Hypothesis of God's Existence is Inadmissible if God Behaves Randomly

Many people with who I interact online know know me to be atheist, but ironically, I have said very little about the basis of that atheism here.

Atheism (lack of belief that God exists) depends on definition of (attributes assigned to) God. Deism & 'Randomly behaving God' are not falsifiable. But one of the prerequisites to admit any proposition as possibly true is, it has to be falsifiable. For instance, if I say, "there exists a force between 2 balls such that it is directly proportional to the product of their masses, & inversely proportional to the square of distance between them", & call it theory of 'mystical gravity', then such a statement is NOT falsifiable as I have not specified the direction of force. Such a statement cannot be disproved by actual or thought experiments. If we conduct an experiment with Newton's original theory as hypothesis, then it is falsifiable. How? If you place two balls in a frictionless environment, the (UNIQUE) prediction is that they will be attracted with predicted force & will accelarate (with predicted value) TOWARDS EACH OTHER for ALL combinations of mass & distance. If any of these do NOT occur (say, balls move away from each other), then Newton's theory would be proved wrong. But the mystical theory cannot be falsified (as it gives MULTIPLE predictions), because irrespective of how the two balls move in each others' presence, I can always say, "see, force is predicted, but we do not know which component of force is acting in which direction"! Thus, one would have to acknowledge existence of a (directionless) 'mystical force of gravitation' independent of how balls behave.

Analogy from mathematics: any REAL function must yield a unique value 'y' (dependent variable) for any given value of 'x' (independent variable). Why? As we want to derive a "law" that would be able to PREDICT the outcome ('y') each time we are given a defined situation 'x' (e.g., distance between two particles of constant mass). Now, most of the definitions of God are such that they do not give a unique result ("God's ways cannot be known" or "God only knows") for any given situation. So, any reasoning based on such a God's involvement would be like an unreal function.

Most of the concepts of God are like
mystical theory of gravitation. You can claim God exists (like mystical gravity), but cannot predict how God will behave (undefined direction of force).

Freedom of Expression and a Few Hypothetical Situations

In recent times intense debates have raged over the extents to which two almost antagonistic rights should be allowed - freedom of expression against avoiding emotional hurt. Law, as many say, is an ass. Some call justice blind. It would be very tempting to then consider the Judiciary a blind ass, and I used to share this view, too. But, since last few years I realized, the offhand judgments we pass to consider something as ethical/unethical, or allowed/disallowed are too instinctive and visceral. To pass such offhand judgments is easy, but to justify them under an accepted framework of principles and rules is extremely difficult.

I will present a few situations. Person 'A' is the victim and claiming to be hurt because of freedom of expression exercised by person 'B'. For convenience A is a woman, and B is a man. I have enlisted the reasoning that could be given by A to complain and by B to defend his freedom of expression. I would like the readers to state if they feel B should be punished, with reasons if possible, and notwithstanding what the law in India says. One thing I would like to urge the reader is that irrespective of which of the two antagonistic rights (of freedom of expression and right to avoid emotional hurt) gets precedence in your judgment, it should be consistent across all the situations to the extent possible. If the reader makes an appeal akin to "it is widely accepted to be offending", then it must be applied to all situations. Basically, whatever grounds used to hold B guilty or not guilty must be employed in every case to maintain consistency. For, what is justice if not consistent.

I must also add that some of the situations are similar to recent events, but to point out the different standards to judge them that few people had employed is not my intention. And please disregard a few zoological details! ;) Even if some of the situation might sound funny, I am enlisting them here in earnest.

-----

Situation 1

B draws a painting of a goddess who A worships. The goddess has been labeled and shown to be copulating with frogs. B displays the painting in an exhibition. A goes to the exhibition and sees the painting.

A: I worship that goddess, and the way she is depicted hurt me. So B must be punished for drawing and exhibiting such a painting.

B: I felt like drawing, so I drew it. It's my freedom of expression. A had the choice of not seeing the painting.

A: But I had no idea that the painting could hurt my sentiments!

B: Still A could have avoided going to watch the painting. After all if one wants to see paintings, getting hurt in the process has to be an acceptable risk.

---

Situation 2

B draws a painting of a goddess who A worships. The goddess has been labeled and shown to be copulating with frogs. B displays the painting in an exhibition. The painting becomes controversial. A goes to the exhibition and sees the painting.

A: I worship that goddess, and the way she is depicted hurt me. So B must be punished for drawing and exhibiting such a painting.

B: I felt like drawing, so I drew it. It's my freedom of expression. A had the choice of not seeing the painting and moreover, she knew that those worshiping the depicted goddess had felt hurt on seeing the painting. So why did she go and watch the painting?

A: But how could I be sure that your painting could have indeed hurt me!

B: Still A could have avoided going to watch the painting. After all if one wants to see paintings, getting hurt in the process has to be an acceptable risk.

---

Situation 3

B tells A, "The goddess you worship copulates with frogs".

A: What B said about the goddess I worship hurt me. So B must be punished for saying that.

B: I felt like saying it, so I said it. It's my freedom of expression.

A: But B never allowed me an opportunity to not hear what he said!

B: If anyone wants to enter any sort of conversation, getting hurt in the process has to be an acceptable risk.

---

Situation 4

B tells A, "Your religion has many dangerous superstitions. It is very cruel to sacrifice cats on every November 31. What kind of goddess could be so cruel. Also, you people amputate the left little finger of your girl child. How disgusting is it! Why do you people forcibly kill husbands upon the death of their wives? You don't find all this barbaric and primitive to follow?"

A: What B said about my religion hurt me. So he must be punished for saying those things.

B: It was my compassion for cats, the girl child and widowers that made me point out those things to A. My only consideration was the welfare of those wronged through religion! And moreover, it is my freedom of expression. I felt like saying it and hence I said it.

A: But B never allowed me an opportunity to not hear what he said!

B: If anyone wants to enter any sort of conversation, getting hurt in the process has to be an acceptable risk.

---

Situation 5

A is going for a movie. As she walks along the road and passes across B, he whistles in her direction.

A: B whistled at me and I felt offended. He must be punished for whistling.

B: I felt like whistling, so I whistled. It is my freedom of expression. A just happened to pass by.

A: But B never allowed me the opportunity to not listen to his whistle!

B: If anyone wants to walk on the road, hearing a whistle has to be an acceptable risk. Moreover, A could have avoided walking on the road.

---

Situation 6

A wears a revealing nightie and enters her bedroom. B, who is her husband whistles at her.

A: B whistled at me and I felt offended. He must be punished for whistling.

B: I felt like whistling, so I whistled. It is my freedom of expression. A just happened to enter the bedroom.

A: But B never allowed me the opportunity to not listen to his whistle!

B: If A wants to walk into my bedroom, listening to my whistle has to be an acceptable risk. Moreover, A could have avoided entering the bedroom.

---

Situation 7

A is going for a movie. As she walks along the road and passes across B's house on the first floor of a building, his pressure cooker on stove develops sufficient pressure and as the valve releases that pressure, A hears a whistle.

A: The pressure cooker that B was using whistled at me. I felt offended and he must be punished for it.

B: But I never intended to hurt A. I felt like cooking food and the pressure cooker whistled. Moreover, it is my fundamental right to cook food, the way I want in my house.

A: B never allowed me the opportunity to not listen to his pressure cooker's whistle.

B: If anyone wants on walk on the road, hearing a whistle has to be an acceptable risk. Moreover, A could have avoided walking on the road.

---

Situation 8

B, who is A's coworker says, "Hi, how are you?".

A: B said "Hi" and asked me how I was. That hurt me. B must be punished.

B: But I never intended to hurt A. I felt like greeting her. That is how I greet everyone. Moreover it is my freedom of expression to have greeted her the way I wanted.

A: But B never allowed me the opportunity to not listen to his words!

B: If anyone wants to go to workplace, being greeted has to be an acceptable risk. Moreover, A could have avoided coming in front of me knowing that is how I greet everyone.

---

Situation 9

Colleague B circulates an email among office workers, wherein he writes in great details the past sexual encounters of A (whether the details are true or not is irrelevant). He does not send that email to A. However, a female colleague 'C', out of concern tells A about the doing of B.

A: B and C hurt my feelings. So they must be punished.

B: I never sent the email to A; I only sent it to other people. Moreover, to write and send whatever I want is a part of my freedom of expression. So nothing of what I did was directly responsible for A's hurt.

C: I told A about B's deeds out of concern. It was not my intention to hurt. Moreover, to tell her of the happening was my exercising freedom of expression.

