Total viewing time (~12 mins)

Part 1:

Part 2:

Here’s the link to the original post [Link]

In this video from RichardDawkins Foundation, famous atheist and editor of Skeptic magazine Dr. Michael Shermer gives us a list of 10 questions that he wants us to ask ourselves before  lending credence to any claim. Even though we may not need to ask all 10 questions in order to determine whether a claim is false or not, it is a great starting point to investigate  lot of unscientific claims. I am sure if you ask these questions about the things you are told you will find that many of them don’t stand up to critical enquiry. Try it out on the next pseudo-scientific claim you hear of.

From RichardDawkins.net

Here are the list of 10 questions we may need to ask ourselves before believing a source  [Link]

1. How reliable is the source of the claim?

2. Does this source often make similar claims?

3. Have the claims been verified by another source?

4. How does the claim fit with what we know about how the world works?

5. Has anyone gone out of the way to disprove the claim, or has only supportive evidence been sought?

6. Does the preponderance of evidence point to the claimant’s conclusion or to a different one?

7. Is the claimant employing the accepted rules of reason and tools of research, or have these been abandoned in favor of others that lead to the desired conclusion?

8. Is the claimant providing an explanation for the observed phenomena or merely denying the existing explanation?

9. If the claimant proffers a new explanation, does it account for as many phenomena as the old explanation did?

10. Do the claimant’s personal beliefs and biases drive the conclusions, or vice versa?

I have learnt from experience that momentum and habit is a very important aspect  of blogging (or anything for that matter). Once the momentum slackens, it takes much more effort to revive a blog. In fact, that’s probably one of the reasons why so many blogs disappear into oblivion after a promising start (I guess, in addition to something that every blogger goes through – writer’s block).

So, with that in mind, I have decided to keep posting bits and pieces of interesting news, videos, links etc that I have come across to keep up the momentum and save the longer posts for times when I am more available to think and write about them.

Btw, I would also like to apologize to the readers of this blog for not being regular in replying to your comments or not managing to read some of your blogs. I hope to find more time soon to go through them.

Well, here are a few hilarious videos I came across from the famous Mr. Deity series, satirizing the God of the Bible. In these series of videos (there’s about 22 of them as of this writing and you can find them at  mrdeity.com or on youtube) God is seen discussing his plans with his assistant and Jesus about creation, evil, sin, the fate of humanity and various other things on earth. The videos are hilarious. Check them out.

Season 1. Episode 1. (God creates evil)

Season 1. Episode 2 (God talks to Jesus. Jesus thinks he’s being punk’d by God)

Season 1. Episode 5 (God’s on-again/off-again girlfriend Lucifer/Satan calls God)

Extra: God gives Superbowl press conference with Jesus

Btw, I wish there were similar satire available on hindu and muslim god/prophets.

 The Iranian Government has been trying really hard to stop news or images coming out of Iran but thanks to twitter, flickr, youtube and other websites we have been able to see the real magnitude of the uprising. It’s thrilling to witness how technology has changed the rules of the game and empowered so many people fighting for their rights in Iran. I didn’t have the time to go through many of the photos (there are thousands) but some of the photos are a testimony to the police/government brutality and some are plain gruesome. If you find a photo, link or a video worth sharing please leave a link to it in the comments sections.

Courtesy Washington Times

Here is the link to the flickr account [Link]

Some twitter feeds you may want to check for frequent updates about the protests 

http://twitter.com/mousavi1388

http://twitter.com/StopAhmadi

http://twitter.com/persiankiwi

Recently, I had a chance to discuss this topic with a few friends of mine. Even though we disagreed, I think it was a fruitful discussion. So, in this post I will try to answer some of the questions which were brought up during the discussion and hopefully will also be able to clarify some commonly held misconceptions about the scientific method.

The debate about the compatibility of science and astrology has been going on for quite some time now. And, going by how many astrologers swear by it or the number of times we hear it repeated (ad nauseum if I may add) by our spiritual quacks in the mainstream media or by the ”I-am-an-engineer-so-I-understand-science” crowd at parties and gatherings everywhere, you may think there must be some truth to it. But is there really? Do people making such claims even know what science constitutes? The statement “astrology is a science” seems to resonate more with Joseph Goebbels (the Minister of Propaganda in Nazi Germany)  famous words “A lie repeated a thousand times becomes a truth.”

