1000 petals by axinia

the only truth I know is my own experience

Human beings are programed by evolution to believe in some super being March 19, 2010

Human beings are programed by evolution to believe in some super being, because it gives them a better chance at survival, researchers have claimed. This conclusion was arrived at by Bruce Hood, professor of developmental psychology at Bristol University after an extensive study as quoted by the Times.

An unusual experiment, conducted by Bruce Hood, Professor of Developmental Psychology at the University of Bristol, demonstrating that even the most rational people behave in irrational ways, became one of the star features at this year’s British Association Festival of Science. Professor Hood conducted the experiment to argue that scientists’ efforts to combat ‘irrational’ beliefs are ultimately futile.

To demonstrate his theory, Professor Hood asked members of the festival audience, if they were prepared to try on an old fashioned blue cardigan in return for a £10 reward. After receiving no shortage of volunteers, he then told the volunteers that the cardigan used to belong to Fred West, the mass murderer. On hearing this most of the volunteers put their hands down. Though a few did try it on, others moved away from them. In fact, the cardigan had not belonged to Fred West. The experiment demonstrated that the belief that it had, made even the most rational of people feel uncomfortable.Professor Hood said: “It is as if evil, a moral stance defined by culture, has become physically manifest inside the clothing.”

“Similar beliefs, which are held even among the most sceptical scientists, explain why few people would agree to swap their wedding rings for identical replicas. The difference between attaching significance to sentimental objects and believing in religion, magic or the paranormal is only one of degree. These tendencies are almost certainly a product of evolution. The human mind is adapted to reason intuitively, so that it can generate theories about how the world works even when mechanisms cannot be seen or easily deduced….Because we operate intuitively, it is pointless to get people to abandon their belief systems because they operate at such a fundamental level that no amount of rational evidence or counter-evidence is going to be taken on board to get people to abandon these ideas.”

When you look at things like childhood beliefs, many are universal – they’re there in every culture across the world – so you have to conclude there is something fundamental about them that suggests these are ways our brains naturally work. When we’re young our brain makes lots of assumptions, as it constantly battles to get to grips with understanding the world around us. For example, the notion that we cease to exist after we die is too difficult to comprehend for a child, so they assume that there is an afterlife. Therefore it is easy to assume that ghosts exist. We may be able to tell ourselves intellectually that this isn’t the case as we grow older, but it’s very difficult to change our intuitive brain.”

He further states “Our research shows children have a natural, intuitive way of reasoning that leads them to all kinds of supernatural beliefs about how the world works”.  His work is also supported by other researchers who have found evidence linking religious feelings and experience to particular regions of the brain.  They suggest people are programed to get a feeling of spirituality from electrical activity in these regions.

There is a new book by Bruce M.Hood “SuperSense Why We Believe in the Unbelievable.” In an account chock full of real-world examples reinforced by experimental research, Hood (a cognitive psychologist at the University of Bristol) builds a theoretical model to explain how the mind comes to sense that there is something beyond the natural world, something supernatural.…..Hood knows that the supersense is all pervasive. For that reason, his book is an important contribution to the psychological literature that is revealing the actuality of our very irrational human nature. – SCIENCE June 2009. 


50 Responses to “Human beings are programed by evolution to believe in some super being”

  1. mahesh chendake Says:

    It is very good contribution. many times we are unable to define irrational behavior of intelligent and successful people. with this findings we can answer for that.
    It is clear that a battle of survival makes people to believe in unbelievable ( as they know what is their in their within limit and what not.)and obviously these intelligent people are exploring the world and their experiences very cautiously as they don’t want failure encoding them in the brain and probably in gene which can transferred to next gen. humans are well known for fastest evolution as they have got brain to think and explore.

  2. axinia Says:

    thanks, mahesh.
    I also appreciate this kind of information because to me it is obvious that the Sense of Spirituality (whatever we call it) is something inborn, natural and necessary for our individual and collective evolutioin.

  3. Denis Says:

    Now, the next question is: Who is the Evolution? 😉

  4. Sakhi Says:

    I hope people don’t read about this study and start thinking…
    “If evolution made us irrational, then it must be good for us!”

    There is one supernatural being that people create out of fear;
    another that we perceive in the beauty around us.
    Apparently, not all are equally evolved.

  5. mahesh chendake Says:

    There is one supernatural being that people create out of fear;
    not all are equally evolved.
    I don’t understand why we should have fear of supernatural usually people do so. I always says that God, why he will do harm to any being as he himself is creator. It is we create problems to ourselves by our behavior, negative thinking, undue, unrealistic, not ending wants, desire, wishes etc. of course environment where we live and our beliefs system. If we change our perception, thinking and belief system we can do lot, I believe.
    I agree for second statement made by you.I feel it is by nature or It may be depend individually where we stand in evolution process( here we have to agree multiple birth by spirit theory?) so some how ,through your Kundalini?!! your genetic code Transcript get evolved and transfer by generation to generation in more evolved state if you ( spirit through your various bodies) wish so in each birth.
    So the next thing I want to clear, your spirituality not only depend on your birth as a realized soul but there is equal chance to improve or ascends or descend in each birth through your behavior, thinking, beliefs, Passion. Remember story of ” Valya Koli” who used to kill people to run his family. He spend hole life in that.One day Narad meet him and asked why you are doing it.he said ; for my family. Then he asked whether family member will be accompany him in dirt. Family members replied necessarily not. then he got evolved and write Story of Ramayana as a realized soul… so everything is depend on us only, how we perceive and react to life. You may not get results in same birth but get definitely evolved in next step of spirituality in each birth if your purpose is clear and divine.
    another important thing I heard in interview of Dr. Lagu,Actor, who is realistic in nature and not believing in supernatural or god. He said in evolution process only brain will remain and will work for everything and will become large as we are using it more.Our all organs will lost, as our rudimentary organ, in evolution process but it take long ,long time and not possible in one birth of human being. He believes in one’s humanity , as asked about emotions. but one should have control on it by understanding and expressing ( That is the spirituality as he feel) them properly. How long you are useful for your society and How much you are satisfied in your personal and social life that is only your spiritual evolution he added.

  6. mirel Says:

    faith can become such a blinding effect >religion also what it has taken in many different shapes in the hands of human beings.
    What happens is that we think we know what we are doing that we have everything under control, which is another one of life’s illusions, for there is a much greater force in the universe than ourselves that connects us with all life and wishes only for us to evolve into our potential selves
    our own ego and intellect which has developed without relationship to the Whole? So much that it dominates our awareness and convinces us to forget the innate dharma within us?
    In this modern world we are addicted to sensations, from shocks to sweet surprises, everything from food, to entertainment, to gratify our senses in one way or another. They provide a lustre for the exterior of our being while neglecting the substance within. Most of the time and for most of the people this world of temporary sense gratification is enough to satiate, but for those who are seekers of truth they will always feel a longing for something more. This urge within us is basic for our growth, it is our desire to evolve

  7. Mahesh Chendake Says:

    It is like Tamasik pooja of Devi .which is practiced all over India from ancient time blindly. The Pujari ( owner of temple) simply make business of all those rituals and people blindly follow it.
    Two latest news I will share of recent-
    A couple Killed 5 children very cruelly and they planned to kill 11 in one village in so called modern Maharashtra in last week for to have a own child as ad voiced by some Quack ( Pujari/Boova). Now police trapped couple but Quack is absconded.
    In any local yatra/ Festival Lacks of people will gather in temple of god or Goddess and kill 1000,s of goats to offer prassad to Devi. and they will eat and drink alcohol near by temple It is very common here. Famous example of Mandhardevi in wai tal. near satara and It is very difficult to stop those things to Govt .and police also as opposed by community on the name of religion. many times political leaders are in front to do all those things to get popularity.
    I read in one book on Devi where they described Devi in the form of Kali, where she drink lot of alcohol then she make dance then she kill Mahishasur (red eyes) as seen in picture of devi ,she has taken out her tongue because after drinking lot of alcohol and doing dance and sex with god Shiva, when she raise her trishule and then she surprised looking at a person whether he is a same looking like shiva?. and that’s why such image is there of Kali. So it is type of tamsik puja people are doing to get fulfilled their usually bad desires about other people with the help of Tantrik/Mantric (Quack) without understanding.

  8. mirel Says:

    True Freedom is an inside job
    When there is nothing that can rob
    You of the Joy each moment brings
    As through your heart your Spirit sings

    True Freedom is beyond these notions
    Beyond torment and emotions
    Beyond your concepts and your mind
    Yes Freedom’s free, and Freedom’s kind

  9. Science, superstition and evolution – you bet an undesirable like me would have a lot to say on this topic, Axinia 🙂 Thanks for bringing this up 😉

    First, let me say that Prof. Hood is both right and wrong. I guess that’s not fair. To be more precise, let me say that I both agree and disagree with Prof. Hood.

    How can it be? Actually, it depends on the way one looks at evolution.

    As I’ve already mentioned, evolution takes place in two ways – the quantitative way and the qualitative way.

    All lowly creatures use the quantitative way to evolve. That is, they use rapid overbreeding as a means of evolution. By breeding as many creatures (even if they are of a very low quality) as possible during their lifespans, these creatures are able to ensure that even if only a fraction are able to survive and go on to further breed rapidly, evolution would still take place on a lottery chance basis. Let’s say that 4 or 5 creatures out of 10 000 in one generation show some signs of evolving over the previous generation. Creatures that use this method of evolution include all lower animals incuding invertebrates like insects, as well as lower vertebrates like fishes, reptiles, amphibians as well as some lowly mammals like rats and pigs. I’m very sorry to say that certain lowly, mediaeval and uncouth human societies still tend to believe in using the quantitative method to evolve by indulging in rapid overbreeding.

    The other way, of course, is the qualitative way of evolution. Creatures that use this method tend to concentrate on the quality of the next generation as a means of evolution, rather than quantity. That is, instead of rapidly (and rabidly) multiplying at the rate of lowly vermin like insects and rats, they tend to concentrate on breeding quality offspring by concentrating on pre-natal and neo-natal care as well as proper raising of the young offspring. Creatures that use this method generally include many birds and many higher mammals like cats, leopards, tigers, elephants, kangaroos etc. The more civilised human societies also use the qualitative approach to human evolution. By using this method, creatures can ensure that 4 or 5 out of 10 of one generation show some signs of evolution over the previous generation.

