Interstellar... technically Intergalactic?

I can still remember the feeling of awe when I first saw the teaser of Interstellar a year ago. Several scenes in the movie evoked the same feeling in me. This may not be Nolan's best but still is a pretty good movie. 

A lot has been said about the science in Interstellar. Who better than real scientists to give their views on it: Dr. Neil deGrasse Tyson and Phil Plait (who also corrected himself here), and Katie Mack. For a self-proclaimed science enthusiast like me with a particular love for astronomy, this particular aspect seemed intriguing. Although I never really expect Christopher Nolan to make a very science-centric film. His sci-fi films seem more philosophical in nature, that ponder on the human implications of science & technology. Inception never really dealt with the actual process of "dream sharing" but rather its implications. Interstellar is along the same lines. The depiction of wormhole travel and the rendering of the black hole were superb. I loved how they depicted concepts like higher dimensions and relativity, and integrated them thoughtfully into the storyline. The warping of space-time on and near the event horizon was demonstrated visually as well. On a more philosophical note, the way the characters rue the death of scientific temperament & exploration, echoes what many scientists say. From my less-than-expert knowledge, I could immediately note some problems. The communication by Cooper with himself and his daughter through the Tesseract seemed weird. The on-the-fly navigation decisions were also pretty far-fetched. Using gravitational slingshot for travel requires pretty precise calculations, and doing it on a random neutron star or black hole ain't no piece of cake. 

The storyline is very solid. I starts with  a very grim, but very possible, future and works its way to a happy ending. It still would be depressing if we messed up earth so much that we have to risk our lives in this manner than be able to fix it. The visual effects and cinematography are breath-taking and what we have come to expect from Nolan. It is the actors & actresses that are really at the forefront with good performances for all the major characters. This was crucial in a movie that focused a lot on the psychological struggle of an endeavour of this nature.

Honestly, I can brush aside the minor scientific flaws in a movie that overall celebrates science and puts it front & center like few others have done. Like I pointed out before, Nolan is expected to bring the human element to sci-fi. If I have any real complaint about the movie, it is about how this is handled in the movie. If this is a movie about humanity, there should be more of "humanity". Hollywood tends to be US-centric for obvious reasons, but you would expect someone like Nolan to have a more worldly view. Think about the demographics of NASA. In a dying world presented in the movie, won't those smart brains have already left the US for their homes in Europe, Asia? Also, other countries are taking great strides in space exploration. NASA isn't the only player in the game anymore, and it definitely won't be in such a future. Undertaking a mission of this magnitude will require help from several agencies. It was good to see both male & female scientists in the movie working together. There was the token black guy on the crew, but there seemed to be no people on the ground or in the crew from two huge nations that are showing promise for space exploration: India and China. Would have made more sense for this to be a world-wide effort. Although, I did like the nod to Indian engineering acumen (where did that come from?) in the autonomous drone scene.

To conclude, I am glad this is a movie that truly embraces science & exploration. Our universe is awe-inspiring, and there's only a handful of movies that really bring out the majesty of it.

Changing Of The Guard

The term "New Atheism" is quite a misnomer, and is regarded by many atheists with disdain. It is generally used to denote the rise of an "in your face" activist movement of unbelief created largely by the likes of Richard Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens, Sam Harris, and Daniel Dennett in the wake of 9/11. To give them credit, they were responsible for bringing a lot of atheists out of the closet. Reading their work and watching their debates was an important catalyzing factor for my transformation from an agnostic "live and let live with religion" kind of person to a more confrontational atheist. I think that I speak for most who share my lack of belief in the supernatural, when I say how annoying I find that a lot of "defenders of religion" make personal slants against these atheist "celebrities" as arguments in their favour, as if all atheists singularly conform to the same set of principles and opinions that they may have.

