YouTube has disappointed us all by removing the Dislike bar

 The Dislike bar was very useful.

1. It indicated the quality of the video / content, allowing us to decide if it was worth watching.
2. It indicated if the video was controversial (think 50-50 bar). Thus it showed where other people stand on the content of the video.
3. It was a quick summary of the public perception without needing to read many comments.
4. It was YouTube's qualitative advantage over videos & content from FB, Insta, Twitter. Those platforms without a dislike button allow crap content to be prevalent.

Youtube may give bullshit reasons like they removed the Dislike bar to "protect" creators from dislike-harassment but actually their motivation to remove it comes from point (1). If we cannot see the dislike count, it would increase user engagement, user watch time, increasing monetary profits. 

Thus, I urge you to realize this, and consciously reduce YouTube engagement.

• Skip over videos that you are unsure of for which you previously would have consulted the Dislike bar. Don't give them the watch-time, ad-time and Views.
• Unsubscribe from YouTube Premium. Use an adblocker in the browser. I guess if you are a power user who uses it on mobile & TV, this will be hard to resist.
• Use more alternative sites like Odysee.com, Vimeo, DailyMotion, FB Videos, CuriosityStream etc.

By removing the Dislike count, the valuable information gained from points (1), (2) & (3) will be lost forever in the future. The way people use the Dislike button will change because they cannot see the Dislike bar. More of crappy content will become prevalent. Imagine clickbait videos, fake news, fake guru videos for which you would not be able to see how many others have Disliked; you would take that content more seriously than if you could see the Dislike count. Bad content creators won't get accurate feedback.

I'm sure Google / Youtube understands all these negative consequences; because afterall they are the smartest people. But they can afford to do this because they have a monopoly. This is why we can't have good things. When a company has a monopoly, the quality of the product goes down. They just think of maximizing profits.

It is sad that Google / Youtube has made this decision for chasing financial profits, by causing a reduction in user experience and reduction in quality of content in the future. Google used to be the charming company that made products for actual good of the world, not for profits. But seeing this deviation change from their original company principle is saddening, lowering their image in the eyes of the public.

Perhaps by boycotting their attempt at increasing user engagement they would bring back the Dislike bar.

Finally, I leave you with the following three videos to watch to understand why censorship on Youtube, FB etc is bad. Hiding the Like/Dislike opinion of other users is a form of censorship.

---

Share

Purpose of Life - Revisited

 Ten years ago, after finishing my bachelors when I was in an existential crisis, I had come up with this purpose for my life:

My purpose of life, since we do not know our purpose, is to find that purpose of life. i.e. Work on finding out the Truth, meaning of life and universe. 

One way I figured I could contribute to this is through the field of machine learning and AI - I did not understand it much especially since I had studied mechanical engineering, but I felt it in me that these could be legit avenues. I figured if we ever invent a "self-learning machine", and provide it the same senses, cognition and motion as humans, it would learn and grow way faster than humans could. And then when it knows more than humans, we could just ask it the purpose of life.

My life did not go as planned for whatever reasons. I could not get onto that academic path of contributing to such science & tech directly [yet?]. Blame it on opportunities, circumstances, resources, personal flaws, procrastination, lack of information, bullshit US visa system, whatever. Life happened. I have been quite depressed about that for long.

Recently, I have been revisiting the simulation hypothesis (like The Matrix), and it has been causing a bit of an existential crisis again. Imagine humans in an effort to understand the universe spend thousands of years with science, tech, art etc, and finally understand it only to discover that they have perfectly understood only a simulation, and there is another real universe outside it with an unknown number of layers of simulations outside it! Our simulation may not have the same behavior as the real universe. The real universe may not even be observable. That information may just not be available to us. What then! Well, that throws out my original purpose which had pacified my existential crisis. 

I have also been reading / watching a little about how there possibly are limits to what we can know. Something like Godel's Incompleteness Theorem.

So I guess if purpose-1 would be fundamentally impossible, then what's there to life at all? Other than just having fun, do your time and get out when it's time? Hence, I now have a secondary purpose in addition to the original primary purpose (at least tentatively until it gets ingrained):-

Enjoy living, as if you're in a video game with just 1 life. There's no meaning to life, just do what you like.

