CATHOLIC CHURCH AND MY RIGHT TO CIVILIZED DRINKING

In Times of India dated February 8, 2007 there was an article titled "Right to drink" by Jaimini Mehta. It deals with total prohibition in Gujarat which, the author argues, infringes on his 'right to consume alcohol in moderation'.

In contrast, the Kerala Catholic hierarchy clubs the moderate and excessive users of alcohol together calling them all by the derogative Malayalam term madyapani (= drunkard) and accuses them of causing a litany of social ills from divorce to depression to suicide. It advocates total prohibition as a panacea for this plethora of diseases. January 28 is celebrated as 'anti-alcohol' day by Kerala Catholic Bishops’ Council (KCBC).

The first heretical reaction that crosses my mind is that henceforth Catholic priests/bishops should stop using wine during mass and instead try water. I wonder why one cannot advocate temperance as a via media between total prohibition and intemperance. Temperance is the moderate use of alcohol as opposed to its abuse. Before getting into the pros of temperance, a brief run through the history of alcohol and its varied uses might strengthen my arguments in favor of temperance as a happy medium between the moral highhandedness of the abolitionist and the excesses of the drunkard.

In the popular movie of the 70s, Beautiful People by Jamie Uys, one scene depicts a number of animals, including elephants and a troop of baboons dancing in drunken stupor a day after consuming large quantities of rotting fruits of the African marula tree. They were obviously enjoying the 'high' from their fermenting juices. It can be safely assumed that early man and woman did enjoy in a similar fashion. Many archeologists do believe that wines made from grapes have existed for the last 10000 years at least and beer even longer. Viticulture, the selective cultivation of grape vines for making wine, is thought to have originated in modern Armenia around 6000-4000 BCE. Ancient Egyptians were drinkers since it is now known that they invented the straw for drinking beer that contained wheat-husks. A 1600 BCE Egyptian text describes 100 different prescriptions calling for the use of alcohol. The Greeks had Bacchus as the god of wine, while Romans worshipped the same god as Dionysus. This worship took the form of an orgy of intoxication. In many ancient creeds, a tipple was the main means by which worshippers achieved ecstasy.

Alcohol formed and still forms an important part of Jewish rituals. Hebrews were most likely introduced to wine during their captivity in Egypt. When Moses led them to Canaan around 1200 BCE they regretted leaving behind the wines of Egypt (Numbers 20:5). Later, following their release from the Babylonian exile, the Hebrews developed Judaism as it is now known. During the next 200 years, wine became a necessary element in their life. It came to be regarded as a blessing from God and a symbol of joy (Psalms 104:15; Zachariah 10:7).

Jesus was a Jew and as a Jew he partook of wine and was falsely accused by his critics of being a drunkard (Luke 7:33). He used wine and approved of its moderate consumption (Mathew 15:11). In fact his first miracle was turning water into wine to make wedding guests happy. Apostle Paul considered wine to be a creation of God and therefore inherently good. He recommended it for medicinal purposes but condemned drunkenness. Late in the second century certain heretical sects rejected alcohol and called for total abstinence. During the forth/fifth centuries the church responded by asserting that wine is an inherently good gift of God to be used and enjoyed.

During the middle ages, monasteries made beer to nourish their monks and to sell to the people. As the consumption of liquids was not considered to break the fast, beer was always permitted. The levels of consumption reached astounding highs: 5 liters/monk/day!! The early modern period saw Luther, Calvin, leaders of the Anglican Church as well as Puritans in agreement with the teachings of the Catholic Church of the time: alcohol was a gift of God and created to be used in moderation for pleasure, enjoyment and health; drunkenness was viewed as a sin.

Alcoholism and intemperate use of alcohol has always been condemned by most social and cultural groups throughout history. Ancient Greek philosophers Xenophon and Plato both praised the moderate use of wine as beneficial to health and happiness, but both were critical of drunkenness.

The distinction between the temperate and intemperate is crucial in analyzing and understanding the evils of alcoholism, its prevention and treatment. My major criticism is directed to the lumping of the two together indiscriminately and accusing the moderate drinkers of crimes committed by those with destructive drinking behavior. This is akin to accusing every Catholic priest, nun and bishop of sexual abuse just because some among them are found to be abusive. In fact this kind of generalized criminalization causes great harm to the moderate social drinker and his family life. Moderate users, who are in the majority, are overshadowed by their more boisterous counterparts, and it is the latter who through their nefarious activities grab a disproportionate amount of attention and news coverage. Some moderate/social drinkers spend a couple of happy hours at a pub having a tote or two; others gather at a common friend's place to share a few beers; still others have a couple of drinks at home. After relaxing in this fashion, they continue with their lives without causing any harm to anyone. Current research suggests that the moderate consumption of alcohol is preferable to abstinence; it appears to reduce the incidence of coronary heart disease, cancer and osteoporosis, among many other diseases and conditions and to increase longevity. (My late father Pralel P.C. Joseph who died at age 93 is a shining example.)