Courtesy: about.com

So let us dive into the labyrinthine clutter of lies and false excuses and see if we can salvage a part of our lost self-esteem which we so selflessly sacrificed to those brain dead astrologers the moment we looked at our natal charts or even save a few billion neurons to keep us from moving down the IQ ladder to a range reserved for people who can only be referred to as ”DUH”.

Shall we?

Astrologers claim that the foundation of astrology rests on the hypothesis that the relative positions of celestial bodies in our universe (or at least our solar system), influence events (personal, as well as social, political, economic, global etc)  here on earth. And if only…yes, yes…if only we can juuuuuusssssst find that right insight into those interactions, we can predict future events or provide information about anything on earth almost perfectly (yes they never forget to add that last “almost”).

Well, before we move on, let me concede that I do not have a problem with that hypothesis. But then again, I do not have a problem with someone claiming that milk is white in color because of the gravitational force polar bears exert on milk . Neither, do I have a problem with the claim that our noses are so shaped because of the influence earth’s rotation have on them. Both of these are valid hypotheses and even though your respect for such a person may plummet instantly to the bottomless depths of the icy craters on Neptune, we don’t have to reject them outright as baseless.

The problem with such hypotheses however arises when we try to apply the scientific method to all these hypotheses including that of astrology. Any hypothesis can only be validated by science as long as it is testable (not in theory but in practice, even indirectly). And, in this regard I agree with one the most famous philosophers of the 20th century Karl Popper who asserted that “a hypothesis or theory should be considered scientific if and only if it is falsifiable*“. Any hypothesis that is not testable and falsifiable falls in the domain of philosophy and NOT science. For example, in the area of theoretical physics string theory is one such ”theory” that is not yet testable or does not make predictions which can be tested or falsified. Hence many physicists still consider it a mere philosophical pursuit than a scientific theory.

Now, given that testability and hence falsifiability are the key factors for anything to be considered scientifically valid, can we test the validity of astrology? Based on what astrologers claim, I think the answer is probably – Yes. However, we have to remember that testability is only half the story. Successful scientific theories or hypotheses depend on proof and evidence. Science can only accept a hypothesis as long as the experimental evidence or observation supports the hypothesis, eliminating every other possibility. Wouldn’t you agree then that claims that are not supported by evidence should be discarded promptly?

So, did anyone have a chance to test the claims of astrologers using a double blind** experiment ? What were the results from such a test? Could astrologers predict any better than what you or I could have predicted by tossing a coin ?

We will come to the evidence against astrology later but for now lets us look closely again at the basis on which the entire foundation of astrology stands.

The Foundation

Our primitive, bronze-age ancestors, in their quest to grapple with the uncertainties of nature and to deal with the randomness of human life, believed that the position of the planets and stars must have an effect on human behavior and other events here on earth. They were more inclined to believe that somehow human fate was inseparably connected to the movement of planets in our solar system. And, like any other philosophical idea it started out as a thoughtful guess. It was this apparently random, unverified, unfounded bronze-age claim by a group of primitive men that ultimately formed the foundation of the field of astrology (here I must point out that when astrology was born, our  ancestors did not have much of an idea about gravity nor did they have knowledge about all the planets in our solar system).

But, with human progress came knowledge. It brought us out of the dark ages into the age of enlightenment. Superstitions vanished under the intense scrutiny of science. However the field of astrology became emboldened with the new scientific discoveries in the fields of astronomy and Newtonian physics. Astrologers in their dogmatic, stubborn insistence maintained that it was still a valid area of “scientific” study. They bolstered up their claim by  borrowing scientific terms and scientific knowledge in order to fit their predictive models and give it a semblance of scientific research. However the flaw with their assumption was more basic. This flaw was in the baseless assumption that human and global events are influenced by the position of celestial entities. To this, I cannot help but wonder about my polar bear and milk analogy - so how does the position of a planet at my time of birth have anything to do with my future? What is the scientific basis for such a claim?