To be fair, they have garnered a massive following. It's not like there aren't a large number of people who swear by everything that they say. But it is very short-sighted to assume that all atheists think in the same way. In fact, if you take any two atheists, the only thing that you can be certain is common between them is their lack of belief in any god. Personally speaking, there is so much I would disagree with some of these famous atheists. And this difference has become even starker in recent times. Speaking of similarities though, what is immediately noticed when seeing all of these big names is one similarity: they are all middle-aged white men. This predominance is through no fault of their own, it merely reflects the more general tendency of world pop culture. And in the decade since they burst on the scene, it really didn't matter much. They were dealing with issues that cut across all groups within atheism. They were providing the voice of reason against the rise of fundamentalism: from the Islamic terrorists to the Christian right in USA and parts of Europe. Atheism has grown in society ever since science has been consistently advancing our understanding. The spike in growth over the course of the 1st decade of the 21st century, initially at least, seemed to be in the white Western male demographic. Even if that weren't true, the vocal atheist community (online as well) tended to be largely white male. It used to be a boys' club during that period. 

In the last 4-5 years, or so I think, some important changes happened. The demographic has been expanding. Women, people of color (who would otherwise have already been atheists in large numbers) have made their presence felt in the atheist "community" (I will use that term loosely along with "movement." It's just to denote the overall existence of several atheist groups and forums, not a consolidated singular entity). This has happened at the same time the focus within these groups has expanded from merely battling the forces of religious fundamentalism, to providing meaningful reason-based solutions for the world. One would assume that the coincidence of these two events is perfectly timed to advance towards common goals. However, with different demographics come very differing points of view. As I noted before, a lot of these atheist groups and communities were used to being boys' clubs. And let's just say, misogyny is not uncommon. Over the course of time, prominent speakers/bloggers/scientists such as Rebecca Watson, PZ Myers, Ophelia Benson, and Greta Christina have brought out issues of sexism within the atheist community, but the response has been simply disappointing. And a lot of times, some of the atheist "celebrities" have been guilty of misogynistic comments and actions themselves.

A few years ago, in response to Rebecca Watson's vlog speaking about her gender-based experiences at an atheist convention, Richard Dawkins wrote a patronizing "letter" satirizing her "imagined slight" as opposed to the REAL oppression faced by Muslim women in the Arab world. More recently, Michael Shermer has been accused of sexual assault (non-consensual sex with a woman who was under the influence of alcohol while Shermer wasn't), and again, Dawkins has been quick to offer tacit support by questioning the testimony of a drunk woman. Also, there is Sam Harris who responded to the "Why aren't there a lot of women atheists?" with a statement that women tend to be "nurturing" and not immediately attracted to "intense critical thinking," and yes, they also find him "unsexy" (Video here.) When questioned about his responses, his excuses ranged from "it was a joke" to an allusion that the other side was being too politically correct and trying to brush aside what - according to him - are obvious differences between male and female brains. (Actual peer-reviewed research suggests no such purely biological factors exist, and that it has a lot to do with cultural divisions between the sexes.) Dawkins, again, joined in defense of Harris, and they belittled all criticism as "fishing for offense."

Cases like this are not uncommon. These "stalwarts" brand any criticism of them - especially by feminists - as malicious and attention-seeking. Then there is a sort of "coterie" of bloggers and writers who are friendly with famous atheists, that immediately jump to their defense. After them come a set of very annoying YouTube atheist stars that will post half-baked arguments, mostly regurgitating the excuses presented by their champions. After this layer, come the more general rabid fan club members, who are the source of some of the most vile attacks: abuses, rape threats, exposing personal information online, baseless attacks of their looks, etc. That takes care of the misogyny part. Then there is the cultural-racial divide. I haven't seen any particular instances of systemic bias against black people within the atheist community, but a lot of prominent atheists are absent on conversations of race, especially in America. Atheism in India and the rest of Asia seems more or less confined to its own group. Dealing with Islam is more of a grey area, because on the one hand, you have Muslim extremists who frequently hide behind "Islamophobia"/racism to shield themselves from thought-provoking criticism. But at the same time, one can't help but feel that a lot of these prominent atheists display very neo-conservative tendencies when dealing with terrorism, and tend to ignore some very important geo-political factors. Yes, Islamic terrorism does get its inspiration directly from quotations in the Quran and the Hadiths; however, ignoring the effects of Western imperialistic aggression in the Middle-East is over-simplifying the issue. 