I spent part of December 2006 and most of January 2007 in Kerala, attending a number of functions: four related to my own son's marriage, two in connection with my niece's marriage and one for a cousin's son. Out of these seven occasions, alcohol was served at five of them. Many guests were teetotalers while a sizeable number of them were moderate consumers, happy with a couple of drinks. Then there were the excessive drinkers including the rather young and the very old. There are some things unique about the alcoholic Keralite: the copious amounts greedily gulped down within a short interval of time without solid intakes; the incapacity as a result to hold liquor; and the inability to hold sensible conversation.

I tried to find more about the alcoholic Keralite. I was told that there is a steep rise in their number especially among the younger generation. Kerala is already infamous as the state with the highest reported cases of suicide. Why so many alcoholics? Why so many suicides?

I have my own theory in this regard. I believe there is a paradigm shift from the value system underscored by religious precepts to one which revolves around the twin foci of wealth and power. The mad rush towards material possessions is guided by selfishness; there is no time for love. Now the question is: how did this paradigm shift come about? Why was the religious leadership, both Christian and non-Christian, unable to prevent this unholy shift?

A half century ago when my generation was growing up, our lives revolved around the church and the rituals therein. We were made to memorize the catechism in the question answer format by the good nuns, without really understanding most of it anyway. We were taught about sins which ranged from the very venial (lying to your mother about the cookie you ate without her permission) to the very mortal (thinking about a girl). The consequences of sin, both venial and mortal, were drummed into our young minds - long periods of stay in purgatory if you die not confessing and repenting a venial sin, while eternal damnation in hell awaits you for a similar situation for a mortal sin. You can escape from purgatory to heaven if you have enough friends and relatives to offer sufficient prayers - different prayers have different periods of remission. Hell down below, however, is a completely different kettle of fish (or more appropriately snakes). There is a special type of very hot non-extinguishable fire that burns you eternally without turning you to cinders; different kinds of poisonous creepy- crawly like snakes, centipedes, spiders getting into your anatomy through one opening and coming out through another. Heaven up above, on the contrary, is a place of perennial sweet music, with choirs of angels playing harps, keeping everyone entertained. The holier you are, the closer you are to God's throne. So we tried to be good so we could end up in heaven and join the angelic choirs for all eternity and we avoided being bad because we did not want to end up in Lucifer's clutches. As is very clear, our 'disciplined lifestyle' was the result of fear and terror. It was much later that I realized that the Catholic Church and Stalinist Russia have one thing in common: fear - fear of hell in the case of the former and fear of Gulag for the latter.

This type of value system based on religious speculation and rituals, systematically developed in young minds through indoctrination, cannot withstand the test of time.  As the winds of social and economic change began to sweep the country, it fell by the wayside. Materialism became the new mantra. Many thought happiness could be bought with money and power. However, as any economist would affirm, wants are infinite, means are limited. Disillusion set in. Many who tried to hold on to heaven were suddenly told that it is no longer a physical place of angels and music, but a state of mind. With nothing substantial to hold on to, man feels totally empty within. This feeling of emptiness leads to depression, drugs, drunkenness and related vices. Some find life so empty as to be meaningless and not worth living and prefer to end it. Perhaps it is time to think of a different set of values to base our lives on.

Bertrand Russell in his book 'Why I am not a Christian', talks of such a value system: The good life is one inspired by love and guided by knowledge. Love and knowledge are mutually inclusive: neither love without knowledge, nor knowledge without love can produce a good life. Love, however, is more fundamental, 'since it will lead intelligent people to seek knowledge, in order to find out how to benefit whom they love'. Knowledge is also important since we must know in what our happiness lie.

On an atheist website there is a set of New Ten Commandments. The first two are: 'Do not do to others what you would not want them to do to you' and 'In all things strive to cause no harm'. This is simply what Christ told the Pharisees: 'Love your neighbor as you love yourself' (Mathew 22:39). In today's world if a child can be brought up to love and cherish others, he will not get totally drunk and cause mayhem all around; he will think twice about the shame and sorrow he will bring on his family before he thinks of suicide. He will find happiness in loving and being loved. So what is needed is a paradigm shift from a value system based on ritualistic and literalistic traditions to one underscored by the core teaching of the New Testament: love your neighbor as you love yourself. Then there will be no need for the prohibitory edicts of the KCBC against drunkenness!