    That’s why I completely agree with the statement that not all human societies are equally evolved. I mean, it’s so obvious that it cannot be ignored. Why do you think that civilised societies believe in ethical concepts like socio-economic equality and mobility, fairness and justice for all with special care for those at a disadvantage (like the sick and the differently abled)? While at the same time, why do the uncouth, barbaric societies believe in sub-human filth concepts like “fixed unchangeable fate”, “previous births’ karma” and disgustingly noxious economic logic like “one billionaire surrounded by one hundred million desperate, starving hordes”?

  10. Dr. Hood’s analysis holds pefectly true for something like the quantitative method of evolution. I’m not trying to say that all those who Dr. Hood used in his analysis believed in things like rapid overbreeding as a means of evolution, certainly not!

    I mean to say that belief in some super beings, all powerful inaginary entities and the like happen to be a function programmed by a lower form of evolution.

    Evolution is a funny thing, and it can result in both insanely irrational and highly rational stuff, just like one can approach evolution by the quantitative and qualitative ways.

    Okay, if this post offers proof that evolution can result in the cultivation of irrational stuff, then where is the proof that it can also result in the encouragement of rational stuff?

    Here is the much needed proof, my friend:


    According to evolutionary psychologist Satoshi Kanazawa, evolution ensures that more intelligent persons are more likely to become atheists as well as “have genuine concern for the welfare of genetically unrelated others and the willingness to contribute larger proportions of private resources for the welfare of such others”.

    Kanazawa-san is 100% correct! I’ve always believed that altruism, compassion for all (especially the weak) and genuine concern for the welfare of unrelated and unknown persons/creatures can only occur to those with a more civilised and cultured mindset. It’s simply absent completely from the pea-brains of the less evolved beings.

    It’s just like what I’ve always been saying, like the example of the injured dog lying in one’s path. Let me requote it, as it is highly relevant here:

    Let’s say, it’s like walking down a path and finding an injured dog on the way. A semi-civilised hominoid would probably walk past without bothering. A filthy uncouth sub-human would probably kick the dog and derive sadistic pleasure as it desperately yelps in excruciating pain.

    It would take a civilised human being to try and help the poor dog. It’s what they are naturally inclined by their civilised insticts to do


    • axinia Says:

      dear Raj, you know, I used to be an atheist.
      And I then I foudn my Spirit and I know that aetheism is nothing but bullshit (sorry for my French :))
      …so basically you want to say that I shifted down in my evolution???
      :)) hahaha how funny it is…

      • Axinia dear, if atheism can be equated to bullshit; then blind belief, superstition and all other associated crap that go with them are nothing but the stinking diarrhoeal faecal excrement of sewery scum beings! 😡 I apologise for using words that can cause nausea, but I wanted to put things in perspective by comparing the two 🙂

        No, you haven’t shifted down in your evolution at all! It’s just that, as I feared 😯 you are unfortunately allowing your progressive scientific mind trained to behave in a rational way to be slowly overpowered by the overwhelming stink of the crappy, filthy, sub-human concepts that emanate from the primitive, worthless, meadiaeval, barbaric, regressive, uncouth Indian sub-continent 😦

  11. Oh dear, I just read other reports about Kanazawa-san’s study and realised that he too agrees that humans are evolutionarily designed to believe in God because they are paranoid 😯

    This served humans well when self-preservation and protection of their families and clans depended on vigilance to potential dangers.

    However, he adds that more intelligent children are likely to grow up to go against their natural evolutionary tendency to believe in God.

    And he has another theory too. He believes that less intelligent men have a tendency to cheat on their partners while more intelligent men are likely to stay faithful. Funnily, he believes this theory does not apply to women.



    • axinia Says:

      You know Raj, sicnetis are just people like you and me, they are not Gods or super human beings…I concider myself not less intelligent than any of them (how about you?).

      And I must say you seem to be obssesed with scientists, just face it, honestly. Scientist can be intellignt, can be stupid, can make mistakes – just like any one of us.

      The Kanazawa-san does not sound trustworth to me and I personally know may examples that oppose his theory.

      • I’ll face it honestly, Axinia, for sure 😐 Yes, I AM obsessed, NOT with scientists, but with science!!! 🙂

        Unfortunately Axinia, now I’ll have to state something that I’ve observed carefully over the years about men and women.

        Women simply seem to cloud their judgements about FACTS based on their love it or hate it attitude about PEOPLE. That is, if a woman likes/loves a person, then I’ve found that she blindly agrees with most of what he/she says, irrespective of whether it makes sense or not. On the other hand, if a woman dislikes/hates a person, then I’ve found that she tries to disagree with whatever he/she says, even if it is an undeniable fact. All it would take to make a woman agree with something she vehemently disagrees with, is to make a person whom she loves say it, and vice-versa 🙂 I’m not blaming women and girls here, but this is one thing that I’ll never understand about them 😐

        On the other hand, while a few men too, can have this attitude to some extent, generally they are quite clear about differentiating between facts and the person who says it.

        Yes, Axinia dear, scientists can be intelligent, stupid, crazy, sober, right, wrong, good, bad, civilised, uncouth, humane or just plain scum. They can be all that and more.

        But that does not take away the credibility of science itself. In fact it reinforces its credibility more than anything else! As opposed to regressive religion, superstitious blind belief and other such crap which demand unquestioning allegiance and everlasting bootlicking, science is the only thing that asks one to severely question what it says. Science is the only thing which allows itself to be contradicted, so that it can be improved. Science is completely progressive since it has that self-correcting tendency. Crappy blind beliefs and sub-human filth concepts are not just caught in a time trap in the age of dinosaurs, but they are rapidly regressive.

        Science is a tool, science is cool!
        Blind belief turns one into a fool!


        So let Kanazawa-san be a crook, a moron or an untrustworthy, unsavoury character. That does not take anything away from the scientific facts that he is accurately stating, which I personally have confirmed to be true as far as evolutionary behaviour is concerned.

        In fact, Axinia, Kanazawa-san is stating exactly the same thing as Dr. Hood. Both of them AGREE that humans are evolutionarily programmed to believe in an imaginary entity.

        But Dr. Hood stops with that and he FAILS to present the whole picture. That is, while all humans ARE indeed programmed by evolution to believe in an imaginary entity, the more intelligent among clothed-apes-with-opposable-thumbs are bound by Mother Nature Herself to try out evolutionary “novelties”.

        That’s how evolution works, Axinia. Being an evolutionary psychologist, Kanazawa-san is aware of this fact, while Dr. Hood is not.

        Evolution does not stop once it reaches a certain level. Like science itself, evolution goes on and on, irrespective of the level that it has reached.

        As opposed to the lower creatures that evolve very slowly, higher creatures, because of their sheer complexity, can evolve at a very rapid rate. This is also because lowly creatures use the quantitative method of evolution while higher creatures use the qualitative method.

        It’s the same with humans. While all humans themselves are programmed by evolution to believe in an imaginary entity, the more evolved among humans (i.e. the more intelligent) are pushed by Mother Nature to seek evolutionary novelties.

        That’s how the concepts of altruism, compassion, civilised behaviour etc. developed among humans, who are supposedly more intelligent than other apes. Not just among humans, but these concepts have also shown to be evolutionary behaviour among lower animals.

        It sure does make a lot of scientific, evolutionary and ethical sense. Uncouth, sub-human filth beings wouldn’t have it in their lowly pea-brains to feel for the suffering of unrelated/unknown persons/creatures. It would take a creature with at least some amount of intelligence to feel the same. That’s why human and animal life has a lot of value in the civilised societies while it barely has any value in the lowly, semi-civilised, rapidly overbreeding, unethical and uncouth societies of the filthy parts of the world.

        Come to think of it, Axinia, a great Earthling like Jesus Christ wasn’t exactly sent by God to save the people. Religion says so, but science has a much more convincing answer!

        Thanks to the evolutionary psychology espoused by Kanazawa-san and the results of his research, which seem to be very true, Jesus was indeed sent to save the world, NOT by the male imaginary entity in heaven, but by the female entity that we can call as Mother Nature.

        Yes, Christ was a supremely evolved human being of extraordinary intelligence for the times in which he walked upon the Earth. The highly ethical things that he preached were not put into his head by an imaginary entity, but were the product of a brain that had developed exceptional intelligence due to his highly evolved state of existence!


        • Atlantic Says:

          Raj, Your not obsessed with scientists but at the same time know that it’s these people who’ve developed the theories you believe in. Science can be completely wrong or true and it’s the same with religion. Science should be questioned and contradicted that’s true. But then why the only thing… Why not the blind superstitions of religious faith? Science is only partly fact, and based on those, the rest is made up of well thought out assumptions. There is nothing inherently wrong with theories, yet over time these assumptions wrongly begin to be seen as fact. Rather than study what is true for themselves people then begin to believe blindly what is taught. It’s no wonder that religion is so messed up. Cause while most scientific thinking is relatively new, theories of faith have been developing for thousands of years. And just like science the masses are more then willing to accept these as unquestionable truth. Are they unintelligent? Personally I think it has more to do with self pride and stubbornness. I’ve personally heard people say what their mother and father believed, and whether true or not that’s good enough for them. They really don’t care because they don’t what to change anything within themselves and also going against commonly held beliefs is never popular. But the simple belief in a God despite it’s being true or not doesn’t make one stupid any more than I should see a hard core evolutionist as unintelligent just because his opinion is different.

          Interesting that while you praise Christ for the good teachings that suit your purpose, but you ignore those teachings which talk of God. Jesus was a great humanitarian it’s true but most important and evident was his dependence on his Father. Wouldn’t that make him unintelligent? Also It’s not religion that should say why he came, but he himself said it. Christianity is to be based solely on his teachings which are told to be fact. In a similar and just as unproven way science puts forward it’s own facts. So then I should ask, which of us has more blind faith?? Based on what? Both have there evidence, yet you may say the religious is bias to the science and but at the same time religion says vice versa. So far they are equal are they not?


          • Dear Atlantic,

            Science by its very nature, is open, progressive, truth-seeking, self-correcting and based on proven facts, not wild claims. Even if a scientific theory begins as a theory, it is not accepted as proven until it gets backed by facts and gets established to be true. Even then, at any point in time, if a better set of facts emerge to back up a new theory, science immediately accepts it. Thus, science is like an ever-progressive phenomenon.

            Religion, by its very nature, demands total unquestioning obedience to whatever it says. That’s because religionists know that if one is allowed to question the stupid superstitions and barbaric blind beliefs of religion, they would immediately collapse, as religions are based on wild myths and blind beliefs. Take the tenets of each and every religion, and I can point out two dozen myths that can be busted with just a little common sense.

