Few days back, I had an argument with one of my batch mates. The argument was about evolution; it's hard to believe an educated fellow would rubbish evolution just like that, though i wish i could have argued better to convince him. My point was the need for GOD to explain our existence is meaningless. We don't need a magic hand to explain things we don't understand but we need patience and an open mind. His argument was that evolution is baseless it doesn't explain anything. My statements failed to have any effect on him nor did his have any on me. He thought i needed enlightenment in karmic truths whereas i thought he just needed to read more.
A month before, my professor was talking on the same subject. The discussion had ended when i asked him the question, "Sir, do you believe in a personal God?". He wanted the answer to be confidential and hence i am not writing it here. He gave some nice insights into the science of belief - why humans look up to an impersonal God because they are fed up with their personal affairs. At the end he asked me what my stance is. "I am an atheist sir, i would love it if i have only myself to blame for my failures and not believe that i didn't pray enough", i replied. Of course, agnostics don't believe in a personal God - A God who keeps track of your daily routine - either. But i personally see there is no reason why i should pray to someone whose existence i see no proof of.
Last night i had another long argument with G over evolution. Not on God but on the extent to which I stretch my evolutionary agenda. We were discussing how a woman is thrust into a different family after her marriage. "You guys have it easy, its we who have to adjust in a different family. Why is it not the other way round?", a rueful G said. For which i replied, "Actually there is evolution playing here- culture made us a patriarchal society and practicing the custom for thousands of years mutated our genes into following the same custom over the years". The reaction i got for what i said was a strong outburst one can expect from a staunch feminist facing a chauvinist. "Whaaaaaaaaaaaaaat? wha..wha..whaaaaaaaat? there is no gene imprinting here, it is just a custom which nobody questioned or dare go against. You always shift the blame away from society, don't justify the bloody custom". Her little tirade against me, i felt, was unjustified because i always i felt i was not a chauvinist but a feminist - at least acted like one - and i justified saying,"i am not saying we should follow the custom blindly. I personally feel expecting a girl to move to her in-laws is unjust. I am against it. All I'm saying is, because we've followed that tradition for thousands of years, our genes have evolved to follow it. We all have the tendency to push our daughters out. The tendency, how feeble it may be, is in our blood. It's just a tendency and counteracting it is as easy as opposing any of the other thousand tendencies a human being could have." More justification followed -"There are species in which males move out of their families and there are other species like gorillas where females move out of families. In the same way, humans evolved such that females move out". By the way, this happens for genetic mixing. In lions, young males move out of their prides and join other prides. In gorillas, the females move out and mix with some other family. What followed was more debate on whether there is any science to understanding the human customs. I say it is science while she says it is sociology - not a science. The question of a hard evidence came up wherein she argues there is no evidence to what i said. Human tailbone disappeared over thousands of years because there was no use for it - that is genetic mutation. What i was arguing for had no hard evidence. Finally we stopped arguing after agreeing that we both would search it up and find evidence for genetic imprinting of customs.
Evolution is not fair. Evolution favours those who develop the knack of surviving at any cost. There are evolutionary justifications to greed, treachery, deceit and all the other flaws of human nature. We all developed these traits because these are the qualities which helped men defeat others in the race of wealth, health and reproduction. A Pleistocene era man could survive better if he could fool another man and sleeping with his wife or stealing his meat. There are many such examples taking which one could argue successfully that a cheating man would have lead a better life. Of course, in the modern society one may live peacefully without ever having to cheat but one can't deny the impulses that are within us, formed for hundreds of centuries. Modern society invented God, morals and ethics to suppress these very impulses - in the quest for establishing an ideal society where things exist in harmony and people don't hurt each other. I don't know how much we succeeded in establishing one but those who observe the Indian political system know one thing - power rests in the hands of those who are the most deceitful of all human beings; not with those who are the most deserving.
If ever i have a kid who comes up to me and asks, "Dad, is there God? Would he punish me if I'm dishonest?". I would reply, "Kiddo, make up your own mind. Observe the world yourself. Don't ever follow anybody else because nothing that anybody utters in this world is an unquestionable truth. Don't follow me either. I have a set of beliefs which themselves keep changing from time to time but i don't admit that i was ever wrong. I just stuck to what i believed at that particular time. I believe there is no God. I don't need the fear of a punishing hell to do good to others. If I help somebody it would just be because of the pleasure i would gain by helping that person. Ultimately choose a lifestyle for yourself based on your own perspective of life."