Just because people commit suicide by jumping in front of trains, we cannot stop train services. Banning the use of knives cannot be done although some have been used to kill. In fact humans, being curious by nature, would like to know why something is banned. Banning the movie 'Da Vinci Code' by overzealous Church authorities had the opposite effect: it made many more millions at the box office than otherwise! Prohibition has not worked in the past, nor will it work in future. It also brings about other evils as well. When American prohibition of the late 18th and early 19th century was withdrawn in 1933, an elaborate syndicate of organized crime built on the multimillion dollar 'bootlegging' industry survived. Even at home we read of tragedies caused by the illegal brewing of liquor, most often poisonous, in places where prohibition is extant. A very good example of how ineffective are prohibitory orders is to be seen at times of engagement and marriage receptions held in parish halls. There is a strict injunction against serving of alcohol in the parish hall or its premises by the bishop which is vigorously enforced by certain overzealous priests. But the diehard drunkards get around in various ways: setting up mini-bars in car boots; having an open bar arranged in a house nearby; pitching a tent on a vacant plot next to the parish hall etc.  So KCBC needs to look beyond prohibitory orders and channel their efforts in bringing about a change in the Faithfull’s mindset through education, a shift in core value system and above all exemplary lives devoid of the pursuit of power and mammon.

In conclusion, I would like to appeal to Church hierarchy and the anti alcohol lobby not to drown the subtle but crucial differences between drinking and drunkenness in the clamor for total prohibition.  And I agree with Jaimini and request them and other moral crusaders not to interfere with my right to ‘civilized drinking’.

POLITICS OF EDUCATION – QUALITY VERSUS QUANTITY

The number of students passing out of educational institutions in India every year is, no doubt, in their millions. We as a country are slowly but surely succeeding as far as ‘quantity’ in the field of education is concerned; it is now time to reflect on the ‘quality’ of education that is being offered. It is only reflection with action that will lead to praxis.

My reflections on the quality of education in India started a couple of years ago after I retired and returned from South Africa to settle down in Namma Bengaluru for good. I have been ruminating on the times of my own schooling as well as on certain incidences in the recent past related to academic life. Some thought provoking articles in The Times of India on education added gist to my reflections. The immediate provocation for an in depth reflection has been the famous educationist Paulo Freire becoming the villain of the piece in a standoff last year between Christian Churches in Kerala and the Marxist led government over the content of a social studies text book for standard VII. The controversy centred around parts of the content critically questioning religious belief systems and introducing the idea of atheism.

All of us remember our school days as the most carefree of our lives. In fact, it is the happenings – good and bad – of this period that we love to reminisce with our schoolmates even in our old age. In those days all teachers taught with liberal doses of the cane. Education consisted of the teachers giving us information - formulae in math, capitals of countries in geography, Emperor Asoka’s reforms in history and so on. We silently listened and memorized. We did not dare to ask questions on the subject matter out of fear of our teachers; besides, there were no doubts as all we had to do was memorize. 

Even at University level, memorization was the way to go. Just one example as illustration. Fr. Racine, a retired French Jesuit and a brilliant mathematician taught us Abstract Algebra during my M.Sc. course at Loyola College, Madras. Other than saying Mass, eating his frugal meals and teaching us a couple of times a week, he spent the entire day developing new Mathematics theories. The only problem with his teaching was that he would solve a problem in three sentences, whereas it required at least ten for the mathematically challenged. Only one out of a class of 16 barely understood what was going on. The rest of us ‘mugged’.

It was only when I started teaching that I began to think about mathematical concepts. A good grasp to the subject is a must for any teacher to make himself understood. Even then, both my students and I hovered around the ‘knowledge’ and ‘recall’ levels of Bloom’s taxonomy with infrequent forays into the next level, that of understanding. The examination system also remained at the ‘reproduction’ levels, testing students on their ability to ‘recall’ information. These days private coaching and tuitions do a roaring business reinforcing memorization of facts and mechanical application of theory. In this system, most students score in the nineties; however, John Kurien, Director, Centre for Learning, Pune, rightly says that ‘Marks Mask Incompetence’ in an article of the same title appearing in The Times of India dated July 27, 2008. The net result according to him is that “… a large proportion of our engineering and business management graduates, and a far greater percentage of general graduates, are unemployable.” My son, who was at one time in charge of interviewing and selecting candidates for the post of software engineers for his company, told me that, based purely on their potential to apply computer knowledge in implementing projects, two out of twenty would barely fit the bill. A close relative who graduated with distinction in electronics engineering could hardly identify the problem with a non-functioning T.V. set. On investigation, I found that the best student is one with the sharpest memory and that there are professionals who can do the final year project, which involves applying the theory, for you for a consideration.