A: But C never allowed me the opportunity to not hear the offending news!

C: If anyone enters a conversation being hurt by the information has to be an acceptable risk.

---

Situation 10

A is a twelve year-old class topper who had fallen sick just before exams. She could not prepare well and does poorly in exams. Her teacher, 'B', writes her an email with subject: "You should be ashamed of yourself!". The body of the email also contains equally harsh words, and conveys to A that she would be scolded in the class also before all the class mates. A becomes reticent and aloof in the class. Upon being scolded a few more times in the class she becomes tearful. The matter goes to the school principal who warns B against treating A insensitively citing the fact that she is just twelve year old. Yet, B continues his behavior. A commits suicide.

A's parents: B's insensitive behavior led to our daughter's death. He must be punished.

B: I felt like scolding her because of her poor performance and I did just that. To do that followed from my freedom of expression.

A's parents: But B never allowed our daughter an opportunity to not hear his scoldings!

B: Wrong! My email had contained clearly stated that I was to scold her in the class. She could have avoided being scolded by me by not coming to my class. If one wants to attend school, being scolded and feeling hurt have to be acceptable risks.

-----

With this, the ten hypothetical situations end. I want to point out that we all enjoy freedom of expression, but what curtails it many times is not being physically stopped from expressing ourselves, but the fear of consequences including litigation and ensuing punishment. So by extension, any liability attached with freedom of expression hardly amounts to freedom.

I have deliberately made the situations very extreme and ludicrous. One of the aims was to point out how neither of the two above mentioned freedoms could be allowed to fullest degrees without legal liabilities to maintain a functional society. But another much more important one was to try to determine what all are the possible factors that have made the law enforcers take a view that they take of freedom of expression (especially so in India).

Personally, I do not consider the laws in India perfect. But I also acknowledge the fact that India does allow much greater freedom of expression than many other countries both through legal and social acceptability, apathy or inaction.

But neither do I agree with sanctuary that religion is provided as a ground to feel hurt. I quote here one of the statements by a Karnataka High Court judge (click) from an order he had passed, which summarizes the view taken by the Indian Judiciary of religious sensibilities. It must be remembered that this line of reasoning might be used as precedent to be followed by all the lower courts throughout the country, and may not be challenged unless and until someone from a higher court goes out of his/her way to substitute it with another reasoning. The portion that I find most frightening is in bold-face (especially, if juxtaposed with situation 4 above):

While considering the case, the Supreme Court has laid down the scope of Section 295 stating that, Section 295 has been intended to respect the religious susceptibilities of persons of different religious persuasions or creeds. Courts have got to be very circumspect in such matters, and to pay due regard to the feelings and religious emotions of different classes of persons with different beliefs, irrespective of the consideration whether or not they share those beliefs, or whether they are rational or otherwise, in the opinion of the Court. The Supreme Court has held that, to find out whether an offense is made out under Section 295-A or not, the susceptibilities of persons of different religious persuasions or creeds is relevant and the Court has to give due regard to such feelings in consideration of the case.

Above rationale is codified in the section 295-A of the Indian penal code (click):

Deliberate and malicious acts intended to outrage religious feelings of any class by insulting its religion or religious beliefs. Whoever, with deliberate and malicious intention of outraging the religious feelings of any class of citizens of India, by words, either spoken or written, or by signs or by visible representations or otherwise insults or attempts to insult the religion or the religious beliefs of that class, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years, or with fine, or with both.

Lastly, this post was written with a lot of ideas I arrived at after having exhaustive discussion/debate with The Quirky Indian - Of Freedom of Expression and the Right Not to be Offended (click).

S.I.T. Back and Enjoy Pop-Corny NewsXXX

Indian English media gives new expansion to the acronym - S.I.T.:

Sunday Inquisition and Torture

Click, S.I.T. back and enjoy the Indian Mass Media in its naked glory - where fact and fiction blend seamlessly, as if made for each other, for the benefit of the voyeuristic viewer.

"The purveyors of untruth failed even to think that March 21, 2010 happens to be a Sunday and a public holiday.

These purveyors of lies even did not once bother to check whether the key SIT officers, who are appointed by the Supreme Court, were present in Gujarat on March 21, 2010."

- Narendra Modi in his open letter.

For those click-unhappy (on lines of "trigger-happy"), pleasure yourself with the finest act of self-despicatory stand up comedy (click):

The Hindu broke the (false) story (that Modi was summoned by the SIT on March 21) on its web site, beta.thehindu.com, at 4:45 p.m. on Thursday. The exclusive was immediately picked up by television channels, news agencies, and other websites without crediting the original source.

Cute clowns, I say. Coochi coochi coo :)

Elsewhere, NudeX(XX) asked their viewers "if questioning of Narendra Modi is a democratic process". A vast majority of democracy-bots - 75 %, felt "yes". I was heartened that at least rest of 25 % were still humans, and had retained their natural sanity not supplanted by "artificial intelligence" borne out of meticulous news programming. Which means justice has become democratic. Who should be questioned, who should be punished would depend not on evidence available, but whims of button pushing bots wielding the power of TV remote and cell phone. And this is the highest form of democracy and justice Indian media has envisaged for its citizens! Reinforcing this vigilantism and lyrical lynching, little enthusiasm was shown in reporting that SPS Rathore had offered to undergo narcoanalysis, a fact that would disturb the systematically constructed tyrannical, cabalist image of the retired police officer.

Known to few, Bareilly has attained sovereignty independent of India, a fact, respecting which major news channels determined that 13 day-curfew in face of communal violence there was not news-worthy, but garlands and honey bees were.

Is Man-Boy Love a Beautiful Thing?

Man-boy love could be a beautiful thing (click) was an article written by Dr. Ashley Tellis, who is an assistant professor at the Department of Liberal Arts of Indian Institute of Technology, Hyderabad (click).

I urge the readers to go through his article published in The Indian Express linked above, as it will form the basis for my arguments here.

I had come to know of this issue reading a post - Why am I paying for Ashley Tellis’ salary? (click). Dr. Tellis had responded on the post informing the author(s) of Offstumped that he was considering “filing cases of criminal offense and slander against offstumped and Ot(hers)” largely owing to the tone and nature of comments that had ensued on the post.

In a subsequent post - IIT undergrads and Age of Consent (click) - published by Offstumped, the following issues were raised:

• "Is it ok to advocate a debate on the issue of consensual Paedophile sex between a Man and a Boy ?"
• "Can someone who advocates such a debate be employed at an educational institution ?"
• "Is it ok for such an advocate employed at educational institution to come in contact with children who are under the legal age of consent ?"
• "Can such contact potentially influence the behavior of the underage child making him vulnerable to sexual abuse by a same sex Adult"

Of course, other issues were also raised. Plus, the readers’ responses on the Indian Express web site were hysterical (and colorful, to say the least!).

I personally think a more comprehensive view of the entire occurrence needs to be taken to reach the most rational conclusion. Of course, whether that conclusion could be legally actionable is a different matter. Here, I will try to examine various arguments put forth by people including Dr. Tellis.

In the initial portions of his article, he has demonstrated that many people confuse pedophiles with homosexuals, and this creates more hatred towards pedophiles (than would be warranted). He has (rightly) pointed out that majority of pedophiles are actually heterosexuals.

”…they will not accept that this practice is at the heart of the heterosexual complex, that most ‘offenders’ are indeed heterosexual men and the ‘victims’ are young girls, often daughters, nieces and cousins’ children, most often within the context of incest, another unexamined taboo. So, one of the first ways to answer this charge from the homosexual point of view is to point out that most paedophiles are actually heterosexuals.”

In his next argument, he has termed any stipulation set by the judiciary (Delhi High Court, for instance in its much publicized ruling on section 377 of the Indian Penal Code [click]) as to the minimum age at which a person (child) becomes capable of giving informed and valid consent as “rather arbitrary”. In India the minimum age at which a person could consent for homosexual contact is 18 years, whereas for heterosexual contact it is 16 years for unmarried girls, 15 years for married girls and (from my memory) 17 years for boys. In the state of Manipur the minimum age for girls is 14 years.

”The second is to say that homosexuals are two adult consenting individuals and paedophiles are abusers of children, two distinct conceptual categories. While this is stated clearly (the Delhi High Court judgment on 377, for example, states clearly that adult consensual sex is all it is talking about) in legal language, there is no examination of the rather arbitrary category of the ‘adult.’ The linear language of the law is not capable of that examination.”