This is the message of the movie Soul. It's the same message as Kurtzgesagt's video on Optimistic Nihilism. It's probably the same message as when people say "Don't forget to have fun!". It's probably the same message as what my mom writes in her email signature - "Be Happy". It's the same message as The Happiness Equation's rule - "Be happy first, then pursue wants".

--

Musings to follow this:

Implications of that purpose. Hedonism? Maximizing fun? Short-term vs Long-term gain? Calculative vs impulsive? Calibration of that? Morality? 

---

Share

DDA Protocol

People don't understand that when they are arguing over something, they NEED TO keep their language unambiguous and clear to eliminate any possibility of doubt and misunderstanding. As it is, any language is not fully efficient in conveying the exact meanings. On top of that if you start using rhetoricals, sarcasms, taunts, it increases the ambiguity all-the-more. I mean, sometime person B won't get your sarcasm while you assume he is getting it. And so B's reply would seem more arrogant to you. Then again, there may come another sarcastic statement, or a rhetorical question, delaying the solution exponentially!

So here are some basic rules I believe should be followed when you are Arguing or Debating or Discussing a topic:

1) Remember that an argument has a solution / conclusion. The conclusion could be something that you commonly concur upon, or it may be identifying which on aspects your preference differs, or a combination. The common conclusion may or may not be in your favor but you should strive to work towards the true solution. In other words, drop your ego, and be honest & frank.
2) Try to keep the language down-to-earth. Be direct. And expect direct, sharp sentences. Because the truth can be bitter.
3) Get straight to the point without trash talk like above because it only increases tempers and delays the solution. Don't beat around the bush.
 For example: Don't counter like this (like person B does):
   A: I have no idea what you are talking about X-(
   B: You know very well what I am talking about X-(
 Instead do this:
   A: I have no idea what you are talking about X-(
   B: I am talking about how that day you ditched me and went to play basketball with Katrinn.
 
 ^^ Even though you think A knows what you are talking about, SAY IT so that further beating around the bush is avoided.

4) For some mature topics, you may need to use profane words like sex. Don't be prudish in an argument.

5) An argument/discussion/debate must be logical. Feelings and emotions can be considered within the logic.

6) At some point one may say "Pratyek goshtila karan astach asa nasta" i.e. "Not everything has a reason". I think everything does have a reason, but it may just be really hard to find or identify. It may be difficult to put into words or too lengthy. Or it may be something too obvious to realize. Take your time to reflect, and try to explain the reason.

---

Share

Metaphorical thinking

Abstract thinking / analogical reasoning / metaphorical thinking / mathematical thinking / symbolic thinking - This makes you intelligent and witty! Comedians probably develop this early in life, heading in the direction of street smartness rather than technical. Scientists, researchers and inventors do the same but on a very technical level, drawing analogies between mathematical models and real-world systems. Artists do the same which is why they see deep meaning in abstract arts. Movie directors do this so as to depict something with great impact.

Everything in our understanding of the world is probably analogical, for example, an atom may not be really an atom. An atom according to our understanding may be representative of something different but behaves in the same way. 

Good movies to exercise this: Mr. Nobody, The Fountain.

---

Share

About "expressing much, and being unperturbed / calm"

We use swear words to express some quick anger / frustration like - 

fuck!

shit!

"abe yaar"

Some people say that expressing in such a way is good. But I have been believing otherwise since my childhood. I know from childhood that using swear words to express some tiny frustration momentarily actually amplifies the frustration at least a little.

Here is a point to support it:

If you force a smile now on your face, you do feel slightly happy!

If you force your facial expression into that a sad, droopy face, you do feel sad

Hence, expression results in more of that emotion!

When you use an interjection like "shit!", or "abe yaar", "damn",... it increases that feeling

Instead, you should overcome the need to interject and continue being unperturbed. That keeps you more peaceful and lets you think with more clarity in the next moment.                        