This type of learning is aptly named ‘the banking concept’ of education by Paulo Freire. Just as we deposit money in a bank and withdraw the same later, bits and pieces of information are ‘deposited’ in the minds of students to be ‘withdrawn’ at the time of tests and examinations. Against this, Freire advocated ‘problem-posing’ education.

So, who is this Paulo Freire?

Paulo Freire (1921-1997) is a Brazilian educationist whose theories and praxis of education have contributed enormously in liberating oppressed masses all over the world. I have been a fan of Paulo Freire for more than a decade. It all started when I became involved in a teacher training program in Apartheid South Africa in early-nineties. The black majority was systematically being oppressed by the white minority. This was going on for a long time. A similar oppressive system prevailed in Brazil in the last century. Paulo Freire, who was born and brought up in that country, expounded his theories on liberating the oppressed masses in the book “Pedagogy of the Oppressed” which became a runaway success. Realizing that his ideas were most apt and relevant for the liberation of the South African black masses, I prescribed two chapters from this book as compulsory reading for my third year B.A.Education students. If the process of liberation is through Education, then the ideal person to start on this path of liberation is the teacher who must first free himself from the oppressor’s yoke before he can liberate his students.

What is the core of his educational philosophy?

Freire starts with the premise that man’s ontological vocation is ‘humanization’ – becoming more fully human. This is thwarted by acts of dehumanization – injustice, exploitation, oppression and the violence of the oppressors. When a person is brought up in an environment of oppression, he internalizes the methods of the oppressors and in turn becomes an oppressor. He is unable to express love and compassion since he himself has not been shown love and compassion.

To surmount oppression, man must first critically recognize its causes, so that through transforming action, he can create a new situation in the pursuit of a fuller humanity. The oppressed should engage in reflection of their situation leading to action – praxis.

Banking education is one very effective method employed by the oppressors to continue the consciousness of oppression in the oppressed. The more students work at storing information, the less time they have to develop the critical consciousness needed to transform the world around them. The more passive they are made, the more easily they tend to accept their state of oppression. The oppressors use banking education to change the consciousness of the oppressed and not the situation which oppresses them. The educator’s role is to regulate the way the world ‘enters into’ the student. Education becomes an act of domination and domestication, indoctrinating them to adapt to the world of oppression.

Against this, Freire proposes ‘problem-posing’ education. It is based on creativity and stimulates true reflection and action upon reality, thus helping man to achieve his ontological vocation of becoming more fully human. The students become critical co-investigators in dialogue with the teacher. They come face to face with real problems in the real world and develop the power to perceive critically the way they exist in the world.

The Indian context.

After more than six decades of ‘freedom’ and ‘democracy’, the Indian mindset is still feudalistic. Geriatric dynastic rule is still the norm. Men and women of dubious character and criminal bend are foisted as leaders riding the crest of the cast and creed bandwagon. Corruption is endemic. The sheepish mentality developed through indoctrination using banking methods of education is the root cause of religious fundamentalism leading to suicide bombings and terror attacks. Religion, unable to withstand the scrutiny of the critical mind, relies on blind faith. What better technique than ‘banking education’ is there to keep the sheep in the fold! When students are insulated from engaging in problems of the social reality around them, many take the suicide route when confronted with easily solvable situations

Why is Freire’s name dragged into the recent Class VII Social Science text-book controversy in Kerala?

The main allegations against the Social Studies text-book of Class VII are that it

“... is trying to teach children atheism, materialism, anti-religious sentiments and wrong perspectives on the Indian history.” and that “… the book’s effort was to finish off religious beliefs and to propagate atheism.”

Members of the text-book reform panel countered saying:

“… the effort was to enliven the academic curriculum through critical interaction of the students with society.”

Added a member of the panel:

“The book is asking the students to understand social reality themselves and to approach it critically, which is the only way to develop their intellect, thinking faculty and sense of social responsibility.”

He said the model was based on the theories of Brazilian pedagogue Paulo Freire, who had shown

“… the right path to right education in the social model like ours.”

I believe it is high time for us to transform ourselves from our feudalistic and paternalistic mode to a democratic, participatory and critical mode of thinking and acting. Old habits die hard; but bad habits must surely die.

A critical and transformatory mindset is essential for us to become more fully human and to help others in this vocation of humanization. For this to happen, the next best place after home is the school. That is why it is imperative that we as a nation impart to our children an education of quality. This calls for a change from the traditional ‘banking method’ of education to the ‘problem solving’ model leading to awareness and critical engagement in the student with personal and social reality.

[Note: Action with reflection leads to praxis; action without reflection is activism; reflection without action is verbalism.]