            As opposed to science which put forths its theories and backs them up with facts to establish them as the truth (which can be questioned and corrected at any time if not true), religions put forth so-called “facts” that they claim to be “holy” and “unquestionable”. The so-called “facts” of religions are nothing but wild myths and blind beliefs that make very little sense. In fact, I wonder why scientific minded people even bother to discuss religion in the 21st century. Even trying to make sense of the wild myths of religions is akin to chasing the proverbial pot of gold at the end of a rainbow 😆

            Also, many religious beliefs, especially the ones of those religions that are practised by the pea-brained hordes in the filthy, uncouth, barbaric parts of the world are just so uncouth, primitive and barbaric, that they can be nauseating. Let’s face it, some religious beliefs are just plain evil 👿 If religions were so uncouth as to encourage such sub-human filth practices, then I think they deserve to be confined to the trash cans of history.

            Also, I have no intentions of appropriating Jesus Christ for science by selectively praising his ethical teachings and ignoring what he said about his father in heaven. Let’s face it, Christ was not just a saint, but a truly great historical figure who has had an unbelievable influence on the world. Till his time, the world had seen plenty of bubble-dwellers held up as gods, godmen and saints. Pathetically, there are also cases where tyrants and shameless murderers have been worshipped as gods. Christ was the first saint who wasn’t a bubble-dwelling dreamer, but a humanitarian who tried to reform the uncouth, decadent practices of his primitive society. He was naturally inspired to do so, since he was an exceptionally evolved human being who had the highest sense of ethical intelligence.

            I certainly believe the theory espoused by Kanazawa-san that ethics, compassion, altruism etc. can occur only to the minds of the more evolved beings with an above average level of intelligence, at the very least, since these noble concepts seem to be completely absent from the lowly, primitive pea-brains of a large majority of the uncouth hordes.

            Now why did Christ speak of “His Father in Heaven” when he was such an unbelievably intelligent, highly ethical, supremely evolved human being who is supposed to seek evolutionary novelties like atheism? I guess that is because of the time and the society in which Christ lived. Christ was born and lived in an orthodox Jewish society which had its Jewish faith (and therefore belief in “God”, the covenant etc.) as the basis of its existence. Importantly, the people of that area were militarily occupied and oppressed by the pagan hordes of the uncouth Roman empire. The Roman hordes of that time, as you would know, did not believe in the kind of “God” that the Judeo-Christians do. They must have worshipped several different kinds of pagan gods. Now, what was Christ supposed to do? If he ever thought of atheism as I guess he might have, would it have made any sense to the Jews of that time? No, as the very existence of their society was based on belief in their “God”, the covenant etc. In addition to being hated for being a reformer and a humanitarian, Christ would have been turned into an outcaste if he ever spoke anything of atheism. He would have even been considered a collaborator of the occupying pagan hordes by the Jews, while the pagan hordes of the Roman empire would have treated him as a lunatic preaching the denial of both the Jewish “God” and the pagan gods.

            So the exceptionally intelligent Jesus did the sensible thing. Using his supremely evolved sense of ethics, he preached of the need to reform the uncouth, barbaric, primitive practices of his society since it was how “God” supposedly expected them to behave. Also, he began spreading hitherto unheard of, revolutionary ideas about “God”, claiming that “His Father in Heaven” did not care about birth or wealth or earthly status, but cared for all his children equally, including the sick, the lepers, the suffering, women, children, repentant sinners and victims of circumstances like slaves and prostitutes. By spreading such new, revolutionary ideas about “God”, Christ was in fact, doing something as good as trying to vaguely promote atheism 😉 He was trying to promote the idea that ethics, compassion, righteousness, love, humane and civilised behaviour mattered more than any rigid blind belief and superstition about “God”.


            • Dear Atlantic,

              I’m sorry if you found my theories and ideas about Christ and his teachings completely different and alien from what you normally hear and read 😐

              I have no intentions of questioning your personal belief in God and faith in what Jesus said about His Father in Heaven.

              As a non-Christian, more so as a non-believer in any other faith or “God”, I guess I cannot tell you how you must believe in God or how you must interpret what Christ said.

              As we know, Jesus Christ was not a mythical person or an imaginary phenomenon. The great humanitarian saint was definitely an Earthling who blessed planet Earth by walking upon it more than two thousand years ago. The dates may not be exactly accurate, but we do know scientifically that a person who changed the history of the world, known as Jesus, was born to Mary and Joseph, in Bethlehem of Judaea.

              I was only trying to put forth a scientific idea about Christ and his life by extending Kanazawa-san’s fabulous theory back to two millenia. You are welcome to believe that Christ lived, preached and died as he did because He was sent by His Father in Heaven to save the people of the world. That’s your faith and I respect your right to personal belief.

              I’m certainly interested in the life of this great saint, because I recognise that his efforts were an attempt to single-handedly civilise the ENTIRE world (which was very uncouth and barbaric at that time) and change it for the better. It’s obvious from the fact that Christ did not limit his efforts to only his fellow Jews/Judaeans/Israelites, despite what is believed about Christ being a messiah for his people alone. From what he told his disciples about taking his message to ALL corners of the world, and to ALL people – be they Jews/Israelites, Romans, Egyptians, Greeks, pagans, gentiles, barbarians, savages, cannibals…, it’s obvious that Christ’s attempt was the first time an Earthling had become so evolved and supremely intelligent ethically to attempt to civilise the world and change it for the better. This, and the fact that Jesus was a great historical figure, proves that Christ did not/does not belong to Christians or Christianity alone.

              In fact, I guess Christ’s noble attempt is incomplete as such, because large parts of the world are very uncouth and even the ones that have become civilised are in mortal danger of sliding back into uncouthness because of various reasons that we’ve discussed.

              Can there be a better time for Christ’s ethical, civilisational message to reach the uncivilised parts of humanity, than now? I guess not. With the savage hordes of the uncouth parts on the verge of overwhelming the civilised world and setting the human civilisational clock back by several decades, if not centuries, and with the evil cabal that controls the world looking for excuses to ignite World War III, from man-made sparks in the Middle-East, I guess the time is ripe for “Christ’s second-coming” now. Christ appearing in person for a second time on Earth may not exactly materialise, but certainly his everlasting and ever-relevant civilisational message certainly deserves a “second-coming”.

              And in this day and age, I guess it would be great to combine Christ’s priceless ethical message with the fabulous truth of science. Think of it, whatever Christ preached is not unscientific. On the other hand, his ethical, humanitarian message can only be the product of a highly evolved, supremely intelligent brain. This in accordance with the modern theories of evolution.

              The only thing that’s holding back Christ’s message from being in accordance with scientific truth is the historical baggage that Christianity carries with it, because of the circumstances and society in which Christ was born. In other words, Christianity carries with it the Judaic/Abrahamic beliefs. This seems to me, quite irrelevant to the superb humanitarian, ethical message for all of humanity that can be found in Christ’s message and his life.

              I wonder why Christianity doesn’t redo itself as a civilising, humane, ethical message for ALL the peoples of the world, which is how the great humanitarian saint Christ meant it to be in the first place, instead of being just another religion with a rigid set of beliefs, many of which can be disproved anyday by modern science. Besides, why should there be this obsession with the Judaic/Abrahamic beliefs about the peoples of “ancient Israel” as well as places like Jerusalem? This is even more baffling considering that the Jews flatly rejected/reject the idea of Christ being the messiah. And importantly, Christ himself stated clearly and unambigously to his dispicles that his message was for the entire world and the peoples of “all corners of the earth”.

              But then again, what does an undesirable non-believing heathen like me understand about Christ or his message?


            • Avdhut Says:

              Everyone seems to be calling you Raj :-), Hello Raj, reading your comments has helped me to see clearly that intelligence does not ensure goodness.

              For sure, religion has to be explained scientifically, and I admire your description of Jesus, wonderful !!

              The article only describes how the belief process works, and yes belief without the wisdom of experience usually does lead to superstition, dogma, and corruption of the truth.

              To evolve people have to know themselves, for themselves, and then choose the course of action best sutied to their aims, that in itself can also be a process of trial and error for some, commiting terrible wrongs in the process. But so long as there is forgiveness, not forgetting the mistake but learning from it, then people can work together and make the world a beter place.

              Of course some people will never change, they have so much hatred in them that their egos are like rocks, and they go on hurting other people, and themselves.

              The job of people who want true goodness (‘God’ness) is not to reactto the negativity in such a manner that it is perpetuated, but to always speak the truth with love. ‘GOD’, in relation to what human beings need in order to evolve and understand Jesus Christ, is Truth AND Love. In this respect, that which is ‘True’ is that which has the right aim, and the right aim can only be achieved if it’s motivation is Love…that is if one wants peace.

              Yes, words are just words, that’s why, on an evolutionary level, the truth can be determined on the central nervous-system, something that operates beyond the concious mind, and operates best while unhindered by the activity of the concious mind, and so to experience the meaning of the words.

              When the meditation (mediation / medi = middle or in this sense, balanced ) is experienced one understands the truth of the saying ‘God is love and Love is All’ because it is those feelings that ensure we evolve in a manner that allows us to experience and engage with life in a benign way, and thus achieve the great ideology that was portrayed by Christ, and so many other create personalities. Trouble is we need to do it together, so it is important how we communicate and make our understandings clear, so that others will have courage to follow. May you find the peace required to use the gifts you have for the greater-good. The logical conclusion of selfishness is that there should be peace, only then will our own survival ever be assured.

              Peace is something that is always there waiting within us, but we do not own it, in fact we have to let it own us, then we are our own masters.

              I always admire Jesus’ words, like, ”Who among you has become a man by thinking, therefore why takest thou thought as raiment (food).”

              All is for enjoyment only, except for those who choose hatred.

              with Love and respect.

            • Hi Avdhut! Not just here, many in the real world also call me Raj (it’s a nickname that is a shortened form of my full name) 🙂

              Yes, I agree that raw “intelligence” alone does not necessarily ensure goodness. For there are different kinds of intelligence you see – quantitative, analytical, logical, artistic, physical, communicative, musical, …, …, … and ethical. It’s quite possible for a person to be very good at some of those and very poor at others e.g. a physically intelligent person (someone who is capable of making his/her body literally dance to the tune of his/her mind, like a gymnast for instance) who likes to voraciously lick the boots of criminals, mass-murderers and gang-raping sub-humans may score quite well on one component of intelligence but is almost a ZERO (if not negative) when it comes to the ethical intelligence scale.