Many astrologers would jump at this opportunity to vindicate themselves. They wouldn’t hesitate to claim (of course with an air of a person who knows what he/she is talking about ) that planetary bodies exert gravitational and electromagnetic force (EM force) on everything on earth. And it is the  sum of these forces at the time of our birth that impel our fates in different directions (quite like cue balls in a game of pool being hit by the cue stick).

Even if this hocus pocus about gravitational and EM force is true (I am not saying they are), the claim is abysmally inane. Why? Because of the enormous gaping holes such a hypothesis tries to cover up.

Courtesy: myastrologybook.com

1. Astrologers claim that given an accurate time and place of birth, they can draw up an astrological chart based on the planetary influences at that moment and that location, to predict with a high degree of certainty a person’s future. But, what is that EXACT time they are looking for. Is it the moment of conception ~9 months in the past? Is it precisely the moment the baby’s head peeks out of the womb? Is it the moment the baby is fully outside the mother’s body? What is it and most importantly why that moment? Moreover, assuming that some superhuman does indeed get the precise times of all the above events (to the exact minute, since astrologers claim that even a minor difference in times of birth can change a person’s horoscope e.g twins born a few minutes apart) why should that time be considered to be the time of birth for astrological calculations.

Since we know from our knowledge of physics, that all these forces are constantly acting on the baby and that the magnitude of the force wouldn’t change much by the fact whether the baby is inside the mother’s womb or outside, what time would the astrologers need to predict the future and why? Isn’t then, the time of birth used by astrologers a totally arbitrary starting point of future events in a person’s life. How then can a random variable like a person’s time of birth be used to make accurate astrological calculations?

2. We know that over large distances gravitational force is several orders of magnitude stronger than any other force, so let us consider only gravitational force for the time being. Anyone with a basic knowledge of physics knows that Newton’s Law of Universal Gravitation gives us a measure of the force with which one body attracts another body (assuming them to be point objects) in this universe.

If we use that simple formula to compare the gravitational force of say, Saturn, on a person and the force due to his friend when they are shaking hands (ignoring all other forces). The gravitational force of the friend on that person is almost 2 times more than that of Saturn (Don’t believe me? Try it out. It’s fun. Mass and distance of Saturn** from the earth can easily be found on the internet and I used two people weighing 70-80 kgs standing 0.5 meters apart to arrive at my answer). In fact, the gravitational force of a truck or a mountain or a huge building on you (like a hospital you were born in) is several times greater than that of any planet on you. So why shouldn’t these bodies have any effect on our fates or our personality? Why doesn’t astrology account for those forces?

We have to remember that the statement “position/relative position of a celestial body” is an empty statement. The word “position” itself is inconsequential unless it does something to us. However if “position” translates to ”gravity”, then that claim is absolutely incorrect as I have shown above.

The Evidence

I have a cousin whom I consider to be a very smart person. He has attended some of the best universities in India and yet being an amateur astrologer he insists that astrology works. I am not sure if he has ever thought about the scientific basis of astrology but I remember, once when I asked him about astrology, he mentioned that even though we do not know the scientific basis for astrology but astrology does have empirical  validity (meaning that it is validated by experiments). Now that the arguments for the scientific validity of astrology seems to be hanging so tenuously let us try to look at the evidence from some studies that were conducted and try to ascertain astrology’s chest-thumping claims.

In December, 1985, Nature magazine (one of the most reputed, peer-reviewed scientific journals in the world) published the results of a double-blind*** study on Astrology conducted by Shawn Carlson at the University of California, Berkeley. The study was interesting because of the fact that the tests were devised in consultation with the National Council of Geocosmic Research (an organization that promotes astrology education and research) and the participating astrologers were all recommended by the NCGR itself (in short, it was basically a test for astrologers by astrologers). The test was conducted only after the methodology was approved by the NCGR. NCGR also predicted what would constitute a successful test.

The tests had two parts**** .

In the first part 83 test subjects were given 3 astrological charts (one of their own and 2 random ones) based on their natal data, containing interpretations about their 1) Personality/Temperament; 2) Relationships; 3) Education; 4) Career/goals; 5) Current situation. Each subject was asked to choose the astrological chart from the three that most correctly described them. NCGR predicted that if astrology were true then the subjects would choose their own chart 50% of the time. However when the results were declared only 28 out of 83 subjects chose their natal chart correctly. This is exactly what you would expect to get by random chance.

