Evolution of conscience

The question of evolution of human conscience arises only when we believe in theory of evolution. I do not believe in the theory of evolution. I believe that conscience was given by God rather than being evolved from man’s superior mental abilities.

The debate of right & wrong turns on its head if we believe that conscience is an evolving entity, because if it is indeed an evolving entity then with passage of time it takes different shapes and forms due to social, economic, environmental, political, cultural forces exerting their influence on it.

What this further means is that our sense of right and wrong is constantly changing or rather evolving and what seems to be permissible now may not be permissible tomorrow and may again change back to being permissible with passage of time.

By this logic our laws should also evolve with time to accommodate the changing paradigm of conscience of the society. So today if you are being punished for stealing money it only means that you are out of sync with conscience of the society you live in and actually you have done nothing wrong. I had expressed similar thoughts in earlier blog.

Isn’t what I said in the paragraph above total rubbish? Yes it is.

Social Scientists like to look at so called “developed” civilisation to get a sense of right or wrong, but who decides what a “developed” civilisation is? I was reading an article by a lady couple of days ago who said that babies born with physical or mental shortcomings should be put to death. Her justification was that this was common practice in the Roman Empire.

Who decided that Roman Empire is the benchmark for judging right or wrong? Why can’t an African tribe be the moral benchmark for the world?

Our conscience comes by looking at God and not looking around or within. We will face this dilemma if we look for answers around or within. We need someone unlike us to tell us good and bad. We need a referee to tell us right and wrong. We need a benchmark which will not change. Only with this belief we can be rest assured about the state of our society.

To avoid conflicting human opinion and point of view on matters of morality & conscience, God gave Ten Commandments through divine intervention.

Conscience according to the Bible is not evolving. It is static. It does not change with time.

Evolution : Why I dont believe in it

The theory of evolution as proposed by Charles Darwin is a very tempting idea to believe in if you are looking for answers for creation of universe/earth/life etc, but what are the moral / social / spiritual consequences of believing in it?

My reasoning is that just like a mathematical theorem any scientific proposition should hold good no matter what sphere of life we apply it to.

If I were to believe that species evolved as a result of natural selection then I should also be prepared to accept this as a basis to explain and deal with moral, social, economic, environmental issues around me.

Let me again tell help of mathematics and prove it by reductio-ad-absurdum.

Let us assume that the hypothesis that species were evolved through natural selection and not through a divine process is true.

If this hypothesis is true then:
Environment : The highly evolved (mentally) human race's adverse impact on the environment is not due to lack of moral responsibility towards the environment but due their superior mental abilities. Man's superior mental abilities is enabling him to use the environment to his own advantage. Moreover there is no need to try and stop mankind from abusing the environment because nature will find its own course to survive because it has been doing so for billions of years. So no more raising environmental awareness etc because nature will protect itself rather than we protecting it.

Justice: My sense of justice ( Do not kill, Do not steal) is only because of my highly evolved mind which has given birth to a conscience within me. So this sense of justice we carry is only a moral paradigm created by humans and which is relative to other species. This further means that ideas like Do not Kill are not absolute but relative. Animals kill, and sometime their own species and off springs. So if we decide to kill someone , then we are not doing anything wrong because we maybe only in an alternate moral paradigm as against the generally accepted moral paradigm by humans. So killing someone should not invite the harshest punishment because the killer probably has not evolved enough to understand that murder is wrong.

Economic: Seeking economic well being for the people at the bottom of the socio-economic pyramid is going against the law of nature of survival of fittest. The ones at the top are at the top because of their superior skills and abilities  or superior pedigree which again is resulting from process of natural selection. So the ones at the bottom of the pyramid anyways will be terminated in the evolutionary processes.

Social: The whole idea of racism comes from theory of evolution. Only when we believe in evolution we can explain that certain races (subspecies) evolved better than the other hence their superiority/inferiority. The question of superior or inferior race does not arise if we believe that entire mankind came from a single man, Adam.

The above points must have made amply clear why I don't believe in evolution. If theory of evolution had merit it should have had held good in all sphere of our life.

Theory of evolution basically me make me feel irresponsible towards my society, my environment and my Creator. Everything and anything happening around me is only by chance so nobody is to be blamed for it. There is no need to struggle to make a difference because eventually nature will find a way.
In the words of Jesus an orange tree will bear only oranges not apples. Similarly a unsound theory will not produce sound results. For example, Calculus was developed extensively by Newton before we could fully understand our universe, but even today calculus holds good in explaining the movement of celestial bodies.

Perhaps Darwin was astonished to see the similarities between man and nature but isn't it due to the fact that only One Creator created it. God has his own style just as a painter has his own style or pattern of painting. Darwin would had never done this mistake if instead of concentrating on similarities between man and monkey he would had concentrated on the differences between man & monkey.

LOKPAL Bill

Past couple of decades some civil rights activists have been demanding a Citizen Ombudsmen Office to be created to address corruption, administrative & governance issues in India. This was introduced as the Lokpal Bill couple of decades ago and is still not passed in the Indian Parliament. This Bill will allow creation of a Lokpal which will investigate and penalize (upto a certain degree) government officials and ministers found guilty of corruption charges or improper governance. This Lokpal will cover all officers and staff of Government of India.

