keep telling these people; oh it is
just your imagination. These people are not children. They know what is
real and what is imaginary.
Now the danger of this
denial and resistance to accept the paranormal as something that needs
to be addressed and studied in its own terms is that the field is left
open to charlatans and quacks to dispense advise and explanation for the
bewildered masses who thirst to know and who know that the scientists
are in denial and are lying to them.
This is the danger.
People who have had paranormal experiences first hand, know that “it
is all in your imagination”, is not the answer. Going back to our
previous example. The skeptics use the measuring tape and when they see
no difference in the sizes of the objects, they deny the rise and fall
of the temperature. Meanwhile people know when they get hot and when
they get cold and the scientist’s insistence that “it is all in your
imagination” is not cutting with them. If all science is equipped with
is a measuring tape, they will keep denying the change of temperature
while the question of the temperature remains unanswered.
This opens doors of
opportunities for charlatans and con artists to sell their wacky
explanation and mislead the masses. That is why the market of the
religionists is still bullish and that is why New Age religions are
sprouting everywhere. People are willing to submit to the craziest ideas
like Celestial Prophesies, A Course In Miracles and a myriad of cult and
religions to get an answer. Believe it or not there is even a guy who
claims to be the messenger of the extraterrestrials.
When the scientific
community is living in denial the charlatans take over and the result is
chaos. When I read about these religions and cults I am amazed of the
stupidity of my fellow humans. How much are we willing to compromise our
intelligence to buy into these idiotic and asinine beliefs? These New
Age cults are even crazier than those invented and believed by our
forefathers. There is a spiritual reality out there, which we do not
understand. There is a thirst to find an answer to all these enigmas of
life. But why follow these stupid archaic religions and modern cults in
the search of the answer?
We are living in a mad,
mad, mad world. Just take a look at the absurdity of the beliefs around
you. For now put aside your own religion and take a look at what others
believe. Witness the level of stupidity of these beliefs. Then
understand that your belief is no different. Do not try to convince
yourself that your religion is rational, logical and scientific. You’d
be only fooling yourself. Beliefs are stupid; beliefs are dangerous,
even if they are based on science. Your belief is just as irrational and
wrong as the belief of the one whom you pity. We all need to be pitied.
This is a pitiful world.
All beliefs are spurious.
It is the nature of beliefs to be spurious. Beliefs are for
unenlightened people. They all talk about "love",
"unity", "forgiveness" and other lovey dovey cliché,
but that is all intended to fool you and drag you into their net of
deceit. For how long shall we remain benighted? For how long do we want
to fool ourselves?
The scientific community
has failed the world as much as those whom they decry as fanatics. This
is the planet of silly people, inhabited by silly people, run by silly
Everything we do is
wrong, because everything we do is based on faith. Everyone is a
believer. Everyone pays homage to faith. Even the so called skeptics are
a bunch of delusional believers. And what is faith? Faith is belief in something
without evidence. This is insane. That is why the world is so insane
I hope one day, we learn
to believe less and doubt more. May be then we will stop feeling
self-righteous, stop disparaging others and stop these crazy wars and
killings. May be doubt is the key to our salvation and our peace. We
have had too many impostors disguised as prophets telling us the virtues
of belief. Now what we need is a real prophet teaching us how to doubt.
Not doubt the beliefs of others that we already do not believe but doubt
our own believe.
The scientific community
must pull its head out of the sand and study the phenomena that it
does not understand. These phenomena cannot be explained by science. As
I said above we need to study them in their own terms. If our measuring
tape is no good to scale them, we have to invent a “thermometer” to
gauge them. We need a new instrument to study and unravel the spiritual
realm, even though the method must remain scientific. It must be based
on facts and not on beliefs.
The word needs
spirituality because this is a spiritual world. The denial of this
fact will not make it go away. This is something we can feel just as we
can feel the temperature. The danger of this denial is that people
fall prey to the cons that claim to have the answer, that promise them heaven and deliver them hell.
It is time that we listen
to this inner voice within us. May be, we are spiritual creatures after
be, we need spirituality just as we need food. Why not study this scientifically? I do not
mean through science but through scientific methods. As long as the
scientific community keeps its head under the sand and lives in denial
the prophets, the priests, the con artists and the quacks feast on the
fool them and take them for a ride.
objective of this essay is not to make you believe in paranormal,
ghosts, exorcism, ETs or Yeties. No rational person should believe in
anything unless undeniable evidence has been presented. We have no such
evidence to back up the above claims. Most of them are more
likely false. All we know that there are things out there that we
do not know or understand yet. The purpose of this essay is to highlight
the flaws in the thinking of the rationalist wannabes. It is just to
make you see that not everyone who calls himself a rational thinker is
indeed a rational thinker. My objective in writing this essay is not to
prove paranormal is real or spirits exist but to
jolt the self righteous self proclaimed rationalists into reality and
ask them to descend form their pedestal of infallibility. They are just
as dogmatic and believers as those whom they decry.
I wanted to say is: Do not call a kettle black if you are a pot.
Happy Rationalist Day to
all the rationalists, pseudo rationalists, wannabe rationalists, quasi
rationalists and irrationalists of the world. Even though I see no
reason to celebrate. We celebrate the Independence Day when we gain
our independence not before it. Show me who are the real rationalists
and I will celebrate this day in their honor.
This article most likely will cause the faithful pseudo scientific folk
to decide to crucify me or put me in pillory. Hold your fatwas
friends because I have no time to respond to anyone. If you want to oust
me and declare me a heretic, do it in the forum. I have withstood the onslaught
of the Muslims I think I can withstand yours better. At least you are
not going to actually kill me. That is a good thing. :-D