As the topics of discourse within the atheist community widen, it seems that we are heading to a turning point of sorts. This extends to the scientific community at large, which also faces several gender/racial problems. Let's make one thing clear:  these problems are in no way unique to the scientific community at all, they are a reflection of our society in general. However, that can't be an excuse. As the promoters of rationalism, it is imperative that we look within and examine criticism of our approach. These atheist speakers have been very successful in debating creationists, religious apologists by bringing out their sound arguments while the other side resorts to denial, defensive posturing, and outright reactionary dismissal. It is curious to see that as we have moved towards a more diverse atheist community, and these old, narrow views have been challenged, we are seeing almost the same reaction from these old men: denial, defensive posturing, and outright reactionary dismissal.

I prefer to keep an optimistic view of things. Collision is inevitable when any avenue visited by a limited demographic opens to a wider audience. Ultimately, progress is the only way to go. In time, I hope these non-white atheists and feminist speakers and bloggers will be able to make an impact and cause some introspection within the atheist community. These people have experiences and ideas that may not have been brought up for discussion previously, and they should be embraced, not instantly and automatically dismissed. Even with the big names, the problem is that they all share a background that has kept them ignorant of the subtle gender and racial issues. But ignorance is not an excuse in this age when it is so easy to obtain different points of view from people and change your outlook accordingly. For people in science, it is a joy to have their mistakes pointed out. It's just sad to see that a group of people who promote reason fail to use it when it comes to reevaluating their own worldview. Instead they aggressively defend their flawed views with loose rationale, and the kind of empty arguments that they would otherwise point out in others. These people can keep denying the problems, but ultimately others will have progressed to a more advanced state of discussion, and they will be left scampering to catch up, not quite unlike the religious people who have to reconcile the morals in their outdated books.

The line it is drawn

The curse it is cast

The slow one now

Will later be fast

As the present now

Will later be past

The order is rapidly fadin’

And the first one now will later be last

For the times they are a-changin’ 

- Bob Dylan

Musings: An alternate history of the Crusades

The Crusades represent perhaps the worst of the Middle Ages, an already shameful time in human history. Of course, followers of the two religions involved romanticize the Crusades focusing on their respective conquests. The aggregate outcome was that Christendom came out of the Crusades as  the "victor" because it was able to establish the East-West trade route and prospered, while despite defending their lands Muslim factions (except the Turks) faced heavy losses and all but lost their former glory. 

When we talk of religion today, Islam stands out as the largest purveyor of violence, and it is true. The overwhelming majority of violence, atrocities, and acts of terror are carried out by people drawing inspiration from Islam. There is no question about that. However, when the topic comes up for discourse in the West, very often an allusion is made that there is something wrong in particular about Islam or within the Quran. This could not be further from the truth. There are equally, if not more, reprehensible and dangerous passages in the Bible and for all the excuses made about the poetry and inspiring teachings in the Bible, similar things can also be found in the Quran, and they aren't unique or original to either. Then there are arguments about how "Western culture" just happens to be better than "Islamic culture."

Now culture is generally aggregated over time. At this point in history, we do see that a majority of countries with predominantly Muslim populations suffer from many evils. But go back a few decades, and it was "Western culture" to treat people of non-white color as inferior, and women of any color as inferior. A little over a century ago, it was perfectly fine to brand aforementioned "inferior" people as animals and witches, and burn them alive. Yes, Western society has moved on since then, while most of the places in the Arab world are still stuck in those brutal times. The "enlightenment" never happened in the Arab world. The main reason for this is the economic stagnation: while there are rich sheikhs swimming in oil, the majority of the population in the Arab world remains in economic hardship. They were never introduced to democratic rule:  power of the people. The only real distinguishing factor is the different paths that the regions heavily following these two religions took post the Middle ages. During the course of a discussion, I heard the argument from a person that "she was glad that the conclusion of the Crusades happened the way it did, because she would hate to have to wear a burqa." I immediately saw this point as hollow, because if history turned out differently, neither Islam nor Christianity would have turned out the way that they have. So here is an alternate history:

