BELIEF VERSUS SCIENTIFIC WAYS OF THINKING

No society tolerates radical or fundamental change and, Peace has never been an easy vocation. We know that Christ had to carry the cross and Gandhi received bullets for his commitment. There were also philosophers who attempted to bring about radical sociopolitical change by revolutionary means. This is a paradox of change that those who desire social change are condemned to death. The conflict between an established order and change is so overbearing that tolerance becomes difficult, and reaction leads to social disruption and violence.

The paradox of social change is like a doctor, who wants to treat a highly distraught patient who refuses to co-operate. An intellectual crusader examines the society critically and offers a critique. But as he tries to reform the society, disruption and violence follows. Both sides remain non-compromising. Here the question is not of the means you adopt : reform or revolution. But the major point is that though the social change is necessary and desirable, it (change) is opposed by those who have developed vested interest in continuing the old, inefficient and outdated social-order. The very fact that the critic suggests a new form of social order that rejected the old one, S / he invites displeasure, disaffection and anger, most often leading to violent reaction. This was the fate visited upon Dayanand, Lincoln, Gandhi, Kennedy, Martin Luther King; and once a war hero of Israel, Itzhak Rabin.

The dynamics of change is rooted in this paradox. Even if you want to help the society and it is in the interest of those who are opposed to you, and even when you speak words of wisdom, and truth, you are condemned as undesirable. The question to ask is: How strongly you feel and how deeply you are disturbed by the existing social order? If, you take a radical position against the traditional values, you are bound to create disharmony among the conflicting interests that would surely lead to social unrest. It is, however, interesting to note that whereas “technological revolutions” are received with enthusiasm, any new social idea or political change, invite strong reactions. Revolutionary changes take place due to application of scientific ideas and application of technology. Mostly that are welcome. But it is in the nature of things that the equilibrium must be disturbed in order to create something new. So long as the status quo is maintained, scientific social progress is not possible. Much more serious is the case when the required reform is a fundamentally radical in nature.

In contrast, theological or religious approach is subjective in which truth is claimed to be already known to us. The facts or information is put together in such a manner that leads to support already held belief systems, which were given to us as the final truth by some authority. At best you can refer to the words of authority which can be a holy book or the head – priest, or a saint or a guru or mullah. In this fundamental or theological approach, unquestioned faith in the ‘spiritual’ authority is regarded as final and paramount.
In the theological approach, therefore, there is little scope for questioning or dissent. In effect, any doubt or investigation which may contradict our belief factor, is summarily rejected and wished to be destroyed. Such a belief culture is self-perpetuating as it is based on continuation of unexamined traditional paradigm. For a futuristic perspective of our social advancement therefore, it is necessary to reject theological approach of blind faith.