I watched an interview – Richard Dawkins was interviewed by Mehdi Hasan for al-Jazeera television which was telecast in December last year. In watching this fifty minutes video, one is pulled in both directions – that of Dawkins and that of Hasan.
Dawkin's main argument is that science is the best method available to us to know the truth: If ‘science’ cannot answer some questions, no other way then is it possible to know the truth. Dawkins made it very clear that we lack evidence with regard to God. Evidence… and … evidence …
Years back in southern India where the atheistic movements grew strong, they held public meetings to conscientise people of their rights and powers. In between, the speaker would speak about the non-existence of God. Their atheism can be said to be founded on the emancipation of man. They were practical atheists who worked to liberate the common man from the oppressing caste Hinduism. The main arguments were based on the inconsistencies found in the scriptures, oppressive elements and the structures of the religion. At times they would also challenge God – the speaker in a meeting would say: ‘If there is God, let there be no light (Electricity) in ten minutes.’ He would give five or ten minutes to God and seeing that there was light still would conclude – ‘see now, there is no God.’ That is not a very serious argument at all. However, in making this claim was he making himself a God, as an absolute and all powerful Master who could predict the future? May be. One could interpret that way. But I do not think so. If electricity goes off in 10 minutes he would still claim that how can a ‘good’ and benevolent God become a ‘cheap’ god who responds to an ordinary man, one in billions of humans. How could that God be great at all? Or he will claim that this is not because of God but x or y were the cause or some mechanical failure etc. Basically what they were aiming to show is that there is no ‘evidence’ to show that God exists.
In one way or the other what connects an illiterate in south Indian land who embraces atheism for emancipation of humanism and scientists, theoretical atheists Like Dawkins, is Evidence. Apart from the fact whether I disbelieve or not, I will place humanist atheists in a higher rank than scientific atheism.
Well. One of the questions by Hasan to Dawkins was about the possibility of placing evidence in every aspect of human life: Dawkins rephrased the question and answered - How do you know that your wife loves you? He replied – ‘evidence’. I can see love in her eyes, in the voice… – although this is not a scientifically testable.
One could love his wife if she shows that love in her eyes, in her voice, etc. There are also cases where because evidence suggests otherwise, husbands hate wives – divorce them – in some places like in India kill them. Charles Taylor in his A Secular Age speaks of Desdemona analogy when he talks about the validity of the claim ‘science defeated religion’. He says that Othello had a chance to speak to her without being deceived by evidences fabricated by Iago. If Othello had opened his heart to Desdemona he would have known the truth. Once I am deceived by the evidences, I will not be ready to be open to the alternative view at all. The alternative view is totally hidden from me. The only way is that I have the evidence. The truth value is always something external to me. The alternative view of knowledge is cut off from me.
I only pray that there are no persons who act that they love the other to produce false evidences – and I wish that the there are no persons who like Othello be deceived by the ‘brute’ evidences. I wish that people give 'love' its place and not keeping it within the frame of evidence................................................
The video can be watched online in the following link:
Don't postpone anything... Visit something or somebody when you want to do so...