The Ottoman Empire is able to expand upwards from Romania, and maintain its economic stronghold. The influence of the papal order wanes with the lack of economic power. Infighting between the kingdoms resume to gain control of the remaining scraps. The Islamic world continues to revere the ancient works of science and literature. With continuing prosperity, more centers of learning and culture emerge. The "Enlightenment" happens, and thinkers rise that question the absolutist, dangerous teachings within the Quran. They are faced with stigmatization, prison, and even death. Eventually reason wins, and Islam is forced to reexamine its position, given the role that science plays in the continuing progress of the Arab civilization. Meanwhile, the Roman Catholic Church still manages to use religion to stay relevant even between warring factions. Feudalism continues, with no sign of the rise of any "Renaissance" in the destitute poverty that most of the people live in. Witch-burning and bloody wars continue in an endless cycle.

Explorers from Turkey would travel to the Americas. Islamic explorers wage bloody battles in South America against the Incas, expanding the Islamic culture.  However, in North America, small bands of Islamic "rebels," wanting a freer society would end up on the North-Eastern shores. Carrying no inherently indigenous diseases, rather than wiping out the local population, they would be forced to co-exist at the minimum level. Attempts at conquest by Muslim pilgrims would not be as successful, and ultimately the local Americans and Muslims would lay the foundations towards a pluralistic society.

Back in the Middle-East, at the turn of the 19th century, science slowly overcomes religion. There are groundbreaking discoveries in technology and understanding of nature, facilitated by works that were never lost after the Crusades. These are further contributed by the existence of a direct trade channel with the East. Even as the Mughals fall to the Marathas in India, these routes continue. The rest of the Islamic world comes to a compromise with the Marathas regarding their sovereignty over the Indian lands*. Revival of ancient Indian literature, coupled with the Indian renaissance to rid society of superstitious evils leads to a strong, united India with a sense of nationalism even before the 20th century dawns. Coupled with the influence of the new Indian nation and similar cultures in the Far East, thinkers in the Arab nations make a push for democracy. Islam is influenced by this progressive culture to become more open, making followers brush aside the violent aspects of the Hadiths.

In Europe, civilization still lingers in the Dark Ages. Women and ethnic Jews are blamed for the overwhelming poverty and strife. These groups are still regularly tortured and killed. The Catholic Church continues to exert its influence. It keeps out the influence of the progressive nations of Asia and the Middle East, demonizing them and exhorting people to reject their "corrupt" ideas. These infidels are also to blame for draining Europe of its wealth. No World Wars happen, instead there are several smaller conflicts: between China and Japan, between certain Arab nations over political ambitions, and between Muslim colonist and local Americas over sovereignty in the Americas. No longer at the mercy of violent battles between outside colonizers, the African nations slowly rise.** Formerly influenced by Islam, yet retaining their ancient sense of African heritage, they slowly move away from organized religion and return to their richer African culture. Leaders emerge that use economic stimulus and education to stop tribal wars, thus uniting them under their respective national flags. They willingly immigrate to newer lands of opportunity in the Americas (and yes, African American culture still thrives). And the burqa would be an exhibit in a museum or a uniform for the religiously devout Muslim women clerics in madrasas.

* Trade routes between India and the Arab world existed for centuries. Once the Mughals fell, Arabs would see little reason to risk a beneficial economic partnership over any ambitious plans to start a battle against a well-equipped and invigorated Maratha Empire.

