It so happened that I encountered another group of people advising me on the incorrectness of my beliefs. The conversation began with my assertion that an indoctrination of children was unacceptable. And what follows is as such.

Ali: Children should be allowed to explore all the possible options, and be free to choose what they want to believe.

Mr. X: So do you think knowledge is more important or belief?

Ali: Knowledge. It is entirely possible to believe in completely incorrect things.

Mr. X: But human knowledge is limited and can be corrupted.

Ali: Granted, but knowledge does not make the kind of absolutist claims that belief does.

This was the precursor to a conversation that was to take place a week later. People in my religion classes refer to me as “The Troublemaker”, owing to that title being bestowed upon me by a certain Professor. (He was generally very amused with me in his classes. Only sometimes irritated). So the conversation, this time with two more gentlemen, Mr. Y and Mr. Z, was a little more entertaining.

Mr. Z: I have to ask you this. Do you know about Stephen Hawking?

Ali: Yes. I do.

Mr. Z: Do you know he believes in God?

This is generally very aggravating. When imminent scientists, thinkers, philosophers, have their words and ideas misconstrued by ignorant people. Hawking, Einstein, Kant, their conception of a God is NOTHING like the kind that most religious people believe in. I proceeded to shatter Mr. Z’s misconceptions about Hawking’s beliefs (To my great fortune, I am at this time reading A Brief History of Time and The Greatest Show on Earth – available at fine bookstores everywhere). It was followed later by the incredibly ignorant statement

Mr. Y: Do you know that many scientists don’t agree with the Theory of Evolution. And it has been disproven.

Once again, I proceeded to shatter that misconception. And let me make it clear here as well.

THERE IS ALMOST UNANIMOUS AGREEMENT AMONG SCIENTISTS THAT THE THEORY OF EVOLUTION IS THE CORRECT MODEL FOR ALL BIOLOGICAL DEVELOPMENT.

There may be disagreement between various specifics (is it gradual, or step-wise, the relative importance of random mutation to natural selection, etc.) but almost all agree that the theory of evolution is supported by all the evidence and is the correct model. I really don’t understand why people think it isn’t so. And then they say “oh but its not as certain as the Theory of Gravity”. Actually, thats an even more uninformed statement. There is no one Theory of Gravity. Simply because gravity is one of the most difficult concepts to understand; Newtonian force, or in General Relativity a result of the warping of space-time, or the various interpretations from gravitons to multi-dimensional vector, etc. There are numerous interpretations, each one applicable to certain models, unlike evolution which is a single theory applied to every natural model.

And then followed what I consider to be possibly the worst argument of belief:

Mr. Z: Suppose something terrible happens to you ….

Ali: Stop right there. Do not play the “if something awful happens, ergo belief” argument. It is a worthless argument. Just because terrible things happen does not mean I should believe anything at all. Except that they happen. Do you not agree, Mr. Y?

Mr. Y: Well, no I don’t agree with you. But yes, it is a rather weak argument.

If you’ll notice, this is how the religious agree with you. They state that they disagree, because any sign of agreement would imply defeat. I must be completely wrong, that is what they perceive. (Or I could be jumping to conclusions. This is speculative. But not really, because I was once like that.)

Mr. Y: You’re the Troublemaker, aren’t you. I recognized your voice.

Ali: (laughs) Yes, that is what they call me.

Mr. Z: Yes, but you were a nice guy before.

Ali: (turns to face Mr. Z) What is THAT supposed to mean?

Mr. X and Mr. Y laugh as Mr. Z stumbles to reply.

Now, I must admit, I toy with my opponents when I debate them. I lead them into traps, and use their own statements to do some crit. damage. Quite like Philo, and the Demea and the Cleanthes that I face have little idea that that is what I am doing. Often, they also presume that I have not read the authors that they have, and often they are disappointed. I was recommended to read Frithjof Schuon, a Sufi, because I was from South Asia (I had NO idea what that meant. But I let it slide). However, I have read Schuon, and I find that he merely leads you into a confusing interpretation of reality, which is basically what religious gnosis is.

Now, an interesting bit about gnosis is that as you progress into its argument, the gnostic will generally express something like “all religious are just a way of expressing the Truth of the Reality”, and that one can only find God in that way. Further inquiry will lead to the tanzih or transcendence of God, that God is something beyond any human mind can ever comprehend. We can never know because of the limitations of our mind, of our reason (which for the gnostic is a lower form of knowing). At this point, I bring in Wittgenstein’s hammer

“Whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must be silent.” – Wittgenstein

If the entity is beyond comprehension, or any expression we possess, than there is nothing to say. So anyone who claims any kind of awareness and knowing of any kind about this unimaginable, incomprehensible, entity is either a liar or deluded. And the gnostic is trapped, because it is he who has so arduously established this Absoluteness and now he is bound to either admit that the Absolute is knowable (ergo no longer absolute) or is truly unknowable (ergo we cannot say or do anything about it). Q.E.D

The reason I demolish gnostics in this manner is that they tend to be the most effective at confusing people. They are quite adept at leading you into metaphysical arguments, at the end of which you may find yourself tempted by the romanticism of their beliefs. I assure you that these elegant arguments are very persuasive, but ultimately conceal the more bizarre and irrational practices. The gnostics, the saints, the sufis, the pirs, the fakirs, they all have the most ludicrous stories about them. I was at a time informed that they were absolutely true: that once someone brought the sun closer to the earth to cook some meat, brought back the dead to life, healed entire congregations after which they all became believers, etc.

By the end of it, in my experiences, one of us ends up very aggravated. And it’s never me. Maybe thats why they call me the Troublemaker. I brew trouble in their minds.