To summarize what he says in the aforementioned and subsequent paragraphs:

1. Pedophiles are not necessarily homosexuals. In fact, most cases of pedophilia are of heterosexual nature.

2. All children do not become adults at the same time, and that the transformation process is gradual, rather than occurring suddenly (say, on their 18th birthday).

3. That child marriage practiced (but illegal in India) is also a form of institutionalized pedophilia. (Thus, most rampant form of pedophilia is rather heterosexual, and not homosexual).

4. That viewing children as incapable of complicity/willingness in sexual encounters robs them of all agency "in the business of the negotiation of sexuality”.

5. Child has a sexuality and sexual drives. ["Do we, over a hundred years after Freud, still deny the fact that a child has a sexuality and sexual drives?”]

6. "Everybody’s initiation into sexuality is traumatic … that most sexual encounters, even with willing consenting adults are part coercion and part consent”.

7. "Power is part of all sexuality”.

8. In a significant fraction of pedophilia cases, the perpetuators are actually females.

9. Netherlands is quite progressive about sexuality, and that there is an active pedophiles’ rights’ group.

10. Arbitrariness of age of consent for having sex is further proved by the fact that it varies from 9 to 18 years in various parts of the World.

11. Issue of consent v/s abuse. In this context he cites the case of one William Heum (click), who had been arrested in November, 2009 in Chennai, for having sex with minors, uploading the videos on the internet and distributing them. He disapproves of his acts because no consent was taken from the concerned children.

12. What a man “does” to a boy, and woman to a girl could be "beautiful thing.” This is the most ambiguous part of his article. I suppose he was not talking of something socially acceptable as a hand shake or a peck on the cheek. Because had he been, then he would not have used words  like ‘love’. And of course, he would not have projected his ideas as inciting radical reactions. So, at the very least he might have meant hugging, or kissing on the lips (kissing on the forehead is very much acceptable in the Indian society), or in the most extreme case, penetrative sex, i.e., anal or vaginal penetration. The last speculation of his using “man-boy love” to mean anal penetration is supported by the following words in the first paragraph:

"pederasty, or the practice of man-boy love".

Pederasty means:

Anal intercourse with a boy usually of age 11 to 19 years as the passive partner.

References are many.

Okay, so now I will deal with each of the points made by Dr. Tellis. Of course, he has made a few valid points. I will try to reason out why I disagree with a few specific points. Where I agree, or am not skeptical of the point, I will merely indicate my agreement. I will deal with the points in the order which will make things most clear, and not necessarily in which Dr. Tellis has dealt with them. Right at the outset I will enlist those points that I agree with, but I will add my remarks:

1. Pedophiles are not necessarily homosexuals. In fact, most cases of pedophilia are of heterosexual nature.

3. That child marriage practiced (but illegal in India) is also a form of institutionalized pedophilia. (Thus, most rampant form of pedophilia is rather heterosexual, and not homosexual).

5. Child has a sexuality and sexual drives. However, it is to be remembered that the very same Freud who had identified existence of sexuality did so by studying adults (largely, females) who suffered from 'hysteria' (conversion disorder [click]), and he had found the cause to be sexual abuse in the childhood.

"Patients with conversion disorder reported a higher incidence of physical/sexual abuse, a larger number of different types of physical abuse, sexual abuse of longer duration, and incestuous experiences more often than comparison patients."

- Am J Psychiatry 159:1908-1913, November 2002 (click).

7. Power is part of all sexuality.

8. In a significant fraction of pedophilia cases, the perpetrators are actually females. - Possibly. It may or may not be true, but it does not influence the ongoing discussion much.

9. The Netherlands is quite progressive about sexuality, and that there are active pedophiles’ rights’ groups. - Could be true. Ascertaining does not serve any significant purpose. One of the respondents to his article in Indian Express had clearly stated that pederasty is illegal in the Netherlands. We do not have to take the respondent on trust. You can go through this chart - Worldwide ages of consent (click). So, in Netherlands, the age of consent is 16 years, which is the same for both the sexes, as well as for hetero- and homosexual relations. So, it is not a case that to have sex with those below the age of consent is legal in the Netherlands. However, we do not have to reach a conclusion only because of some trend over there. We should ideally reach decisions, on the basis of what seems most rational to do, after taking a most balanced view possible. In fact, of all the countries to call the Netherlands most progressive and to imply that as worthy of emulation itself is a rather arbitrary choice, just like the fixed age of consent. Moreover, just because a rights' group exists, does not make meeting their demands reasonable.

11. Yes, Heum was wrong - because he did not take consent of the concerned children. This is something I agree with. But if that is the only reason he was wrong is yet undecided, and in fact forms the core of the whole debate.

Now coming to the points I disagree with and the reasons behind them.

First of all, I urge the readers to go through Wikipedia’s article on child sexual abuse (click). While, Wikipedia is not to be considered the most reliable source of information, it is important to note the highly reliable sources used to back up the assertions contained in the article.

Point discussed - 4: That viewing children as incapable of complicity/willingness in sexual encounters robs them of all agency "in the business of the negotiation of sexuality”.

First issue to be discussed is the complicity of child. I am quoting relevant portion from pages 3 and 4 of the book - Childhood sexual abuse: a reference handbook (click) by Karen L. Kinnear:

Children are not capable of consenting to sexual activities with an adult; just because the child participates in this abuse does not mean that the child has consented. Another condition is exploitation. Children are manipulated or coerced into sexual behavior by adults who are stronger, more resourceful, and more knowledgeable. They may buy the child gifts, persuade the child that all fathers teach their daughters about sex, threaten the child with punishment or with the death of the other parent (“if your mother ever finds out, she’ll probably die of a heart attack”), or provide attention to the child in other ways.

Ambivalence is also a characteristic in child sexual abuse. Children often feel ambivalent about what is happening to them; they do not like or understand the sexual part of the experience, but they may enjoy the attention they are receiving, as well as any rewards or special privileges they may receive because of the abuse. Some children may be confused because some of the physical sensations they experience are enjoyable; these sensations make them feel good. However, they know that the behavior is wrong, and although they want the abuse to stop, they do not want to stop receiving the gifts, privileges, or attention they gain by remaining silent.

Point discussed - 12: What a man “does” to a boy, and woman to a girl could be "beautiful thing.”

It is important to understand the harms that could be caused by child sexual abuse including the heterosexual kind, non-penetrative kind, or even the seemingly consensual kind.

Following is an excerpt from a statement (click) issued by the American Psychological Association:

Those who are reporting that the study says that childhood sexual contact with adults is not harmful to children are misreporting the findings. The facts are that the majority of the psychological literature reveals that childhood sexual abuse has serious negative effects on its victims. The question raised by the study is an important one Does sexual abuse cause varying degrees of harm to children? In other words, can the child's age, resiliency, and/or family environment ever mitigate the ill effects of the abuse? If such mitigating factors can be shown through this and further research child abuse prevention and treatment programs could put that knowledge to work helping both children and families. Such knowledge would, however, in no way excuse any form of abuse. All abuse is wrong, but all abuse may not be equally harmful.

The Wikipedia article in its section on effects of child sexual abuse (click) enlists the following major harms:

• Depression
• Post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD)
• Anxiety
• Anxiety-spectrum disorders (phobias, panic disorder, etc.) - examples have not been mentioned but adding from my knowledge.
• Dissociative disorders (complete loss of memory or loss of memory with history of travel to remote places - dissociative fugue).
• Somatization (roughly put, psychologic stress manifesting as physical complaints like blindness, or pain)
• Chronic pain
• Sexualized behavior
• Substance abuse (significantly, odds of abusing substance as an adult are increased by 37 to 300 per cent).
• Learning problems
• Criminality
• Infections
• Actual structural damage to the brain if the abuse is severe, which leads to aberrant development. This included development of seizure disorders ("fits"), actual shrinking of corpus callosum (information carrying fibers that connect the two hemispheres of the brain) and reduced volume of hippocampus (involved in long-term memory).

It is significant to note that many of the above problems continue into the adulthood.

Also significantly, statistics have made allowance for other confounding factors like discord between parents and the use of force by the abuser. Of course, if abuse is against the will and/or without consent, harm done is greater, but even after putting in place controls, it had been found that even sexual abuse of a  so-called "consenting" child led to long-term harm. The amount of data and the meticulousness of methodology used is pretty well established as the one to arrive at conclusions. For instance, that smoking is hazardous to health is a conclusion reached through similar clinical research.