** A big reason for the perpetual poverty in Africa is that they were constantly stuck in the tug of war between Europeans and the Arabs. In a world where Europe falls, and it is the neighbouring Arab world that undergoes an "Enlightenment." Africa gets a chance to breathe and escape the clutches of colonialism on its own.

Ignorance is bliss... sometimes?

That old adage came to mind when I was deep in thought a few days ago. It is the holiday season, and most of the civilized world celebrates Christmas. I did not have to come to the US to know of this festival. Its celebrate with as much, if not more enthusiasm back in India, and most people there aren't the least interested in Christianity or Christ (So there, fuck you Republicans).

I personally never cared too much for festivities. I treated Christmas like I treat any other occasion back then, just a day to enjoy while the religious do their thing. After coming to the US and noticing the fervent religiosity made me interested in the subject of theism. As noted in my previous posts, up to a few years ago, I never really considered the idea of God as anything but a harmless human construct used as a source of inspiration by most. But the intensity of belief in the majority of the population of this so-called most developed country in the world made me examine this construct more. One of the aspects of this is this so-called "War on Christmas". Now I tend to single out the Republicans on most religious issues, at the risk of being accused of generalization. But it is no secret that the religious extremists align themselves with that political party, so the line that distinguishes them is pretty blurry. Anyway, they go through great pains this time of the year to put "Christ back in Christmas". That brought me to the most obvious counter-argument: was there ever a Christ in Christmas? Firstly, the subject in this case, is mostly likely completely fictional or just partially based on one or more people that existed back in that period. Also, the birth of that fictional character as described in the bible does not even fall in this season, let alone the date. So why this date? The answer to this question brought me to the more sinister aspects. This date, December 25th, falls around the time most of the ancient civilizations around the Mediterranean and the Middle East used to celebrate the Winter Solstice. Even the idea of making your favorite deity's birthday happen to fall on this day is not an original. Horus, Mithra all share the same fictional birthday & predate Christianity by over a millennium. So far, its merely plagiarism. Now, moving on to the "traditions" of Christmas, they're original right? Well no, nothing is original. The Christmas tree in reality is the Saturnalia tree, celebrating the ancient festival of Saturnalia, a pagan tradition. The mistletoe, the wreaths and the holly are all Wiccan traditions. The concept of an anonymous gift-giver comes from Thor and Odin. Christmas carols? The stories are plagiarized from old legends. The idea of carols comes from the Scandinavian God Yule.

Now, these things I wrote are nothing new. I'm sure a lot of my friends know these things as I found out over the last few years. I just thought of it this way: these traditions are actually ancient traditions that were initially criminalized by Christianity. Alexandria was burned down to wipe out the existence of  paganism. Witch-hunting was responsible for the extermination of Druids and Wiccans. One could be executed for having a decorated tree at home during the middle ages. This oh-so-favorite tradition only became accepted in the 16th century. All this makes me think of Christmas celebrations as a cruel joke. They wiped out all the rich ancient philosophies, and replaced it with their dogmatic monotheism. Then, they assimilated the traditions that came from those philosophies to make it look like they belong to Christianity. Now, the argument can be made that this is not what most Christians see it as. But the truth remains. I feel this is propagating the same cruel joke. Its a lot like Thanksgiving, what people celebrate as a moment of gratitude & good nature, is actually the harbinger for the annihilation of an entire race. Another cruel joke to celebrate it as such, isn't it?

Given my disinterest in festivities and my disdain for Abrahamic religions, it doesn't change much for me. But a lot like many atheists do around this time (perhaps not with the same purpose) I will join along to bring out the true roots of these fake traditions. I guess this is like a "War on Christmas", to help remember to old philosophies. I feel a certain affinity towards them, since I come from a culture which dates back to the same time. Though Hinduism has been corrupted from within and through the effect of the invasion of forces affiliated with the Abrahamic religions, it still survives. It is a painful thought to place it in the shoes of those other more-or-less concurrent philosophies. This new realization has changed my feelings towards the celebrations at this time. Initially, it seemed the phrase "Ignorance is bliss" rang true. But I guess I'm happier knowing these things than be in so-called blissful ignorance.