-

Extension to this topic -

While arguing with someone too, one can get annoyed, frustrated and either use swear words, or lose their calm. The above idea can be applied here to instead remain totally calm & unperturbed by the other person's comments.

When arguing with a friend / acquaintance, you can let go off the frustration / annoyance by thinking "this guy is an idiot, I'll not get too involved in this subject; his loss!" and continue being unperturbed.

But when arguing with a close person, you cannot overlook their potentially incorrect views because they matter to you.

---

Share

Everything is an organization

A living cell is an organization of various organelles, DNA, chromosomes etc. An atom is an organization of sub-atomic particles. An organism is an organization of various organs. An organ is an organization of various tissues, cells etc. Similarly, a human being is an organization of various organs. The solar system is an organization of some planets, asteroids, sun, moons. The earth itself is an organization of various elements in it.

So, perhaps everything is an organization of many other things in it, in the mathematical model of the universe. These organizations coexist, and may affect others. 

The human race is an organization which affects the earth. In this organization, political leaders serve the role of defining how to organize the humans thus making the organization more efficient.

---

Share

On Being Civilized vs Nihilistic and religion

#RoughDraft

With all the knowledge and videos I take in, I feel like I am getting a better and better understanding of how the world works. I now have a different understanding of religion and the origin of the concept of God than I did a few years ago, and I think this new understanding makes more sense. My currently trending word is "civilized"

We are animals by nature. We would be nihilists by nature if we grew up isolated from humans, in the jungle. Since nature has made us that way, I would think "what is wrong with being a nihilist?". Joker was a nihilist in the dark knight movie. He wasn't a planner, he just did things on a whim, did whatever came to his mind naturally. What is wrong in following our natural instincts? If naturally, a man want fell in love with another woman while being married, if he has an affair with that woman, he is just following his natural instincts - the way nature made him.

The answer is - Because we as mankind (humankind), in contrast to apes, have so much higher in intellect that we can choose to ignore the natural instinct and do something else!

The early man (from the time of the origin of Homo Sapiens, about a 250k years ago), probably realized that upon ignoring the natural instinct, there can be something else to do that could be favorable to him in the long run. This "something other than the natural instinct" can be favorable to your group in which you hunt and live. Then came the discovery of agriculture about 11k years ago due to which people could focus on other things than collecting food everyday and could settle in one place. Eventually we began doing more and more things that an animal wouldn't do. Doing these things progress mankind as a whole and also gives benefits to individuals, such as not having to focus on food hunting everyday for yourself. Eventually, people developed a set of guidelines to follow that would help in advancing their settlement as a whole even though some guidelines may restrict an individual's freedom to follow some of his natural instincts. These "guidelines", obviously were based on their then current "way of life".

At the same time, to explain un-understood phenomena like lightning, rain, birth etc etc, people came up with the idea that higher beings must be controlling those phenomena. Now, someone probably wanted to advertise these guidelines with the intention of doing good for the society. His own settlement would be following these guidelines, but how can he spread it to others? How could he convince other settlements to follow it? Some would get convinced but the majority of the world does not see the big picture and so does not understand the long term advantage. btw, this "someone" is a placeholder for either one person or a group. So this someone could have used the concept of God to sell his ideas. If he himself made 50% sense, the other 50% could be covered up under the name of God. These guidelines are nothing but religion. Over the years, such guidelines passed down for years with modifications and new clever people preaching their modified versions, thus forming new religions and prophets. Also over the years, guidelines should ideally change with changing technology and progress. Perhaps newer religions incorporated some of such changes.

Bottom line: Following these guidelines that help in the overall progress of society is the definition of being civilized.

To answer the initial question - what's wrong with having an affair outside marriage since you are only following your natural instincts - if you are a nihilist, then there's nothing wrong. But you can only either be a nihilist or civilized, not both because they are opposite ways of living life. Nihilism and being civilized are two nodes on the same level.

If you have grown in a country among the human society, then you have grown up enjoying the advantages of civilization and have also been taught to be civilized. So having an affair outside marriage is wrong w.r.t the idea of society in which one lives in. You have to use your human intellect to curb your natural instinct I.e. be civilized, in order to be consisted with the society which is for the purpose of advancement of humankind.