DRIVING IN BENGALURU AND THE RULE OF LAW

Once upon a time (long ago) Bangalore used to be known as pensioners' paradise. When I first arrived in Bangalore in the early 70s it was a city of tree-lined roads, leisurely drives, clean air and inexpensive restaurants. Flyovers, one-way streets and underpasses were unknown. These days the former pensioners' paradise has changed its name to Bengaluru. With a concentration of information technology companies it is known world over as 'the Silicon Valley of India' . Along with information technology came a host of problems: congestion, pollution and chaotic traffic, to name a few.

Infrastructure development never kept pace with Bengaluru's rapid IT development. Endemic corruption acts as the perennial spoke in the wheels of progress. This is particularly evident on the roads. Driving in Bengaluru has become a nightmare so much so people are socializing less and less. What I do to amuse myself, sitting in never-ending traffic jams, is to observe and smile at the strange behaviors unique to India. Here is a sample.

· Arrival/Departure of a so-called VIP (Very Injurious Parasite, according to Jug Suraiya) forces all motorists to be stranded in the middle of nowhere until 'his majesty's' motorcade passes. No one is bothered about the man-hours lost or the sick that need urgent medical care. (We may be a democracy in name, but in practice we are still feudalistic in our attitude!)

· Motor-cyclists overtaking on the left in defiance of your left indicator flashing. When he is knocked down, you are the guilty party!

· Autos cruising looking for passengers. Imagine you are stuck behind with a running tummy!

· Those driving straight keeping to the extreme left at a traffic junction blocking traffic from using the free left.

· Vehicles (autos in particular) keeping to the extreme left and then trying to make a U-turn at a junction while the traffic is moving forward.

· Parking almost in the center of the road and going about your business, as though this person has inherited the road.

· Cyclist on the extreme right in the fast lane (as understood internationally). He needs almost the entire lane as he swings his hips from side to side.

· Ditto for bullock/horse carts minus the swagger.

· Ditto for fruit vendors; in addition they are always crossing the road as though the fruits are sold faster on the other side.

· Drivers on a two-way street, while turning to the right onto a one-way street, cutting corners preventing the smooth flow of oncoming traffic.

· Vehicles, particularly autos and motor-cyclists, coming and stopping more and more to the right of a narrow two-way street at a traffic light to a main road, blocking those from the main road from turning left.

· Government vehicle parking smack below the 'no parking' sign on the right of narrow one way street (parting is allowed on the left) and the madam/sir coolly going about his business, while ordinary mortals have to go round this VIP car.

· Cows/buffalos helping to create traffic circles.

· Jumping traffic lights.

There was an interesting article titled "Short Arm Of The Law" by Ronojoy Sen in The Times Of India dated February28, 2008. In it the question 'Why do Indians jump traffic lights?' is asked. The answer according to Sen is that there is no rule of law in India. The citizen easily flouts the law because the enforcing agencies are ineffective. Endemic corruption, lack of equipment and insufficient personnel are flaunted as the usual culprits. But what should worry one more is the attitude of the common man towards law. One reason for breaking the law with impunity is the low cost of doing so. Sen goes on to say that many law-abiding people wish for another dose of Indira Gandhi's emergency rule or some kind of dictatorship so that the stick can be wielded ruthlessly and force people to fall in line.

This means that the average Indian only responds to 'fear' - fear of punishment whether human or divine. He will not urinate against the compound wall if the picture of a god/goddess is painted thereon; not because his action will cause health problems. He will not follow traffic rules out of civic duty.  The same is true in most areas of life. A minister can steal crores but nothing will happen to him if his party is needed to prop up the government. Add to this the feudalistic mentality of the Indian. The spectacle of senior IAS offices feeding cake to CM Mayawathi and MLAs prostrating before Jayalalitha come to mind. The question to ask is: are we Indians truly free? Are our minds free of oppression? What kind of education are we are imparting to our children in India, if at the end of the day when they become IAS officials and MLAs they are so servile and act so slavishly? [Do you think I am in Utopia?]

HISTORY OF GOD (Contd from where I left off on Friday, 22 May 2009)

Let us now briefly examine the God/gods of the different religions.

Judaism ‘evolved’ the idea of a monotheistic God, Yahweh. This happened after long periods of worshipping three types of gods: worship of the family gods (teraphim), worship of the sacred stones and worship of the great gods, some native, others foreign (Baal, Molech etc).

Zoroastrianism introduced gods as abstract concepts. Zarathustra taught a challenging view of the world as a struggle between good and evil. He is said to have received a direct revelation from the one true god Ahura Mazda. Soul, life after death, resurrection, judgment, paradise, hell, and devil were all Zoroastrian ideas first, later borrowed by Judaism, Christianity and Islam.

