Religion, Science, and Einstein

     It was common in the twentieth century, following the trajectory of the Enlightenment, to think that religion has no place in scientific inquiry. Religion adds no explanatory value to science, and if anything muddies the water. The ghost in the machine!

    Yet the motivation for religion and science, the desire to know answers to the big questions (why we are here?) are the same. Both are inspired by a type of wonder, as noted by Aristotle in his Metaphysics.

     Einstein held firm to a scientific realist account of the world by which there is a reality that is independent of us and has causal laws about which we could come to know. He resisted quantum mechanics as it suggested subjectivity was part of the universe (Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle), the idea that two events could be not causally connected but related (quantum entanglement), and other types of spookiness. In his famous phrase, God made the world a certain way, one that was simple and predictable, everything the quantum view was not.

     His scientific views, then, have a religious tenor. His religious views are more philosophical than the average Christian, what he called “Spinoza’s God,” which is very close to the Hindu view, that is, there is no personal deity, but a pervading or co-extension of the one and many. Scientists’ beliefs often bring with them a strong belief system, which in theory they are willing to discard with appropriate evidence. But as Einstein showed that it's not an easy go of it.

    On the one hand, religious views can be useful, providing a framework for our intellectual pursuits, even us helping make sense of them at their most difficult points, the outer edges. Yet they also bring with them some type of belief preservation where we can be resistant to upend our thinking about the world. Sometimes our religious views, as in the Hindu case, are general enough to absorb various debates: Is the universe accelerating? Is it rotating? What is its shape? Does it contain dark matter and dark energy? A lot of the details have to be worked out by scientists, but the more we get to know the more attractive religion seems, because what we have come to know through reason is just so out of this world.

 

Hinduism and Being Pro-Gay

    Even a cursory look at the news, one could note that those opposed to gay rights are often drawn from religious sects: fundamentalist Christians, Muslims, Sikhs, and others. (Ironically, lefties that show up to support anti-Islamophobic rallies, will be at cross purpose at gay rights events.) Though Hindus tend to keep a low profile in Western countries, it is disappointing that generally in India—the geographic heartland of Hinduism—they have spurned gay rights.

    There is no Ten Commandments in Hinduism, and no specific prohibition against gay behaviour. So on what basis do Hindu elites base their anti-gay sentiments? Probably it is more of a traditional and cultural element mixed up with Hindu theology. Being gay is not normative and does not belie traditional families (man and women etc.). Since Hinduism is generally inclusive—there is no tradition of conversion—as they believe that “all boats lead to the ocean,” it is sad to see them fall in with other religions-minded. 

    Further, as we know that being gay is generally not a choice, but a biological given, it would be absurd to condemn someone for their sexual orientation anymore than if one is left- or right-handed (or ambidextrous). When I was in high school, my friends were active in a variety of movements (animal rights, environmental, labour, feminist, and so on), but gay rights was not one of them; it was only something I learned about later, in university. It is, thus, a matter of education.

    Generally, Hindus believe that God exists in all things, hence both in gays and straights. They have a reverence for all of life, having an “Live and Let Live” philosophy. It is well known that they are largely vegetarian, respecting the life of animals.

    So how should Hindus view gay rights within their philosophical framework? In Hinduism, there are thought to be four different stages (ashramas) of life. According to Hindu scriptures: the student phase (brahmacharya); the householder phase (grihastha), which involves us with the accumulation of wealth (artha) and desire (kama); the hermit phase (vanaprastha); and the wandering-ascetic phase (sannyasa), where someone renounces the world in search of God.

    Gay marriage would fall within the householder phase of Hindu life, where one is accumulating wealth and fulfilling desires. There is no reason that a gay life could not be any less appropriate than a straight one. The problem, from the Hindu point of view, is not being gay or straight but desire more generally, which involves entanglements—and medley of attachments—with the illusory world. The goal of life is to be free from the cycle of birth and death and not be born again.