A month before, my professor was talking on the same subject. The discussion had ended when i asked him the question, "Sir, do you believe in a personal God?". He wanted the answer to be confidential and hence i am not writing it here. He gave some nice insights into the science of belief - why humans look up to an impersonal God because they are fed up with their personal affairs. At the end he asked me what my stance is. "I am an atheist sir, i would love it if i have only myself to blame for my failures and not believe that i didn't pray enough", i replied. Of course, agnostics don't believe in a personal God - A God who keeps track of your daily routine - either. But i personally see there is no reason why i should pray to someone whose existence i see no proof of.
Last night i had another long argument with G over evolution. Not on God but on the extent to which I stretch my evolutionary agenda. We were discussing how a woman is thrust into a different family after her marriage. "You guys have it easy, its we who have to adjust in a different family. Why is it not the other way round?", a rueful G said. For which i replied, "Actually there is evolution playing here- culture made us a patriarchal society and practicing the custom for thousands of years mutated our genes into following the same custom over the years". The reaction i got for what i said was a strong outburst one can expect from a staunch feminist facing a chauvinist. "Whaaaaaaaaaaaaaat? wha..wha..whaaaaaaaat? there is no gene imprinting here, it is just a custom which nobody questioned or dare go against. You always shift the blame away from society, don't justify the bloody custom". Her little tirade against me, i felt, was unjustified because i always i felt i was not a chauvinist but a feminist - at least acted like one - and i justified saying,"i am not saying we should follow the custom blindly. I personally feel expecting a girl to move to her in-laws is unjust. I am against it. All I'm saying is, because we've followed that tradition for thousands of years, our genes have evolved to follow it. We all have the tendency to push our daughters out. The tendency, how feeble it may be, is in our blood. It's just a tendency and counteracting it is as easy as opposing any of the other thousand tendencies a human being could have." More justification followed -"There are species in which males move out of their families and there are other species like gorillas where females move out of families. In the same way, humans evolved such that females move out". By the way, this happens for genetic mixing. In lions, young males move out of their prides and join other prides. In gorillas, the females move out and mix with some other family. What followed was more debate on whether there is any science to understanding the human customs. I say it is science while she says it is sociology - not a science. The question of a hard evidence came up wherein she argues there is no evidence to what i said. Human tailbone disappeared over thousands of years because there was no use for it - that is genetic mutation. What i was arguing for had no hard evidence. Finally we stopped arguing after agreeing that we both would search it up and find evidence for genetic imprinting of customs.
Evolution is not fair. Evolution favours those who develop the knack of surviving at any cost. There are evolutionary justifications to greed, treachery, deceit and all the other flaws of human nature. We all developed these traits because these are the qualities which helped men defeat others in the race of wealth, health and reproduction. A Pleistocene era man could survive better if he could fool another man and sleeping with his wife or stealing his meat. There are many such examples taking which one could argue successfully that a cheating man would have lead a better life. Of course, in the modern society one may live peacefully without ever having to cheat but one can't deny the impulses that are within us, formed for hundreds of centuries. Modern society invented God, morals and ethics to suppress these very impulses - in the quest for establishing an ideal society where things exist in harmony and people don't hurt each other. I don't know how much we succeeded in establishing one but those who observe the Indian political system know one thing - power rests in the hands of those who are the most deceitful of all human beings; not with those who are the most deserving.
If ever i have a kid who comes up to me and asks, "Dad, is there God? Would he punish me if I'm dishonest?". I would reply, "Kiddo, make up your own mind. Observe the world yourself. Don't ever follow anybody else because nothing that anybody utters in this world is an unquestionable truth. Don't follow me either. I have a set of beliefs which themselves keep changing from time to time but i don't admit that i was ever wrong. I just stuck to what i believed at that particular time. I believe there is no God. I don't need the fear of a punishing hell to do good to others. If I help somebody it would just be because of the pleasure i would gain by helping that person. Ultimately choose a lifestyle for yourself based on your own perspective of life."
8 comments:
I am sorry, but i still stick to my earlier stance of you extending evolution to explain things which are way complex. Describing why society as a system favors the dishonest, only pertains to the fact that it has been doing so for so long, that its almost impossible to reverse its direction of operation.Its system dynamics, not evolution. Evolution as a theory is not yet mature enough to explain things like that. Maybe, someday the line dividing sociology and evolution would completely vanish,its already getting blurred with fields like demography, who knows, one would be actually able to model evolution as a dynamic system and ultimately solve the eternal questions of "Why we are the way we are?", or "Why do we go to war, when we know its ultimately self-destructive?" as different states of a huge dynamic system in various boundary conditions, but that would take a long time. Without that,there is no evidence stating that customs that we follow is due to gene imprinting.
