Two approaches to history: Science vs. Theology
The debate between the supporters of AIT and the ones to oppose is summed up by the title. To see the divide between the two approaches to history – the theological and the scientific – one can scarcely do better than compare the statements of a linguist. The late Murray Emeneau, a well-known linguist claimed:
This Aryan invasion is our linguistic doctrine, which has been help now for more than a century and half. There seems to be no reason to distrust the arguments for it, in spite of the traditional Hindu ignorance of any such invasion.
In making this claim Emeneau betrays his theological bent of mind by holding on to a doctrine, a dogma. He though admitted that he had no evidence for such a dogma, it had to be accepted on faith. On the other hand when archaeologist Jim Shaffer says:
Current archaeological data do not support the existence of an Indo-Aryan or European invasion into South Asia any time in the pre- or proto historic periods…
Shaffer is expressing his views as a empirical scientist looking at the evidence before him. This shows the fundamental difference between science and theology.
Moreover AIT is based on linguistics (Philology) and is not a quantitative science. It cannot be used to determine dates and events that took place thousands of years ago.
A proper understanding of ecology and natural history – not linguistic theories – holds the key to understanding ancient civilisations. Secondly theology is the most deceptive art; it carries an appearance of sound logic but rests on no empirical foundation. Theology is not useful for uncovering truth but promoting preconception and built in dogma often leading to concealment of truth and even falsification while creating an illusion of logical rigor. Ancient Greeks called it ‘sophistry’. Hidus call it mithyaa-vaada, false erudition.