In the second part of the test, California Personality Index (CPI) surveys and natal data (date, time and place of birth) were provided for 116 subjects. The natal data and the results of three personality surveys (one of the person and 2 random ones) were given to astrologers who were then asked to interpret the natal data and determine which one out of the 3 CPI results belonged to the same subject as the natal data. NCGR predicted that astrologers would be able to predict correctly 50% of the time. However, after the test was completed, the astrologers were successful in matching only 40 of the 116 cases. This again was the exact success rate you would expect by chance. That means if you or I had been blindfolded and asked to throw darts at one of the three survey results, we would have been able to obtain very similar results (assuming of course we hit one of them every time ).

Carlson, had this to say about this test [Link]

“We are now in a position to argue a surprisingly strong case against natal astrology as practiced by reputable astrologers. Great pains were taken to insure that the experiment was unbiased and to make sure that astrology was given every reasonable chance to succeed. It failed. Despite the fact that we worked with some of the best astrologers in the country, recommended by the advising astrologers for their expertise in astrology and in their ability to use the CPI, despite the fact that every reasonable suggestion made by advising astrologers was worked into the experiment, despite the fact that the astrologers approved the design and predicted 50% as the “minimum” effect they would expect to see, astrology failed to perform at a level better than chance.

“I have not yet received a serious scientific challenge to the paper. The newsletter of the American Federation of Astrologers Network published a response in January (1986). I was very disappointed to see that it largely consists of personal attacks. Its few substantive criticisms are attributable to ignorance of the experiment, of the CPI, and of basic scientific methodology.”

So as we can see, astrologers failed miserably in the test that was devised by them and then like sore losers blamed the “methodology” of the tests. In fact, even today astrologers come up with inane excuses to discredit that test, sometimes even resorting to wild conspiracy theories and “secret results”. Ludicrous isn’t it?

In fact the above blog claims 36 more tests that astrology has failed in the last 20-30 years (I did not verify them but you can take a look).

Here is another test astrologers failed miserably in spite of the fact that they themselves were involved in devising the test [Link]. Results of another test that was conducted by some skeptics in India, also confirmed that astrologers could not predict better than what anyone could predict with a coin toss [pdf Link]

As we can see from the overwhelming number of tests and evidence that in every instance astrology was given a fair chance to vindicate itself, and yet, in every instance astrology failed miserably. Chance after chance was given to them and yet they failed to deliver. I have no doubt that astrologers would come up with every creative excuse in the book to find faults with the tests or come up with reasons for their failure, but the fact that they couldn’t prove their claims (except anecdotal – “I have predicted with 80% accuracy the natal charts given to me..blah blah blah) in the strictest of scientific experiments prove that astrology is a sham – at best an unscientific area of study encouraged by people who are too brainwashed to challenge it or at worst a con-job practiced by shady professionals to cheat gullible people of their money.

The reason astrology seems to work is because of what psychologists claim to be the Forer effect or the Barnum effect. It also seems to work because when we look at the predictions we only look at the hits and ignore the misses. I posted an entertaining video on my blog sometime back showing how people are fooled to believe in their horoscopes.  Check it out.[Link]

I am sometimes amazed to meet fairly intelligent people who claim that they do not believe in astrology so much but just read the astrology columns or go to a palmist or tarot card reader “just for fun”. Whenever I hear that, I cannot help but smile. Would that person go to an alchemist to try and turn his/her metal belongings to gold “just for fun” ? Would that person go to an exorcist to try and drive the demons from his/her body whenever he/she has fever, just for some pure mindless entertainment? I doubt it. When a person says ” I don’t necessarily believe in it but I just like it because it’s fun” it often means ” I don’t want to admit in public that I believe in astrology but somehow I am too brainwashed to challenge it publicly”

There’s another widespread belief about astrology which if left unchallenged would make this post incomplete.

I have heard many people who claim that correct prediction in astrology depends on so many variables that it is impossible to predict anything with absolute certainty. Now even though I don’t know why so many factors would be necessary since astrologers claim to be doing fine without them. I think the people who fall for the “astrology has so many variables” trap are people who have bought into the false propaganda by astrologers (just like the false claim  “astrology is scientific”) .