Once Lokpal is created, citizens can take their grievances to Lokpal which will initiate an enquiry into the matter and pass a judgment in maximum 2 years. In certain complex cases the Lokpal will ask the Central Bureau of Investigation of India ( CBI) to investigate the matter. Now begins the problem.

CBI is under the direct control of Home Ministry of the Central Government and therefore civil rights activists feel that while investigating charges against the Government there will be conflict of interest for the CBI. This is 100% correct. The civil rights activists have been demanding that CBI be made an independent body with no Government control and the Government refuses to do so. This has become the sticking point for the passage of the Lokpal Bill.

Civil Rights groups say that the Government has malicious intent in not granting CBI Independence. This is quite possible, but let us look at the flip side.

Democracy means rule of people through their elected representatives. The Legislature, the Judicary and the Executive form the three main branches of the Government and Legislature in essence holds the strongest position in the three. In a country like ours where the Legislature and Executive has been doing a pathetic job the temptation is to create an additional institution like Lokpal to act as counter-balance. Isn’t it belittling the importance of Judiciary in a way? Isn’t it like creating a watchdog agency to monitor another watchdog agency which in turn will monitor someone else. Where does it end? Can we be 100% sure that the members of the Lokpal will not collude together to compromise on justice? Aren’t we giving too much power in the hands of unelected representatives of the people? I know this argument does not solve the issue of corruption in the political class, but if the political class is not doing its jobs then shouldn’t we simply vote them out rather than having a new agency in place. And will not honest and integral politicians make sure that bureaucrats fall in line?

Lokpal and an independent CBI are deadly combination detrimental to the democratic setup. How do we know that CBI officials will not get swayed by their own interests? How do we know that CBI bosses are beyond reproach? Aren’t we opening up a fourth power centre apart from the three mentioned above? Will we not have one more corrupt mouth to feed if corruption enters CBI and Lokpal.

So what’s the answer then? I feel a free & fair media and education for the masses are the only two forces which can keep our democracy well lubricated. I am not writing a blanket appreciation for the media but after private media channels have started functioning in India in the past 2 decades or so we have seen significant turmoil in the Government. Media is making a difference be it Tehelka, Gujrat Riots, Jessica Lal, Priyadrashini Matto, CWG, 2G, Adarsh Scam, Karnataka Mining Scam etc. In the past 2 decades politicians and bureaucrats were often found on the back foot because of intense media pressure. Interestingly CWG, 2G and Adarsh scams were unearthed in spite of responsible ministers being in power. Doesn’t that show that something is going right somewhere? May not be 100% effective but it’s working. Yes there is fear that media houses are biased or have political affiliations or vested interests, but if the number of media agencies is sufficiently large then their polarities cancel out each other’s influences and prevents any adverse impact or misinformation. Their presence in a very large number is only helpful to the citizenry.

The second force which I feel is important is education. This is because people should know what deal they are getting. People in the remotest and most backward part of India should know what is due to them and only then they can choose wisely for themselves in the elections. An educated and well informed electorate will force political parties to field good candidates.

Let us not create additional avenues for corruption in our country by empowering CBI and Lokpal. Vote out the politicians if they are not right. The Election Commission has so been doing a fine job in ensuring free & fair elections

Democratic Government or Democratic Values?

For the past couple of decades, as a foreign policy, governments in the West have endeavoured to see democracy as a form of governance prospering around the globe. The fall of Berlin Wall followed by the fall of communist regimes seems to have vindicated their stand.

So the question is, is democratic government the political answer to all the world’s problems?

Democracy can broadly be defined as the rule of people. But in order to rule over themselves do people know what is good or bad for them? What ethics or moral system do they identify themselves with? Does their moral system believe in equal rights? Democratic setup is often considered a Greco-Roman invention, but did the Greeks & Romans considered all their subjects equal? How do we explain the endless brutalities, gladiators, slaves, in these empires? Were there any institutional or governmental reforms for the upliftment of these marginalised subjects of these empires? I don’t know of any. Also, this is quite ironical considering that in modern democracy we consider equality as the foundation stone of a democracy.

I believe Greco-Roman law system gave us institutions that help us run modern democracies but more than these institutions we need democratic values for a democracy to flourish. Without these democratic values these institutions are worthless.

Take the case of India for example. Caste System though pronounced null and void by the law continues to be institutionalised in certain parts of the country. People in these parts of the country simply do not understand the idea of equality. Even worse is the fact that those being abused don’t even know that they as citizens of a democratic India are entitled to certain rights. 

Another example is some of the countries in the Islamic world. In Iraq & Afghanistan, NATO is trying very hard to set-up democratic governments, but do we really expect them to succeed in these cultures where a unilateral view on all aspects of their lives is imposed upon people? Do they believe in the democratic values such as freedom of expression, freedom of religion, equality of sexes and other democratic rights? How will this pack-of-cards strength bearing government succeed and survive if the people itself don’t believe in the values the government is standing on.

So my point is that democratic values and not democratic institutions bring in true freedom. I believe, if overwhelming majority of people in a country believe in democratic values, then any form of government can succeed and survive.

I believe that NATO should focus their energies on instilling democratic values instead of toppling governments which is expensive and unpopular.

So lets not prematurely rejoice when Arab youths are overthrowing dictators. Lets wait and see what do they choose for themselves.