I feel great to have realized the significance of "being civilized" and be able to contrast it with nihilism. What I explained above is consistent with this video from PragerU -

All this new understanding makes me revise my position on religion. Religion could be separated into two things - Way of life, and God. I subscribe to the way of life*, but not to the idea of God. Moreover, as a civilized human being who understands the merits of being civilized, I don't need to believe in a God to follow the guidelines as his commandments. eg. I understand the advantage of not murdering someone, so I don't need a God to tell me not to do so.

*Regarding following the "way of life" aspect of religion, some guidelines would be outdated. They could either be not necessary or could have better, updated alternatives to follow. So, I wouldn't follow any one religion's ALL of the guidelines entirely. I would try to understand the original purpose of that guideline and check if there's a better way to do it or check if it is even necessary for the progress of the current society. I wish someone or some institution had done this task of scrutinizing all religious guidelines, understanding their original purpose, updated or discarded them to create a new set of guidelines for our current world. It's the 21st century! I'm surprised that this does not exist yet! We need to teach the people that the civilized guidelines (way of life) should be followed because of the merits of being civilized and not because of an outdated concept of god commanding people to follow them.

Corollaries and tangential topics to research

There are many tangential topics that could emerge from this article. 

1) If being civilized is to curb your natural instincts for the betterment of society (which in turn benefits individuals), then should a civilized suppress his/her slightly homosexual tendencies?

2) Since humans have the option of being healthy by eating only vegetarian food and because humans feel sympathetic towards animals, should a civilized person avoid eating meat?

3) Why do people get married?
The article explains that the institution of marriage exists because it is beneficial for the society. But why and how exactly is it beneficial to society? Is a monogamous marriage more beneficial or a polygamous marriage more beneficial to society?
These questions are tough to answer. But perhaps, the best answer automatically evolves over time. This is an assumption. Under this assumption, I would say that "monogamous marriages", as a way of life, evolved to be the most beneficial way of life for society. Could research more on this assumption and other possibilities.

---

Share

Religion has outlived its usefulness

Religion was useful for progress in the old days when people lived horribly. Now, however, I think religion has outlived its usefulness. It also depends on how you define religion. If you define religion as a system of beliefs pertaining to God and worship, then it has outlived its usefulness. If you define religion as just a way of life i.e. a collection of principles and following them for civilized progressive life, then it is still useful. But notice that this does not require the concept of God. The concept of God probably came about to attribute mystical phenomenons to in the ancient days. Now, we have better explanations to these phenomenons by science. Science is slowly but surely progressing towards answering more and more unexplained phenomenons. The "ways of life" derived from science are now more accurate than the ancient "ways of life" based on "Gods". The basic idea behind both is the same i.e. ways of life help us being more civilized & progressive.

#FFT

---

Share

FFT:
You start off in this world as an animal by all your heart; your brain is what directs and trains the heart to be a civilized human.
Agreed? Now you can use this ability more consciously to force yourself to stop being lazy, get rid of bad habits, etc.
#mindhack?

---

Share

#LOL:
Whenever you learn something, you must apply it to assimilate that knowledge perfectly and to retain it. "Applying it" can include practising it, preaching it, even simply writing an article about it which will give deeper clarity to inculcate it in you.
For example, writing down this LOL.
Another example, after studying mechanical engg or *while* studying it, putting that knowledge into practice via internships or projects or atleast, working after graduation.

---

Share

#LOL:
When thinking, *think directly*; don't talk to yourself. Thinking is way faster and natural.

---

Share

Random Thoughts #3

Every parallel universe has you doing what you want to do; The multi-verse is just an indifferent phenomenon and you are traveling through a branch of it, through parallel universes representing every moment & every choice. There's no meaning to any of this; it's all just for the joy of the journey!
But... can you reset?

#FFT, #TheFlash

---

Share

LOLs, WOWs, FFTs - WTF?

LOL = Lessons Of Life

Lessons summarized in brief that I learn day to day. Would be useful for others. Perhaps, I could write separate articles on each to explain how I arrived at the LOL.

