The Dichotomy of The Pursuit of Knowledge

One would think that education and knowledge should be the primary goals of civilization but looking back on our culture and literature, that's not always the case--or the lesson we teach our children.

In one extreme, we have our Lovecraftian horrors, the idea that there are some things "man was not made to know". Yet in Western literature, this idea did not begin with Lovecraft but draws on from something much older: The Bible. As a child, I always wondered why The Tree of Knowledge would be the source of sin. Wasn't knowledge a good thing? Scholars might argue that's not the moral of the story, that Adam and Eve were punished not for gaining knowledge but because they gave in to the temptation of the serpent. Yet I think the story in Genesis has insinuated into our minds that to be knowledgeable means to lose one's innocence (and in many ways, losing our innocence is one of the ways to learn more about the world). A faint echo of this is the idea of contentment. I often hear the phrase "if it ain't broken, don't fix it" yet this clearly goes against the idea of innovation. As archaic as this mentality might seem, it's prevalent in the present. On one hand, there'll be the people who'll claim that science ruined us all and that corrupt research gave birth to the likes of the Atom bomb, even as they benefit from the comforts of nuclear technology. On the other hand, there'll be the type that are more selective, perhaps agreeing to better health care but disagreeing when it comes to the topics of stem cell research, cloning, or mapping the human genome.

On the other extreme is the idea that we should embrace knowledge unconditionally. I forgot which SF author I was reading at the time (I think it was Isaac Asimov) but he said that the reason we fear something is because it remains in the realm of the unknown. Once we dispel the mystery, we begin to understand and with that understanding comes acceptance instead of "irrational" fear. I think in many ways, this is a hard idea to accept. Perhaps the influence of the other mentality is stronger than we think and an unconditional acceptance of knowledge is beyond our comprehension. In the same way that we want to know where money came from when it's offered to us (be it our boss, our relative, or a complete stranger), we also want to find out where certain pieces of information comes from (Was it from the Russians? The Iraqis? The Chinese?) and perhaps more importantly, where it'll lead to (which is impossible because that's the point of research and application). Some people fear that military intervention might lead to the next Atom bomb but many fail to realize that most of our present comforts can be traced to military research and development, everything from the microwave to the Internet. Religion is another subject matter that is hard-pressed when it comes to the accumulation of knowledge for many fear that with better understanding of the universe comes less faith and devotion. (I find it interesting that even the most scientific and modern of countries still have a "national" religion. Perhaps the fear of religious fanatics is unfounded, that even as we come to accept the theories of Darwinism, there'll always be room for the Creation myth.) Even philosophy takes a hit and while Douglas Adams jokes around that the discovery of whether there truly is a God or not marks the end of philosophy and dialogue, in a world where everything is certain and factual, is there still room for debate? Not that the latter should matter. There are those after all who believe that the accumulation of knowledge will never end, that for every question answered, several new questions pop up. If that's truly the case, one can't help but wonder whether there's a point in research. If all we have left and more questions and more mysteries, what's the point of discovery? Will we never reach the end? But I think that is too much of an oversimplification. Awareness that the sun is the center of the Solar System might not have changed life for the common man directly but it certainly has paved the way for the exploration of space and artificial constructs like satellites and the transmission of radio waves.

Literature I think will tackle this idea in one of two ways. Horror movies and novels tend to stick to the realm of the unknown, that awareness gives birth to buried horrors. Science Fiction, more often than not, uses curiosity as a tool for salvation. (In many ways, the science fiction movie is related more to horror than actual science fiction. Robots gone berserker and aliens on a warpath are trademarks of the genre. Movies like Contact are the exception rather than the norm. Even concept movies like Gattaca tend to be dystopian and bleak.) That's not to say science can't be used for evil ends. The reality is, knowledge is just like any other tool. In irresponsible or misguided hands, it can wreak much havoc. In the hands of a master artisan, it can be used for good. But most people in my experience don't take note or forget that fact. They label knowledge--and science--as a blanket moral (whether good or bad) instead of making a judgment based on the people involved in the research or the corporation funding them. Just look at people's approach at nuclear technology. Ever since Chernobyl, people have grown to fear nuclear power. That's not to say nuclear power is full-proof but there are certainly fail-safes which can be applied to make it a safer and more efficient power source. But rather than ask who's managing the power plant or where it's situated, people's blanket reactions are a loud cry of denouncement.

Perhaps one thing people overlook is that with knowledge comes the burden of responsibility. Irregardless of how smart you are (or how not smart you think you are), everyone in my opinion is charged with making the most of what they know, whether it's seeking further knowledge or making the right choices based on their current state of mind. Perhaps the most pathetic of excuses one can hear from somebody is not that they are ignorant but that they are unaware of their ignorance.

Politics and Religion

I question the belief that the two are separate, or that they should be so. When the Philippines claimed “independence” from its Spanish conquerors, one of the proposed constitutions was the distinction between church and state (a reaction to some of the corrupt practices of the church during that era). Yet I don’t think that separation was fully upheld. Our Catholic forbearers remained Catholics, and they put into practice their religious belief, be it in their political life or their personal life. Nowadays, one can’t make a political decision without taking into consideration the reaction of the church – and in many ways, it does hold a vestige of authority in the country. Many theorize, and I agree with this proposal, that the reason why population control in the country was never successful in a post-Marcos era was because of the church’s stance against the use of alternative methods of family planning (the only option given to married couples are withdrawal or the rhythm method). Of course the educated of our society will rebel at this idea, at how religion interferes with the state. Yet taking a closer look, in certain ways, such unity is inevitable.

