Is Personal Freedom Absolute?

Is Personal Freedom Absolute?

This short life, beginning with birth and culminating in death can be divided into periods. We are all bound by the human life cycle. Those who regard themselves as different and unique are also governed by the phases of the same life cycle. From the temporal to the spiritual, everyone and everything falls within this spectrum. For instance, the pleasures of the flesh and the delights of the mind may seem totally apart but in essence are similar. Even positive and negative responses may seem different but in the final analysis both are the same.

The most widespread division of the stages of life is the Hindu Asharma system, which divides life into four phases. The first twenty-five years is called the Brahmacharya Ashram, the stage of youth. The second twenty-five years, is called the Grihastha Ashram or householder phase during which one focuses on family and work. The third section is the Vanaprastha or the hermitage phase where one gradually withdraws from others for contemplation. The fourth and final is the Sannyasa or renunciation phase in which one withdraws completely from the world and dedicates himself to the pursuit of spiritual truths.

This view of the stages of life has influenced almost every society in the world. The outcome of this is that we allocate the last period of our lives to focus on the fundamental and ultimate reality of existence, a stage of life which cannot be guaranteed that we will reach. How can someone who sets aside the final years of his life (when his sensory faculties become weak and his mental faculties debilitated) to solve the ultimate priority of life claim that he is intelligent? Is it not incumbent on the human race to find out how and in which capacity they should live their lives? Instead of focusing on this core question, contemporary thought has become self-absorbed. In this expansive universe we notice only ourselves. We claim that there is no firm evidence pointing to a power greater than Man, a force that could have brought this cosmos into being. We alone matter: everything else is irrelevant!

Our knowledge of the universe is extremely limited and rudimentary. Leaving aside the entire cosmos, we have not even mastered the understanding of phenomena which exist upon Earth and within its atmosphere. But this does not stop us from acting as though we are the inheritors of the universe. Without observing reality in an objective manner, the blind intellectuals of secularism refuse to accept the possibility of a reality lying beyond physical matter, or hints of life beyond the grave. This denial is based on the fact we cannot observe such a reality, therefore it does not exist. However, is it the case that thoughts, ideas and imaginations are all based on visible evidence? If it were so, the novelist would not be able to produce a new line of literature, nor could the poet create flights of fancy. The scientist studies the relationships between things. He is totally unaware of the reality of things. Clutching a few facts and figures, like Shylock, Man writes off all metaphysical facts as presumptions. Despite this, he is compelled to accept the noblest qualities of Man, his creative capacities and intellectual ideals, but declares that they have no basis in reality. Secular Man has developed an intellectual contempt for all non-physical reality and suffers from a schizophrenic disorder that convinces him of his own greatness. He wants to be the final authority on deciding on matters of life and how it should be lived.

However, the credentials of the secular scientific community in fulfilling this role are open to question. There are many whose intellectual standard is below average. Their approach to a range of issues pertinent to life is dismissive, ignores the facts and is at times absurd. No scientist has to this day answered the fundamental question relating to human life: do we possess absolute freedom or are we subject to a higher authority? Consider for yourself, is this not an investigation of vital importance, with major implications for the human race. It is a question of human freedom or servitude. Do we control our entry and exit into life or are these governed by some force external to us?

Assuming for a moment that we have absolute personal freedom, does this entitle us to impose our tastes and ethical outlook on others? If this were the case then life in general would be driven by the basic reptilian instinct of self-obsession. Each person ruthlessly protecting their own interests, imposing their ideas on others regardless of any higher values. The strong would dominate the weak, resulting in a state of tyranny and perpetual strife. Should this assumption not be scrutinised? Are we really free to do whatever we like or are we answerable to some higher force who has blessed us with all of our faculties? It is the moral and intellectual duty of all human beings to answer this basic question in the early part of their life so that they are able to fulfil the responsibilities which come with being human.

The greatest obstacle in considering this question is the concept of God, as it will determine whether we are absolutely free or have obligations to someone greater than Man. If God exists then we are not free.

We have not shown much interest in finding out about the greatest adversary whose potential existence threatens our freedom, the force which claims to have created the Earth and the skies, a Being which, from the genesis of time through to eternity, is upholding and overseeing the order of the Earth, its physical and natural resources, its population, the rise and fall of its inhabitants, and the consequences of war and disputes between them. This invisible intelligence has set up the systems we take for granted; the changing seasons, ethnic and family groupings, children and offspring. It regulates our livelihoods and commercial success, determines our health and sickness, our sadness and joy.

It declares that the devastating gale force winds, the gentle morning breeze, the dazzling dew drops caressing the cheeks of the tulip and the rose, the dry and dying bright yellow leaves of autumn, the snow-capped peaks of distant mountains, the mighty clouds bursting with rain, the deep and mysterious oceans, the still and silent mountains, and the merciless cycle of life and death, all these are just a few glimmers of its influence and control over the universe. In the presence of such a force how can we ever be free? Are we not helpless in front of it? Our power, our arguments, our efforts, our hopes, our knowledge and intelligence, our science or any other human quality or achievement cannot interfere with its control over us.

Has any philosopher, scientist or self appointed spokesman for mankind ever made an attempt to answer the fundamental question at the heart of human self-awareness? Is there anyone who has dedicated their life to the pursuit of God and concluded their research with the declaration “Mankind you are totally free for I have objectively established that God does not exist”.

In matters of religion, scientists were mean and frivolous. They were blinded by a very basic caricature of religion and everything associated with it. For instance, they failed to distinguish between the timeless truths of religion and the corrupt gatekeepers of faith who exploited the name of God for their own ends. They cast aside their high standards of objectivity and did not apply these to the realities claimed by religion. It is not uncommon for a scientist to dedicate his entire life researching a single phenomenon, spending twenty to fifty years in the pursuit of one equation. The pharmacologist Alexander Fleming occupied years of his life looking at dishes of bacteria which led to the discovery of Penicillin; and after years of mental and mathematical training Isaac Newton was able to formulate the Law of Gravity. We find one scientist spending his entire life engrossed in the motion of heavenly bodies and another obsessed by the search for a fungus which will save lives.

However, when intellectuals and popularisers of science, such as Bertrand Russell (1872-1970) and Carl Sagan (1934-1996) turned to religion they displayed a strange, irrational and reactionary approach to the study of religion. In scientific matters they maintained their integrity and objective approach, but were conspicuously biased when it came to religion. If they were around today one could ask: if the study of a simple phenomenon of nature requires the dedication of a whole lifetime, then is it right that the study of the All-knowing and All-Wise intelligence and force behind the Cosmos should be left to casual comments, unsupported by research, and an intellectual approach more characteristic of children than sincere scientists? It is even more astonishing that when scientists approach the study of natural phenomena they are strictly opposed to undertaking research clouded by personal feelings, hidden assumptions and subjective reasoning. These things are so abhorrent that any scientist who allows personal biases to influence their research becomes the target of criticism and ridicule. Yet the speed and foolishness of their knee-jerk response to metaphysical realities is beyond belief.

Leaving aside the giants of science, there are mediocre professors who oppose religion solely on the grounds of personal choice and freedom of expression. They fear that an objective study of religion might destroy the imaginary demon of religion they have created and placed in front of the people; a monster which feeds on basic human fears, instincts and ethnic differences. To maintain this myth they deliberately present religion as irrational. However, they are keen to preserve religion as a symbolic totem which will permit them in times of need to visit a shrine, to supplicate at the door of a holy man, or to fall at the feet of a religious healer. How could anyone follow such a religion or worship a God who is dumbfounded and confused by a handful of facts based on empirical research?