WOW = Words of Wisdom. 

Similar to LOL but other people's words; not my own derived lessons.

FFT = Food For Thought. 

Thoughts / statements that have not yet proceeded to a conclusion. Need some thinking on it to arrive at a conclusion. Kinda like an idea in its nascent stage

I hope to compile a long list of LOLs, WOWs with explanation / derivation of each later some time. Collectively, it would be a BOW! Book Of Wisdom!

---

Share

Random Thoughts #2

If you wish you had made a different choice, perhaps you helped yourself choose correctly and proceed in an alternate universe with that choice‪ #‎noregrets‬ ‪#‎LifeIsStrange‬

---

Share

How phrases are losing their meaning irreplaceably

The situation:

On my whatsapp group, we are planning a trip for the long weekend one month ahead. We need to decide and finalize who's in asap. 3/5 people confirm. 2 have yet to reply. In a personal IM to one of those 2, I want to ask him if he can confirm today. So I should be asking -

"Hey, can you confirm by today?"

The problem here is that "Can you confirm by today" is considered as a request nowadays rather than its literal meaning of whether or not he can confirm by today. My intention is not to pressurize him into taking the decision today itself but just to literally gauge if he can confirm today. 

Why has the meaning of this statement changed?

One reason may be because, the word "can" has come to be used to make requests even more politely than they already when using the word "please".

eg: Please confirm by today.  (1) - this is a request which is already polite due to the presence of "please".

To make it more polite, people phrase (1) as:

Can you please confirm by today?   (2) 

In the current times, (2) is regarded as the most polite version of (1) portraying soft skills. Perhaps a few decades ago, (1) could have been regarded as the most polite version. Then as its popularity grew and it became street-common, it started losing its politeness. Hence there arose a need for a different phrasing to restore the same level of politeness leading to the use of phrase (2) now. 

In this process, however, the original meaning of (2) (i.e. the words "Can you") has been lost irreplacably because there is no other phrase / word to convey the literal meaning alone. Ofcourse, you could use extra sentences to clarify what you mean exactly but is that really a good solution?

---

Share

Random Thoughts #1

An uneducated person to whom suddenly new doors of information are opened, such as by learning to read and speak English, is so fascinated by the newly available information! He finds it so interesting to take in all the new information from newspapers, TV, books, from other people and indulges in becoming a great, knowledgeable person.

We highly educated people, on the other hand, have SO many doors of information open to us since long that, we are initially overwhelmed and then soon, bored. It becomes a buyers market for our brain and we go along the path of least resistance. Academic study, stock market research, learning about whats going on in the island of Tonga, exploring public information from NASA, learning counting of cards for blackjack, reading novels, getting to know your colleagues better, helping in social service, reading novels, taking a free online course, learning bowling techniques - these are among the countless number of things we can do. But we choose the simplest (laziest) of them. The laziest of us just watch movies and TV series and gain some information. The less lazy ones read novels or actively search for new information and read it. Its human tendency to follow that path which requires least effort and yet gives satisfactory gains. So whats wrong in watching movies back to back all day? Its that, we are short-sighted in evaluating the gain/effort when deciding what to do.

---
Thought inspired by English Vinglish movie.

---

Share

Joker vs Batman - Nihilism vs Society

The Question: Who would you rather be? -

Batman: The incorruptible, conscientious, intelligent, eccentric watchful protector of the "good" people; not just a man, but a symbol of hope who strikes fear into the hearts of evil-doers.
OR
Joker: An agent of Chaos, equally intelligent and eccentric but who sees life in an alternate way, incongruous to established society; who understands there is no "good" or "evil", that hope & fear are all man-made, who embraces the craziness of existence... a Nihilist.

Do not think that The Joker is the obviously wrong choice; there's more to him than meets the eye. Read on.