What most people fail to see is what politics and religion have in common. More than the propaganda of politicians or the promises of salvation by religion, the common cause of the two is that they both unite people. Whenever a civilization congregates into a cohesive force, they’re usually following a political ideal (i.e. something as simple as fair wages to something as complex as democracy) or a religious one. In fact, I don’t really see any distinction between the two except for the fact that most people treat the latter as irrevocable truth and the former as a necessary evil. What I find interesting is how the two forces manipulate people into following their tenets. Politics usually employs force of the law in the real world, either a fine or some physical punishment. Religion, on the other hand, employs something subtler. It can be punishment in the form of being socially ostracized, and in some cases, actual physical recompense. However, more often than not, religion threatens your faith, usually the afterlife, more than having an immediate, real-world impact on the offender.

The literati might clamor for a clear distinction between the two yet society’s answer is otherwise. Metro Manila, the capital of the Philippines, is for all intents and purposes a Catholic-centric city. I can only assume since I have no experience with Mindanao that that part of the country is similarly Islamic-driven in nature. Yet ours is far from a unique case. I mean one simply needs to look at America, a nation of the free and hodgepodge of cultures. Yet if we are to believe the courtroom dramas we see on television, why does their judicial system swear on the Bible for witnesses to testify the truth? If I weren’t a Christian, aren’t I less obligated to state the truth considering my oath to honesty is less binding than that of a Christian believer? Of course colonial America is merely one example of religion seeping into a country’s political system. There’s China for example, where preaching and distribution of the Bible has been restricted by the government to say the least. And what of various other Islamic countries where obviously, Islam is the dominant religion and how it wields much authority in the political arena?

As much as people want to separate the two, I think the telltale signs of any civilization is the existence of politics and religion, and how it manages to govern the lives of its members. Would it be possible to live in a country where the two are clearly and cleanly separated? If only the human psyche can be broken down into distinct components but alas, we are all but too human, and we must accept things in their totality than simply by their individual parts. Even if our political system was segregated from religion, our political leaders will no doubt still be influenced by their political beliefs.

Politics and Religion

Every so often, I’d hear a friend, an acquaintance, or a stranger mention that the Church (The Catholic Church) shouldn’t meddle in politics, and cite the separation of state and religion in our constitution. To me, it sounds like the same complaint of an employee frustrated at office politics. As much as we don’t want it, it’s still there. Part of the reason is perhaps their expectation of the church’s role. They want religion to be simply just that—religion and not politics. However, what a lot of people fail to realize that religion, for better or for worse, is really a political force, albeit under a different name.

Honestly speaking, while the various religions in the world claims it has good intentions, it does not erase the fact that they are political entities. In an extreme view is Marx, who claimed that religion is the opium of the masses. I won’t go that far, but it is true that religion have certain ideologies, and they do govern people in one way or another through these ideologies. It could be something as a holiday. While a holiday might not seem big to most people, holidays are still days when citizens do not work and stop being productive in society (in terms of being utilitarian, of course, as citizens become productive in other ways too). And sometimes, the religion of a nation wields so much influence that the holiday is enforced by the government as well.

One merely needs to look at history to find further proof. Islam and Christianity have commanded kings and rulers, dictated policies and gained concessions, and last of all, declared wars. People might say I’m merely focusing on these two religions, but the thing with other religions is that they aren’t as popular to wield much influence, or in the case of Buddhism, their doctrine doesn’t encourage them to meddle in the affairs of others (salvation is from within, not from without). Buddhism actually wields much political power, it simply doesn’t choose to exert it. It can suggest actions to its conclave, but it can never command, at least if they want to remain faithful to their beliefs. Now most people’s reaction might be why can’t those two other popular religions be like Buddhism? That they shouldn’t meddle in the affairs of the world? The honest-to-good-answer is that they can’t. Because they’d be hypocrites if they were (although some would claim they’re already hypocrites, most don’t intend to be so).

Christianity, for example, has this pro-active stance of salvation. It means converting the non-believers, preaching (their) God’s word, and more importantly, acting in a way good Christians should act. And while some people would argue that the worst atrocities stem from the best intentions, good intentions are the stepping stones of a virtuous life. And for better or for worse, Christianity isn’t an isolationist religion. In order to be a good Christian, one needs to be aware of other people’s needs, to be aware of what’s happening with your neighbor, to be aware of what’s happening in the world around you. As my pastor would say, there is no undercover Christian. Unfortunately for some people, this also means meddling in the government’s affairs. Because how else can you affect the world around you? One simply can’t stand in one place and expert the world to change. If you want religion to stop meddling in government affairs, don’t change government law, change church doctrine.

That’s not to say I’m condemning or supporting church participation in government. I’m merely here to show the state of things. It’ll help people understand their religion’s actions, and their motivations for doing so (and why you can’t easily dissuade them). That’s also not to say that a church-state would be an abhorrent thing. Speculative fiction writers like Frank Herbert (Dune) and Isaac Asimov (Foundation) have postulated religion-state universes. In a way, such a system is much more inefficient: crimes are heresy as well, so whereas your family won’t turn you in if you committed a crime, they will when you commit sacrilege. And in a church-state, there really is no distinction between the two. For another, there’s less schizophrenia on what actions one should take. There won’t be situations where the government says one thing and your religion says another thing (because honestly, some people do factor in religion when making decisions). On the other hand, paranoiacs and conspiracy-theorists will have a field day as political power is all lumped in one source. And a church-state is just as prone to corruption and deceit as any other political institution.

I think what many people fail to realize is that political power does not reside solely on the government. There are also other sources of political power: its citizens (otherwise the EDSA Revolution wouldn’t be as successful, or the fact that we bothered with EDSA 2 and 3), the media (as a dictator, Marcos had wisdom in silencing the media), the aristocracy, the merchants (or in this case, the wealthy businessmen and entrepreneurs), other state leaders, and of course, the church.