              Speak the truth with love 😕 😆 You’ve got to be kidding me, correct? 🙂 It’s NOT the lack of loving, gentle and kind words which hurts the criminals, murderers, oppressors, lowlives, hypocrites and their boot-lickers. It is the TRUTH which hurts such hordes so badly. They love to lie, pretend, cheat, deceive and brainwash naive, gullible folks into believing the sheer crappy nonsense that they are somehow from “a great culture”, “a spiritual land”, “a non-violent society”, “a democracy” and other disgusting, blatant BIG LIES. When their lies, deception and hypocrisy gets exposed by the truth, it hurts them SO badly! One can be so gentle and kind with words, but still it will hurt them as painful as ever, because it’s not the harsh words which cause them hurt, but the TRUTH ITSELF as it exposes their rabid lies, deception, hypocrisy and sadism.

              I see that you are a very wise person. I only wish that you could realise the futility of certain things. It’s all fine to talk about doing it together and communicating it clearly to others. But it works only with humans and not with the criminalised sub-human hordes and their rabid boot-lickers (as one Ms. Arundathi Roy found out). For humans really are at different stages of ethical evolution, and what works for those civilised ones at one end of the scale doesn’t necessarily work for the lowly, savage hordes at the other end. For such hordes do not have the decency to realise the sheer uncouthness and barbarism of their own ways and evolve on the ethical scale. Instead, they love to, and insist on continuing their uncouth, demonic, sub-human ways deriving a despicable sadistic thrill out of it, while blatantly pretending to be paragons of virtue to those unfortunate clueless folks.

              Peace is not just within us. We need to create peace for others if we want salvation for our own souls. Peace without justice has absolutely NO meaning for an oppressive, satanic “peace” that is maintained under the barrel of the gun is no peace at all. So we need to create peace with justice for all we can.

              Deriving a secret, sub-human, sadistic thrill at the suffering or pretending to ignore the suffering we collectively cause to others is also as sinful as causing the suffering ourselves. Silently enjoying the suffering caused to others in our name is as despicable, sub-human and sinful as causing the suffering with our own hands. Those who are too low-IQed to realise this simple ethical fact, but are offended when it is conveyed to them and instead begin to hate the messenger for conveying it are themselves no better than the sub-human hordes who cause such suffering.

              As Christ said of such sub-human hordes, “They are of their father the devil, and the desires of their father they will do; he was a man-slayer from the beginning, and in the truth he hath not stood!” Such sub-human hordes will surely have to face the wrath of “God” for their filthy deeds for “they shall reap just as they have sown”. It’s only a matter of time before the sub-human scum realise this. But then, it will be too late for them to salvage their turdy souls.

              Love and respect to you,
              An alien Earthling.


              • Avdhut Says:

                Truth with Love, yes ! The need is exactly that people should face their conscience; that part of their ego that denies that thye are being untruthful and unjust, only then will people change. Some may not, but if they do it will only be because they have been convinced to face the truth. Can you convince a hateful person that they are wrong if you yourself are hateful ?

                So yes, truth with love ! The love is yours, it is part and parcel of your being, you cannot give it away any more than you can give your life to someone else. Did you have a good Mother ? They are the best example of the need for Love and Truth. Love is the wrath of God for the hateful will not accept it and thus will not be saved.

                We can’t be silent about the truth, if we are what good are we ?! But if we are as hateful as them then what example is there of how people should be. You have to protect yourself with Love in your heart, your intention has to be good, loving, or else you will just be a hypocrite.

                Shri Jesus himself said both ‘Forgive them they know not what they do’, AND ,’ When you forgive the sinner, ( to them) it is as if you heap hot coals upon their forehead’, and ‘Judge not lest you be judged.’

                Can you be more specific about who are these ‘turdy souls’ :~} That kind of language suggests that you have been hurt by them.

  12. Also Axinia, sadly, Kanazawa-san seems to have confirmed what I’ve known (and dreaded) all along, but is something that has very serious consequences for the entire world 😯

    Meanwhile, he expects the average intelligence of all western populations to decline slightly in the 21st century, because more intelligent people tend to have fewer offspring.

    If one replaces the word “western populations” with a broader word like “civilised societies”, then it just confirms what I’ve been shouting myself hoarse about.

    In the absence of barriers and boundaries that prevent the mass migration of the uncouth hordes from the less/least civilised places to the more civilised places, the entire world will be reduced to the lowly levels of the uncouth societies as the civilised societies with fewer numbers will be overwhelmed by the hordes and hordes of rapidly overbreeding, uncouth, unethical, less evolved, less civilised beings 😯

    The entire human civilisation is in for some terrible times with the impending fall of the civilised societies 😦

    Dear, oh dear, with the rapidly overbreeding uncouth hordes taking over the civilised societies and the entire world due to their exponentially exploding numbers (coupled with the natural fall in the population of civilised people), the world is surely headed for the Stone Age at a rapid (and dreadful) rate 😯 It sure looks like the science fiction scenario of The Marching Morons may soon become a reality 😦


    By the way, I really salute Kanazawa-san for speaking this unpleasant truth. It doesn’t really take the skill of a rocket scientist to figure this out, just one look at the average fertility rates of different places is enough to arrive at this conclusion.

    But it does take a lot of courage for a scientist to say this unpleasant truth, because the primitive, pea-brained, mediaeval, less-civilised hordes of the lowly, uncouth societies would be baying for his blood now.

  13. Atlantic Says:

    Dear Raj, to what do the so called civilized societies owe these advancements in evolution? Science? To my mind it’s not the human intelligence that brings about reforms. (Even the ignorant and simplest are sometimes shown to be the kindest and best of people in spite of less desirable surroundings.) True reform is the result of a spiritual awakening which happens at different times and places though out history. Strangely it’s this thing that you reject that is responsible for the good. You may think it’s backward and primitive and yet it causes one to think outside of themselves, to search their hearts, and desire to make the lives of others better. Your common sense and knowledge can’t ever do this. Let me ask then, If it does not exist, how is it that we need and depend on this super natural power or God, what ever you want to call it, to provide some purpose in life and to improve society?

    As you say, for various reasons, even the more developed countries are in danger of sliding back into the dark ages. But in a corrupted world like ours, I guess that’s a continuous cycle.


    • Hi Atlantic! 🙂

      Glad to see you back, my friend!

      I guess we may never agree on this topic, dear Newfoundlander 😦 since we come from opposite ends of the belief spectrum. As a faithful follower of the words of God as described in the Bible, you believe in the theory of creation and morals as they were given to you by Christ. You’re welcome to do so, and as long as it makes you lead a fulfilling life as a good human being, I have no problems with it and even welcome it since your faith is your personal choice.

      On the other hand, I have absolutely no faith in any of the faiths and I’m an unbelieving heathen. I believe in science and the exhilarating journey of discovery and realisation of the truth that science is all about. I think scientific knowledge, even in the woefully incomplete form that it exists in today, is enough to expel the myths, superstitions and blind beliefs that most religious concepts are all about.

      I’m sorry if this offends you, but the “supernatural power”, “the all-powerful Creator”, “God” etc. may exist in the books of religion, but they do not exist in the books of science. “God” is just an imaginary entity who exists in the minds of humans. “God” is just a non-real idea, an imaginary concept and people have made a big issue out of this imaginary entity. Imaginary concepts aren’t always bad, like the imaginary lines of latitude and longitude that are drawn around the Earth which serve several purposes. But once people begin to forget that the lines of latitude and longitude are merely imaginary and claim that these lines control the rotation and revolution of the Earth, then that is when all the problems begin.

      Again, I’ll have to disagree with you about human intelligence being responsible for reform. Human intelligence itself is of different types and it is a product of evolution. It may not sound a politically correct thing to say, but yes, the more intelligent humans are certainly more evolved beings. This is because evolution is not just physical, it can also be mental since humans are such complex creatures. Evolution is not always visible to the human eye. For instance, the people who dwell in the Andes mountains and the Tibetan plateau are known to have larger lungs due to the rarefied air they breathe. All it would take is for some series of neurons to be wired differently in the brain to produce human specimens of exceptional intelligence. Thus it wouldn’t be discernible, but it certainly is a fact that the more intelligent human beings are more evolved beings.

      And yes, intelligence simply cannot be reduced to IQ tests, however advanced and holistic these tests claim to be. Even modern IQ tests measure only some forms of intelligence.

      There are other forms of intelligence that cannot be, or have not been quantified. Ethical intelligence is one of them. How on Earth can one measure a person’s compassion, altruism, sense of justice, fairplay, righteousness etc. based on self-answered multiple choice theory questions 😕

      So the ignorant and simple people who are kind and good are not unintelligent even if they score poorly on an IQ test. It’s just that they have high ethical intelligence and the common IQ test is not designed to measure that.

      But let’s face it, Kanazawa-san has got it spot on! Things like compassion, altruism, righteousness, justice, fairplay, civilised behaviour and similar things CERTAINLY ARE the products of highly intelligent minds of evolved humans. Filthy, uncouth, sub-human hordes would not have any of these things in their lowly, primitive pea-brains as they are just a few steps removed from the herds of wild animals that follow the laws of the jungle.

      Unevolved, uncouth human societies and the barbaric pea-brained hordes that inhabit them believe in things like “might is right” and “survival of the fittest” (laws of the jungle). Decent, civilised human societies and the evolved, ethically intelligent persons in them believe in things like “right is might” and “survival and flourish of all, even the weakest”.

      As I already mentioned, science and evolution can certainly explain the phenomenon of Jesus Christ much better than religion. Christ was certainly an irreplaceable gift of Nature, an exceptionally evolved human being with an unbelievable level of ethical intelligence, even more so if you consider the time in which he lived and the uncouth, primitive, barbaric nature of both his own and the surrounding societies.


      • Atlantic Says:

        Hey Raj, Thanks, yeah I’m hardly ever home these days. But I can’t help commenting on such topics faith which is close to my heart. No I’m not disappointed at all concerning your disagreement. Should I be an evolutionist I imagine that you see the world exactly as I would. How then can I find fault with your logic? Your passionate about your beliefs and why shouldn’t you be? As I am my own. A little strong and over the top in your choice of words sometimes, but I get the point.

        You find it hard to imagine, I think, that I also believe in science. You question how anyone could accept God in the face of human knowledge and discovery because you think it disproves the theories of religion. And in a lot of instances you may have a point. There are many meaningless and absurd practices within the cloak of organized faith. For this reason alone I am not at all surprised by your take on things. There’s a crazy and confusing maze of beliefs out there. Common sense says they can’t all be true and while science disproves much of it there is also lots that it has not been answered.

        Words like superstition, myth, and blind belief have their place to be sure. But at the same time “faith” has to come in at some point or neither of us would believe in anything. The one thing I know for sure is that your faith is based on something as apposed to nothing. Mine is too… only you maybe can’t see that right now.