Anyways, A very well written piece. Especially the part about what would you tell your kid.
Completely voiced my thoughts there. [:)]
First, I didn't write the fourth para as an evidence for what i said in the third para.
Second, The Evolution i was talking of is about men and not about the system. Its men who evolve. I said evolution, not the system, is not fair simply because those who cheated thrived better and left more descendants - descendants who share the same characteristics of dishonesty with their bearers. Those who couldn't adapt themselves to the system were gradually eliminated. That is evolution - survival of the fittest. A general lack of resources in any system means only those who can beat the others (not literally) would survive. The way i see it, it is system dynamics to have less supply and more demand. It is up to humans whether to fight for resources or just be laid back and wait for your turn. System would say, "This is what i offer, those who want take it. Don't blame, i don't encourage any dishonesty". So ultimately to survive, humans EVOLVED to be dishonest because there was a NEED for dishonesty.
Third, to explain the universe, people crack their brains to find out its origin - the big bang and what happened after the big bang. In the same way to understand how we are and why we are, we need to go back to our origins and study how we came to survive all these years. The starting point to any explanation is the origin. Evolution explains the route men took from their origin to the current state.
Interesting post.
I have a point on your theory of women following their husbands in to his house after marriage. I think it’s tough to defend it based only on evolution. The fact that you think its unfair to ask a woman to go in to her husband's home after marriage, is itself a testimony to the fact that its not in our genes to have a patriarchal society. Had it been genetic, don’t you think, we would have simply accepted it rather than questioning it?
But never the less, we can say this social structure came out as an indirect consequence of evolution. Of course I am in no way suggesting a Patriarchal society here, but just my thoughts on why it came in to being.
By evolution females bare the off springs in humans as in many other animals. So during this time they need more protection and care than during any other time, and this was provided by the males. This is an evolutionary need, for the gene has to survive and be passed on from one generation to the next. So this made a case for a strong man to be around to protect a woman especially during the birth of a child and its early days. During the initial days of humans, the conditions for living were much harsher than now. Humans were constantly under attack from animals, nature or even from humans of a rival tribe. May be in those times, a man felt he could protect better if he was in his tribe/home/surroundings than when he was in his wife's tribe/home, as he would then be fighting the adversaries on home turf. This might have eventually developed in to a rigid societal norm of woman going in to the husband's home after marriage. Had the cause for this system been purely based on the society to which one belonged then the practice should have varied from one society to another. But the fact that it’s almost a universal practice (may be with minor exceptions), shows it is some how related to biology, though not directly.
I am not an expert in this field, in fact have not even read Darwin after school, But it’s just my thought.
Sorry for a really long comment :)
Shiva
Interesting points you raised there shiva. Your theory on female protection is spot on. In fact, after humans became biped the pelvic structure of a female got narrowed down and so the pelvic hole through which babies have to pass before they are born also narrowed down. The direct consequence of this was that human babies had to be born prematurely compared to other apes. Human babies are hopelessly dependant on their parents. A woman needs the protection of a man for her baby and hence the concept of love evolved. Love bonds a man to a woman and of course vice versa.
Whatever may be the cause - whether its for genetic mixing or for a better protection of the woman, because the tradition formed and has been followed we could have developed a genetic tendency to follow it.
A little clarification. We do question many things that are in our genes. There are a thousand tendencies or impulses (as Freud may put it) that we store in us as a result of our genetic pattern. Our conscience always questions the rationality behind those impulses. Taking the example from my post; there is no question that its in our genes to cheat but we do question ourselves over it. Its in our genes to bond with a woman but there are men who question it and remain celibate for life.
"But the fact that it’s almost a universal practice (may be with minor exceptions), shows it is some how related to biology, though not directly."
Can't agree more with you. Mind you, biology means evolution! :)
Have to agree on your point that we do question our natural tendencies and some times go against it as well.
And yeah...Biology means Evolution :)
Shiva
Not sure if you have already come across these. If not, here are two links which you may find interesting.
http://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/presence-darwin.html?c=y&page=1
http://judson.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/06/17/darwinmania/
Shiva
oh..I think the links have not come fully..
So here I go again..
http://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature
/presence-darwin.html?c=y&page=1
http://judson.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/06/17
/darwinmania/
Shiva
You seem to have a point when you blame it on genes. Well, hard evidence is hard to come by when we need it.
Post a Comment