It is deliberately used by astrologers to give astrology the semblance of an actual field of study and to exonerate astrology of the responsibility of trying to make accurate predictions.  The number of variables is just a fudge factor. A desperate attempt to prove one’s claims . Science again does not deal with problems which have billions of variables, since such a proposition would be untestable and hence unfalsifiable. For example, if you are told that outcome of something depends on the number of hair on your head or the number of grains of sand you can scoop with your hand, then it would be mere quackery because such a cause and effect relationship would be almost an impossibility to test . Astrology tries similar devious tricks to absolve itself when predictions do not match with reality (which let me remind the reader again is no better than chance).

Moreover, why would any sane intelligent person believe in that claim? And even if it is true, why would we even bother to try and predict our future, knowing fully well that it can change anytime in the next second depending on any variable? What value would such a prediction have ? If something can change in the future why bother to predict it anyway. Isn’t that moronic?

Well, I have come to the end of this post. In this post, I have tried to refute the claims of astrology and tried to expose it to people who may not have thought about it or investigated it enough. Unfortunately, I don’t think this post will do anything to stop people from donating their hard-earned money to astrologers or stop them from believing in astrology “just for fun”. That is because we human are so conditioned to believe in things that conform to our world view that even overwhelming evidence to the contrary is often ineffective in changing our minds. Belief in the astrology is guided by our desire to control the random events in our lives. It is probably also guided by our need to believe that life is not random. The belief that there is something beyond our understanding that guides our lives or that our lives are predestined, no matter how contrary that claim is to reality. Isn’t that one of the reasons people stick to religion even when there is hardly any proof of a supernatural entity? Isn’t religion and astrology a crutch on which our feeble, weak minds depend to give it some meaning. Otherwise, why would people believe something if there is no benefit to believing it in the first place?

So yes, given that understanding of human psyche, I am doubtful of the effectiveness of my post.Although, as you can see that definitely didn’t prevent me from trying. If however this post made you think critically about astrology it would be nice to hear from you.

————————————————————–

* Falsifiability means that a hypothesis should be able to proven false with evidence. For example: A statement like “The universe is 10 million years old” can be called a scientific hypothesis since is a testable and hence falsifiable. We only need to find something older than 10 million years to disprove the hypothesis.  However, the claim that “there are other universes like our own ” may be a philosophical claim but is an unscientific statement since there is no way to test it and hence prove it false. We have to remember that just because something is testable *in theory* does not mean it should be considered scientific.

** How do scientists calculate the mass of a planet?

***double-blind experiments are one of the strictest ways of conducting an experiment since it tries to remove subjective bias of the experimenter or of the subjects. This is achieved by not divulging to the experimenter, whether a subject belongs to an experimental group or the control group. Any claim that can hold up to the scrutiny of a double blind study/experiment surely can claim to have some veracity. Unfortunately not a single double blind study to date has ever vindicated astrology.

****If you would like to read about the details of the test from an astrologer who tried to refute the experiment (albeit unsuccessfully), you can go here[link]

Astrologers often claim that they can accurately predict the future of anything (not just personal fortunes but societal, geographic, financial etc) based on the position of the planets in our solar system. In fact, every election cycle, we see these charlatans on TV and newspapers, confidently predicting the election results (which often turn out to be incorrect). The Indian Rationalist Associations have been challenging astrologers to prove their supernatural claims and predict the election results for quite some time now. But, unfortunately every time a challenge like this had been thrown at astrologers, the planets, it seems had colluded against the astrologers to bring about their dismal failure ( often their performance is worse than what any of us could do with a simple coin toss).

This article summarizing the results of the most recent challenge was originally published on Nirmukta.com by Prof. Narendra Nayak who is the President of the Federation of Indian Rationalist Associations. The full article is posted here with kind permission of Prof. Nayak and Nirmukta.

Full Article Follows

——————————————————————–

Astrology Flops Again: Follow up to the Astrology Challenge

Written by Narendra Nayak, Posted on 19 May 2009

Via BBC News (check out the videos at this link)

The beautifully preserved remains of a 47-million-year-old, lemur-like creature have been unveiled in the US.

The preservation is so good, it is possible to see the outline of its fur and even traces of its last meal.

