Religion and culture are areas where there was always been misunderstanding. France being a secular country has banned headscarves in school, generating opposition. Emotion comes into play here as women who have worn the burqa as part of family tradition may feel either obliged to or pressurised to wear it in school. To view the issue in a positive or negative light, it depends on the intensity of the ones beliefs. If a person is open-minded enough to view a variety of situations that could arise, such as internal family conflict, repercussions within the school as well as Muslim community and personal anxiety, they may feel that the ban is justified. Nevertheless, a Muslim extremist may feel it is a violation against Islam based on personal beliefs, and not consider the full spectrum of events. Humans are incapable of viewing certain situations from all angles due to limitations of physical and mental ability. Therefore one must perceive a situation according to individual circumstances.
Considering science, visible light is a small part of the electromagnetic spectrum that can be observed by the human eye. When we see something as red, the other colours are present but have been absorbed. We see this as red itself because of the limitations of the human eye, as we are, and not as the spectrum is scientifically proven to be. These limitations are also shown through Art, taking optical illusions as an example. The image below is still, yet the leaves appear to be flowing. What we physically see is different to the reality of the image, as the leaves are arranged in a particular way to suggest movement. The artist is playing on the limitations of human eyesight.
In this world of relative value systems, it is easy to be comfortable in the belief that there aren’t many absolute truths one must accept. On a deeper and more objective level, however, it would be apparent that it might be dangerous to accept our interpretations of reality primarily on the basis of who we are. If the proposition were to be true, where would the humanity end up without objectively understood scientific facts and timeless values of daily human interactions?
Taking an example from personal experience, during my internship I came across an atheist doctor who subscribed to the principle of relative morality with liberal views on abortion right up to 21 weeks of pregnancy. A patient asked him whether aborting voluntarily at 21 weeks of pregnancy would be tantamount to depriving a life a chance to exist as well as what his thoughts were on the foetus’ ability to perceive pain, and in my presence he dismissed those concerns in private. He did, however, have to transcend his own perceptions on this topic and project the known facts in relation to this patient’s enquiries. Whatever the personal background and views of the doctor, he had no choice but to see the consequences as they actually were. In fact, that is what most competent doctors do day in and day out.
History also provides examples where not just individuals but nations have demonstrated how it has been necessary for them to see reality as it were rather than getting stuck in the wrong lane with their perceptions of individuals or events. Taking India before independence, the British had a strategic motive based on their perceived national interests when it came to judging and dealing with Mahatma Gandhi. They therefore imprisoned and even tortured this greatest apostle of truth and nonviolence. The British behavior could be considered as an example of seeing Mahatma on the basis of the typical Britishness of that era. Over the course of time, however, the British did start seeing the Mahatma as he was rather than as they would have wanted to project him. This was demonstrated in the eventual shift of the official and informal British approach towards Gandhi. There are multiple situations similar to this across history. Russian historian Alexander Solzhenitsyn revealed to the world the horrors of the Gulag, the forced labour camp system of the Soviet Union. His novels changed the perspective of people’s attitudes towards the Soviet Union. Considering that Stalin caused the deaths of more people in the purges than those killed in the Holocaust, his mistakes cannot be justified. Solzhenitsyn stated, “We do not err because truth is difficult to see. It is visible at a glance. We err because this is more comfortable”. This shows how even if we decide to see things according to personal convenience, the truth cannot be denied and we must face the consequences of this denial.
On the religious front, it is a well-known fact that the Indian epic Ramayan has been an integral part of many societies for thousands of years. Archaeologists and historians may argue about the timing or the historical validity of events and characters of Ramayan. The fact remains that for any one who has read Ramayan, there can be no doubt that Shree Ram was a truthful man of his word, a clean and compassionate ruler and a man of high moral values. One doesn’t have to be a deeply conservative Hindu to feel respect for his character as portrayed in Ramayan as we all want others to follow those values in their transactions with us, no matter who the person is. Shree Ram has therefore been seen by millions of people through thousands of years in pretty much the same light.
Examining the area of science, be it the concept of vacuum, gravity or relativity, the vast majority of elite in Europe held wrong beliefs about it all ways of knowing such as logic were used to investigate those issues. People saw those issues entirely based on their personal Christian beliefs. Once logical explanations entered the frame, such as Einstein’s theory of relativity, their opinion approached the real truth. Logic therefore tells us that our perspective on things can develop independent of our backgrounds or how we might be inclined to feel about things. As William Blake said, “If the doors of perception were cleansed, everything would appear to man as it is, infinite.”
This brings us to a time-tested understanding that although it would be within one’s immediate comfort zone to see things mainly on the basis of one’s personal interpretations, the actual truth is always out there, irrespective of whether we are restricted exclusively within the cocoon of our own views or not. If these views are a product of a mature, empathetic and knowledgeable mind, then the way one sees things will approximate the way things actually are. Anything less could be counterproductive for a person or a nation because it is inherent in the nature of the truth to eventually prevail. At that time, if one is on the good side of the truth, there is no more cause for misery and the icing on the cake is confirmation of the value of insight: enlightenment as it were.
In conclusion, I feel everyone has to some degree a bias on something because we have all developed in different environments, raised to believe different things and inspired to do different things. The closest one can get to seeing things as they are in reality is through science for situations where scientific laws are widely accepted. Otherwise, a moderately neutral outlook considering the majority of viewpoints and consequences would be a good starting point.