Buddhism may be thought more as way of life than as a religion in its narrow sense. It developed as a reaction to the greed and materialism of the newly emerging merchant class at the time of Siddhartha Gauthama who left the comforts of a life of luxury as well as his family and wandered the world as a mendicant in search of enlightenment. One night he put himself in a trance and when he awoke he became the Buddha, the enlightened one. He believed in the gods of the time but for him the ultimate reality was beyond the gods. All life, for him, was suffering; only dharma, the truth about right living brought one to nirvana (the ultimate reality, freedom from pain). The state of nirvana has nothing to do with the gods; in fact it is beyond them. By living a life of compassion for all living beings, speaking and behaving gently, kindly and correctly and by refraining from drugs and intoxicants that cloud the mind, one can attain nirvana. The same universal secular message is given by Jesus as response to the question by the Pharisees about the greatest commandment: love the Lord your God, and love your neighbor as yourself. (Mathew 22:34-40). Perhaps the rumor that Jesus traveled to India could be true, as he seemed to have imbibed some Buddhist principles.

Hinduism has many parallels to Greek religious practices. Both are steeped in myths with numerous gods and goddesses who have many human characteristics. However, traditional Hinduism is a way of living than a way of thinking.

Islam has borrowed heavily from both Judaism and Christianity. Mohammed, considered God’s prophet by the faithful, was resting in a cave outside Mecca, called Hira, in 620 C.E. when he heard voices which he wrote down and collected into the book Qur’an. The message was clear: God is one and there is no other. There is a Judgment day with eternal paradise for the good and everlasting hell for those who go against His will.

Christianity. Chapter 4 of Karen Armstrong’s book ‘A History of God’ is titled ‘Trinity: The Christian God’. There is a reason for this. Though Christians claim they believe in monotheism, their God is not exactly one; He is three in One or One in Three – Father, Son and Holy Spirit. 3=1. 1=3. For ordinary mortals, this is a mystery and that is how the Christian Church wants it to be regarded. Do not try to understand it, rather, just believe it! Jesus was a Jew and his initial followers were all Jews who believed in the one God Yahweh. How and why did the later followers of Christ change to a ‘kind’ of polytheist mode of thinking?

St. Paul, formerly known as Saul of Tarsus, who became a follower of Christ after he fell from his horse and who claimed to hear disembodied ‘voices’ that he identified as the words of Jesus, could come to our aid here. He was instrumental in spreading the gospel to the gentiles who were used to a variety of gods. It was he who realized that the good news of the gospel would have greater acceptance if Christ, the messiah, was projected as divine rather than human. Hence he claimed that Jesus was a preexistent ‘heavenly’ being; that he was created as the ‘first born’ of all creation; that he existed in the form of God and that he was equal to God.

Natural Laws

Readers know the natural law, "When a body is immersed in water the phone rings." I now have, thanks to James Clarke's Stoep Talk column, published in The Star newspaper, a new set of these natural laws...

· Law of the workshop: Any tool, when dropped, will roll to the least accessible corner.

· Law of probability: The probability of being watched is directly proportional to the stupidity of your act.

· Law of close encounters: The probability of meeting someone you know increases when you are with someone you don't want to be seen with.

· Law of result: When you try to prove to someone that a machine won't work, it will.

· Law of biomechanics: The severity of the itch is inversely proportional to the reach.

· Law of logical argument: Anything is possible if you don't know what you are talking about.

· Oliver's law: A closed mouth gathers no feet.

RELATIVISM

There is nothing permanent except change, said ancient Greek Philosopher Heraclites. According to him, “You cannot step twice into the same river”. From birth to death we keep changing. Our bodies grow and mature and wither away as we become old. Our minds learn new things every day. Our emotions keep changing. Fashions come and go. All societies keep evolving. What is moral in one is immoral in another. What is wrong today is right tomorrow.

We are all familiar with the expression ‘beauty is in the eye of the beholder’. The Western world regards stick-like women as beautiful. Hence you see such anorexic models walking the ramp at fashion shows, showcasing those outrageously ‘unwearable’ dresses. On the contrary, they would be regarded as victims of an incurable disease like AIDS or TB by the African masses, whose concept of female beauty resides in plumpness. Again, most disagreements conclude with the statement: ‘that’s true for you but not for me.’ This subjectivism in values, known as relativism, extends to all areas of human experience like beliefs, knowledge, morals and taste.

Relativism is the philosophical position that all points of view are equally valid and that all truth is relative to the individual.  This means that all moral positions, all religious systems, all art forms, all political movements, etc., are truths that are subjective. The first clear statement of relativism comes with the Sophist Protagoras, as quoted by the ancient philosopher Plato, "The way things appear to me, in that way they exist for me; and the way things appears to you, in that way they exist for you. Thus, however I see things, that is actually true - for me. If you see things differently, then that is true - for you. There is no separate or objective truth apart from how each individual happens to see things”. For him, "man is the measure of all things".