        God is Imaginary? Perhaps he is.. I also Imagine that you too exist even though we never met and I have no real proof. My reasoning is logical, same as yours.

        Ethical intelligence? I like that… =)

        I did not say human intelligence but rather religious convictions as being the major catalyst for reform. You point to evolution instead. the problem I see with this theory is that just like in your example of the Andes where the people have larger lung capacity, people in specific regions would also have the same specific levels of intelligence. I don’t think this is so. The ethical type as you call it is something that is learned and practiced, not inherited.


  14. Raj,

    Always interesting comments from you. I wanted to know if you were a scientist by trade or if you have done any lab work on evolution and such ?


    • Mon cher ami Dave,

      Thanks! To answer your question in one word – no. I’m neither a scientist by trade nor have I done any lab work in evolution.

      But if you think that makes me unqualified to comment on evolution, then you couldn’t be more incorrect, mon ami. Because that is the beauty of science!

      Science works on the principles of knowledge sharing, severe questioning, accessibility, reform etc. Any one can dabble in science as long as he/she understands the basics and the principles on which it works. Science works on a peer-to-peer, reform model on a horizontal plane. As Axinia stated, anyone can consider himself/herself as intelligent as any scientist. That is the beauty of science!

      Superstition, blind beliefs and crap, on the other hand work on the principles of unquestioned allegiance, voraciously obedient bootlicking and rigid uncouth permanent decadence. Such crap works on a vertical, top-down plane. Thus one has to rigidly, blindly and stupidly follow either what a person who claims to be “someone” has said or a thing that is proclaimed to be “holy” says.


      • Hey Raj,
        I work as a scientist, and as a scientist I have to admit there are many things I, and I am sure my other colleague don’t understand about evolution, how it works and the means through which it works on a phenotypic and genetic scale etc.

        The recent advances in technological capabilities have given us the opportunities to sequence and studying genomes in many novel ways that we couldn’t do before. It is quite fascinating I must say, I feel happy as a scientist to continue to learn and be a part of the working community.

        However science is a process. As a process it works on paradigm shifts as we collect new data and make sense of it through peer review and repeated testing of it we modify our theories and this continues through time. We had the shift from Newtonian Physics to Quantum Mechanics (Ironically Newton was an Anglican Bishop, and alchemist who was bold enough to say he had a personal relationship with God). Just from working in the field the last few years I can see a paradigm change happening throughout biology, the more we learn the more realize how little with know.

        I have much faith in science; however I am always skeptical as a scientist. Theories have both solid and shaky ground. There is the possibility that the brain is wired to have us belief in this created being called God. I can see that looking at Carl Jung’s, Mircea Eliade’s and Joseph Campbell’s, Rudolph Otto’s work on myth and the religious experience. As a scientist I personally would like to see the molecular biology behind it, the neuronal pathways involved measurable differences in protein synthesis in the post synaptic terminals; maybe some patch clamp results, regular transgenic animal models, and the usual scientific stuff we rave over in the lab.

        However a point should be made that there are many people who have replace this irrational belief in God, with an irrational belief in science, and trust the implication of theories without the necessary data to back it up. There is so much we don’t know, and so much that we do not know that we don’t know.

        There is also the fact that the most educated of people can act quite irrationally, like the female NASA astronaut and naval officer who supposedly wore a diaper through 900 miles to kidnap and kill a fellow astronaut. The idea was she did not want to stop to use the bathroom, although funnily she had to stop for gas. The fact that irrationality affects all groups the educated and non also the religious and non, the cultured and non, sophisticated and non makes me as a scientist think that there is something more to this question, something that goes deeper into the nature of human existence in all its currently known and unknown aspects, but I have no data to talk of this further only mystical experience.

        • Cher Dave,

          You are correct about how science is a process, it indeed is a never ending on-going process to learn more and more about the truth. That is what makes science progressive. It always veers towards the truth, however incomplete the knowledge we have at the moment may be.

          So what if Newton was supposedly “bold” to declare that he had a personal relationship with “God” 😕 I’m more interested in the contribution of Newton to science than the personal relationships he may have had with his wife, his children or an imaginary entity 😐

          …the more we learn the more realize how little with know.

          Absolutely! 🙂 As far as knowledge is concerned, the following principle is always true:

          What is known is a drop; that which is unknown is an ocean.

          I’m very glad that you’re skeptical. Of course, it’s a requirement to be skeptical in order to dabble in science. Believe in nothing until it is proven true. I only wish you were just as skeptical when it comes to certain mythical, imaginary things 😐

          By the way, what has education ever got to do with rationality 😕 Considering the rate at which filthy, criminal governments around the world are taking control of the education sytem and deliberately dumbing it down in order to produce hordes and hordes of supposedly “educated” but shameless, brainwashed and pathetic arse-licking idiots, I wouldn’t be surprised if an “educated” person, especially from an uncouth Third World country, declares that the Sun revolves around the Earth.


          Votre cher ami,
          Un Terrien extraterrestre

          • Hey Raj,

            It was skepticism that brought me to mysticism, science was rather incomplete with some things. I found it interesting that Newton who is considered to be in many ways one of the most influential scientist in our history, still held a strong belief in and had an experience God which is I think pertinent to the discussion of whether we are wired to believe in a God.

            The power of choice is what I think would need to be broached as we all make a choice to believe in this or that philosophy or religion. And given that we are speculating on whether we are hard wired (predetermined) to believe in god, I find the implication of personal choice a rather interesting thing. How does choosing to believe in something affect/Impacts/ the randomness intrinsic to the working model of evolution.

            I also think that scientists who choose to believe in God are an interesting subpopulation to be surveyed and tested in terms of this question.

            On a random note In his book Mission of the University philosopher Jose Ortega y Gasset equates the production of hyperspecialized professions to creating ‘barbarians”. I think you may find it an interesting read as I did when I became a teacher.

            As for your wish for me to be more skeptical in mythic and imaginary things, I imagine you mean mystical and Imaginary as the work on myth, the collective unconscious, the process of individuation are all well documented and studied. There is a great series called the Bollingen series of Books which documented this.

            I am not a major scientist but it is interesting to look at the history of science and name the important people in its history who had religious and at times mystical leanings. Albert Einstein who gave us the theory of relativity, Isaac Newton, max Planck the father of Quantum mechanics, Lord William Kelvin who help also establish quantum mechanics, Gregor Mendel the Priest and founder of Genetics, Michael Faraday who really furthere our ability to understand electricity and magneticism, Rene Descarte , Johannes Kepler, Copernicus, and Sir Francis bacon who gave us pretty much the scientific method, George Washington Carver. I can name some nobel laureates too, but there is a book on http://www.nobel.net called has a free e-book called “50 Nobel Laureates and Other Great Scientists Who Believe in God that does that. The list includes some great evolutionist including Charles Darwin which is humorous to me being that he father of evolution.

            I am being silly but looking at that list maybe the key to being a good scientist is to chose to believe in God. It seems my perceived lack of skepticism in mystical and imaginary things has put me in great company.

            🙂 Dave

          • I am quite comfortable as a scientist saying mystical experience arent measurable, they cannot be repeated in a lab, and as far as science is concern just maybe hallucination of the mind/brain due to biological and reactive factors. There is nothing remotely scientific in feelings of Union, in sama – the deep listening with the ear of the heart etc, and a lot of these other mystical things, intuition etc.

            Even something as simple as a thought or the ‘mind’ has not been clearly defined by science, as I cannot order or buy thoughts from a catalogue of reagents, nor can I bottle in formaldehyde a mind like I did brains and other tissue samples for microscopic analysis in the lab.

            However I wonder since we are focused on facts, skepticism and scientific thinking I would like to know how you have calculated the following:

            1. The rate at which filthy, criminal governments around the world are taking control of the education sytsem and deliberately dumbing it down in order to produce hordes and hordes of supposedly “educated” but shameless, brainwashed and pathetic arse-licking idiots
            2. The Criminality of Governments
            3. Shamelessness
            4. Patheticness
            5. Control – how to we measure the extent of control a ‘criminal’ government has on an educational system.

            When I think rate i think derivatives, Integrals maybe sometimes. I think equations. I think about measurable entities distance time, velocity, pH level,Protein concetration, units like meters per sec .

            Many people agree on having thoughts and a mind though scientifically its is quite a fuzzy area.xperiences and there are many commonalities in them. Many people have frequently had mystical experience. But mystical stuff is a quite fuzzy area.

            I agree with you that criminality and barbarism in both western and Eastern Societies are real, as are my ‘thoughts’ on them though as a scientist I cant measure either. Thats quite fuzzy to me as there is no measures or scientifically peer reviewed, or validated scales for uncouthness, arse licking, filthiness, and a lot of the things you mention repeatedly.

            • Cher Dave,

              Since you asked me how I defined or calculated certain things; here you go. I don’t care if there aren’t any scientifically peer reviewed or validated scales for them, since these are topics that are untouchable for a lot of scientists, especially those who work for governments. You can agree with them, disagree with them, reject them, accept them or better still, come up with your own definitions of them since you seem to be so uncomfortable with these (admittedly a bit unpleasant) terms whenever I use them:

              1) The rate at which filthy governments…

              You know, during the Vietnam War, the crooks who ran the American empire were so shocked at the level of opposition that came from university students and from campuses to the unnecessary war into which the crooks had dragged America. The criminals who run the American empire then decided to begin a program of deliberate dumbing down of the American education system in order to turn young students into establishment arse-lickers from the free-thinking rebels they were. This dumbing down program was almost complete by the time of the Afghanistan and Iraq wars of the American empire. The results of the dumbing down program were there for all to see. Very few students were protesting the actions of the criminals in government, they had mostly been turned into arse-lickers of the establishment scoundrels. So the time period of dumbing down was the period between the Vietnam and Afghan-Iraq wars. You calculate the rate.

              2) Criminality of governments

              One example… if one particular government can go to any extent to cover up the real facts behind a certain infamous “event” (a false flag) that resulted in the loss of thousands of lives of its own citizens, that was engineered not by bearded cave-dwelling towelheads, but by an evil cabal, in order to terrorize the people into submission for the crime cabal’s wars of aggression

              3) Shamelessness

              The savage hordes of the filthy, evil uncouth Indian empire are the epitome of shamelessness (and hypocrisy). They proclaim how M.K.Gandhi used fasting to take on the nasty British empire, but shamelessly ignore the fact that the filthy, evil, uncouth Indian empire has imprisoned for ten long years, a lady called Irom Sharmila who has not taken even a morsel of food in protest against the world’s most sub-human filthy and uncouth law called the AFSPA that is used by the uncouth Indian empire’s barbarians to keep the people of its occupied territories brutalised and oppressed.