Point discussed - 2: All children do not become adults at the same time, and that the transformation process is gradual, rather than occurring suddenly (say, on their 18th birthday). I will club it with point number 10 - Arbitrariness of age of consent for having sex is further proved by the fact that it varies from 9 to 18 years in various parts of the World |10: Arbitrariness of age of consent for having sex is further proved by the fact that it varies from 9 to 18 years in various parts of the World.

What Dr. Tellis has mostly meant is that emotional growth is a gradual process and that it begins and "ends" at different ages in different people, and moreover, that it could occur at different rates. Of course he is correct in stating that. But, since we are talking of legal issues, a definite criterion needs to be in place. Because for every single case of abuse, we cannot call in experts to determine what level of emotional maturity was attained by the child in question. Also these kind of limitations are put wherever we use specific numbers. For instance, how does a student suddenly become "passing-worthy" in exams by getting 35% instead of 34%? But because of some unfairness, it does not become legitimate suggestion to remove all kind of numerical limits wherever they exist.

Also, in the list (click) of ages of consent, most of the countries' ages have tended to range from 16 to 18 years, with mean being 16 years. And at least on a cursory glance I could not find the minimum age to be 9, as had been claimed by Dr. Tellis in the article. The list has 13 years as the minimum age.

But are there other indicators to determine what could be the appropriate range of age to term someone as adult? I will give two specific examples, which suggest that 16 to 18 years is indeed the most appropriate age.

First is the Weschler adult intelligence scale (click) for measurement of intelligence quotient (IQ). The age from which it becomes valid is 16 years. Historically, another test called the Stanford-Binet intelligence scale was also based on the assumption that maximum growth of cognitive intelligence takes place by 15 years. It should not be surprising that maximum emotional intelligence and maturity would take a bit longer to develop.

Also, a broad group of psychiatric disorders known as personality disorders (click, and see under the heading "Age") are diagnosed only after the age of 18 years.

"Personality disorders generally should not be diagnosed in children and adolescents because personality development is not complete and symptomatic traits may not persist into adulthood. Therefore, the rule of thumb is that personality diagnosis cannot be made until the person is at least 18 years of age."

Basically, both the IQ-tests had been developed decades ago and have been updated using new information from time to time. The diagnostic criteria for personality disorders have been developed after years of research and observation of countless patients, and yet, 16 to 18 years appears to be the age at which children mature into adults.

So, if Dr. Tellis would have recommended lowering of age of consent by two years to 16 years in India, it would have seemed a rational assertion. But to suggest that all ages and age-ranges are rather arbitrary is clearly going against decades of observation of child psychology. It would be worthy of noting that in the medical science, "normal" is defined as the population that falls between 2 standard deviations from the mean, usually 95.5% of population. Which implies that at least 95.5% of population takes 16 to 18 years to mature into adults according to psychiatrists and psychologists.

Also, one very important point to note here is that if majority of children world over feel "infantilized" or discriminated against for having sex with adults being considered illegal, and that they actually feel quite grown up (say, to take example given by Dr. Tellis, at age 10 years), why have we heard only of pedophiles' rights group and not something like "children wanting to have sex with adults rights group"?

Points discussed - 6: Everybody’s initiation into sexuality is traumatic … that most sexual encounters, even with willing consenting adults are part coercion and part consent | 7: Power is part of all sexuality

I would not agree that eveyone's initiation into sexuality is traumatic. And even if it is, so there is something like intensity of trauma, and whether that trauma is caused suddenly or the person eases into it. Moreover, adults are better prepared to handle traumatic events. Such events are significantly less likely to cause long term psychological harms to adults.

Power is a part of all sexuality, but at least in case of adults, the power could shift from one partner to the other in both hetero- and homosexual relations. Whereas, it is unlikely that children would take the initiative and be the dominant partner in this power relation.

Children are highly impressionable, and they tend to hold those older than them in high esteem and tend to feel overawed by them. I can personally recall being greatly impressed and awed by those 3 to 4 years older than me. It had been very tempting to emulate them. Children view adults as a separate class of people.

Also, how a 10 year old kid views a 15 year old one is very different from, say how a 25 year old person views a 30 year old one despite the fact that age difference in both cases is only 5 years.

It is keeping in mind these facts, the legal concept of "close-in-age" has been applied in Canada (click) and the USA (click)

It can be deduced from these provisions that it is not per se having sex under the age of consent that is detrimental to children, but their doing so with someone significantly older than them (adult) is.

-----

Taking these facts into consideration raises many questions. All stem from the most significant question:

Why did Dr. Tellis not discuss or consider these issues in his article?

In particular, two mutually exclusive assumptions can be made. I will not go into guessing which is the more likely of the two.

1. He was unaware of these facts. In which case to writing an article in such an authoritarian tone, challenging a whole lot of legal and ethical considerations, and psychological and psychiatric knowledge in context of an issue, which by his own admission is considered very sensitive by the society totally baffles me. What was the intention? He did not bother to verify if his ideas were in line with the vast (and reliable) academic material available on the internet, despite knowing if his judgment went wrong some people's physical/psychological health could suffer permanent damage.

2. He deliberately withheld the facts. On the IIT, Hyderabad staff he serves as as an expert on gender studies and in particular LGBT (lesbian, gay, bisexual transgender) studies. Considering the area of his expertise, if he did in fact have an idea of the known harms of child sexual abuse, what was the point in withholding this information? Is one not supposed to reach conclusions, and furthermore disseminate them after taking a most balanced possible views factoring in all the available data?

Now, to answer the issues raised on Off-stumped:

1. Is it ok to advocate a debate on the issue of consensual Paedophile sex between a Man and a Boy?

To simply disagree is not called debate. Debating involves facts and well-reasoned arguments. After going through the well substantiated information available, Dr. Tellis hardly seems to have done that. The strength of evidence of what one argues for should be proportionate to the severity of its consequences and also the amount of data available that supports the originally held (mis)concept.

So a debate gets justified only when substantial new information to base our opinion on becomes available. Has Dr. Tellis provided us with any such substantial information.

Instead, he has omitted relevant facts, invented a few facts, and distorted logic in advocating something that is decidedly harmful for children. This is certainly not a "debate".

2.Can someone who advocates such a debate be employed at an educational institution?

This is difficult for me to comment on. But since, the article he has written was on public platform and what he has recommended was with an authoritative tone (as an "expert" on the matter), it is reasonable to believe that his intention was to alter public perception on the issue. But this he had attempted through presenting inadequate and/or distorted data. Also, his line of reasoning was not rational. Hardly anything in his article led us to this conclusion that "man-boy or woman-girl love could be a beautiful thing". His reasoning suffers from a logical fallacy analogous to saying - New Delhi is the capital of India and London is the capital of UK, hence the Earth is flat". Meaning, by presenting a few true facts, and making a few valid arguments, he has reached a totally unrelated (and flawed) conclusion that child sexual abuse could be a beautiful thing. For instance, only because majority of pedophilia is heterosexual (and wrong), does not in any way make man-on-boy love beautiful. Likewise, only because pedophilia rights groups exist, it in no way leads to the conclusion that their demand and the consequence of meeting them would be "beautiful".

And despite availability of scientific data, which is starkly opposite to his ideas, he has held on to them without any sound reasoning or evidence to counter the ideas widely held by the scientific community. This behavior is extremely stubborn, and does not lend itself favorably to Dr. Tellis role as a teacher. And most important, it should make one sensitive to the possibility of a conflict of interest in holding views which have been proved wrong.

3. Is it ok for such an advocate employed at educational institution to come in contact with children who are under the legal age of consent?

The foremost reason I would consider him dangerous for the institute that currently employs him is the manner in which he has executed his role as a disseminator of information. If he employs the same techniques of distorting and withholding significant information to buttress his unpopular opinions, then it is bound to be detrimental in ways more than one to the institute and the students who he teaches. One more thing that Offstumped has not considered is that a whole generation of students who study under him would end up with this idea - "Man-boy or woman-girl love is a beautiful thing". It needs to be considered if they would themselves become more likely to indulge in child sexual abuse owing to their considering it alright, or rather "beautiful". Though students are expected to verify what they are told by the teachers and not take their opinions merely on faith, it should also be remembered that students many times do not find time for this and that a teacher not just doles out dry facts, but also leaves a mark on students' psyche, least of which a few beliefs may get passed on. And why have a teacher who is likely to take students away from learning facts rather than facilitate the process?

4. Can such contact potentially influence the behavior of the underage child making him vulnerable to sexual abuse by a same sex Adult?

The answer is definitely not "no". Remember, just like "could be" in Dr. Tellis' article, we are talking here of possibilities. Nothing should be ruled out of the domain of debate. And as I pointed out, such obdurate holding of an opinion in face of substantial data to the contrary betrays a possible conflict of interest.