---

There are two drastically different points of views to life. You are probably familiar with the first :-

1) Find joy / sorrow in day to day things - You feel happy when someone gifts you ice-cream, you feel content when your work is appreciated, you feel sad if you are the reason for someone else's pain, you feel jealous if a colleague gets the girl you like, you feel sorrow if you lose someone dear.
Living life like this for your entire life, sharing the joys and sorrows, you achieve some career goals, personal goals and influence everybody around you, ultimately contributing towards the progress of humanity. (Progress is defined by humans, for humans, of humans). After say 80 years, you'll die and humanity will continue with your imprint on it.
This way of life has been passed along to us since generations by the society.


2) Nihilistic view:-
Question the fundamental assumptions that we take for granted everyday and see what hell breaks lose.... The previous view has been passed along to us since generations by the SOCIETY. But why conform with the society? Why should I run after a career, money and all the man-made stuff? Money itself arose because of population, to trade goods. But why should I care if I steal rice from the farmer instead of trading it for money? Why should I let myself feel "guilt" for doing so? Guilt is taught by society just to give everyone a fair chance. Same goes for a "sympathy", "pity", "being considerate".

If a friend yells at me because I hurt him, I would feel sad. But once I abandon all conformance with society, once I abandon care for others, there is no reason to feel sad in such cases.

If I feel curious and interested to see what happens if I stab my arm with a knife, I should do it! Why should I fear what my body is telling me to feel - pain? May be just because of the survival instinct, evolution has obfuscated our true nature. Possibly killing is not a bad thing either. May be the life after death is the better one, or maybe death is the road to freedom. Or may be we are in a Matrix (movie) and this is not the truth. There's no way of verifying if what we are living in is the truth. Its all undefined.

Happiness, joy, sadness, love, hatred, guilt, sympathy, greed, envy etc are ALL either man-made or enforced by your body on you due to evolution! If I consider myself as just my mind trapped in this materialistic body in this materialistic society, I have absolutely no reason to feel them.

There is no reason to feel them. But here's the twist: Just because there is no reason to feel them doesn't mean I should not feel any of these feelings. I can feel what I want to and ignore what I don't want.
Example: If I feel like eating a cake and then board a plane and then kill the pilot, I should do it all!! In the process if I lose my partner to the cops, I shouldn't feel sorrow. If I take a bullet to the hand, I would just observe the blood oozing out and how the body makes me feel pain and carry on with whatever I feel like doing next.

It doesn't make much sense does it? Thats coz its all very chaotic! Chaos is the answer. That is how the Joker's mind works. He does what he feels like just because he exists (which he didn't ask for) and doesn't want to conform with the society because there is no natural reason to conform with the society. In such a case what he does, is simply unpredictable. Its chaos to others as well as inside his mind!!

-

The Nihilistic way of life is not "wrong" because it is fundamentally the natural way - doing what you feel like doing without conforming to society which is man-made. Moreover, if you accept it, then there is no "wrong" or "right".
However, with many people living together, the natural way of life cannot keep everyone happy at the same time. Thats why it is considered "wrong".

Imagine this: You are the only person on earth. You did not even grow up among humans as we know them now. No society. No culture. Just the way nature intended it to be. Then you would by default be following the Joker's way of life except that you wont hurt yourself. But add in the understanding that you are separate from your body, and then you would be following Joker's way of life, won't you?

So if you were to live the most natural way, it would be the Joker's way.

-


Now that you understand these two ways of life, first of which Batman follows and the second, Joker, who do you think is more close to as nature/god/creation intended you to be? Now, what do you choose?

---

Share

Identifying with the Joker

There are some characters in movies with whom you can identify with if you think like them.

I have been thinking about nihilism so much in the past few days having nothing better to do sitting at home, that there was complete chaos in my mind yesterday. So I decided to watch Dark Knight again today becoz I had read somewhere on the net that Joker could be called a nihilist.

 And I could fking relate with the Joker!! I understood why he was laughing when batman was beating the crap outta him in jail. I understood him when he gave a gun to Harvey in the hospital and took a chance. I could identify with him when he was utterly shocked at why the people in the boats didn't blow off each other. I also could identify with him when he hysterically jumped on his own clown fallen on the ground after being electrocuted while removing batman's mask.