The fossil, nicknamed Ida, is claimed to be a “missing link” between today’s higher primates – monkeys, apes and humans – and more distant relatives.

But some independent experts, awaiting an opportunity to see the new fossil, are sceptical of the claim. 

Ida was discovered in the 1980s in a fossil treasure-trove called Messel Pit, near Darmstadt in Germany. For much of the intervening period, it has been in a private collection.

The investigation of the fossil’s significance was led by Jorn Hurum of the Natural History Museum in Oslo, Norway.

He said the fossil creature was “the closest thing we can get to a direct ancestor” and described the discovery as “a dream come true”.

The female animal lived during an epoch in Earth history known as the Eocene, which was crucial for the development of early primates – and at first glance, Ida resembles a lemur.

For a spicier version of the story try this link

While watching this video, we have to remember that all parts of the video does not apply to all cults as each cult comes with it’s own innovative idea on how to brainwash it’s followers. But, the video is right on the money when it comes to exposing their goal and their modus operandi.

If you or someone you know were ever part of a cult and would like to share your/their experiences, I would be very interested in hearing from you.

Viewing time – 12:35 mins

Btw, does any of you think that India needs a law or constitutional amendment to prevent leaders like Lalu to contest elections from multiple constituencies ? If he had won from both constituencies wouldn’t he have to relinquish his seat in one? Wouldn’t it require wasting more resources to elect someone again from that constituency? I wish he had been defeated in both constituencies, but that’s a wish I would have to postpone for some other time

Will be back soon to answer the comments.

Since, we were in different parts of the country then and were also busy with our own lives, we didn’t talk very often. Even when we did,  we hardly discussed religion because I realized after a while that it was a waste of time.  She had erected such a stubborn wall in her mind, between the worlds of logic and blind faith, that any attempt at showing her reason was dismally futile. While she continued to work on her PhD in Bioengineering, she seemed to have jumped headlong into the dark, bottomless abyss of supernatural nonsense. I watched in disappointment, as she got more and more entangled in the affairs of a Hindu religious organization (I will call it ‘CultX‘).

Not having met her for a long time, finally a few weeks ago, we decided to meet her in person. I was happy to see her after more than a year and we talked for quite a few hours. During the meeting, she informed us that she had recently decided to take her vows as a nun and join CultX . I knew she had always wanted to be one and have been living as a virtual nun for quite a few years now. Getting inducted into the fold of a convent was merely a formality for her. Since, I had known about her inclination for a long time, the news didn’t come to me as a surprise. She is a great person and she has always been a good friend. A small part of me was happy that she could finally follow her passion, but I also felt that she could have achieved so much more without joining a convent.

I thought of congratulating her but I didn’t. It wasn’t something I felt I should congratulate her for. I would have felt like a hypocrite if I did. To me, it seemed a total waste of a perfectly worthy life. A life which could have been used to achieve so many other things. The same life which could have been used to serve so many people would probably now end up being wasted in proselytizing dogmatic, bronze-age, religious nonsense or spent teaching and propagating unscientific, superstitious garbage. Yes, she definitely had the right to do whatever she wanted with her life, but for me to support it would have definitely been disingenuous.

The next day, when I called up my mom to chat with her I informed her about BD (my mom knew her from my undergrad days) .This is how the conversation went

Me:Ma, you remember BD ?

Mom: Yes, of course  I remember.  She came to our house with a bunch of your other friends. Isn’t she living in the same city as you? I think you told me about her some time back.

Me: Yes, she is here. Last weekend I called her up as I hadn’t met her for more than a year. She asked us to come over for lunch. So we paid her a visit last Sunday. When I asked her about her future plans she informed us that she had decided to join the convent.

Mom: Finally, huh? Didn’t she always want to join the convent? Good for her. Not everyone can sacrifice his/her life to God.

Me: How is it a sacrifice ma? And what’s the big deal about sacrificing  one’s life to an unseen, unknown, imagined entity?Well OK. Maybe you *can* call it sacrifice, if you call suicide bombing for Allah a sacrifice. But, such ‘sacrifice’ in my dictionary is an act of appalling stupidity. If she joined it to serve humanity, she could have done it outside’s the convent’s fold. There are thousands of tireless social workers who have really “sacrificed” their life to social causes without joining a monastery or convent, but we don’t always put them on a pedestal or look at them with such rosy eyes.