But personally for me, whether students become more likely to be victimized by Dr. Tellis is an independent concern, but his unreliable method of dispensing information and logic about sensitive issues is definitely worth a very close scrutiny.

The last thing I want to point is, unlike what some people (in particular, John Rebus on Offstumped) have suggested, this issue is not merely of "personal opinions", but one of building them based on balanced and evidence-based logic. It is not a matter of mere "personal opinion" whether smoking increases the risk of lung cancer. Scientific evidence is that yes, it does. It is a different issue that someone here is trying to call lung cancer as "beautiful", and probably it is within his rights to do so. But let such an opinion come from those who are desirous of smoking and suffering from lung cancer and not from those who manufacture cigarettes!

"Don't know, yet" is the first step to gaining further knowledge

Possibly, the simplest-worded summary of how traditional religions and naturalism have treated mysteries and new knowledge differently - in particular, to be found in the last paragraph. It is a very short post and will take only around 5 min to read.

Search Judaism - A Critique: Part Two (II) - (Click)

How Morality is Indispensable to a Social Life

This post had started as a response to one of the comments by Darshan, whose ideas and blog-posts (click) I really enjoy and also recommend to other readers who appreciate critical thinking. The reasons I am publishing this response as a separate blog post are: because the response is too long; I would not like other readers to miss out on ideas earned after hard sessions of thinking, and lastly, because I any way wanted to discuss these issues some times on my blog. It just so happens that now this post will serve as an appropriate launching pad. So ultimately, obviously, this post does not merely remain a response to Darshan's comments, but is a post with his ideas as the backdrop.

Obviously, since this post is fundamentally a reaction rather than an essay, I am not giving a much elaborate background. Darshan's comment (click) was as follows:

"This might sound irrelevant to you.

First of all, I do not believe in the established concept of morality, which is perfectly human-centered. In my concept of morality stealing, lying, money, robbery and society, these are so petty issues that are not even visible to me. There are much much bigger issues facing existence!

In fact this entire affair is something which does not affect me. It is so HUMAN-SPECIFIC!!! As far as any such thing is concerned, I find myself in the game again. So whatever decisions I take by whim in the game, is neither right nor wrong.

I might save the one who stole in this case, for example; Or I might sometime also think that one human less is good for the planet ;) Depends on the mood I am in at the moment!"

Now I urge readers to exercise restrain in drawing any untoward conclusions about how Darshan as a person is. This discussion between him and me is at an ideological-philosophical level, and his comment must not be construed to think that he reaches decisions in his life exactly in the same fashion as might seem from the comment. In my interactions I have found him to be very agreeable and rational and not at all inclined to hurt someone deliberately. The only reason I am quoting this comment here is to put forth the context in which my post had materialized. As to what he means by a "game" would become clear from his post called - How to attain bliss without being in Himalayas? (click).

I am quoting the lines that I feel are pertinent, but yet I encourage the reader to go through the actual post for two reasons - that there should be no "loss in translation" in my quoting something selectively, and also because the post is a well thought out one and well written.

"...Now consider your life as a game. You are the main protagonist in this game. There are innumerable stages in this game like childhood, schooling, adulthood, love, work, marriage, divorce, riches, poverty etc. Through all the stages in the game there are things like making friends and enemies; pain and pleasures; love and hatred. You earn points when you make friends. Lose points when you make enemies. Earned love, earned points. Lost love, lost points. Consider points as a measure of happiness. That’s how a game works. Human life has endless possibilities of occurrences. All the things which happen in your favor add to your points and those occurrences against you reduce the points. When you succeed through the tasks you jump up in happiness with “Whoa!” and “Wow!” and when you lose you throw the joystick with “Oh fuck!” and “Shit!”"...

..."But after all, it’s a game, not the real life. What you experience in the “game world” is left behind when you are done playing the game and return in your “real world”. Happenings of the “game world” can not affect your behavior in the “real world”, unless you are so obsessed with the game that you have lost your mind and the realization that the two worlds are different."

Also, my response is not an attempt to contradict or disregard Darshan's personal views, which I do not share, but do not even disagree with. This is because, in some areas of life, what views we hold are just our personal preferences, possibly based on factors like nurture, genetics, life-experiences, personality, etc., and however hard we try, we cannot justify them on a rational basis. This in turn happens because, the fundamental axioms in life like "what is the purpose of my life?" or "what is the purpose behind the existence of the human race or the Universe?", etc. cannot be answered in fashion, which we all would agree with. It is how we (especially, in the given case, Darshan and I) answer these questions differently, that have led to the differences in our opinion, and at the outset I wish to clarify that I do not consider either Darshan or my answers to either of the above questions as more correct or less correct, because there is no established or agreed upon standard to gauge their "correctness" against. My frank confession that my views are more of preferences, rather than absolute "correct" manner of looking at the issues would, I hope, be amply visible in my response, which is as follows:

-----

Darshan,

There is no rational reason I could convince you to be more emotionally engaged with humanity and its affairs, or for me to justify my being engaged thus, but what you said was alarming! This is not to offend you, but nor to downplay what I felt reading what you wrote.

It is to your credit, you have made me think something slightly more deeply, making me reach this philosophical conclusion that yet again that there is nothing really very rational that can make me urge one to choose to be moral.

Morality (click) stems from human concepts of 'ownership' and 'rights' (as in adhikaar). So yes, morality becomes operational only when one accepts a certain framework of these human conceptions of 'ownership' and 'right'. Integrally attached with both the concepts is another human conception of "deserving", which is the most nebulous, and hence, difficult to define. And that is why we all differ in what one "deserves" - usually, we are most predisposed to feel what we 'enjoy', we deserve, and what we do not enjoy, we do not deserve. Which is what introduces the subjectivity and consequent liberal bias in assessing our own motives and actions. And, so it becomes imperative to decide upon certain mutually agreed upon criteria to delineate what is deserved by whom.

I yet again concede, I have no rational reason to assert that this framework should be applied only to humans, and why other sentient living beings (especially, mammals that are so similar to how humans are) should be excluded. Partly because, animals cannot talk back to us, as to what they want. No, this is not an excuse to be cruel to them, but the psychological reason why this "we" (humans) v/s "them" (non-humans) kind of communalism (click) operates in our minds.

My feeling greater solidarity for humans as compared to other species, or "nonliving" parts of the "nature", can be considered a form of communalism, and hence is unjustified. The best possible justification (or rather, my double standards), you could find is here:

Ball of Karma (click). Do read comment #16 onwards if you are short of time, otherwise, I believe the entire debate is entertaining, if not enlightening!

...somehow humans take precedence in deciding upon moral issues. If someone asks me why?, I would say it is a very sophisticated form of herd-mentality. That I feel greater solidarity for those who resemble me than those who do not (this line of argument is extremely risk-fraught when it comes to interhuman interactions, I know!). And animals have never really cared for us humans, or for each other (sounds stupid, but is a valid argument because only sometime back we were talking of putting animals on same pedestal as humans). They have killed us humans for their food or to protect their shelter. So we can do the same to fulfill our ‘needs’.

‘Needs’ is another contentious term. Is the desire to live a fulfilling, happy life a ‘need’? Is the desire to see one of our relatives not die of AIDS/cancer/malaria – a need? Is the desire to not suffer from painful rheumatoid arthritis and debilitating kidney disorders and diabetes – a need? Is the desire to not suffer from irritating common cold – a need?

Please see, in all the 3 examples, there is a gradual downscaling of threat to human life. While very few would disagree that we would be alright with killing of a few thousand animals, if the outcome (cure) for the said disease is able to save millions of human lives. The problem comes when discussing animal experiments for treatment of ’simpler’ disorders, which are not immediately life-threatening. But then the question would arise - what ‘level’ of threat to human life do we use to justify animal experiments?

So well, at least practicality dictates that we must not infringe on others' (humans') "rights", for instance, right to live, because then they can also attempt to do the same, and we all might suffer pain or death. Of course, I myself have stated on your blog that it would not be "bad" in 'absolute' terms if the entire human species or the Earth itself are wiped out, but in a 'subjective' sense, I want to live, and I am afraid of death! Possibly, this fear is an outcome of natural selection through genetic mutations, but then the fact remains, I am responsive and subservient to such a fear. I am also responsive and subservient to desire to feel happy [differences between 'happiness' and 'contentment' are hazy; I will have to think a lot about them]. Provisionally, I can define happiness as a mental state I would like to remain in, and not lose. So, talking of the original post that led you here, while everyone prioritizes the (self-assigned) purposes of life differently, directly or indirectly human happiness does figure somewhere at the top of everyone's 'agenda' for life. No other human-assigned purpose would be able to stake that claim - not, living for the country; nor, living for poor; nor, living for endangered species; nor, living for a single (as in, everyone devoting life to a common) religion; nor, living to set exemplary behavior. And even if someone defines something else as the purpose of their life, say, attaining salvation, they do it in belief that salvation will bring them happiness (as defined above).