In A World Like This

I have been listening to the whole album repeatedly, and letting it sink in. So here goes, my review for In A World Like This:

Overall, its a very solid album. They incorporated different influences pretty well, and it seems like they made a conscious effort to have a range of songs that will appeal to different tastes in the fanbase. 

In A World Like This - Great choice for the first single. Not the best song in the album, but it acts like a bridge with the old-style hooks & harmonies & does well to represent the whole album. I love the build-up in the chorus, that continues into the soaring vocals towards the end. Lyrics are typical Max Martin: vague but on the whole give an upbeat feel.

Permanent Stain - My guilty pleasure on the album. Its a dance-pop song, with generally bland lyrics, but some lines (like the pre-chorus) stand out. The chorus is especially catchy, it has this anthemic feel to it, that I enjoy singing along to.

Breathe - One of my favourites off the album. Starts with some lovely keys, and the bass-heavy sound gives a perfect somber mood along with Kevin & AJ's haunting vocals. Brian pitches in very well with his adlibs. The lyrics are fantastic too, I know AJ has been credited with conceptualising the song, but it has Brian's 'literal' style all over it.

Madeleine - This song is beautiful: Great lyrics, a pretty acoustic guitar driven sound, and Nick's amazing vocals. AJ follows through really well. I like that they didn't really build up past the bridge, this song deserves a mellow sound throughout. Flows like a nice pep-talk to a depressed person

Show 'Em What You're Made Of - Another one of my favourites. When you listen to the lyrics, it immediately hits you that they have come from a deep, personal place. Again, the AJ-Kevin team is perfect to carry the mood of this song. The chorus is simply arranged but effective, with the Boys beautiful harmonies. I like the arrangement after the bridge, where the chorus goes with a drums-only part. They've used it more than once on this album. 

Make Believe - This should count as a unique song. It has a haunting, other-worldly feel to it, right from the semi-symphonic beginning to the synth keys at the end. For me, the lyrics paint the picture of two deep-in-love travelers, running away from everyone else, imagining a perfect world for themselves. The use of synth & post-processing on the vocals works just perfect to create the right feel for the song

Try - I’m not the biggest R&B fan, but I appreciate a great R&B/soul song when I hear it, especially in a world like this, when all kinds of crap gets passed off as R&B. This song has a beautiful arrangement, along with good uplifting lyrics. And then there one more little thing: AJ SOUNDS ABSOLUTELY INCREDIBLE

Trust Me - Another favourite, and definitely a unique song. An acoustic song with breezy, easy-going lyrics, & some lovely instrumentation. My favourite parts are Kevin’s Dean Martin/Sinatra inspired verses & the sing-along climax with awesome raw vocals

Love Somebody - The only song on the album I don’t fancy much. Bland lyrics, typical dance-pop sound. I just like the bass+ distorted guitar riff, breathes some life into this song.

One Phone Call - Another AC leaning song, with lovely harmonies. Interesting lyrics, using prison time as a metaphor for a broken relationship. That along with the sweet synth drum beats & muffled phone-call like vocals give a nice twist to the song, which is otherwise familiar BSB territory.

Feels Like Home - If someone had asked me earlier this year, I would’ve cringed at the thought of another fan song. But I absolutely LOVE this one, its among my favourites on the album. The lyrics hit home for me, the words of a traveler. Great beats, this really is my jam.

Soldier - I wasn’t interested in this one from the initial preview. But AJ’s vocals got me interested, and overall it’s a very solid song. Howie has some surprisingly good vocals at the bridge, and there’s another use of the drums-only chorus reprise.

Bonus songs - Really liked Hot Hot Hot & Take Care. Both have extremely unique sounds, and the Boys adapt themselves really well, show off their versatility. HHH especially, its brash, with no pretense of any serious lyrics: it does perfectly what PDA failed miserably at. Light On, IYA are good dance-pop numbers, but interchangeable with any of the other couple of songs that are already on the album.