              4) Patheticness

              When the uncouth hordes of one particular barbarocracy proclaim how they worship female godesses, yet they murder female infants, abort female foetuses and kill brides who don’t bring enough dowry, then that is called pathetic (besides a lot of other things).

              5) The best way to measure the control a filthy government has over the education system is to find out the percentage of students who oppose the government’s criminal policies. The lower the percentage, the greater is the control.

              6) Filthiness – When the savage hordes belonging to uncouth places practise certain “cultural” practices that are downright disgusting and sub-human, such as female genital mutilation, sati, child marriage, dowry deaths, female infanticide etc., then that is called as filthiness.

              I hope you get an idea of how I calculate or define the terms you seem to be so uncomfortable to hear.


              • Hey Raj,

                Why do you think I find these words difficult to hear. If I did I would neither ask you for further explication, nor would I engage you in further discussion, or recommend books to you to read to get your opinion.

                I hope you don’t think I am challenging your beliefs, or by my questioning suggest the same? You may be surprised to know that I agree with some of your points, not to the same extent of course. Please don’t take my questions as anything more than questions especially as I never stated anywhere that what you say was wrong or right.

                You said, ” Believe in nothing until it is proven True.” I decided to ask how have you measured certain things or proven them true as you believe in them so strongly, to better understand you assertions.

                • Cher Dave,

                  Actually, I’m NOT surprised to hear that you agree with some of my points, though you may disagree with my choice of words. Why am I not surprised? Because I know that I’m stating the facts as they are, which many know to be true, but very few have the guts to openly state. For instance, I believe a “cultural” practice, such as FGM, female foeticide or the filthy caste system is uncouth, barbaric and sub-human because THEY ARE uncouth, barbaric and sub-human! 😡 It’s not like your blind belief in an imaginary entity. It’s a statement of facts as they are, which the less evolved, mediaeval, uncouth hordes may not find easy to digest.

                  As far as your being in the good company of scientists who believed in “God” is concerned, that’s good for you. I hope your association with these famed contributors to science is a sign that your scientific work too, will get you a Nobel Prize and fame/recognition. I wish you good luck, mon ami!

                  Of course I could list equally famed contributors to science who did not/do not believe in an all-powerful imaginary entity. But that would be unscientific on my part.

                  Like what I clarified to Axinia, I’m interested in science and NOT scientists. It doesn’t quite matter to me whether a great scientist believed in an imaginary entity/Santa Claus/tooth fairy or not. I’m not interested in the least, in what he usually had for dinner, what he dreamed of at night, whether he went to a place of worship or believed in an all powerful imaginary entity or not.

                  For instance, if one of those famed gentlemen you mentioned were alive today and I had to chance to interact with them, I would gladly speak to them about the scientific work they carried out, question them and learn something from them, even if it is too much for my dumb mind to understand. However, on the topic of “God”, I would still argue with them vehemently, and flatly tell them that their beliefs are plain unscientific 🙂 However, since they are merely human, they still have the right, like the rest of us, to personally believe in imaginary entities, tooth fairies, ghosts or a gentle silver-bearded Père Noël driving a reindeer-drawn sleigh and presenting gifts to children.


                  • seeker2008 Says:

                    Hey Raj

                    I often wonder about impartiality in science. How much can I remove myself from the experiment that I am doing, from the data interpretations. From the point of view of someone in the field it difficult position especially since in many cases the scientific discoveries bear the mark of their time and cultures.

                    As a dervish I don’t believe in a God. The mystical path is a different matter from belief. We experience it. As Axinia has said quite fittingly “The only truth I know is my own experience.”- the bubble reality.


                  • Cher ami,

                    Scientists may be partial since they are merely human, but science is impartial since it belongs to no one/nothing! 🙂

                    So what if a scientist is partial? His work does not get accepted as the scientific truth till it gets accepted, confirmed or proven by himself/herself/others. That is the beauty of science! And anytime later, if there are better theories that get proven, then they become accepted as the truth. Anyone from anytime and any culture is welcome to contradict a scientist’s work or theories. That’s because science is open, flexible, accomodating, truth seeking and ever progressive.

                    Contrast that with the sub-human filth concepts, blind beliefs and superstitions. Not only are they definitely insanely partial, but they are claimed to be absolute, “holy”, unquestionable and other such nonsense. These savage blind beliefs are closed, decadent, ever regressive, plainly false, pathetically primitive and simply uncouth.

                    Yet again, while expecting such high standards of science (which it can meet anyday), I wonder why you don’t apply the same standards to the primitive blind beliefs and regressive superstitions which cannot stand even a simple test of common sense?

                    It’s like claiming that the civilised Swiss people are supposedly “xenophobic” for merely deciding to prevent a certain form of architecture, while the uncouth hordes of primitive places can slaughter hundreds of helpless women and children in cold-blood on a single day or bomb out places of worship all because they belong to a different religion, and yet the heinous crimes of these savage hordes doesn’t even get noticed by the very same people who rush to condemn the Swiss for their supposed “xenophobia” 🙄 Why these double standards? While can’t the civilised Swiss and the uncouth hordes be held to the same standards to notice the difference in behaviour? Why can’t progressive science and regressive blind beliefs be held to the same standards?


  15. Atlantic,

    As you say, for various reasons, even the more developed countries are in danger of sliding back into the dark ages. But in a corrupted world like ours, I guess that’s a continuous cycle.

    I’m so glad that I finally have someone to agree with me that the civilised societies are in danger of being reduced to the lowly levels of the filthy, primitive, barbarocratic societies of the uncivilised parts of the world. The uncouth, hypocritical hordes of the lowly, semi-civilised societies will never say such a thing because they will be the ones that are going to wreck the civilised societies by rapidly overbreeding like rats, spreading like the plague from the less civilised and least civilised places to the more civilised places and destroying it by imposing their uncouth “culture” and lowly, semi-civilised way of life on the civilised places.

    I wonder why so many people in the civilised societies have been brainwashed into denying this dreaded fact even as the time bomb keeps ticks away. This is such an undeniable fact that it is almost impossible to ignore. The social scientists in Western countries simply don’t have the guts to state this plain truth because they fear being branded and vilified as “racists”, “xenophobhes”, “neo-nazis” and other such crap by the filthy, biased “mainstream media” scoundrels and the criminal governments that control the civilised societies, in alliance with the savage hordes from the uncouth societies.

    In contrast to the pathetic, spineless Western social scientists, we have someone like Kanazawa-san who dares to speak the truth. Being from civilised Japan, Kanazawa-san is also aware of the demographic, ethical and civilisational differences between the people of civilised societies and the uncouth hordes.

    Though civilised Japan, too, is faced with a population on the verge of rapid decline, it deliberately adopts a different policy from the civilised societies of the West. The Japanese do not allow the uncouth hordes from the less-civilised parts of the world to migrate en masse since they are well aware of the semi-civilised “culture” and uncouth behaviour that the hordes would bring into a civilised society. The Japanese (and the South Koreans too) are doing well by making use of high technology to a large extent to avoid opening their doors to the uncouth hordes.

    As we all know (even the most hopelessly brainwashed person is aware of this), while the population of all civilised societies has stabilised or is beginning to decline (since intelligent people naturally have fewer children), the uncouth hordes of the semi-civilised parts are still breeding like pigs. These lowly societies faced with a severe overpopulation problem will be looking to offload (by hook or crook) or even dump outright hordes and hordes of excess human specimens on the civilised societies, since they are already bursting at the seams with the teeming hordes that have been bred recklessly by the uncouth hordes who follow this principle:

    Breed them, even if you cannot feed ’em.
    And don’t stop once you’ve bred ’em.
    Breed some more of ’em,
    Even if you don’t need ’em

    😯 😯 😯

    What can be a sensible response of the civilised societies to this terrible “womb bomb” that is being unleashed by the uncouth hordes?

    One, the people of civilised societies too can begin to breed with reckless abandon like the uncouth hordes, popping them out by the dozens. But this would take a terrible toll on the women of the civilised societies. Why should civilised women lower themselves to the pathetic levels of the hapless women in uncouth societies who have no choice but to forcibly breed half-a-dozen children?

    Two, the civilised societies can shut their doors to keep off the uncouth hordes, their nasty “cultures” and their uncivilised behaviour. There seems to be an Australian facebook group that is targetted at the uncouth hordes from the lowly, filthy, barbaric, shameless Indian empire which says it all very clearly and plainly: “Fuck Off, We’re Full!” But since the filthy crooks who control the world work hand-in-glove with the barbaric hordes to let them into the civilised societies, in order to destroy them, this option too seems to be unfeasible.

    Three, make sure the savage hordes of the uncouth societies are made to pay for breeding like rats, much beyond the carrying capacity of their lowly, mediaeval, already overpopulated places. One way would be for all civilised countries to get together and place punitive sanctions on the uncouth barbarocracies whose hordes breed like pigs. Another way would be to make sure the overbreeding barbarians are treated like Apartheid South Africa was treated, until they control their populations. Another way would be for civilised governments and charities to take up a massive program of birth control and education among the masses of the uncouth parts of the world.

    If one of these methods (or any other, for that matter) is NOT taken up on an immediate war-footing, then I’m afraid that there will be only two outcomes:

    1. Unbelievable levels of barbarism, crime, violence and thuggery erupting in the civilised societies as they are invaded by massive numbers of uncouth hordes who seek to impose their uncivilised way of life on their civilised host societies and civil war erupting between the original inhabitants of the civilised societies and the violent, mediaeval, regressive hordes who move into the civilised societies.

    2. The entire world descending into savage, terrible, barbaric times as the masses of invading hordes from the uncouth places overwhelm the civilised people with the aid of the filthy, uncouth Third World crapocracies from which they emanate. Once the savage hordes accomplish this despicable task, the entire human civilisational clock will be set back by several centuries as the uncouth hordes from the lowly places in the world are neither evolved enough nor civilised enough to behave like cultured humans.


  16. …even the more developed countries are in danger of sliding back into the dark ages. But in a corrupted world like ours, I guess that’s a continuous cycle

    Dear Atlantic,

    Please don’t resign yourself to the seemingly inevitable fate that awaits the civilised societies. If the civilised societies collapse, then that would be extremely terrible for not just the people of the civilised societies, but for the those of the entire planet as well as other life forms (animals and plants) on Earth. To put it lightly, planet Earth would be doomed to rot in man-made hell if the civilised societies collapse in the near future 😦

    Though there have been different dominant “civilisations” at different times in human history, with very few exceptions, they have all been uncouth, barbaric, savage empires i.e. they were controlled by a small bunch of uncouth elites who made the masses slave away for their own benefit and occasionally threw some crumbs at them. The male masses of those empires had no choice but to slavishly man the empire and die in droves like dogs in unnecessary wars and to keep the subjects of the empire oppressed, while the women had no choice but to breed dozens and dozens and toil to maintain the home and raise children. In short, almost all those empires in history are like the savage, unevolved barbarocratic Third World crap hole empires of today.