Let me illustrate the concept of ‘relativism’ in some areas of human behavior. The first type we consider is metaphysical relativism: the position that all assumptions and beliefs about God, creation, life after death, hell, heaven etc are subjective. Some people believe in God, while others do not. There are still others, who start out as believers, but end up as atheists. Friedrich Nietzsche, a German philosopher who lived in the nineteenth century and who is considered the forerunner of Existentialism, was such a person. Son of a pastor, he was raised as a devout Christian and was known as “the little Jesus” by his schoolmates. But by his middle twenties, he had become an atheist. For him God is dead; He plays no vital role in our culture. There is a section in his writings describing the antics of a madman who announces the death of God.

On a bright morning, the madman lighted a lantern and ran to the marketplace calling out unceasingly, “I seek God! I seek God!” People all around were laughing at him. Suddenly he jumped into their midst. “Where is God gone?” he called out. “I mean to tell you, we have killed him, - you and I. We are all his murderers. Do we not hear the noise of the grave-diggers who are burying God? Do we not smell the divine putrefaction? – for even gods putrefy. God is dead; He remains dead. And we have killed him”. Then he threw his lantern to the ground and it broke in pieces and was extinguished. Later the madman made his way into different churches and there he intoned his Requiem aeternam deo (May God rest in peace!). When called to account, he replied, “What are these churches now, if they are not the tombs and monuments of God?”

The Nietzschean contention is encapsulated in a phrase attributed to one of Dostoyevsky’s characters: “If God is dead, all things are permitted.” This leads us to the next type of relativism: moral relativism, the position that moral values change from time to time, place to place and culture to culture.

Back in the days when I was working at the University of Venda in South Africa, we lecturers would often attend national and international education conferences where we would present academic papers and discuss ‘weighty’ educational issues. They were also occasions to visit (at University’s expense) other parts of the country and experience different cultural traits and practices. One such conference was held at the University of Zululand, not far from Durban. On the final day the ‘bigwigs’ – Vice Chancellor (VC), Deputy Vice Chancellor (DVC) and the Registrar Academic (RA) - would be present at the concluding meeting where they would thank us for gracing their University and we would thank them for their wonderful hospitality. As we waited for the dignitaries to arrive, I noticed that the chairs on the stage were arranged in a special manner: one big one followed by four smaller ones, another big one followed by three smaller ones and a third big one followed by five smaller ones. Shortly the Vice Chancellor entered, followed by four women. The elderly looking matron sat next to him; next to her sat a middle aged woman, next a young woman and lastly someone who was just out of her teens. A similar situation took place regarding the DVC and Registrar Academic. Not used to the local customs, I asked a Zulu colleague who all these women were. She told me that the four women next to the VC were his wives sitting in order of their status. Ditto for the DVC and the RA. My eyes popped out in amazement. Polygamy is common in Africa, but it was the first time I saw an official approval of the same at the highest academic circle. After this, cultural entertainment by topless damsels and young men clad in cowhide loincloth was less shocking for someone brought up in strict monogamous practices. I suppose Pope John Paul II too wasn’t shocked as he was welcomed by bare-breasted maidens ululating and dancing in joy when he landed at Durban on one of his African safaris. My Catholic Zulu colleague told me that if the good white nuns insisted on covering up, the girls would refuse to attend catechism classes. Both the Western and the Eastern world regard female breasts as erotic and hence cover them; for the Zulus and their cousins the Swazis, female breasts are meant only for nurturing babies. The part that they consider erotic is the thigh, a fact officially stated in the Swaziland parliament a few years ago. That brings us to aesthetic relativism, the view that beauty and taste are subjective.

Recently, a very close relative came home to visit in the late afternoon. Since it happened to be the ‘happy hour’, I decided to indulge in a bit of civilized social drinking. I brought out an unopened bottle of Remy Martin from a secret location in my house where I keep the ‘sophisticated’ stuff. Knowing my weakness for cognac, my son-in-law had packed it along with the rest of the knickknacks when my wife and I returned from US after being there for the birth of our second grand-daughter. It was on a flight from Johannesburg to Bombay that I first developed a taste for cognac. The bar had run out of brandy and the kind air hostess offered me Remy Martin. I still remember her name: Erika Venter (pronounced Fenter in Afrikaans, the language spoken by most whites in South Africa). Unlike the grumpy Air India air hostesses, who metamorphose into obnoxious school matrons during flight, the South Africans offer service with a smile. Anyway, back to the story.