I was initially very skeptical of the Morgan-Prophet team, but they delivered. Their general specialty seems to be dance-pop numbers, but they did a fantastic job with Show ‘Em, and OPC is really good too. Dan Muckala has once again done some great work for the Boys with Make Believe & FLH. Max Martin did his job well to give them a lead single. I hope they work with him again in the future, they have made some magic together in the past. Not sure what I think about Justin Trugman, with just Love Somebody to judge him by. And lastly, Martin Terefe has been phenomenal. I loved how the chemistry worked out with him and the Boys. I sincerely hope they work with him again, I wouldn’t mind him being the sole album producer next time around, and they work around some central theme, even make a concept album together.

To conclude, this album won’t be replacing Never Gone (2005) on my list. But with this being the Boys’ first venture on their own, it’s a very encouraging effort and definitely goes close to the top of my list. The way they have been involved in the songwriting process and experimenting with different sounds has me very optimistic about the future.

(Photoshoot pictures courtesy backstreetboys.com, albumartist.co.uk, tylershields.com)

Religion without gods

If you have read my blog from the beginning, one of the things you might have noticed is my evolution from more of an agnostic (or deist rationalist?) to an atheist. I guess even then I made a case for an existence out of necessity of an imaginary deity. In any case, during my time in Buffalo made some good friends who happen to be atheists (closet or otherwise). Being heavily interested in science, especially astronomy, my interest in people like Carl Sagan, Neil deGrasse Tyson led me to the more "in your face" Richard Dawkins, Lawrence Krauss, Sam Harris & Christopher Hitchens.

Now my atheist friends here also happen to be Indian, so I grew curious about the situation back home & started observing social networking groups dedicated to Indian atheists. I found some peculiar differences between those groups and me & my friends. Now I don't presume that my friends & I will agree on every single idea I present. But there are some basic things that I found to be in stark contrast with these Indian groups.

I'll first broaden the topic from atheism to rational thinking in general. I have found that in pursuit of a rational dialogue, these people keep a very deep focus on completely rejecting anything associated to ancient Indian religion. I tend to feel they try to mimic Western atheists & their treatment of Abrahamic religions, and forget the differences between them & Indian religions. Hinduism has been borne out of the cultural traditions of ancient Vedic times. It is a result of different philosophies, that have changed over time, in good ways & bad, and it has no central doctrine. Another important difference, in Vedic times, schools of thoughts actually dabbled with the idea of atheism: a universe without the need of a conscious creator. Coming closer to modern times, Savarkar, the proponent of Hindutva, was most probably an atheist, who based his philosophy on combining ancient Hindu teachings with rationalism. Needless to say, Hinduism has become closely intertwined with Indian culture I find it rather hard & also unnecessary to focus on completely breaking those ties. For progress, it is important not to cling to the past, but also be aware of it. India has had a rich & long history, and our Hindu philosophy forms a very important part of this: the literature, scientific/educational achievements, architecture, socio-political philosophies. In an interview, Richard Dawkins voiced his absolute support to preserving Anglical traditions because they form an integral part of English society. And this is Christianity, a Middle-Eastern cult imported as an organized religion into Europe. And... this is Richard Dawkins!

By all means, they should continue to oppose all unscientific wasteful & dangerous practices carried out in the name of religion & tradition. But an Indian atheist shouldn't become a clone of a western atheist. A western atheist would most probably lack the context to get into a dialogue with Indian masses, and would be considered as trying to "impose their western ideals". This is where an Indian atheist has a better chance of forming a dialogue, going back to ancient Indian traditions of critical thinking, showing them that they are stuck in a convoluted, reactionary form of Hinduism. This isn't merely a rouse. Its only natural if you have a strong platform of critical thinking in your own culture, you use it to help the masses absorb new ideas from all over the world. Rather than trying to demolish everything you have & trying to mimic something else.

