THE MOTHER OF ALL BURQAS

(The title is borrowed from the last chapter of 'The God Delusion', although the contents of this article is something which Richard Dawkins may not agree with. Also, this piece is a result of conjectures and thinking-in-tangents fueled by my past few days of total joblessness. So it is nothing but a thought venture which explores a very remote possibility. I am not trying to downplay the need for rationality in life. 

The usage of science terms like bandwidth and spectra in certain contexts is NOT to give it a sound of false legitimacy, but a force of habit owing to my educational background.)

Let me try to interest you in a little line of thought. Colors. How do we see them? Most of us don't think beyond the model which involves our eyes. The truth is that our brain plays an equally important role in our chromatic perception. Eyes are simply sensors which inform the brain when a certain wavelength of radiation falls on it. Now our brain decides what shade that wavelength would correspond to and imply the corresponding color to the object. Now my doubt is how can we ever be sure that this interpretation of colors by the brain is the same for all of us. How do we conclude without doubt that for you and me a wavelength of 700nm corresponds to the color red. What if what I see as red is your blue?

Think about it. How was it that you color-mapped your world? Your mom pointed at an apple and told you, "This is an apple, apples are red". And from then, any shade which resembles the shade of an apple was called red by you. Our understanding of colors is always dependent on a reference palette which is in our brain from an early age. And I can't think of a way for us to prove that this basic palette is common for all of us. My red could easily be your blue and we would never know. Your yellow could be my brown and we would never know.

Imagine you like red and I like blue. If there was some way in which you could get inside my brain and see the world from my point of view, you may see that what I call blue was what you called red all  along. I am just saying that the sense of color is not as universal as we might expect. We just assume we are all on the same page but there is no easily verifiable way to ensure that we are.

The real question in front of us now is what other experiences of this physical world is relative. I could go on and talk about the other 4 senses, but that would be just a repetition of what I've said in the previous paragraphs. Let us think a bit broader. I am talking about things which we perceive beyond the 5 senses. Extra sensory powers if you may. Déjà-vu, Flash-forwards, Lucid dreams, Astral projections, Visions and other such things which rationalists scoff at, believers revere and 'in-betweeners' like me look on with interest.

People who know me well would now be thinking, "Here he goes again". But come on, humor me for a while. After all, most of what is accepted as basic science now was treated as supernatural phenomena if you look back long enough in time.

I am of the opinion that our brains are hardwired for something called the spiritual senses. I am calling it a sense because I don't know what else to call it. And much like a bandwidth over which we can decipher the common 5 senses, we all fall in a certain bandwidth of awareness spiritually as well. The paranormal experiences some people claim to have might just be an encounter with the fringe or dormant elements of this spiritual bandwidth. 

While a rationalist is self-assured that there is NO such thing, he/she is inadvertently blocking the part of his/her psyche which tries to interpret spiritual experiences. Similar to someone entering a concert hall wearing earplugs. The music never dies but you don't hear it because you chose not to. On the other hand,  A believer always seems to be having such experiences because he is always eager to feel it, sometimes a little too eager that they start seeing angels and demons at every turn of the road.

Many would say that our mind is an illusion which is the result of the chemical reactions in our brains. So my premise that mind is an entity with a sense for spirituality is inherently flawed. Maybe. Maybe not. But what knowledge we have of human conscience and the working of our mind is very limited. So I guess there is no harm in speculating. 

I believe every person belong to a spiritual spectra which he/she can sense. For most of us, this range is similar. But it is conceivable that for a few exceptional individuals, the spiritual bandwidth which they work on maybe different. Of course when such people come forward with their view of the world, we tend to either label them as god men or mad men depending on how they choose to reveal their insights.

We cannot see beyond a wavelength of 680nm. But that doesn't mean UV light do not exist. We cannot hear below 20 db. But that doesn't mean sub-sonic sounds do not exist. It is just that we are not evolutionarily built to perceive these range of senses. Richard Dawkins calls this sensory bandwidth which we can comprehend as the 'Mother of all Burqas', every human being is forced to wear. Our observable reality is limited by these narrow slits of bandwidths which we can perceive.  

With the help of science, we've been able to venture beyond this natural limitations and expand our vision of reality a little more. This is why I believe that the search of god and the pursuit of science are not at odds with each other. Any attempt to understand/please god or to find our purpose here is more likely to be triumphant by questioning, observing and experimenting than through praying and proselytizing.  

Moreover, rationalism shouldn't go so far as to turn into a mockery of things which we don't understand. I've heard rationalists say that our reality is only what we can perceive or alter. I completely agree. This is the exact reason why I am still living in a city trying to get a good degree and work and earn a lot of money. The only thing we can ever really do is try to live in the reality we are aware of. I accept this as a limitation of our physical self. But that doesn't mean our perception of reality is complete and absolute. Like the elephant whom the blind men tried to define by sensing only the trunk or the tail, we are quick to arrive at a model of reality by looking only through the narrow sensory openings in our Burqas.

This is nothing short of arrogance akin to the church putting earth at the centre of the universe in early centuries. Such blatant dismissal of anything that cannot be explained by our present scientific knowledge is unwise and is in fact, against the spirit of science. After all, historically, men only tried to understand things which amazed and confused them. By out rightly labeling extra sensory phenomena as hogwash, we stop our minds and science from further expanding its horizons.

So the next time you hear someone talk about a spiritual experience or an unnatural event, don't be quick to judge that person to be a fool or a phony. Consider the possibility that accepted sciences may be just a bit behind the curve. Consider the possibility that this might be something which is just outside the realm of your understanding. Consider the possibility that, just maybe, you do not know it all and in fact, you are NOT at the centre of the universe!