    In sharp contrast, the post WW II First World comes across as civilised and evolved when compared to those historical and present crap “civilisations” and “cultures”. Though one could say “Western civilisation”, it includes societies and peoples who are not really in the West, geographically or otherwise. So First World societies or civilised societies sounds better. These civilised societies offer everyone the chance to lead a decent life, with access to all basic human needs, healthcare, education, information, justice, human rights and a say in governance at all levels, irrespective of age, gender, class, background, education, socio-economic status, disability etc. These evolved societies are what one can call as those that personify “the enlightened age of the common man” as opposed to those crappy Third World barbarocracies that are still trapped in the “savage age of the uncouth empires” thanks to the hordes and hordes of lowly, unevolved, pea-brained masses that (over)populate such places.

    Take the savage, evil, uncouth, filthy Third World barbarocratic Indian empire, for instance. It’s among the lowliest of the low “cultures” in the world. All it does is to overbreed hordes and hordes of lowly, primitive, unevolved, regressive beings which it then looks to offload or dump on the more civilised parts of the world as the filthy parts of the uncouth empire have long overshot their supporting capacity. Earlier, this uncouth empire, which followed the filthy crap called the licence raj economic model, used to go with a begging bowl around the world, asking for alms to support its ever exploding population. Now, the uncouth beings of the filthy central government of the savage Indian empire go around the world, begging the civilised societies to increase their visa quotas, open up their places, universities, organisations to the overbreeding hordes of the uncouth Indian empire. Why do they do this? It’s a part of the nefarious plan of the evil cabal that controls the world to destroy the civilised societies by importing hordes and hordes of less evolved, least civilised people into them.

    Once the civilised societies fall, the evil cabal can control them with an iron grip (by occasionally using bribery), just like they do over the uncouth places. For instance, a lowly, uncouth barbarian called Sibal, when he was previously a junior minister in charge of science and technology, authored an evil bill that allows Indian farmers to be sold, with no questions asked, hook, line and sinker to the global devil trying to control the world’s food supply, Mon satan 👿

    When the pathetic, overbreeding hordes of such an evil empire are allowed into the civilised societies, what will they do? They will immediately pull down the civilised societies by imposing their uncouth “culture” and sub-human, uncivilised behaviour. The Indian empire is one of the most uncouth, evil, sub-human empires in world history. If you want to know how evil it is, just take a look at this:


    That is exactly how the filthy Indian empire treats the unfortunate peoples that it has brutally oppressed by occupying their lands with the mercenary hordes who can commit any crime with total impunity in the territories under the occupation of the filthy Indian empire. Don’t you think such a shocking image would stir the conscience of at least the hordes of women and mothers of girls who are a part of the uncouth, sub-human Indian empire?

    No, it would not and it did not. You have to understand savage uncouth “cultures” to understand why. The female hordes are as uncouth as the male hordes of evil empires. Just like their male counterparts, they lack the even the slightest hint of ethical, conscientious, humane behaviour in their lowly pea-brains. Moreover, they are raised and trained from a young age to voraciously lick arses (just like the males, if not more), instead of behaving like conscientious mothers. According to the filthy “culture” of the Indian empire, as described in a primitive sub-human law book, ALL women are sub-human beings and committing crimes against them or even killing them should not attract any punishment 😯 No, my friend, I’m not joking. I can provide the proof if you wish. With such a sub-human “culture”, is it any wonder that the filthy Indian empire has the world’s most evil law called the AFSPA which enables mercenaries to commit heinous crimes with impunity? Despite their own uncouth “culture” describing them as sub-humans, you will still find the hordes of women praising the filthy “culture” of the Indian empire, and condemning the civilised societies for treating women as special human beings and the equals of men. Such is the uncouthness of the world’s most nauseating “culture” 😡

    You know, a criminal sub-human politician from the sewers recently declared openly in the Indian parliament that he and the fellow criminal scum beings from his filthy party would indulge in “eve-teasing” in parliament if women get elected in more numbers. Do you realise how savage such creatures are?

    That is the kind of behaviour that the savage hordes of uncouth barbaro-hominoid beings will bring to the civilised societies once they try to numerically overwhelm the declining numbers of civilised people.

    But there is hope for the civilised societies. You see, savage criminal beings are always cowardly sub-humans at heart. They will gang up against helpless people like women and children and commit heinous crimes against them. Their cowardly, evil, unevolved minds eggs them on to commit crimes against those who are weak and cannot defend themselves.

    That’s why you find filthy overpopulated barbarocracies, like the uncouth Indian empire, occupying and brutally oppressing the peoples of small places like Kashmir, Nagaland, Manipur, Mizoram, Asom etc. The unfortunate peoples of these lands aren’t even known to the outside world, and however brave they are, they are simply too few in number to defend themselves against the hordes and hordes of uncouth mercenaries unleashed by the world’s most overpopulated, evil empire. It takes the filthy empire around 750 000 mercenaries to keep the people of Kashmir brutally oppressed.

    However, such unevolved criminal cowards from the uncouth places, like the lowly cowardly pea-brained bullies that they are, are mortally scared of those who can defend themselves. That’s why they never take on their equals or on any person one to one, even if it’s a woman or a child, but gang up against even such helpless people.

    If they do run into those who can stand up and fight, then their sub-human cowardice gets exposed. For instance, take the mercenaries who were sent by the uncouth Indian empire to surreptitiously take part in the occupation of Afghanistan. The bearded towelheaded Talib barbarians just set off a couple of bombs where these mercenaries were loafing around, and most of these cowards ran back howling loudly with their tails tucked inbetween their hind legs, like lowly cowardly canines. Or take the case of how the Aussies treat the hordes of law-breaking, eve-teasing, sexual assault perpetrating immigration scamsters that have invaded their shores. Just a little Aussie toughness shown to those eve-teasing uncouth cowards has them howling and protesting loudly with the help of the filthy Indian “mainstream media” liars that the Aussies don’t tolerate their uncouth, savage behaviour.

    (continued below…)

  17. I’m sorry for the messed-up formatting that has caused entire paragraphs to appear in italics on the previous comment.


    I believe such cowardice is exhibited by all hordes of uncouth, unethical, unevolved, overbreeding barbaro-hominoid beings from the least civilised parts of the world that follow this principle:

    Behave like a barbarian; breed like a pig 😯

    So I believe the civilised societies do have a way of defending themselves from such cowardly unevolved savages. Just by giving signs that civilised societies will not tolerate the sub-human behaviour and uncouth cowardice of these hordes, they will be mortally scared to pick on or bully civilised people. Even if they gang up in groups to pick on a lone person, just by showing them that sub-human behaviour will not be tolerated in civilised societies, these hordes can be forced to behave themselves. The civilised people, especially women, will have to get well trained in some kind of martial art or fighting sport, or better still, get trained in the use of firearms (where they are available) in order to defend themselves from the hordes and hordes of uncouth, unevolved beings.

    Please note that I’m NOT trying to encourage the use any kind of violence. I never will. But self-defence is the only way out when dealing with masses of violent, unevolved, uncouth, pea-brained, cowardly, criminal, lecherous hordes. Especially since the civilised societies are in a critical situation of being overwhelmed by the uncouth hordes and with the criminals who control these societies turning a blind eye, self-help and self-defence may turn out to be the best option.

    However, if the civilised societies don’t take some drastic action to save themselves, then not just they, but the entire world is doomed as well 😦

    Do you think the uncouth hordes will treat you in a humane way when they take over the civilised societies? Oh no, I assure you they will not!!! I really mean it. For instance, this is what one savage woman named RP from the uncouth, overpopulated, filthy Indian empire wrote on an internet forum, of what she intends to do to Americans and their children once the uncouth hordes take over America:

    To Mr. Wadhwa: So good you are getting this word out Sir, about America needing good Indian boys and girls to keep going. What shall be done about all the old Americans and their gangster children though? Shall we move them to reservations away from civilization, like the red indians have been? Shall we keep them close and employ them like our dalits back home? I for one favour a mixed approach. The most intelligent of them can be our servants, the less intelligent and more beligerant must be kept away. We talk about this a lot back home, as it seems more and more certain that Bharat will conquer this land.

    See the sheer filth in her uncouth pea-brain even as she speaks of taking over her hosts (with the dreaded “womb bomb”) who have been so generous to her and how she talks of reducing them to the level of “dalits back home” or exterminating them altogether? That’s what the sub-human savages from the uncouth parts of the world have in store for the civilised socities 😯

    Though the New World was colonised by mediaeval feudal European empires by marginalising the natives and killing them in wars, these societies have become civilised now, have realised their mistakes and have apologised to the native peoples. For instance, I’m aware that Canada issued a national apology for the shabby way in which the First Nations people were treated by the colonial settlers in the New World. Australia too apologised to the Aboriginal people for the inhuman way in which they were treated. More importantly, these civilised countries now treat these peoples as equal citizens, even granting them special rights that others do not have (like the self-governing tribal nations in the USA or the fact that Native Americans can operate casinos while others cannot).

    Do you think the savage hordes will even think of treating the civilised people as humans once they take over? Don’t even dream of such things, my friend. Being unevolved pea-brained savages without even the slightest sense of ethics or humanity, the uncouth peoples will be gunning for the total extermination or annihilation of civilised people once they take over. Couple that with the fact that the savages will receive full support from the Third World crapocracies from which they emanate, things will look very bleak indeed for the people of civilised societies once the tipping point is reached 😦

    You may wonder how you could trust what I say, since I’m from a barbarocracy myself, and why I’m trying to warn you.

    Please do not trust even a word of what I say! Do look up yourself for the behaviour of the savage, uncouth hordes online and you’ll be shocked beyond belief! Just google terms like “atrocities against dalits”, “female foeticide”, “sati”, “dowry deaths”, “AFSPA act”, “Thangjam Manorama”, “Irom Sharmila”, “Shopian sisters-in-law Neelofar and Asiya”, “Salwa Judum atrocities”, “mass graves in Kashmir”, “manual scavenging” etc. etc. You’ll painfully realise that light years separate the behaviour of the people of civilised societies and the filthy, uncouth barbaro-hominoid beings that (over)populate the uncivilised parts of the world.