I suppose this extends to all ancient Eastern philosophies. Its an interesting pattern I noticed looking at other parts of the world with ancient civilizations that were lost. Watching Africa, the cradle of humanity itself, where Africans kill their fellow Africans in the name of Christianity & Islam, the religions responsible for destroying their old heritage. Or watching large populations of South Americans kneel before the Catholic Church, the very same one that authorized their slaughter less than five centuries ago. Or the heavily religious black community in the USA, with the same religions that aided their former enslavement.

Of course, this is atheism & rational thinking we are talking about, so comparisons with such extreme cases are out of place. The only point to take away is that a complete abandonment of your self-identity is never a good thing.

Of knowledge & arrogance

I want to start off with small anecdotes about two revolutionary thinkers I admire: Johannes Kepler & Charles Darwin.

My interest in the universe goes back to when I was 8-9 years old, and I laid my hands on "The Universe" from the Childcraft series.I first came across the notions of Ptolemy of a geocentric universe. I disliked him in those days, thinking what a fool he was. That has changed since I grew up, and realized he was merely trying to make sense of what he saw, and did it better than anyone else in his time. Those notions, as I saw on the next page in the book, were challenged by Nicolaus Copernicus over a millennium later, at the risk of being put to death by the church who preferred to waddle in their ignorance. He was a hero who started a  revolution that spawned generations of scientific thinkers who challenged the dogma of the authorities & slowly took the world out of the dark ages. One of those thinkers was Johannes Kepler, who furthered Copernicus' heliocentric model. I only learnt of Kepler's discovery of planetary motion in the book, but about the background much later from Carl Sagan's Cosmos. Kepler was a deeply religious man, and very fond of mathematics. His idea of the Creator was that of the ultimate mathematician, who had designed the universe with grand equations which ruled all the objects in the universe. One of his earlier works about planetary motion involved the concept of concentric polyhedrons that governed the motion of the earth & the other 5 known planets at that time. He passionately persisted on this theory for several years. The idea was in sync with his belief in the celestial mathematician and he believed with all his heart to be true. But to a scientist, mere belief isn't satisfactory. He worked for years to fit this model with observations & calculations of motion, but to no avail. He struggled with it for years until at the crossroads, he decided to let go & pursue new possibilities. And after this he discovered that the sun was not the sole center for a planet's orbit, but was one of two focii, as the planetary orbits were elliptical. And this discovery became a monumental leap in the understanding of planetary motion.

When Charles Darwin set out on the HMS Beagle he was definitely not being guided by the devil, as some people would like to believe. His original intentions were to study how God had created & arranged different species all over the world. His first study led him to the discovery of natural selection, and ultimately to the origin of species. He had never intended to oppose the idea of God, but his research just led him to the conclusion that all species arose from a single common ancestor, and the stories of creation that were being propagated through some religions were just untrue. He struggled with the magnitude of this discovery as any person would, before finally publishing "On the Origin of Species". Along with staunch opposition from self-proclaimed religious authorities who know next to nothing about reality, Darwin's magnificent work wasn't clearly understood until the 1960's, with the discovery of a large array of fossils & advances in genetics helping to prove that the theory of evolution is inescapable fact.

Now, in popular media the stereotype of scientist is always that of an arrogant person who scoffs at common people. This image persists in the public as well. The idea of painting any group like that seems absurd, since arrogance is a personal emotion. Sure, there would be some scientists that are arrogant, but its just as likely as any kind of person in general. If it can be applied to any group, I would personally nominate hardened followers of any religion. Some would argue that those who have faith & bow down before a God cannot be arrogant. But it is faith that makes them arrogant: to believe that only only their God out of the hundreds created by man is true, that this God has chosen a specific group of people & they are part of it, that their beliefs have to be given even the slightest of respect without a shred of evidence. Now that is arrogance. Like I said before, there will be people in science who act arrogant. But the greatest scientists are always those who accept their failures & are willing to change their most passionate beliefs in the face of concrete contradicting evidence.