But since, we humans have to co-exist in space and time, and share the same resources amongst us in our attempts to achieve our purposes (whatever they be), we have to distribute them in most pragmatic fashion possible - such that such distribution minimizes conflicts (which will cause pain, which majority of people want to avoid) and satisfy maximum number of people's desire to be happy (the way they feel it could be fulfilled). And as I said before, it is the limitation in resources and unavoidable interpersonal interactions that make us define every person's rights, authority and what they do or do not deserve.

Just as you pointed out, these concepts are merely human constructs, and hence not binding on you, and I agree. But if all actions were to depend on what one's "mood" is, for instance, what will prevent one from slapping a random person in a bus or raping a random woman in a secluded place? I am sure you must have not done either of the two things, but the questions is what prevented you or will prevent you if you feel like doing it? Or will nothing be able to stop you from doing so once you feel the urge?

So personally, I do think a lot about these (morals, ethics, justice, etc.) issues, precisely because I do find myself deeply engaged in human affairs. Though I have the option of not doing so, by two possible mechanisms - living in some secluded area totally by myself, and hence doing away with all sort of morality OR by committing suicide. I am afraid of both the options, as I pointed out in my response in the Conflusions-post (click), and moreover I have am enjoying my current mode of living; abiding to moral principles is hardly a challenge for me. So, I choose to live by the standards set by the society (morality) because I am living amidst society. Living amidst society is always following our agreeing to an unwritten contract, and that contract is what morality is. If one chooses to disregard these contracts, they instantly lose the right to live a life dependent on fellow human beings. And hence, either such people have to be removed from society because of their incompatibility in coexisting with others (death sentence) or punished (conviction by courts) or of course, the third option - that they live in some secluded place without interacting with any other human being (exile). But then, that they breach certain clauses (rules and regulations) of the contract with the knowledge that --> doing so invites the consequences they had agreed to --> by way of choosing to live in a manner they would depend on others --> they automatically become deserving of the punishment they had agreed to in the first place by breaching the the terms of the contract. For instance, a person committing rape in India becomes deserving of punishment as defined in the section 376 of the Indian Penal Code (click), because he had consented to be punished the moment he rapes a woman while being a part of India (Indian citizenship). This was all law and justice.

You might but ask, what if someone does not want to enter this contract of interpersonal interactions? Why force someone to enter interpersonal interactions? But the problem is no human being at birth is independent. The moment one accepts nurture from one's parents, and wears clothes made by another human being, or eats food prepared with another human's labor, they inadvertently put their seal on the contract of the society called morality. And hence for these "reasons" I do not think it is possible to escape consideration of moral issues.

[With this my response to Darshan practically ends; what follows is the ideas built opon what I just presented]

But of course, the next question could be who gets to decide these set of rules? And more importantly, what are the bases of such rules? It is here, the (supposedly) most widely agreed upon principle of maximizing human happiness and minimizing human pain that comes to fore. We all humans might not always agree as to what constitutes legal, ethical, moral "etiquetted", etc., but if we define some "minimum possible standards", we will at least have a rational framework to work within. These could also be termed as "moral axioms", as in they have no other underlying bases, except that (assuming and hoping) highest number of people in the World agree upon them. I will enlist the most significant moral axioms here:

1. Every human is equal and has same rights at birth.

2. Every human at birth has an equal right to live.

3. Fulfilling the desire to be happy is one of the fundamental goals, and every human at birth has equal right to be happy.

4. Fulfilling the desire to avoid pain is one of the fundamental goals, and every human at birth has equal right to avoid pain.

5. Everyone should try to reach decisions on any issue such that, as far as possible, none of the above principles are violated.

I believe, a large part of what we instinctively think of as moral or immoral (and also, legal, ethical, honorable - or not so) can be accounted for by above principles. Of course, I am no expert in philosophy of ethics, morality and law, but at least this serves as a good starting point. I also believe, if some societal impositions or government-sanctioned laws do not fit into the above framework, then they make a good case for a closer scrutiny. For instance, what in the above framework would make consensual homosexuality immoral/unethical/illegal? Or for that matter, euthanasia? Slightly more contentious would be issues like abortion. Likewise, issue of death penalty would be most contentious. The "at birth"-part finds repeated mention to allow for some other concepts like "deserving" and unequal "ownership" (say, owing to one's hard work) to apply, which could lead to subsequent inequality. Additionally for instance, if the established law punishes a convict, the punishment might go against their rights to live, be happy and to avoid pain. But to ensure practical functionality of the entire framework, we have to also admit the possibility some people will not honor point number 5, and hence this dishonor makes them eligible for predetermined punishment. And of course, a very touchy issue of what is a "right" as against what is an "opportunity" has not been addressed here. For example in our contemporary society, despite having same rights, do children respectively born to poor and rich parents get equal opportunity to healthy diet and good education? How do we tackle such moral issues? I would be discussing these issues also in one of my subsequent posts, but then they cannot be covered in limited space.

So to end this post, I just want to point out that the instinctive ideas of moral, ethical, and appropriateness of government-sanctioned laws, etc., are very difficult to scrutinize on a firmly rational bases, but the point is they can be! And at least, we have to make an attempt to do so. If we stop looking for "reasons" to regard something as moral v/s immoral, we would be entertaining moral arbitrariness (and hence, "relativism") as an acceptable criterion. Once that happens, it is only downhill course for the collective human happiness from that point. And also that reason cannot be "someone said so" (scripture-directed morality), because what would be valid reason would not be that someone said so, but the reason as to why someone said what they said. As long as we are living in the human society, it becomes binding upon us to think over moral issues. The moment we lose our commitment to morality, we lose our right to live amidst with other human beings.

-----

One recommendation:

Read this extremely well-explained and argued blog-post by Professor McCormick - Open the Floodgates (click), where he demonstrates why exclusively faith cannot be used to believe in the existence of God without committing intellectual dishonesty.

One request:

Kindly visit a copy of this blog I have prepared at Wordpress (click). This is just an experiment. I may or may not shift to Wordpress. Currently, it is unlikely that I switch over to Wordpress because it does not allow customization of CSS of blog-templates. Of course, the only attractive feature of Wordpress over Blogger is their comment-system, which might eventually win me over if I get into an 'aggressive' mode of blogging. ;)

Missing Marble's Mystery

A box labeled - "MARBLE THE GREAT INSIDE" is examined. There was no sound on shaking it. It was opened - no marble could be seen.

......
1.

1.1. That the box exists attests to the fact that Marble created it, so there must be Marble inside as declared by the label.

1.2. Ears are not reliable. There must be Marble inside.

1.3. Eyes are not reliable. There must be Marble inside.

1.4. Why would someone lie about Marble? I might find it, if I search "properly". There must be Marble inside.

1.5. If I don't say Marble is great or eat chocolates now, Marble might eat me after killing me. Why take chance?

1.6. If I say, Marble is great, it might give me chocolates after killing me. Why not take chance?

1.7. Marble is Great!

...This was Marbleism.

......
2.

2.1. There is no sound on shaking the box. There is no marble inside.

2.2. I couldn't see a marble on opening the box. There is no marble inside.

2.3. It's possible to write anything on the label. If I want, I can erase and write "SPOON THE GREAT INSIDE". It doesn't mean there has to be a spoon inside.

2.4. What's written on the label is false.

2.5. I'll try to grow chocolates and eat them to my heart's content before I die.

2.6. To find anything, I use exactly the same method to as I used to find the marble.

2.7. While it is possible for a marble, or for that matter even a spoon to be inside a box, there is no marble in the box given to me.

...This was Amarbleism.

......
3.

3.1. Absence of sound on shaking the box doesn't totally rule out the possibility that there could be Marble inside.

3.2. Not being able to see the Marble despite being able to see the box doesn't rule out the possibility that there could be Marble inside.

3.3. People can write things on a label - they can either be true or false.

3.4. Had the label talked of a spoon inside the box, I wouldn't have taken any time to conclude that it was false. But Marble is to be accorded special status.