    Just as one can go astray in striving for money, status, and a plethora of other addictions (drugs, gambling, pornography and so on) and make one lose one’s senses, leading to self, and other, destruction. Instead of being free of maya one becomes further lost in it. Again, the problem is not being gay or straight, but desire. However, since there is a place for desire in the Hindu human life cycle, here one could be gay or straight—and a respectful member of the society (samaj). Many of the Hindu elites of the day are wrong about Hinduism. Hindus should be pro-gay.

The Irrelevance of the Issue of Race and Genetics

     Over the holidays of 2023, I read many of the biographies written by Isaacson, and the one on CRISPR rehearsed the episode of James Watson and his infamous remarks about race. Though known for his discovery, along with Crick, of the double-helix structure of DNA, he will also be known for claiming, several times now, that those from Africa have lower IQ.

     To broach this topic as an academic would be for two reasons:

     1. One wished to present countervailing evidence to Watson’s claim.

     2.  One fancied oneself a renegade that was going to speak to “truths” that                        opposed to the prevailing view (namely, variation among individuals is more              important than that between groups).

    In either case, basic common-sense dictates to write about race and IQ is a virtual Kiss of Death for an academic career. One does not wish to be associated with this unsavoury debate in any shape whatsoever, even as a critic of Watson.

    My purpose is to explore the nature of social science research here. Social science research is prescriptive as much as it is descriptive. Often research, even if not intended, is to usher in a world as it should be. We create new categories (learning disability, IQ, SES, a plethora of mental illnesses and so on) by which to understand ourselves, which in turn change who we are and how we experience the world.

    In a society aiming for inclusion, “discoveries” about difference between groups (any groups) are counterproductive. At face value, I do not doubt there are differences between groups (e.g., some that live at high altitudes have been shown to have better abilities to oxygenate their blood).

    The issue of intelligence has a long and sordid racist history rooted in colonial views about the world. It is possible, but not clearly how relevant, it would be if one discovered that gays were more intelligent than straight people, or on two islands, the blacks had higher IQs than the whites. At an individual level, we all recognize some people have better genetic luck, having better looks, being taller, or having a better memory. It’s a fact of life. All of such talk of genetic diversity, especially at a group level, flies in the face of the ideal most Western democracies are striving for. We are human. We are all basically the same. Made in the image of God. We all deserve respect.

    The ethical imperative—respect—however, has no clear link, to my mind to intelligence. Intelligence, whatever it is, we know what it is not. It is not a measure of wisdom, ethics, or rationality. I do not doubt that Joseph Mangle, the Angel of Death, was intelligent (having a medical degree and PhD in anthropology, he was at least educated). But I don’t think him a good man. Even if we consider what IQ is, there are environmental factors at play, too.

    In an educational and social setting, the entire talk of intelligence and genes is unsavoury. Making the world better through science is something we should all worry about, not just the Nazi version, but the more innocuous variations, too. And as for Watson, it is good to remember (though there is probably debate about this too now), that we all hail from Africa, and before that, bacteria. The philosophical lesson of biology should be, though it is not, that all life has commonalities. From a Hindu point of view, everything is a reincarnation of God. We should respect all life, including animals, and people of different cultures.

    Watson’s comments show he was deaf to the environment he was working in (so in this sense he was stupid), and his views about race could be either wrong, irrelevant, or counterproductive. Part of what counts as knowledge is things we value. “True” is not just true, and even basic understanding of mathematics teaches us that.

    I’ve tried to say something intelligent about Watson’s remarks that are not insane, that is, not purely condemning (he’s a racist; although his view buttresses such views) or dismissive (there could never be a case for differences between groups rooted in genetics). As to the thorny issue of IQ and race, I avoid it because it serves no clear positive purpose, which is the agreed upon consensus in academics and why no one is getting funding to do such work. Of the many things that interest me, this is not one of them.