    Why then, at the risk of sounding extremely unpleasant, am I trying to warn you? Even among the most violent large criminal gangs, you will find a few people who have realised the truth that their behaviour is uncouth, criminal and wish to dissociate themselves from their sub-human ways. Such people realise that some day or the other, they will be held accountable and will have to answer and pay up for their crimes. You can call it Judgement Day according to your faith, I’ll call it natural justice. Yes, some do realise quickly that one has to ultimately reap what one has sown and therefore mend their uncouth ways. For the hordes and hordes of savage, uncouth barbaro-hominoids whose unevolved pea-brains cannot realise this simple truth and continue with their sub-human arse-licking ways, they will have no choice but to learn it the hardest way, once it’s too late to make amends 😐

    I wish you, and the peoples of all civilised societies good luck in their attempts to save their societies from the terrible times of tribulation that await them. It’s not exactly a cycle in a corrupted world. Human civilisation is at a Y-shaped road intersection now. It can either travel on the path to a man-made utopia if the civilised people win, or it can go down the road to a fiery hell on earth if the savage, uncouth hordes succeed.


  18. Anirudh Kumar Satsangi Says:

    Myth may also be a reality. Mythological facts are not averse to scientific investigation. We know that some solar systems other than ours have binary star (Sun). Ours has only one Sun. But there may be a possibility that our solar system might also have binary star some millions or billions year ago. It is written in Hanuman Chaleesa:”Bal samay Ravi bhaksh liyo tab teenahu lok bhayo andhiyaro” in English it mean that during his childhood Hanumanji had gobbled up Sun and darkness spread in entire universe. But this is cosmological phenomena. This not possible for some super natural power who assumes physical frame on this Earth Planet to gobble up Sun. The other Sun(?) might have met Its natural death. Hanumanji is believed as the Incarnation of Lord Rudra. According to Hindu Mythology Lord Rudra is the God of Destruction or God of Annihilation.

  19. H.S.Pal Says:

    Today’s scientists are like religious gurus of earlier times. Whatever they say are accepted as divine truths by lay public as well as the philosophers. When mystics have said that time is unreal, nobody has paid any heed to them. Rather there were some violent reactions against it. Here are some examples:
    “G.E. Moore pointed out that if time is unreal then there are no temporal facts: nothing is past, present or future, and nothing is earlier or later than anything else. But, plainly, it is false that there are no temporal facts, for it is a fact that I am presently inscribing this sentence and that my breakfast yesterday preceded my lunch.”
    – Richard M. Gale
    [Book: the philosophy of time, edited by Richard M. Gale, Publisher: Macmillan, 1962, Chapter: Introduction to Section Two, The static versus the dynamic temporal, page 69.]
    “First of all, what can be meant by saying that time is unreal? If we really meant what we say, we must mean that such statements as “this is before that” are mere empty noise, like “twas brillig.” If we suppose anything less than these – as for example, that there is a relation between events which puts them in the same order as the relation of earlier and later, but that it is a different relation – we shall not have made any assertion that makes any real change in our outlook. It will be merely like supposing that Iliad was not written by Homer, but by another man of the same name. We have to suppose that there are no “events” at all; there must be only the one vast whole of the universe, embracing whatever is real in the misleading appearance of a temporal procession. There must be nothing in reality corresponding to the apparent distinction between earlier and later events. To say that we are born, and then grow, and then die, must be just as false as to say that we die, then grow small, and finally are born. The truth of what seems an individual life is merely the illusory isolation of one element in the timeless and indivisible being of the universe. There is no distinction between improvement and deterioration, no difference between sorrows that end in happiness and happiness that ends in sorrow. If you find a corpse with a dagger in it, it makes no difference whether the man died of the wound or the dagger was plunged in after death. Such a view, if true, puts an end, not only to science, but to prudence, hope, and effort; it is incompatible with worldly wisdom, and – what is more important to religion – with morality.”
    – Bertrand Russell
    [Mysticism, Book: religion and science, Publisher: Oxford University Press, 1961.]
    But when scientists have shown that at the speed of light time becomes unreal, these same philosophers have simply kept mum. Here also they could have raised their voice of protest. They could have said something like this: “We will never accept the statement that time is unreal. Then why are you wasting your valuable time, money, and energy by explaining to us as to how this time can become unreal? Are you mad?” Had they reacted like this, then that would have been consistent with their earlier outbursts. But they had not. This clearly indicates that a blind faith in science is working here. Or, perhaps they were awed and cowed down by the scientists. If mystics were mistaken in saying that time is unreal, then why is the same mistake being repeated by the scientists? Why are they now saying that there is no real division of time as past, present and future in the actual world? If there is no such division of time, then is time real, or, unreal? Thus spake Einstein when his lifelong friend Michele Besso died, “Now he has departed from this strange world a little ahead of me. That means nothing. People like us, who believe in physics, know that the distinction between past, present and future is only a stubbornly persistent illusion.” And thus spake scientist Paul Davies, “The most profound puzzle of all is the fact that whatever we may experience mentally, time does not pass, nor there exist a past, present and future. These statements are so stunning that most scientists lead a sort of dual life, accepting them in the laboratory, but rejecting them without thought in the daily life.” [Book: Other worlds, Publisher: J. M. Dent & Sons Ltd., 1980, Prologue, Page 14.] Is this very recent statement made by a scientist that “time does not pass” anything different from the much earlier statement made by the mystics that “time is unreal”?
    Now some scientists are trying to establish that mystics did not get their sense of spacelessness, timelessness through their meeting with a real divine being. Rather they got this sense from their own brain. But these scientists have forgotten one thing. They have forgotten that scientists are only concerned with the actual world, not with what some fools and idiots might have uttered while they were in deep trance. So if they at all explain as to how something can be timeless, then they will do so not because the parietal lobe of these mystics’ brain was almost completely shut down when they received their sense of timelessness, but because, and only because, there was, or, there was and still is, a timeless state in this universe.
    God is said to be spaceless, timeless. If someone now says that God does not exist, then the sentence “God is said to be spaceless, timeless” (S) can have three different meanings. S can mean:
    a) Nothing was/is spaceless, timeless in this universe (A),
    b) Not God, but someone else has been said to be spaceless, timeless here (B),
    c) Not God, but something else has been said to be spaceless, timeless here (C).
    It can be shown that if it is true that God does not exist, and if S is also true, then S can only mean C, but neither A nor B. If S means A, then the two words “spaceless” and “timeless” become as meaningless as the word “brillig” (cited by Russell in his quotation mentioned above). By the word “brillig” we cannot indicate a person, a thing, an action, a property, a relation, or any other thing. Similarly, if S means A, then by the two words “spaceless” and “timeless” we cannot indicate anyone or anything, simply because in this universe never there was, is, and will be, anyone or anything that could be properly called spaceless, timeless. Now the very big question is: how can some scientists find meaning and significance in a word like “timeless” that has got no meaning and significance in the real world? If nothing was timeless in the past, then time was not unreal in the past. If nothing is timeless at present, then time is not unreal at present. If nothing will be timeless in future, then time will not be unreal in future. If in this universe time was never unreal, if it is not now, and if it will never be, then why was it necessary for them to show as to how time could be unreal? If nothing was/is/will be timeless, then it can in no way be the business, concern, or headache of the scientists to show how anything can be timeless. If no one in this universe is immortal, then it can in no way be the business, concern, or headache of the scientists to show how anyone can be immortal. Simply, it is none of their business. So, what compelling reason was there behind their action here? If we cannot find any such compelling reason here, then we will be forced to conclude that scientists are involved in some useless activities here that have got no connection whatsoever with the actual world, and thus we lose complete faith in science. Therefore we cannot accept A as the proper meaning of S, as this will reduce some activities of the scientists to simply useless activities.
    Now can we accept B as the proper meaning of S? No, we cannot. Because there is no real difference in meaning between this sentence and S. It is like saying that Iliad was not written by Homer, but by another man of the same name (Russell). So, if S is true, then it can only mean that not God, but something else has been said to be spaceless, timeless. Now, what is this “something else” (SE)? Is it still in the universe? Or, was it in the past? Here there are two possibilities:
    a) In the past there was something in this universe that was spaceless, timeless,
    b) That spaceless, timeless thing (STT) is still there.
    We know that the second possibility will not be acceptable to atheists and scientists. So we will proceed with the first one. If STT was in the past, then was it in the very recent past? Or, was it in the universe billions and billions of years ago? Was only a tiny portion of the universe in spaceless, timeless condition? Or, was the whole universe in that condition? Modern science tells us that before the big bang that took place 13.7 billion years ago there was neither space, nor time. Space and time came into being along with the big bang only. So we can say that before the big bang this universe was in a spaceless, timeless state. So it may be that this is the STT. Is this STT then that SE of which mystics spoke when they said that God is spaceless, timeless? But this STT cannot be SE for several reasons. Because it was there 13.7 billion years ago. And man has appeared on earth only 2 to 3 million years ago. And mystical literatures are at the most 2500 years old, if not even less than that. So, if we now say that STT is SE, then we will have to admit that mystics have somehow come to know that almost 13.7 billion years ago this universe was in a spaceless, timeless condition, which is unbelievable. Therefore we cannot accept that STT is SE. The only other alternative is that this SE was not in the external world at all. As scientist Victor J. Stenger has said, so we can also say that this SE was in mystics’ head only. But if SE was in mystics’ head only, then why was it not kept buried there? Why was it necessary for the scientists to drag it in the outside world, and then to show as to how a state of timelessness could be reached? If mystics’ sense of timelessness was in no way connected with the external world, then how will one justify scientists’ action here? Did these scientists think that the inside of the mystics’ head is the real world? And so, when these mystics got their sense of timelessness from their head only and not from any other external source, then that should only be construed as a state of timelessness in the real world? And therefore, as scientists they were obliged to show as to how that state could be reached?
    We can conclude this essay with the following observations: If mystical experience is a hallucination, then SE cannot be in the external world. Because in that case mystics’ sense of spacelessness, timelessness will have a correspondence with some external fact, and therefore it will no longer remain a hallucination. But if SE is in mystics’ head only, then that will also create a severe problem. Because in that case we are admitting that the inside portion of mystics’ head is the real world for the scientists. That is why when mystics get their sense of timelessness from their brain, that sense is treated by these scientists as a state of timelessness in the real world, and accordingly they proceed to explain as to how that state can be reached. And we end up this essay with this absurd statement: If mystical experience is a hallucination, then the inside portion of mystics’ head is the real world for the scientists.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s