3.5. I'm not sure if there is Marble inside or not.

3.6. Not sure if Marble will get angry if I grow and eat chocolates while alive. :(

...This was Agnosticism.

God, Religion, Atheism, Morality and a few Links

The Moral Contrariety of Christ and State (click) is a nice write-up, which attempts to reconcile rationality with religion-based, authoritative morality (irrespective of what the title seems to suggest). Although, I do not agree with everything in it, I thought it is a good starting point for all religious theists and atheists alike, to start thinking of the bases of morality, if they have not done that before in earnest.

More important, the article points out that 'think'ing in context of morality is not bad at all, but rather is necessary, and how immutable morality sourced only in authority, can easily be manipulated to serve one's ulterior motives, which could be at odds with the Society's larger good.

There is a forum on which I landed, which to me seemed very funny, since a few dogmatic trolls had hijacked it, and could not see any good in anything beyond their own religion:

Morality and Atheism (click)

This is what happens when one gets blinded by arrogance of their own religion, only because they start equating the perceived worth of their collective identity (religion) with their personal self-worth. This is what according to me is one of the components of Communalism (click--a blog post on my blog).

I had reached the linked article and the forum through search results for 'Morality before Christ', which had led someone else to my blog. But only on removing a few external trappings, one would realize that the same fundamental issues should confront not just the Christians, but those following any other religion, or even those following none. For, morality is very fundamental to coexistence (not just in time, but even in space) with fellow humans, the future generations, and other sentient living beings. Hope, the readers will enjoy the links, as well as, be forced to think something new.

My oversimplifed views on these issues could be found here:

1. My morality (click).

2. A few responses to criticism of Atheism (click).

Majority

Majority's are the amplified views of the select, influential (manipulative) few.

Probably, that is why most of the views on any issue could be clubbed into few categories (corresponding to the number of factions pushing a particular view).

Of course, another reason could be the limited number of opinions that could be formed on any issue. For instance, response to 2 + 2? would be unique, i.e., 4. But, it is a fact, and not 'view'.

But responses to "Do you like vanilla ice cream?", fall in three main categories--'yes', 'no', and 'neutral'. Again, this is an individual taste, and one's choice would not have a significant impact on our society. Importantly, the choice does not come bundled with an 'ought' or 'ought not' ('O/ON').

But there are issues, where O/ON does get typically involved, and fall in the domains of law and judiciary, public policy, resource allocation especially when limited, etc.

Simple examples of passionate polarization of opinions would be. Should we allow:

1. Sale of alcohol?

2. Research on and sale of genetically modified food?

The 'most accepted' benchmark to reach a decision is: the fraction of all people having one view v/s other contending views. We call the largest fraction 'majority'.

The idea seems appealing. Since childhood, we are told of virtues of a majority's decision, and the power it wields.

When a child does something wrong, and if the explanation is 'he also did the same', our common retort is 'if he jumps in a well, would you also jump?' Good argument. But when the defense is 'everyone does it', we do not ask, 'if everyone jumps into the well, would you jump?'. This is owing to a deep seated prejudice that majority is always right.

Majority would be right, especially in issues of public interest, if it would:

1. Have access to adequate information to base opinion on.

2. Be ethical to place justice above personal gains.

3. Not be blinded by communal affiliations--religion, region, gender, etc,

4. Have sufficient wisdom to understand all the factors, and weigh them accordingly.

5. Be immune to influence by propaganda.

How often are all the criteria met?

I am unable to propose an alternative way to reach decisions in matters of O/ON, but we should stop considering decisions reverentially, only because they would have been reached by a majority.

Up against "What's up?"; please help! :(

Long back my parents would ask me to be more graceful in dealing with relatives, e.g., to ask them "tamey kem chho" [Gujarati for "How're you"?], though it literally means not "how", but "why are you?"! Isn't that offending, or at least a deeply existential query?

Plus, I used to find it pointless. I'd ask, "if someone's in a bad mood, would they actually say so? So what's the point?" And no, it wasn't me trying hyperrationalism! I truly used to feel that, and also find it insincere to ask. On top of it all, the expected reply would also be weird! "(badhuj) saaru chhe" = "(everything) is fine" [in response to "how are YOU?", and not "how is 'everything'?"!]. The problem is, to answer in terms of "I'm fine/good" is difficult due to weird connotations some words have come to take: "Hoon saaro chhun" = "I'm good", but it would be taken to mean "I'm a good person"! "Hoon barabar chhun" though translating as "I'm alright", sounds like "I'm correct"! "Hoon theek chhun" = "I'm alright", but comes off as dejected (not sufficiently ecstatic!), and hence, not apt.

But someone clever, recognizing the problem with greeting thus, added a leading question to "Kem chho?", viz., "Majaa maan?" = "Enjoying life?". Now, who has the balls to say, "What fun! Am effin preparing for PG entrance exams!" So you see, it's not only for effin that balls are required, but also to say effin!

I used to have same predicament asking "How are you?" and its Hindi version "Aap kaise hain?" See how the question's open ended, and could be as well grammatically correctly answered as "I'm like a lizard^*" or "main chhipkali jaise hoon" [*my grammatically flawed attempt to get Stupidosaur to comment!].

But the most formidable mutant among the species of redundant questions is "What's up, dude?". I mean, on being asked the first time I was totally stumped! I was obviously not expected to answer if I felt "fine"! The question means "what's new in life?", and I'd say "nothing special, man. You only tell!" See, how I'd cleverly shift the onus of answering such philosophical questions to the tormentor (interrogator)! Though, my dirty mind could also think "whatever is *up*, shouldn't stay so if I've to keep up focus on studies!"

But honestly, I still don't know how to answer "what's up" aptly. :( Someone please help me!

Do I deserve pink chaddis?

*Chaddi is a word used interchangeably for "shorts" or "briefs/panties".

This is a post I've been planning to do since long, because it was after a long time some event had made me introspect and analyze things with utmost depth possible, and yet leave me, possibly, without answer. Also, this post is going to be very, very frank. Everyone tends to push the innermost workings of their minds under the carpet. But quite the opposite of that, I'm going to reveal it as explicitly and plainly as possible. So, in certain ways this post is going to be EXPLICIT. So, the reader's forbearance is requested. Also, I'll try my best to set the sequence of my thoughts in an algorithm-like structure. So, it'd be easier to dissect it, and discuss the same.


First, I'll have to tell something about myself to establish a proper context. As of now, I am preparing for postgraduate (PG) medical entrance exams, for which I've joined a particular coaching institute in a city different than the one indicated in my profile. I stay in a hostel, which consists mainly of other PG-aspirants just like me. We have a mess, where we have our meals, and at other times, it serves as the reading room.


Before I describe the very trivial incident, let me make it amply clear that the fact that I'm blogging about it, only implies that I've thought a lot over it. And I urge the reader to be patient, and specifically ask me where something that I try to explain remains unclear. This disclaimer is necessitated because I suspect apppreciable number of readers, if they read this post would be tempted to send me pink chaddis! But, I'm not giving my postal address! :P


There is this girl in the ladies' hostel (just next to the hostel where I stay), owned by the same owner as my hostel, who attends the same coaching institute as me, but in a different batch and schedule. My interaction with her has been nil. And she uses the same reading room and the mess. This girl, as far as I've seen, interacts only with boys from her alma mater, which is in a different city from where I've been staying. And, I hadn't taken any special notice of that fact, though it had registered in my mind. I wouldn't think much about such issues, for simple reason--they don't affect me, and moreover, there is fundamentally nothing wrong with that. Just that the event I'm about to describe made me think also about all this. As to what's her opinion about other fellow female hosteliites to be not interacting with them at all, or conversely what do other female inmates think about her.


The incident was this: I had gone to the mess to have my lunch (I don't study at that particular study room, but do so in my own hostel room), and I was at the table where the food is laid for us to help ourselves, the girl was ahead of me in a sort of short queue that was formed, and my gaze fell on her flank. And I felt such an intense revulsion that I turned away my gaze with disgust. What I saw was her exposed flank because of a triangular 'side-cut' in her shirt. The area exposed was more than 50 centimeter sqaured, with part of her innerwear's elastic band visible. Now for those wondering how did I reach the magical figure of 50 cm², just think of a square of 10 cm sides (100 cm²), and cut it half at the diagonal.


Actually, for someone with perfectly normally working hormones like me, I should've stared on. My female readers might be disgusted by this suggestion. But then, I believe, I'm going to do full justice to all the moral considerations involved in this particular event, which is prototypical of what one gets to see day-in-and-day out. All this got over in a less than a second, and nor must have I turned away my head in a violent motion to draw anyone's attention. Basically, no one around noticed what had happened.