Being able to identify with the Joker may be a terrible thing! But, I also understood why the people on the boats didn't blow each other even though according to Game Theory, they should have.  More importantly I understood why Batman anticipated before time that they would not blow each other off. That speaks of the inherent "good" within people or conscience.

Being able to understand both, the unstoppable force and the immovable object, the two extremities, is, I feel, an achievement! But the greatest achievement is by the one who not just understood them, but created them... Christopher Nolan!

-
Can you identify with the Joker?

---

Share

Free iPad2 Giveaway by Stanford!

Ever thought the prestigious Stanford University would give away free iPads to random people over the world? Well thats exactly what this is -

To win, simply sign up HERE (official stanford site, you can check address bar). NO NEED to Like any facebook page or fill out any surveys and shit! This is all.

Apparently, this giveaway is part of an experiment being conducted to study the viral propagation of an article on the net by one Nicolas Kokkalis from Stanford as part of his PhD.

Also, SHARE this on fb and twitter (buttons below) to increase your winning chances!

---

Share

"Does God Exist?" conversation between Professor & Student is FALLACIOUS!

A conversation between an atheist Professor and a Student tries to prove that the professor's ideas are wrong and support the ideas of God, Religion and Faith. There are possibly multiple versions of this conversation floating around the internet; I have come across two. One of them is a video which claims the student to be Albert Einstein.

Another is a a viral article on Facebook as well as many blogs which claims the student was Dr. APJ Abdul Kalam.
Link: http://www.bukisa.com/articles/96175_awesome-conversation-abdulkalam-as-a-student

The very fact that the student is claimed to be a different person (scientist) in different versions and yet the story is claimed to be true shows a pathetic attempt of a (theist) person to sell-off their ideas under the name of established scientists just because people tending towards atheism would be more likely to agree with a scientist. Shame on you believer!

I don't know about Dr. Abdul Kalam, but I seriously doubt Einstein had that conversation ever. As far as I remember, according to a lesson in my school, Albert Einstein was kinda a slow learner and reticent in his childhood, thus making it unlikely that he would answer back the teacher with such articulation. Whats more, Einstein went to a catholic school. Do you honestly believe, a teacher in a catholic school would try to preach atheism in the first place?

The argument of the student is not at all convincing if you reflect on it but even then this conversation keeps enduring. So here's my critique on the conversation given in the article (the video leaves out some parts from the article).

I'd like to start with criticizing the most obvious flaws first:

1) When the student mocks the syllogism of the professor to question the existence of the professor's brain, the professor could have easily refuted the student's point. Questioning the existence of human brain in this way is not similar to questioning the existence of god. The professor could have easily said, "It has been established with practical evidence that the brain does exist within the skull. People have seen it, felt it, smelt it. This is NOT the case with god. Hence the two cases are not analogous. If you are still reluctant to believe that I have a brain, I can bet you that I have a brain... kill me and have a look; the bet being, after you kill me, you should deposit 1 billion dollars in my wife's account and then kill yourself since it is due to your puerile insistence that i would have to die."

2) Regarding the evolutionary theory, yes it is a "theory", which means it is not a proven fact, but a very probable one. That is why it is taught in schools. On the other hand, the idea that an omnipotent, omniscient god exists who urges people to follow some set of rules (religion) is a theory with an infinitesimal probability. Moreover, it does not explain most of the observations that we encounter in life. Then why teach it? Hence it is called preaching. This absurd idea is like saying "There is one powerful raven who is white in color. We know all the ravens we see around us are black, but have faith, there does exist the white raven. And we must worship him (his deity)." And this ridiculous idea cannot be disproved without examining each and every raven all over the world. But common sense dictates that this idea is highly improbable which is why we call it ridiculous.

Its also noteworthy that the evolutionary theory is considered heretic mostly in the West. Now, I don't have much knowledge about the Abrahamic religions (or any religion for that matter), but I reckon this may be because it conflicts with the Christian teachings that God created Adam and Eve and that is how humans came into being. Eastern religions do not have a grudge on the evolutionary theory. So the point is, the conflict is between a particular religion and science, not between the idea of god's existence and science. Hence, since all the religions don't have a consistent view, we can discard the aversion towards Evolutionary Theory.