A couple of short-stemmed glasses were brought out and I, with the studied dignity worthy of the cognac, ceremoniously poured the expensive stuff and put an ice cube in each glass. The connoisseur would hold the glass in his palm and as the warmth from the hand gently melted the ice, he would lightly swirl the drink, bring it close to his face to breath in its divine aroma and then take a small sip to savor its smooth flavor. Not my close relative. He took the glass, looked at it rather quizzically, drained it in one gulp, smacked his lips as though he had drunk some Ayurvedic concoction, and wait for it, requested for some whisky or brandy instead, if available! To add insult to injury, he then asked for some pickle to go with the cognac he just gulped down!

It took great effort on my part to suppress the first reaction that flashed across my mind: “Pearls before a swine”. I then went to the cupboard where I keep the local stuff like homebrewed ‘cashew fenny’ that my sister sent me from Goa. I also do not throw away empty Johnny Walker bottles, but fill them with the local brands. The unsophisticated cannot tell the difference between whiskey and brandy, let alone distinguish between single malt and double malt (blended). His face lit up at the sight of the half empty “Johnny Walker” bottle that I placed before him. Needless to say, he thoroughly enjoyed the stuff. This was evident from the ear-to-ear grin as he thanked me profusely while leaving.

So, was Nietzsche right when he said: “You have your way; I have my way. As for the right way, the correct way, and the only way, it does not exist”? Well, Plato does not agree. His first objection to relativism is that there is no distinction between truth and falsity; for if each individual is really the "measure" of what is, then everyone would be infallible, which is absurd. His other main objection is that relativism is self-refuting. If Protagoras is right, then whatever a person thinks is true, is true. But in that case, Protagoras must concede that those who think relativism is false are correct. So if Protagorean relativism is true, it must also be false. Get it, you armchair philosophers?

HISTORY OF GOD

Did God create us or did we create God? Is He the product of man’s creative imagination?

Karen Armstrong, in the introduction to her well written book “The History of God” asks: Is God the projection of human needs and drives? According to her, God was and is still a product of the creative imagination, like poetry and music. Karen Armstrong was born a Catholic, joined a religious order and became a dedicated nun but was unable to glimpse ‘the God described by the prophets and mystics’. So she left the convent and became a commentator of religious affairs.

In her book, Armstrong traces the historic development of the concept of God. She talks about the Christian God, the God of Islam, the God of Philosophers, the God of reformers, the Jewish concept of Yahweh and discusses the death of God and the rise of Atheism. The human idea of God has a history since its meaning is different to different groups of people. For her, the statement, ‘I believe in God’ has no objective meaning; it only means something in context. Each generation has to create a concept of God that works for it. She concludes with a provocative question: ‘Does God have a future?’

So how old is the concept of God?

“If God did not exist, it would be necessary to invent Him.” - Voltaire

“If triangles had a God, He’d have three sides.” - Old Yiddish Proverb.

Much of the following information is found in the book “Ideas: A history from Fire to Freud” by Peter Watson. This is an extremely interesting, readable and informative book, especially for those looking for origin of ideas and concepts.

Some anthropologists are of the opinion that ‘God-concept’ originated in man’s dilemma of mortality. Aided by the tool of rationality, unlike animals which live by instinct, humans came to the realization that one day they are going to die. What made death all the more terrifying was that it could befall us any time. To overcome the chronic anxiety of death at any instant, humans developed animism as a coping mechanism. In this belief system a soul/spirit exists in every object including inanimate things. The spirit was therefore thought to be universal and it came to signify God. So there was not One God, but everything was God. This was a kind of formless God. With the development of agriculture, fertility (both in humans and crops) was of paramount importance. So there developed the concept of Mother Goddess in the shape of a naked and pregnant woman, since woman was the source of life. She is flanked by her male partner the Bull. The Bull symbolizes the male principle as well as the fact that the forces of nature are not easy to control. God’s transformation from female to male came later.

In nomadic pastoral civilizations, God was found not on Earth, but up above in the Sky. This was a Male God whose voice was thunder and whose anger was expressed through lightning. He was the Sky God who made rain for grass to grow for the cattle. The main sky gods were the sun and the moon. It is interesting to note that although very many different types of religions existed in ancient times, they can all be reduced to possess some distinctive core elements: a belief in the Great Goddess, the Bull, the Sky Gods, the need for sacrifices, in an afterlife, and in a soul that survives death and goes either to a place of suffering or to a place of joy depending on how one lived life here on earth.

The situation changed during the period 750 – 350 BC. According to Karl Jaspers, the German philosopher, most of world’s great faiths came into being during this period. Many leading philosophers and prophets appeared at this time: Confucius, Lao-tse, Buddha, Zarathustra, Elijah, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Homer, Parmenides, Heraclites, Plato, Archimedes etc. Philosophical possibilities like skepticism, materialism, nihilism, sophism were developed. Religious treaties such as the Upanishads also appeared.