But this got me thinking as to why did I feel disgusted, as afterall what she wears is entirely her prerogative.


I'll make a few clarifications here, right at the outset:
1. I did not gossip about it with others.
2. I did not give her a 'look'.
3. I would never think of harming her in anyway on account of what she chooses to wear.
4. If I were to ever interact with her, I'd do so with utmost courtesy that I would reserve for anyone I'd be talking to for the first time.


Of course, to clarify, her dress was in deed out of the ordinary for what other girls wear at this place, especially when coming to study or eat. Moreover, she herself had worn that dress for the first time, and to the extent I remember, she never had repeated it.


I drew this conclusion--'she wanted to expose her flank and elastic band to draw attention to herself'. Of course, I'll first try to address the concern as to why did I draw the above conclusion. I had an argument in my head in attempt to make maximum possible allowance for that girl.


Allowance 1: She must have not realized that the dress was revealing.

Answer: She has always been meticulously dressed even on other days, when she used to wear Salwar-Kameez. Most of the people when the buy their clothes, try them. This girl used to wear relatively costly dresses, and it was unlikely that she must have bought it from some street-side hawker and didn't get and an opportunity to try it. Dressing is a skill, and she had been good at it, so it's unlikely that even if in an unlikelier event that she did buy the said shirt from a roadside hawker, she wouldn't know that the dress would be at least 7 to 8 cm short of the trouser's waist.

Allowance 2: She must have dressed in a hurry.

Answer: Didn't look like that. Her dress was well-ironed. Her hair wasn't disheveled or anything, and she was taking her food quite leisurely, and also eating it equally leisurely.


Allowance 3: She must have been comfortable with that sort of dressing.

Answer: Possibly, yes. But that had got me thinking as to why we choose the kinds of dresses that we choose? We buy clothes such that they cover those parts of our bodies that we don't want others to see, especially strangers. I wear a shirt/T-shirt whenever I move out or my room, for simple reason I'd feel embarrassed to allow others to see my bare chest and back, etc. Likewise, I wear trousers that cover my groin area completely! Sorry, couldn't help it. Had to bring in the last example to clarify. So, I reached this conclusion that she did not mind revealing her flank and the elastic band of her innerwear.


Allowance 4: So what? What if she's comfortable with revealing her flank and the elastic band? That does not establish intent to reveal.

Answer: When she must have bought that particular shirt, she must have had the option of buying one that did not reveal her flanks. It must have not been very difficult to buy a shirt that would be just 8 to 10 cm lower, and jeans that would be an inch or two higher. Afterall, all other days she had been wearing clothes that were not revealing in the same way. But yes, there is indeed a subtle difference between 'not minding' revealing and 'wanting' to reveal. How do I know it was the latter and not the former? I concede, this is difficult to answer. But, I'll give an example. If at a tea stall, you order Pepsi, and the waiter comes and tells you they don't have it, and offers you to have Coke instead, if you say, "Okay, alright!", then, that's what is 'not minding', but if you ask for Pepsi in the first place, then you 'want' Pepsi, and does not amount to 'not minding' it. So, I believe, this adequately establishes the intent to expose, so to say.


Allowance 5: Okays, so what if she wanted to reveal? How does it make me conclude that she wanted to draw attention?

Answer: This is most difficult to explain, but if I've to assume that she did not want to draw attention, how do I explain someone carefully choosing clothes that precisely are going to reveal one's flanks and the elastic band? I could attribute random behavior to, maybe, a small child doing things on whim, like wanting to stand on a table and not wanting to climb down, or children of 2 to 3 years not willing to eat their food, but how do I do that for someone in their twenties? It's either random impulse or it's well planned attempt to draw attention. And considering her age, it was much likely to be the latter.


Allowance 6: Okay, so what if she chooses to wear revealing clothes? What's my problem?

Answer: Nothing! Honestly, I have no problems with what she wears. What all I thought about the issue till that point, and for a few minutes beyond did not affect me in any way!


Now, I'll point out a few things that people do. Do ask yourself if you find them disgusting or not:
1. Picking of nose in public
2. Scratching of groin (in public)
3. People making lousy noises while eating, or licking their fingers passionately while eating

Do you find all or any of the about disgusting?

Yes? What's your problem?


But they disgusted you, right? Isn't it precisely their prerogative to likewise to use their fingers, nose, mouth and other orifices the way they want to?


No, but honestly, what I saw about that girl disgusted me beyond reasons involved in above three examples.


Now I will try to explain, why.


The other three examples I gave--what do they tell us about the people concerned? That they are coarse, possibly unhygienic, inconsiderate of others' attention, and lack a sense of aesthetics.


But why did I feel more disgusted at that girl?

Because that attitude is representative of things fundamentally so wrong with any human being. Picture this:

You're talking with someone. Possibly, the person is talking something grave, and a part of you wants that person to be distracted by you if of the opposite gender, or if the same gender, to be envious of you! This is hypocrisy of highest kind. Not being truthful to oneself, as well as to one's present. Also, such a person is living their life on others' terms, wanting their approval. And approval from any random person, not specifically the people they themselves value.


I have to make many more clarifications. I'll feel the same kind of disgust if I see someone trying to show off their knowledge out of context, or status or wealth. Or those saying "yes" all the time to please others. Or considering themselves as much worthy as gauged by just about anyone. All these things have one thing common to them--lack of truthfulness to oneself, a lack of certain kind of straightforwardness. Honestly, I wouldn't have disrespect for someone plainly going and asking someone--"Do you think I'm attractive enough?" What I don't like is the subliminal influencing through any means. At a much larger scale, it's the same kind of hypocrisy that makes our politicians do things subversive to the interests of the country in name of benefit to one 'community' or the other. Also, how little or high is the chance that persons not averse to wearing revealing clothes to attract attention of just about anyone, wouldn't do so at the workplace to get promotions, or colleges to get extra marks (something I've myself noticed happening)? Is this honorable? Of course, the one giving into such distractions and extending undue favors would be deserving of same blame of indulging in immorality (click).


But, what had really agitated me was that once there was a spat between one of the coordinators of our coaching institute and the owner of the hostel regarding quality of the food served, and coincidentally, when the aforementioned girl was present their, she had been labeled as "characterless" by the hostel owner, because she had been going out alone with guys at night on walk. I was really disgusted by the owner. Afterall, he had no right to interfere with her personal life, who she moved out with, what all she did, and I too had made all the right noises as to how, the girl is a mature, grown up adult, and it was very, very mannerless of the owner to have said that. But a part of me was wondering, did I not also conclude the same thing a month back (then)? That was my hypocrisy. To have something with utmost verbal strength, but just half strength of actual conviction behind those words. And quite obviously, the girl left the hostel to live elsewhere in some days.


Some more clarifications:

1. I never felt even once that owning to her dressing, she deserved to be badmouthed, or eve teased, or molested.

2. I think a saree can be much more revealing than what she was wearing, if so intended by the one wearing.

3. I'm no fan of idea of "preservation of culture", something I might discuss in one of my coming posts. I've not even mentioned the Indian culture perspective above.

4. What all I've analyzed for the above girl applies to males, as well as to all other spheres of life.

5. I'd try my best to not be judgmental about the girl, if were to have any interaction with her. But, my above conclusions will definitely weigh heavily on me. If I find her a nice, upright person otherwise, I'd really be forced to do a rethink on my criteria for judging people. Maybe, I'd try to know her better, and understand, why would she like to wear those kind of clothes, which would make people notice only the superficial aspects of her personality, and maybe, not value her emotions, thoughts, words, deeds, or innovative ideas? But on the whole, in my life, whenever I've tried too hard to make allowances for others' acts that I would find objectionable, I've ended up on the wrong side of judgment, meaning, those people have indeed turned out to be unreliable and opportunistic.


The crux of this post is, if someone has right to wear whatever they want, or behave however they like, I have equal right to draw conclusions about them. Of course, I don't have any right to impose my beliefs on them. And such conclusions are bound to have bearing on how generous would I be with them, or how sympathetic I'd feel if they're troubled. And most important, how much would I respect them as fellow humans.

Doom-cast

I'm prejudiced enough to believe my esteemed readership(??) would pay no heed to doomsday forecasts unless and until they come from someone as reliable as me! But I found a nice little witty article on the matter, which will take around (okay, don't gasp this time :) ) 10 min to read.

Hope you enjoy!