3) The argument about how cold is just the absence of heat and likewise evil is just the absence of good, is cogent and I might agree to it. Absence of heat is cold implies that the coldest something can get is fixed i.e. -273C or 0 Kelvin - there is a fixed absolute zero point. The temperature cannot go below this value coz this is where it starts. Similarly absence of light is darkness implies there is a fixed absolute zero point for the magnitude of light whence darkness is said to be maximum. However, can you think of a fixed deed which is the most evil i.e. a deed in which there is complete absence of good? There is no such absolute zero point. You can have neutral attitude toward something, you can have a positive attitude towards it or you can have a negative attitude towards something. The "Goodness" extends infinitely towards the positive axis. And, similarly, you can go in the negative axis also, infinetly! The more you go in the negative direction, the lesser the Goodness and more the evilness. The point whence good becomes evil (neutral point) is a matter of personal, social and cultural view. Its different for everyone. You can think of the scale like a Rainbow - there is no fixed neutral point. For some yellow maybe neutral attitude, for some green maybe neutral.

In essence, Yes, absence of good is evil but the scales of Light and Good are different. Light has a fixed minimum value below which it cannot go while the value of goodness can go below any point and extend infinitely in both directions. The idea that evilness can extend infinitely practically means you can come up with more and more evil intentions. There is no single most evil deed. Similarly for goodness.

Lastly, immaterial of the validity of the arguments presented by the student, the final claim that "The link between man & god is FAITH" rests flimsily on the concession of the Professor "I guess you'll have to take them on faith, son."
First of all, what kinda Professor resigns so easily from his principles giving in to a simplistic, fallacious argument made by a kid? Clearly the conversation is forged to favor the theistic opinion. If the Professor had continued his case like I mentioned in my 1st point, the student could never have made his conclusion about Faith.

Therefore, Checkmate you piece of bogus conversation!

---

Finally, my view on faith, god and religion:

Imagine the prehistoric time when the concepts of religion, god, etc are yet to be thought of. People wonder why they exist. They keep thinking about existence, purpose of life, what everything around them means. They keep enduring pain at the hands of natural calamities and predators. More importantly, they have to feed themselves regularly else their body gives them pain.
Life seems meaningless just like the life of a mosquito seems meaningless to us presently. They get frustrated, confused, chaotic because they cannot come up with an answer. To appease the frustration, some clever guy comes up with an explanation which is undeniable although without proof. The explanation is -
"A supreme power called God created this world. Since he is the Creator, he controls everything in this world. Since he created us, we must thank him and worship him. Since he is the Creator, we must always trust him. Have Faith in him. He will always do good. God has given us life, so he wants us to live it. Have Faith in him."
This gave the people a purpose to live, which, although fake, was undeniable (see eg. of white raven above).
As years and centuries went by, the story could have branched out into various versions. Moreover, artful people could have added their own ideas to it which would benefit them. Hence the rise of religions.

This is what I think could have happened. Instead of giving in to this fallacy, I prefer to accept the reality that life is but with an unknown purpose or even meaningless. I prefer to think of our purpose of existence every moment and come up with plausible Purposes. And if ever I'll be tired and frustrated, I would resort to accepting the least objectionable Purpose from the pool of purposes I would have thought of till then. As of now, my least objectionable purpose is:

"Our purpose of existence is, since we don't know what it is, to find out what it is."

This purpose is definitely not attainable overnight, not even in a few more millennia maybe, but by living our regular life and by engendering a smarter generation every time (owing to genetics) we can and would definitely contribute toward this ultimate purpose. Hence we must live on.

Its also important to remember that, a single definition of God is not accepted universally. Some consider God as preached by their religions, to be a single entity like Jesus; some consider God to be just a mysterious force; some consider Gods to be the manipulators of natural forces like in Norse, Greek mythology, while some consider God to be the answer to everything.

A quote by someone (I don't remember who) is a nice aphorism -
"For Religion, God is in the beginning. For Science, God is in the end".

---

Also see this article on the same conversation: https://croor.wordpress.com/tag/existence-of-god/

---

Share