by Dr. Parmjit Singh
Now that God is dead…
That was Nietzsche speaking at the height of his toxic dislike of Jesus. One wonders why he was so dead against this person, the one who never preached anything to spark such dislike. Come to think of it why was Nietzsche so irked with him?
This has to be understood in the context of human history and its behavior. Whether it was Buddha or Jesus, they all faced social ire from incumbent powers. They were ridiculed, ostracized and even in some instances dismembered or burnt on stake. Mansoor was mercilessly dismembered and then burnt for saying “I am God”.
History is replete with examples where godly people were held in contempt or murdered while the ungodly and greedy were eulogized or even glorified. Tombs were erected in their memory and they live in our history books. Alexander the so-called Great who massacred millions of innocents trying to quench his greed for power is proudly mentioned and babbled about while the proponent or practitioners of loving kindness and humane approach to life are seen with an evil eye. Unfortunately, this is not limited to a bygone era. Such parochialism and unjustified cynicism is alive and kicking in the modern so-called scientifically-oriented world. It seems that the so-called intellectuals fall short of exercising intelligence while perceiving or judging others who do not share their thread of thinking and doing.
To quote a modern example, not an extreme one, Nature magazine recently carried the news of neuroscientists petitioning that the speech of Dalai Lama be cancelled in one of the scientific conferences. Why is it that scientists who pride themselves for carrying the tradition of rational thinking would act so irrationally? What damage did Dalai Lama do to neuroscience? What are scientists really afraid of? Is his one talk capable of shaking the foundation of neuroscience? If so, then we should be aware that it is not founded on solid principles. Otherwise, they have nothing to fear.
Before we go further, a bit about philosophy. We know that it is a mental exercise and rationalism at its height. But there is the hitch. Logical thinking is fine, but when it is based only on assumptions, that is when it becomes problematic. Assumptions are assumptions and even if they can be replicated through scientifically-valid double-blind experiments, they still remain in the realm of speculation. Perhaps that is why so many so-called ground-breaking discoveries keep getting overturned as we progress.
Odd as it may sound, that is how science works. That is also one reason why our understanding about things keeps on changing. It all depends upon our rational thinking in the context of the current body of knowledge. If we recall, scientists at one time scoffed at the idea that brain cells could even regenerate!
It also should be kept in mind that there is nothing wrong with rational thinking, provided it recognizes its limitations. In fact it is a very powerful tool and helps us to analyze facts and figures of a given phenomenon. But this manner of thinking is not foolproof. In the last few centuries, emboldened by this method’s success and workability, scientists and philosophers have taken the air of know-all arrogance. They are veering toward dangerous assumptions that if something cannot be ‘thought out’ or rationalized it should be relegated to the corridors of heresy. However, here they go too far without realizing that even their own thinking process and method of enquiry is based on ‘very little’ knowledge. For example, neuroscientists know only around less than 5 percent about how the brain functions and the whole enterprise of neurosciences; its prized theories and therapeutic possibilities are based on very little knowledge. Is it not simply delusional to disregard all other possibilities on the basis of this little knowledge?
If we go down the history lane, we will notice that nothing much has changed since the time of Nietzsche. We have not become more intelligent and our capacity for tolerance has not increased in the real sense of the term. Nietzsche’s dislike was fostered by mental thinking on the basis of ‘what he knew’ at that time; he might have thought about all the things Jesus might be saying and could not make sense of it—or did not want to make sense because he was so blinded by biases and prejudices (an antithesis of rational thinking). He might be operating out of certain scholastic assumptions or logical rules and those rules could not accommodate the wholistic thinking of Jesus. Also, how can mind comprehend something which lies beyond its own capacity?
More so, Nietzsche was not unique in his despise for Jesus. Throughout history humans have repeated this folly in one form or the other. Think of modern times and you will find plenty of examples where the so-called high-heeled scientists have pilloried others whose meritorious ideas and opinions did not match their own. Another thing to be understood here is that philosophers and scientists employ almost similar mental strategies to manufacture hypotheses and derive conclusions. The only major difference is that empirical scientists go one step further in testing their assumptions by designing experiments. Science is an operationalized philosophy but still dependent upon logical premising and given to the same flaws (though in lesser degree) as philosophy.
When we anthropomorphize godliness, we think about it in the terms of other objects, like you or me and stones. Thus it becomes the victim of our cerebral parochialism. That might have also happened with Nietzsche.
Certainly, reasoning did not deliver Nietzsche the truth. As history unequivocally shows, physical living and dying exist only in realm of thinking. Otherwise, existence appears to be a seamless interplay of infinite possibilities similar to subatomic particles flitting in and out of existence in quantum field every moment.