Mom: I don’t think she is stupid. Didn’t you mention sometime back that she completed her PhD? I don’t think a stupid person can get a PhD. And, it’s not easy either. Life is tough for these nuns. There’s a lot of sacrifice involved in leading such a life. Only an elevated soul can lead such a life.

Me: (not surprised by my mom’s comment) Ma, I am not saying it is easy. I know how tough it is for them and even though they chose that life, I really empathize with them. In fact, I know the convent is glorified jail – just without the bars. All I am asking is the premise under which it is considered a sacrifice by most people.Why use the word ‘sacrifice’, when they are doing it purely for their *own* salvation? How is their work (not that proseletyzing can be considered social work) any different from the thousands of other social workers who are working tirelessly for the improvement of society without any ulterior motives .

And, why are the people, who choose to join monasteries/nunneries, looked upon as ”elevated souls” ? Why should it be our default opinion? Why not call them “brainwashed”? Why not “certifiably insane”? With a PhD and a decent job, what couldn’t she have done outside the fold of a convent ? Did she really need to join a convent?

Btw, I wonder where her critical-thinking faculties disappeared when it came to critically review the claims of CultX.  She could have easily seen through the utter nonsense of their claims, if only she had used the same standard to critically review their claims as she used for her  own research. But this is how god-believing scientists operate -

“Oh, the earth revolves around the sun?”

“ I will need 100 references from 50 different credible scientific journals to prove it to me. “

“Oh, the Guru is the 29th incarnation of Krishna, eats iron nails for breakfast and can produce watches out of thin air?”

“That must be true. He must be the one. Jai Shri Krishna !! “

What a waste of a PhD degree and tax-payers money.

Mom: Well she could have done so many things, but she didn’t. Instead she chose to join the convent and work for society. That according to me is sacrifice ?

Me:Ok, if you want to call it a sacrifice. Fine. However, there are thousands of people who have given up a lot in their lives to work for the upliftment of the masses, but how many Hindus do you see slavishly falling at their feet and asking for their blessings, just as they do for these monks or nuns? I know a guy with a PhD from UC-Berkeley who left his plush job at IBM to go and work for villages in India. Another guy left his high paying job at Morgan Stanley to do the same? How many people do we see falling at their feet?

Mom:To me, anyone who works for god is worthy of respect. And, I think the convent probably gives her stability and support. It is very difficult to live as a single woman in this world. People need emotional support also. And, when God decides to pull people towards Him there’s nothing much we could do. It’s already been decided.

Me :(laughing) Maaaaaa??? I am sure this is exactly what D thought when she decided to join the convent. Even now, she probably thinks that she is being pulled by the ‘invisible hand of God’ to serve Him. She probably thinks God has some secret yet exalted plan for her. A plan for her ‘moksha’. When, in reality, she will just be leading the life of a serf. As far as I know, she will be working tirelessly to spread the ludicrous claims of an organization while at the same time surrendering her independence to the despotic ‘mothers’ (that’s what they call the senior nuns) of the convent. And these crazy ‘mothers’ will be watching over her and controlling her every move, every word and every action.

And, Ma you are probably right about the emotional support part, but I think, even that didn’t necessitate joining a convent. I understand the need for people to belong to a community or an organization. In fact,  that is why so many people who grow up in non-religious households or to atheist parents become religious later in life. Not because they believe in a God but because they need some emotional comfort and a sense of belonging to a community. But if she really wanted to dedicate her life to society, couldn’t she have joined some other secular organization and done the same thing?

Mom: Probably she could have. But, being a nun is a result of ages and several lifetimes of good karma. Only people who have earned a lot of karma are rewarded by such devotion.

Me: Devotion rewarded with what – more devotion? Doesn’t that mean God is a narcissist? And how do we know that her previous karma is responsible for it? Because some stupid, half-educated swami said so?

Mom:Forget it. You won’t understand it……Btw did I tell you what your nephew did yesterday ?

Me: *sighing* No Ma, what did he do?……

——— @@@———–@@@————–

Click to read a random post from this blog

——— @@@———–@@@————–